2003 U.S.

Hydrographic Conference
“ECDIS” On U.S. Inland Waterways??
Anthony Niles
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers – ERDC
Topographic Engineering Center
7701 Telegraph Road
Alexandria, Virginia
tniles@tec.army.mil

Introduction

As Electronic Chart Display and

Information Systems (ECDIS)
appeared in the 1990s, the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers
began efforts to publish chart
data on the inland waterways
that could enable vendors and
users to exploit the technology.
This effort follows Executive
Order 12906, which directs
Federal agencies to make
geospatial data holdings
available to the public for
exploitation; and Federal
Geographic Data Committee
activities, which are developing Figure 1: Inland Waterways of the U.S.
various application themes of
data, and include waterway transportation. However, most significantly, the
National Transportation Safety Board recommended that the Corps promote the
use of electronic chart technology on inland waterways for safety of navigation.
This request followed the disastrous AMTRAK train derailment and crash near
Mobile, Alabama in 1993, and the Corps Commander responded affirmatively
with a commitment to develop and publish electronic chart data on 8,200 miles of
waterways, as shown in Figure 1.

The data initiati ve began with publication of data in computer-aided design and
drafting (CADD) files, normally generated for waterway maintenance and
condition assessments. However, the various formats, layer structures and
geographic projections proved unsuitable for electronic charting applications.
Therefore, the Corps committed to use the S-57 exchange standard, and
conducted pilot projects on the Atchafalaya River in Louisiana and a 200-mile
section of the Mississippi River near Vicksburg, Mississippi. These projects
established a mapping scheme of Corps waterway data to S-57 format to
produce the river data product known as Inland Electronic Navigation Charts
(IENCs), and initial coverage of broader areas followed. Currently, 30 IENC cells
covering 1,000 miles on the Mississippi, Ohio, and Atchafalaya Rivers, and the
Black Warrior/Tombigbee system are available for public access on the Internet.

ECDIS vs. ECS for Inland Waterways

The use of S-57 and adherence to the ENC specifications, which is discussed
further in the following section, enables compatibility with current commercial
products, and satisfies database requirements for Electronic Chart Display and
Information Systems (ECDIS), as specified by the International Maritime
Organization. However, this leads to the technical issue, “Is ECDIS, with specific
database, performance, display, and hardware/software requirements;
necessary, or even reasonable for inland waterways?” In the early 1990’s the
Corps participated in the U.S. ECDIS Testbed Project, led b y the U.S. Coast
Guard and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), to test
ECDIS standards recently drafted. In this project the Corps developed a DX-90
(precursor to S-57) chart database of a section of the Mississippi River and
successfully demonstrated an ECDIS aboard a Corps towboat. However, it
became obvious that the large 21-inch monitor and computer would not be
possible (nor affordable) within the confines of typical towboats on the inland
waterways. Indeed, as commercial systems with proprietary raster charts (no
government charts yet available) began appearing on the rivers, the typical
configuration consisted of a laptop computer with differential Global Positioning
System (GPS) receiver. As the software and chart data, including the
government IENCs, have become more sophisticated and accurate, users have
retained the compact and adaptable hardware systems. Furthermore, users are
likely to demand chart displays and system functions more familiar to inland
users, and which deviate from ECDIS standards.

Systems used on U.S. inland waterways are therefore likely to be Electronic

Chart Systems (ECS); that is, systems of varying complexity and capability,
some with full ECDIS functionality, but not fully compliant with ECDIS standards.
From an international perspective, this would not counteract any coordination
objectives, since U.S. inland waterways have only domestic traffic. However,
since system and chart vendors know no national boundaries, adherence to
ECDIS standards can still be prudent. The Corps therefore seeks to adopt
ECDIS standards for inland applications, where feasible. The following sections
present some database and display issues thus far identified.
Use of S-57 for IENCs

Use of the S-57 standard was quickly recognized as a non-trivial step in the
Corps’ plans to produce IENCs from channel maintenance and survey data. The
standard was quite unfamiliar to the Corps and their mapping contractors, and
none of the Corps’ software tools could produce S-57 data. The pilot projects
illustrated the feasibility of translating the Corps’ CADD and survey data into S-
57, although the process was tedious, undefined, and had no software well-
suited to the task. Nevertheless, the S-57 standard achieved several key
objectives for the new chart products;

1) Consistency with NOAA Electronic Navigational Charts (ENCs): Inland

navigation users have periodically requested a seamless chart coverage
between coastal and inland waterways. Electronic chart products for both
areas in S-57 format provides opportunity for such consistency.
2) Consistent structure among the various Corps districts and divisions: Current
river chart books covering 22 different systems have various features, scales,
graphic symbols and attributes. The S-57 standard achieves or enables
standardization of all these chart aspects.
3) Recognition among system and chart vendors: Use of the known standard
enables quicker exploitation by commercial vendors, either in direct-read
applications or in generation of System Electronic Navigation Chart (SENC)
products. Conversely, development
of “yet another standard”, which may
be better tailored to Corps data,
would require software re-design,
and costlier products, for the U.S.
inland users.
4) Data structure well-suited to chart
updates: The Corps intends to
update the IENCs as new data is
available from channel maintenance
activities. The S-57 structure offers
an efficient means of updating
features, rather than replacing entire
chart cells whenever a change is Figure 2: IENC on Lower Mississippi River
made.

IENC Content Specification

Following the IENC Pilot Projects, a list of all features, in terms familiar to the
Corps and inland waterway users, to be included in the IENCs was drafted. The
features were then mapped to S-57 Object Classes and Attributes, as shown in
Table 1. The critical feature are those deemed highly important by an industry
committee formed to advise the Corps on IENC development. All critical
features, except for buoys, are included in all published IENCs, both initial and
 Table 1: IENC Content Specification
* Inexact or ambiguous translations to S-57

Critical Features Secondary Features

Feature S-57 Object Feature S-57 Object
Depth Area Below
Project DEPARE Arrival Point MORFAC
Project Depth Area DEPARE Fleeting Area RESARE
Floating Casinos,
Dining and
Recreational
Facilities HULKES Mooring Facility MORFAC
Land Area LNDARE Storage Tank SILTNK
Bridge BRIDGE Boat Ramp SLCONS
Buoy - Lateral BOYLAT Canal CANALS
Buoy - Wreck
Marker BOYSPP Ice Breaker OBSTRN
Cable Overhead CBLOHD Levee SLOTOP
Cable Submerged CBLSUB Railroad RAILWY
Caution Area CTNARE Restricted Area RESARE
Dam DAMCON River RIVERS
Day Beacon DAYMAR Road ROADWY
Dike / Wing Dam /
Bendway Wier SLCONS Urban Area BUAARE
Dock / Warf / Marina SLCONS Wreck WRECKS
Ferry Crossing FERYRT Airport CATAIR
Light LIGHTS Building BUISGL
* Lock Chamber DRGARE Sounding SOUNDG
Lock Gate GATCON
Lock Guide-Wall SLCONS
Lock Name SEAARE
Lock Wall SLCONS
Marine Fender SLCONS
Navigation Aid
Support PILPNT
Pipe Overhead PIPOHD
Pipe Submerged PIPSOL
Place Name (land) LNDRGN
Place Name (water) SEAARE
Project Depth
Contour DEPCNT
Range Lines NAVLNE
Revetment Above
Waterline SLCONS
* Revetment Below
Waterline RESARE
River Gauge SISTAW
* River Miles DISMAR
* Sailing Line RECTRC
Shore Line COALNE
Support Pier PYLONS
final. The secondary features are those deemed useful and will eventually be
included in all IENCs, but may not be included in some initial cells.

As indicated, most IENC features are sufficiently represented through S-57 and
the ENC Specifications. Those that have inexact or ambiguous translations can
still be represented in S-57, text description attributes, which can be tailored to
IENC data needs, may not be as recognizable to charting systems and third party
software.

Initial IENCs and Tests

Development of the initial IENC cells was performed by mapping and GIS
contractors working for the Corps; 3001 Inc. with partner IIC Technologies
generated IENCs for the Mississippi, Atchafalaya and Black Warrior/Tombigbee
Rivers, and Photo Science Inc. for the Ohio River. The source data was primarily
CADD data files generated from hydrographic, topographic, and aerial surveys.
The data was often cumbersome to process since the graphic topology did not
match the ENC specifications, and the software was better suited to data from
digitized paper charts. However, the data conversion was successful, and
Category 5; Harbor Navigational Charts were produced. The IENCs were
compatible with SevenCs and Caris viewers, as well as Offshore Systems
International ECPINS program and ICAN’s Aldebaran II software.
Demonstrations and tests are to be conducted aboard industry towboats, to
introduce the ECS technology with vector charts to inland users, and further
assess the users’ perspective. However, development and review of the initial
IENCs revealed some S-57 database and S-52 display issues, perhaps unique to
U.S. inland waterways:

S-57 Features
• Lock Chamber – The single S-57 object class for locks does not sufficiently
represent the feature for the large-scale (1:2,000) IENCs. Therefore, locks
are represented by a composite of five different objects. The closest S-57
object to represent the lock chamber is DRGARE, which shows as a
navigable area. However, representation as a “dredged area” is somewhat
inaccurate, but was deemed the best fit.
• Revetment Below Waterline – Revetments on the Lower Mississippi River are
common structures to stabilize banks and near-shore river beds where flows
are most destructive. The structure is actually an articulated concrete
mattress that can extend from above the waterline to several hundred feet
into the river, and can cover a mile or more along the river. Towboat pilots
need to know the location of these concrete-lined riverbeds to avoid damage
to towboats or barges during bank-side mooring. However, use of the logical
S-57 object, SLCONS (shore-line construction) generates a solid shaded
feature under S-52 rules, which clutters the display, according to users.
Therefore, the revetment below the waterline is represented as RESARE
 (restricted area), which is somewhat less accurate, but is displayed as a more
favorable shaded area.
• River Miles – River mileposts are the common positional reference for most
every feature in the waterway; from docks and wharves, to dayboard
navigation aids, to barges sitting in fleeting areas. Although mile markers are
not actual real-world objects, the positions of these cartographic objects are
well established and their display in a chart system is critical. However, the
international S-52 rules specify display of “KM” (kilometers) for the DISMAR
(distance mark) S-57 object, which can be annoying at best and deceiving at
worst.
• Sailing Line – The sailing line, accurately represented by the S-57 object
RECTRC (recommended track), is a curved line that meanders with the river
and location of the channel. Clearly, use of the mandatory attribute ORIENT
(orientation of the line) is not appropriate since the line has no fixed azimuth.

Other Display and System Functions

• Vertical Datum – U.S. inland waterways use two vertical datums; for open
rivers, such as the Lower Mississippi, a sloping datum called Low Water
Reference Plane is used. For pool areas bounded by dams, the project pool
reference is used. Both are referenced to the geodetic datum North American
Vertical Datum of 1988, but are not included in S-57 attribute domains.
• Text Orientation – Because of the confined nature of the inland waterways,
graphic displays with text labels can easily become cluttered. Capability to
rotate text labels over land, where possible, for waterway and shoreline
features would ease the clutter while leaving important information displayed.
• River Mile Reference – As mentioned above, river miles are the recognized
reference for virtually any feature for navigation on the inland waterways.
Although geographic information systems, including ECS, inherently display
geographic coordinates when querying a feature, display of river mile is more
appropriate for inland users.

Conclusion

Use of the S-57 standard with ENC Specifications for IENCs has proven to be
prudent and suitable. Some inexact translations of river features exist, and the
need for changes to, or deviation from the standard will be determined with
further tests on the waterways and input from ECS and chart data vendors. Full
ECDIS functionality on the inland waterways is not feasible nor foreseen,
although database and display standards will be followed, where possible. Such
compliance exists with the initial IENCs and current commercial systems.