DOCSLIB.ORG

DNVGL-RU-SHIP-Pt5ch11 Non Self-Propelled Units

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
DNVGL-RU-SHIP-Pt5ch11 Non Self-Propelled Units RULES FOR CLASSIFICATION Ships Edition July 2016 Part 5 Ship types Chapter 11 Non self-propelled units The content of this service document is the subject of intellectual property rights reserved by DNV GL AS ("DNV GL"). The user accepts that it is prohibited by anyone else but DNV GL and/or its licensees to offer and/or perform classification, certification and/or verification services, including the issuance of certificates and/or declarations of conformity, wholly or partly, on the basis of and/or pursuant to this document whether free of charge or chargeable, without DNV GL's prior written consent. DNV GL is not responsible for the consequences arising from any use of this document by others. The electronic pdf version of this document, available free of charge from http://www.dnvgl.com, is the officially binding version. DNV GL AS FOREWORD DNV GL rules for classification contain procedural and technical requirements related to obtaining and retaining a class certificate. The rules represent all requirements adopted by the Society as basis for classification. © DNV GL AS July 2016 Any comments may be sent by e-mail to [email protected] If any person suffers loss or damage which is proved to have been caused by any negligent act or omission of DNV GL, then DNV GL shall pay compensation to such person for his proved direct loss or damage. However, the compensation shall not exceed an amount equal to ten times the fee charged for the service in question, provided that the maximum compensation shall never exceed USD 2 million. In this provision "DNV GL" shall mean DNV GL AS, its direct and indirect owners as well as all its affiliates, subsidiaries, directors, officers, employees, agents and any other acting on behalf of DNV GL. CHANGES – CURRENT t n e r This document supersedes the October 2015 edition. r Changes in this document are highlighted in red colour. However, if the changes involve a whole chapter, u c section or sub-section, normally only the title will be in red colour. - s Main changes July 2016, entering into force as from date of e publication g n a • Sec.2 Hull h C — Sec.2 [4.2]: Replaced blowing out pressure with air overpressure for a more consistent use of terms. The air overpressure is applicable for a static load scenario since emptying tanks in extreme sea condition will 1 1 not be applicable. — Sec.2 [5.1.1]: Some minor change to the application is included. r e — Sec.2 [5.1.2]: For the minimum section modulus requirement amidship which follows IACS gross t scantlings apply instead of net scantlings. Correction factor related to service restriction was missed out in p the January 2016 release and has now been implemented. a — Sec.2 [5.1.3]: Due to the change to gross section modulus in [5.1.2] the allowable stresses in [5.1.3] are h C amended accordingly. 5 t Editorial corrections r a In addition to the above stated changes, editorial corrections may have been made. P Rules for classification: Ships — DNVGL-RU-SHIP-Pt5Ch11. Edition July 2016 Page 3 Non self-propelled units DNV GL AS CONTENTS s t n e Changes – current.................................................................................................. 3 t n o Section 1 General.................................................................................................... 7 C 1 Introduction.........................................................................................7 1 1 1.1 Introduction..................................................................................... 7 r 1.2 Scope..............................................................................................7 e t 1.3 Application....................................................................................... 7 p 2 Class notations.................................................................................... 8 a h 2.1 Ship type notations.......................................................................... 8 C 2.2 Additional class notations.................................................................. 8 5 3 Definitions........................................................................................... 9 t r 3.1 Terms..............................................................................................9 a P 4 Documentation.....................................................................................9 4.1 Documentation requirements............................................................. 9 5 Certification....................................................................................... 12 5.1 Certification requirements................................................................ 12 6 Testing............................................................................................... 12 6.1 Testing during newbuilding for concrete barges...................................12 Section 2 Hull........................................................................................................13 1 General arrangement design............................................................. 13 1.1 Subdivision arrangement................................................................. 13 2 Compartment arrangement................................................................13 2.1 Bottom structure............................................................................ 13 3 Structural design principles............................................................... 13 3.1 Main deck...................................................................................... 13 3.2 Bottom structure............................................................................ 13 4 Loads................................................................................................. 13 4.1 Deck loading.................................................................................. 14 4.2 Airoverpressure...............................................................................14 5 Hull girder strength........................................................................... 14 5.1 Application..................................................................................... 14 5.2 Special consideration.......................................................................15 5.3 Split hopper barges.........................................................................16 6 Hull local scantling............................................................................ 18 6.1 Deck structure................................................................................18 7 Buckling............................................................................................. 18 Rules for classification: Ships — DNVGL-RU-SHIP-Pt5Ch11. Edition July 2016 Page 4 Non self-propelled units DNV GL AS 7.1 Stresses based on direct strength analysis.........................................18 s 8 Fatigue strength................................................................................ 18 t n 8.1 Application..................................................................................... 18 e t 9 Special requirements......................................................................... 18 n o 9.1 Fore peak...................................................................................... 18 C 9.2 Bottom slamming............................................................................19 1 9.3 Supporting structure of towing equipment......................................... 19 1 10 Pusher/barge or pusher/pontoon units...........................................19 r e 10.1 Subdivision arrangement................................................................19 t p 10.2 Hull girder strength....................................................................... 19 a h 10.3 Hull local scantling........................................................................ 19 C 10.4 Special requirements - connecting elements..................................... 20 5 10.5 Special requirements - Ice strengthening......................................... 21 t r a Section 3 Systems and equipment........................................................................ 22 P 1 Steering arrangement........................................................................22 1.1 General requirements...................................................................... 22 2 Anchoring and mooring equipment....................................................22 2.1 General requirements...................................................................... 22 2.2 Pusher/barge and pusher/pontoon units............................................ 23 3 Machinery, systems and electrical installations................................. 23 3.1 General requirements...................................................................... 23 3.2 Pusher/barge and pusher/pontoon units............................................ 23 Section 4 Safety and lifesaving appliances........................................................... 24 1 General safety requirements............................................................. 24 1.1 General..........................................................................................24 2 Fire safety..........................................................................................24 2.1 General requirements...................................................................... 24 3 Power supply..................................................................................... 24 3.1 General requirements.....................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Boats and Harbors Publication 9-06
    ® $4.00 -and-har ats bo bo rs .c w. o w m BOATS & HARBORS w SECOND SEPTEMBER ISSUE 2019 VOLUME 62 NO. 13 Covering The East Coast, Gulf Coast, West Coast & Inland Waterways “THE” MARINE MARKETPLACE PH: (931) 484-6100 • Email: [email protected] Ok Bird Brain, there’ s the boat, let’ s see how your aim is.......people first, sails second, and new wax job third! BOATS AND HARBORS® P. O. Drawer 647 Crossville, TN 38557-0647 USA PAGE 2 - SECOND SEPTEMBER ISSUE 2019 See Us on the WEB at www.boats-and-harbors.com BOATS & HARBORS WANT VALUE FOR YOUR ADVERTISING DOLLAR? DENNIS FRANTZ • FRANTZ MARINE CORPORATION, INC. CELLULAR (504) 430-7117• Email: [email protected] • Email: [email protected] (ALL SPECIFICATIONS AS PER OWNER AND NOT GUARANTEED BY BROKER) 320' x 60' x 28 - Built 1995, 222' x 50' clear deck; U.S. flag. Over 38 Years in the Marine Industry Class: ABS +A1 +DP2. 280' L x 60' B x 24' D x 19' - loaded draft. Blt in 2004, US Flag, Class 1, +AMS, +DPS-2. Sub Ch. L & I. 203' x 50' clear deck. OSV’s - Tugs - Crewboats - Pushboats - Barges 272' L x 56' B x 18' D x 6' - light draft x 15' loaded draft. Built in 1998, Class: ABS +A1, +AMS, DPS-2. AHTS: 262' L x 58' B x 23' depth x 19' - loaded draft. Built in 195' x 35' x 10' 1998, Class: ABS + A1, Towing Vessel, AH (E) + AMS, DPS-2, SOLAS, US Flag. 260 L x 56 B x 18D x 6.60' - light draft x 15.20' loaded draft.
    [Show full text]
  • Container-‐On-‐Barge for Illinois Fueled by Biodiesel an Operating
    Container-on-Barge for Illinois Fueled by Biodiesel An Operating Plan and Business Plan August 27, 2011 Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction and Overview ------------------------------------------------------------------- 4 2.0 Research/Investigation/Reports -------------------------------------------------------------------- 6 3.0 Lessons to Consider -------------------------------------------------------------------- 8 4.0 Inland Rivers Operations -------------------------------------------------------------------- 9 4.1 Ownership -------------------------------------------------------------------- 9 4.2 Towboats/Barges -------------------------------------------------------------------- 9 4.3 River Operations Modes -------------------------------------------------------------------- 10 4.4 The “Power Split” -------------------------------------------------------------------- 12 4.5 River Freight Pricing -------------------------------------------------------------------- 13 5.0 Designing Illinois COB -------------------------------------------------------------------- 15 5.1 Design Alternatives -------------------------------------------------------------------- 15 5.1.1 Purchased -------------------------------------------------------------------- 15 5.1.2 Leased -------------------------------------------------------------------- 18 5.1.3 Unit Tow -------------------------------------------------------------------- 19 6.0 Gulf COB – Cargo Flexibility -------------------------------------------------------------------- 21 7.0 COB Program
    [Show full text]
  • Scanned Document
    Vessel Inventory U.S. Department of Transportation Maritime Report Administration as of January 1, 1991 Prepared by Office of Trade Analysis and Insurance Division of Statistics PART I VESSELS BY NAME VESSEL INVENTORY REPORT UNITED STATES FLAG DRY CARGO AND lANKER FLEETS 1,000 GROSS TONS AND OI{ER JAN 01, 1991 NAME OF VESSEl VESSEL TYPE OWNER/OPERATOR DESIGN TYPE: OWT YB lS T Ll ALEX SONNY RU RO WILKINGTON JRUSI CO T-AKX C 23100 1980 lSI LI BALDO LOPE CONTRORO Wll~INGTON lRUSI CO 1-Al<.X 26,00 1985 lSI Ll .JACK LUMHU CONTRORU WIL'IlNGlON TRUST CO 1-AKX. 26500 1986 ZNO ll .JOHN P BUB RO RO Wll~INGTON TRUST CO I-AKX 26500 1985 ADABELlE LYKES CONTStUP LYKES BROS STEAMSHIP COMPANY INC t6-H-fl47A 15100 1969 ADElPHI VICTORY FREIGHTER LU SUI SAN BAY V£.2-S-AP 2. 10100 19Lt:, AOHIRALIY BAY ~ANKER KATHIASEN•S TANKER J~DUSTRIES l~C PRIVATE 80800 1971 ADONIS TANKER FIRSI PENNSYlVANIA BANK N. A· FOREIGN C.ONST 80200 1966 AD VANTAGE FREIGHTER REO RIVER SHIPPING CORP. FOREIGN CUNT. 2.7800 1977 AD VENTURER PART CUHI LU JlMES RIVER C3-S-38A 11000 1960 AtENl PART CONI HA - CHARTER 10 ~SC t3-S-38A 11100 1961 ALBERT E. WATTS TANKER U S COAST GliAilO PRlVA IE 16900 l<Jitl ALBION VICTORY FREIGHTER lU JAKES RIVER VC2-S-AP2 10600 1945 All.E,HENY VICTORY FREIGHTER lU BEAUMONT VC2-S-AP2. 10700 1945 ALLISON LYKES PART CONI LYKES BROS STEAMSHIP COKPANY INC Cb-S-60( 12BOO 19M ALMERIA LYKES tONlSHIP AMERICAN PRESIDENT LINES l TO C6-S-69C t 17500 1968 AMARILLO VICTORY FREIGHTER LU BEAUMONT VC2-S-AP2 1.0700 1945 AMBASSADOR RO RO CROWLEY CARIBBEAN TRANSPORT~ INC.
    [Show full text]
  • APH / PPHTD Transportation Alternative APH / PPHTD Transportation Alternative
    Loyola Business Leadership Summit – October 9, 2018 Global Maritime Trade to Double by 2030 • Significant growth in world trade projected in next 10 years • Doubling of seaborne trade volumes • Trade to grow from 10 Billion Tons to 20 Billion Tons by 2030 Source: Danish Maritime Forum, 24-28 October 2016 2025 World Container Port Market Demand 260% Increase 2009 Recession Millions of TEUs Millions Source: Drewry Shipping Consultants 50 Years of Container Vessel Evolutionary Growth Old Panamax: 4,800 TEUs Neo-Panamax: 14,800 TEUs Near Term Mega Vessel: 24,000 TEUs Source: Allianz Global Corporate & Specialty - Data: Container-Transportation.com Historical Trade Patterns • Pre-Panama Canal Expansion Gulf Coast Ports handled 6.4% of total U.S. container volume • Mid-West Represents 40% of U.S. Land Area 15% of U.S. GDP 92% of the U.S. agricultural exports 60% of U.S. grain exports Approximately 200 million metric tons of exports • Pre-Panama / Suez Canal Expansions – Mississippi Watershed Trade Majority shipped through West Coast Ports Post Panama / Suez Canal Expansions • Canals Handling Larger Vessels Panama Canal now handing up to 18,000 TEU vessels . Beam limit 51.25 Meters as of June 1, 2018 Suez Canal has no existing limits on vessel size Larger vessels have inherent cost efficiencies • Additional Sailing Time to Gulf Coast Offset by Growing West Coast Delays • Gulf Coast Ports “Market Share” of U.S. Container Trade Up to 8.48% in 2017 U.S. Container market share increased from 9.5% to 11.9% Recent Shifts in Trade Patterns
    [Show full text]
  • Report to Hudson River Waterfront Alliance Concerning Proposed Hudson River Anchorages
    REPORT TO HUDSON RIVER WATERFRONT ALLIANCE CONCERNING PROPOSED HUDSON RIVER ANCHORAGES Project No. 3529 30 November 2016 By Charles R. Cushing, Ph.D., P.E. C. R. Cushing & Co., Inc. 30 Vesey Street New York, NY 10007 C.R. CUSHING & CO., INC. INDEX PAGE I. THE HUDSON RIVER …………………………………………………………….. 3 A. GENERAL ………………………………………………………………………. 3 B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASPECTS OF THE HUDSON RIVER ….. 5 C. COMMERCIAL TRAFFIC ………………………………………………… 14 II. ANCHORAGES ………………………………………………………………………. 25 A. PROPOSED ANCHORAGES …………………………………………….. 25 B. EXISTING ANCHORAGES ………………………………………………. 38 C. HUDSON RIVER NATIONAL DEFENSE RESERVE FLEET ANCHORAGE ………………………………………….……………………… 42 D. THE NEED FOR ANCHORAGES ……………………………………… 43 ` E. AUTHORITY FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF ANCHORAGES ………………………………………………………………. 47 F. CRITERIA THAT U.S.C.G. MAY USE IN SELECTING ANCHORAGES ………………………………………………………………. 49 G. DEVELOPING NEW ANCHORAGES ……………………………….. 52 H. GOVERNMENTAL ACTIONS IN DEVELOPING NEW ANCHORAGES ………………………………………………………………. 54 I. ENFORCEMENT OF ANCHORING REGULATIONS …………. 55 III. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT …………………………………………………… 56 A. OIL SPILLS ……………………………………………………………………. 56 B. NOISE ……………………………………………………………………………. 63 C. LIGHT AND SOUNDS …………………………………………………….. 66 D. AIR SPACE ZONES …………………………………………………………. 67 E. EFFECT OF ANCHORS ON RIVER BOTTOM …………………… 68 2 C.R. CUSHING & CO., INC. I. THE HUDSON RIVER A. General The majestic Hudson River is one of America’s most important and scenic rivers. It originates high in the Adirondack Mountains, 4,500 feet above sea level, flowing southward 315 miles through New York State and between New York and New Jersey to the Atlantic Ocean. The Upper Hudson River is impounded by the Federal Dam at Troy, New York. South of the dam the river is free flowing on its 153 mile journey from Troy to the New York Harbor and fed by many tributaries particularly the Mohawk.
    [Show full text]
  • Prevalence of Heavy Fuel Oil and Black Carbon in Arctic Shipping, 2015 to 2025
    Prevalence of heavy fuel oil and black carbon in Arctic shipping, 2015 to 2025 BRYAN COMER, NAYA OLMER, XIAOLI MAO, BISWAJOY ROY, DAN RUTHERFORD MAY 2017 www.theicct.org [email protected] BEIJING | BERLIN | BRUSSELS | SAN FRANCISCO | WASHINGTON ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors thank James J. Winebrake for his critical review and advice, along with our colleagues Joe Schultz, Jen Fela, and Fanta Kamakaté for their review and support. The authors would like to acknowledge exactEarth for providing satellite Automatic Identification System data and for data processing support. The authors sincerely thank the ClimateWorks Foundation for funding this study. For additional information: International Council on Clean Transportation 1225 I Street NW, Suite 900, Washington DC 20005 [email protected] | www.theicct.org | @TheICCT © 2017 International Council on Clean Transportation TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary ................................................................................................................. iv 1. Introduction and Background ............................................................................................1 1.1 Heavy fuel oil ................................................................................................................................... 2 1.2 Black carbon .................................................................................................................................... 3 1.3 Policy context ..................................................................................................................................4
    [Show full text]
  • Cashman Dredging and Marine Contracting, LLC (Cashman)
    1750 American Boulevard Suite 200 Pennington, NJ 08534 PH 609.895.1400 www.geosyntec.com February 4, 2021 Via Email Mr. Christos Tsiamis Remedial Project Manager – Gowanus Canal Site Emergency and Remedial Response Division United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2 290 Broadway, 20th Floor New York, New York 10007-1866 Subject: Incident Report - Weeks #71 Barge Gowanus Canal Superfund Site Unilateral Administrative Order (UAO) Docket Nos. CERCLA 02-2019-2010 and CERCLA 02-2020-2003 Dear Mr. Tsiamis: B&B Engineers & Geologists of New York, P.C. (B&B), an affiliate of Geosyntec Consultants, respectfully submits on behalf of the Gowanus Canal PRP Group the Incident Report regarding the submersion of the Weeks #71 Barge at Bay Ridge Flats over the weekend of January 23, 2021. The Incident Report is the outcome of a thorough investigation conducted by the PRP Group to obtain information regarding the cause of the incident. The Incident Report and the associated attachments describe the details of the incident, the root cause and contributing factors, corrective measures, and overall safety program for the project. This cover letter gives an executive summary of the events, with the attachments providing further details. Summary of Incident On Friday, January 22 the Weeks #71 barge was loaded with sediment and prepared for transport to the Clean Earth processing facility in Jersey City, NJ. The barges utilized for transport to Jersey City are the same barges used by the Department of Sanitation for trash transport in the harbor and are the same barges used during the Pilot Study in the Fourth St.
    [Show full text]
  • Guidance for Subaqueous Dredged Material Capping
    Technical Report DOER-1 June 1998 US Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station Dredging Operations and Environmental Research Program Guidance for Subaqueous Dredged Material Capping by Michael R. Palermo, James E. Clausner, Marian P. Rollings Gregory L. Williams, Tommy E. Myers, WES Thomas J. Fredette, New England District Robert E. Randall, Texas A&M University Approved For Public Release; Distribution Is Unlimited Prepared for Headquarters, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers The contents of this report are not to be used for advertising, publication, or promotional purposes. Citation of trade names does not constitute an official endorsement or approval of the use of such commercial products. The findings of this report are not to be construed as an official Department of the Army position, unless so desig- nated by other authorized documents. PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Dredging Operations and Technical Report DOER-1 Environmental Research Program June 1998 Guidance for Subaqueous Dredged Material Capping by Michael R. Palermo, James E. Clausner, Marian P. Rollings Gregory L. Williams, Tommy E. Myers U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station 3909 Halls Ferry Road Vicksburg, MS 39180-6199 Thomas J. Fredette U.S. Army Engineer District, New England 696 Virginia Road Concord, MA 01742-2751 Robert E. Randall Texas A&M University College Station, TX 77843 Final report Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Washington, DC 20314-1000 Waterways Experiment Station Cataloging-in-Publication Data Guidance for subaqueous dredged material capping / by Michael R. Palermo ... [et al.] ; prepared for U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Marcon International, Inc. Coupeville, WA 98239 U.S.A
    P.O. Box 1170 9 NW Front Street, Suite 201 Marcon International, Inc. Coupeville, WA 98239 U.S.A. Telephone (360) 678 8880 Vessels and Barges for Sale or Charter Worldwide Fax (360) 678-8890 E Mail: [email protected] http://www.marcon.com Barges An Overview of the Workhorses of the Marine Industry By: Bob Beegle Barges are the workhorses of the towing industry. They perform myriads of chores from cargo transport, pipelay, heavy- lift, water-desalinization, and power generation to offshore floating production and storage. Barges haul millions of tons of cargoes or otherwise work offshore and through the river systems and harbors of every continent in the world. Although there are no accurate records, I would not be surprised if there are at least 150,000 barges from the coasts of Albania to Lake Kariba in Zimbabwe. Non-propelled barges range from under 10’ to almost 1,000’ in length. While usually built out of steel, Marcon has over the years listed and sold barges constructed of concrete, aluminum and, even, wood. At the top of the range of cargo barges are the 30,000dwt+ ocean tank barges, 40,000dwt+ Great Lakes bulk barges and the 25,000dwt+ submersible and launch barges for ocean transport of equipment, such as drill rigs, drydocks, floating storage & production units, and of high value project cargoes requiring dry-tows for secure and/or faster deliveries. The world’s largest launch and float-over/cargo barge designed for worldwide operation is Heerema’s 852’ x 207’ x 49’ with a maximum 130,514mt and launch capacity of 40,000mt “H-851”.
    [Show full text]
  • Rules for the Classification and Construction of Sea-Going Ships
    RUSSIAN MARITIME REGISTER OF SHIPPING RULES FOR THE CLASSIFICATION AND CONSTRUCTION OF SEA-GOING SHIPS PART I CLASSIFICATION Saint-Petersburg Edition 2019 Rules for the Classification and Construction of Sea-Going Ships of Russian Maritime Register of Shipping have been approved in accordance with the established approval procedure and come into force on 1 January 2019. The present edition of the Rules is based on the 2018 edition taking into account the amendments developed immediately before publication. The unified requirements, interpretations and recommendations of the International Association of Classification Societies (IACS) and the relevant resolutions of the International Maritime Organization (IMO) have been taken into consideration. The Rules are published in the following parts: Part I "Classification"; Part II "Hull"; Part III "Equipment, Arrangements and Outfit"; Part IV "Stability"; Part V "Subdivision"; Part VI "Fire Protection"; Part VII "Machinery Installations"; Part VIII "Systems and Piping"; Part IX "Machinery"; Part X "Boilers, Heat Exchangers and Pressure Vessels"; Part XI "Electrical Equipment"; Part XII "Refrigerating Plants"; Part XIII "Materials"; Part XIV "Welding"; Part XV "Automation"; Part XVI "Structure and Strength of Fiber-Reinforced Plastic Ships"; Part XVII "Distinguishing Marks and Descriptive Notations in the Class Notation Specifying Structural and Operational Particulars of Ships"; Part XVIII "Common Structural Rules for Bulk Carriers and Oil Tankers". The text of the Part is identical to that of the IACS Common Structural Rules; Part XIX "Additional Requirements for Structures of Container Ships and Ships, Dedicated Primarily to Carry their Load in Containers". The text of the Part is identical to IACS UR S11A "Longitudinal Strength Standard for Container Ships" (June 2015) and S34 "Functional Requirements on Load Cases for Strength Assessment of Container Ships by Finite Element Analysis" (May 2015).
    [Show full text]
  • The Operational Efficiency of Waterway Transport of Forest Chips on Finland’S Lake Saimaa
    Silva Fennica 46(3) research articles SILVA FENNICA www.metla.fi/silvafennica · ISSN 0037-5330 The Finnish Society of Forest Science · The Finnish Forest Research Institute The Operational Efficiency of Waterway Transport of Forest Chips on Finland’s Lake Saimaa Kalle Karttunen, Kari Väätäinen, Antti Asikainen and Tapio Ranta Karttunen, K., Väätäinen, K., Asikainen, A. & Ranta, T. 2012. The operational efficiency of waterway transport of forest chips on Finland’s Lake Saimaa. Silva Fennica 46(3): 395–413. New and cost-efficient methods for use in supply chains for energy wood should be found, to reach the targets of the renewable energy utilisation set by the European Union. The long- distance waterway transportation of forest fuels should be thoroughly investigated, especially in areas where the transport distance is long and waterways could provide a feasible method of conveying forest fuel. In comparison to transport of forest chips by truck, barge-based waterway transport shows a competitive advantage due to the larger loads and higher bulk density of chips it allows. The cost-efficiency of waterway transportation operations related to forest chips in Finland’s Lake Saimaa region was studied using practical demonstrations and discrete-event simula- tion. The varying demand for fuel wood in three separate bio-power plants on the Saimaa lakeside (near the cities of Varkaus, Mikkeli, and Savonlinna) was addressed in several barge transportation scenarios. Finally, the economy of barge transportation was compared to the economy of truck transportation as a function of transportation distance and in terms of the annual performance of the transportation methods examined.
    [Show full text]
  • Prototype Container Vessel
    Union League Club, Chicago, IL June 14, 2017 Achieving the Promise of Tomorrow’s Emerging Rail & Waterway Opportunities M. John Vickerman Williamsburg, Virginia Copyright © 2017 Vessel Cargo Handling Circa 1955 Copyright © 2017 Cargo Handling Circa 2010 Copyright © 2017 US Navy Fast Frigate Circa 2045 Copyright © 2017 What We Know Today... Will Surely Be Different Tomorrow! Copyright © 2017 Linking Railroads, Ports, Trucks, and Waterways Since my last presentation at the 2016 Rail Summit a year ago, Three Major Events have changed the US Marine/Inland Waterway/Rail Industry: ✓The US Arrival of the Mega Container Ships ✓High Speed & Capacity Inland Waterway Vessels ✓The US Midwest Freight Battleground Matures Copyright © 2017 Linking Railroads, Ports, Trucks, and Waterways Maritime Vessel Technology Trends: Emergence of the Mega Container Vessel Copyright © 2017 Largest Container Ship Yet to Call on the Port of Virginia – May 8, 2017 COSCO Development Container Ship – 13, 092 TEUs Copyright © 2017 May 8, 2017 Largest Container Vessel to Call at the Port of Virginia COSCO Development Container Ship – 13, 092 TEUs Containership COSCO DEVELOPMENT at 1,200 feet long and 158 feet wide, It is 100-plus feet longer that the U.S. Navy’s newest aircraft carrier the Gerald R. Ford Copyright © 2017 Relative Size of the Mega Container Vessel COSCO DEVELOPMENT Largest Ship to Call Along the East Coast COSCO Develop Copyright © 2017 40 Years of Container Ship Size Growth (TEU Capacity) MEGA CONTAINER SHIP Circa 2020 NEO PANAMAX As of June 2016 OLD PANAMAX Up to June 2016 Source: HIS Maritime & Trade Historical Vessel and Orderbook Data Copyright © 2017 50 Years of Container Vessel Evolutionary Growth Old Panamax: 4,800 TEUs Neo-Panamax: 12,600 TEUs Near Term Mega Vessel: 22,000 TEUs Source: Allianz Global Corporate & Specialty - Data: Container-Transportation.com Copyright © 2017 Maersk’s 18,000 TEU - Wide Body - Shallow Draft Container Ship Copyright © 2017 The Biggest Ship Ever in San Francisco Bay CMA CGM Benjamin Franklin 1,300 ft.
    [Show full text]