Environmental Dredging Productivity for Precision Excavator Dredges
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Proceedings of Western Dredging Association and Texas A&M University Center for Dredging Studies' "Dredging Summit and Expo 2015" ENVIRONMENTAL DREDGING PRODUCTIVITY FOR PRECISION EXCAVATOR DREDGES Robert S. Webb1, Teal M. Dreher2, and Paul Fuglevand3 ABSTRACT This paper will discuss factors affecting environmental dredging productivity for precision excavator dredges. Actual performance data from environmental dredging is needed to estimate productivity and costs for environmental dredging during the feasibility study stage of a project. This paper will present actual environmental dredging productivity data for precision excavator dredges in relation to the following three factors: 1) Dredging Time. Dredging production rate is often expressed in terms of cubic yards (in-situ volume) per hour of dredging time. There are two components that make up the dredging time, the effective working time and the non-effective working time. The proportion between effective and non-effective time for environmental dredging is considerably different than for navigation dredging. The paper will present a discussion of these factors, present actual dredging time data for environmental dredging projects and provide recommendations for effective work time estimates during planning stages of projects. 2) Mechanical Dredging Production Rate. The production rate of a mechanical dredge is a function of the bucket size, the average filling rate of the bucket, the amount of time it takes the bucket to make a pass and place material in a barge, and the daily effective working time of the dredge. This paper will present a specific method for calculating the production rate of a precision excavator dredge. It will discuss the range of parameters considered appropriate for those estimates for environmental dredging with excavators. 3) Volume Estimate. The volume of sediment removed is a primary factor in estimating the cost of environmental dredging. During the early stages of a remediation project, the remedial investigation (RI) and feasibility study (FS), an initial estimate of dredging volume is made. The RI often establishes the extent of sediment contamination and the in-situ volume of impacted sediment. The FS estimates the volume of sediment that will be dredged in order to capture the in-situ volume of impacted sediment. This paper will present information on factors that influence actual dredging volumes generated in the process of removing the target material. It will present an example of a project with known actual dredging volumes and the RI estimate of the in-situ volume, and will discuss the use of scaling factors during the FS stage to estimate dredging volumes based on the RI estimate of in-situ volume. Keywords: Production, remediation, mechanical dredging, remedial investigation 1 Senior Consulting Engineer, Dalton, Olmsted & Fuglevand, Inc., 1236 NW Finn Hill Road, Poulsbo, WA 98370 USA T: 360-394-7917, Fax: 866 370-9466, Email: [email protected]. 2 Consulting Engineer, Dalton, Olmsted & Fuglevand, Inc., 1236 NW Finn Hill Road, Poulsbo, WA 98370 USA T: 360-394-7917, Fax: 866 370-9466, Email: [email protected]. 3 Senior Consulting Engineer, Dalton, Olmsted & Fuglevand, Inc., 10827 NE 68th Street, Kirkland, WA 98033 USA, T: 425-827-4588, Fax: 866 370-9466, Email: [email protected]. 326 Proceedings of Western Dredging Association and Texas A&M University Center for Dredging Studies' "Dredging Summit and Expo 2015" INTRODUCTION There are numerous factors that affect environmental dredging productivity for precision excavator dredges, including actual effective dredging time, dredging production rate, and volume estimates. These factors are discussed below with regards to actual dredging productivity data three major environmental dredging projects including the Hudson River PCBs Site (New York), Duwamish Waterway (Washington), and Hylebos Waterway (Washington). All three projects were performed using precision fixed arm excavators. This data can be useful for planning and cost estimating for future environmental dredging projects. DREDGING TIME One of the major performance factors affecting schedule and cost for dredging projects is the actual effective time achieved by the dredge on the project. Dredge effective time describes the time when the dredge is generating dredged material, as opposed to non-effective time when the dredge is not generating dredged material, but rather performing preparatory and ancillary activities. These concepts are defined by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineering (USACE), as summarized below: Effective working time (EWT): “effective working time” is time during the dredging operation when actual material production is taking place. Noneffective working time (NEWT): “noneffective working time” is time during the dredging operation when the dredge is operational but no material production is taking place, such as during times of minor operating repairs, repositioning of dredge, vessel traffic, and weather. Dredging time: “dredging time” is the sum of effective working time and noneffective working time. Percent Effective Working Time (EWT%): “EWT%” is the ratio of the effective time to the dredging time, expressed as a percentage. As the EWT% increases, the productivity of the dredge theoretically increases. It is important to realize that 100% EWT is not possible as there are always non-effective work activities that must take place, including moving the dredge, refueling, and changing out sediment scows. So although NEWT cannot be reduced to zero, NEWT can be reduced to only that truly necessary for the project, resulting in increased efficiency, production and reduced costs. Dredging time data was compiled for three different environmental dredging projects: Head of Hylebos Remediation Project, Tacoma, WA; Boeing DSOA Corrective Measure and Habitat Project, Seattle, WA; and Upper Hudson River Project, Fort Edward, NY. Calculation of Dredging Time Head of Hylebos Remediation Project During both the 2004 Construction Season (CS) and 2005 CS, full-time engineering observers onboard the dredges tracked effective working time and noneffective working time. The time data was recorded near real time into daily dredge logs on Excel spreadsheets by the dredge observer. Boeing DSOA Corrective Measure and Habitat Project For all three construction seasons at the Boeing DSOA Corrective Measure and Habitat Project, the dredging time, including the effective and noneffective work time, was calculated based on electronic daily logs filled out by the Dredge Observer. The Dredge Observer is the oversight engineer who sat alongside the excavator operator full-time for the duration of the project. The electronic logs had a standardized set of activities that comprised all of the operations that took place during the dredging season. One responsibility of the Dredge Observer was to account for the duration of every activity that took place during each work shift in real time. These electronic files were then transferred to a database so the data could be efficiently analyzed. On a daily basis during the project, this data was analyzed and reviewed with project management staff. 327 Proceedings of Western Dredging Association and Texas A&M University Center for Dredging Studies' "Dredging Summit and Expo 2015" Upper Hudson River Project For the Upper Hudson River project, operational activities and associated durations were recorded by the dredging contractor and reported in the daily reports for each dredge unit. Hudson River Project Data was provided by GE for this paper. Dredging Time Data Actual dredging time data was reviewed for these three environmental dredging projects, each using fully instrumented fixed arm excavators. Both the Head of Hylebos project and the Boeing DSOA project had full-time engineers tasked with recording the dredging time in near real-time, as opposed to the Upper Hudson River project, which had the dredging time reported by the contractor. Due to the nature of the task, the reported effective working time for the Upper Hudson River may be higher than what actually occurred. Table 1 summarizes the effective working time for all three projects, as well as the types of excavators, size of buckets, and production volumes for each season. Effective Work Time Trends over Multi-Year Projects Based on the data summarized in Table 1, it is reasonable to expect that the effective time for a project will increase in subsequent years of the project. For both the Head of Hylebos and the Boeing DSOA projects, the EWT%, as well as the production rate in cubic yards per EWT hour, increased with each construction season. For the Upper Hudson River, the EWT% and production increased up to the 2012 season, and then decreased in 2013 as site factors changed. This increase in overall EWT% can be attributed both to the steep learning curve experienced by the crew during the first construction season of a project, as well as the ability to review any lessons-learned from the previous season and reevaluate the processes and equipment used before starting the next season. This is exemplified by the Boeing DSOA project. During the first construction season (CS1), 16% of dredging time was spent on water management (pumping free water off of barges to a water treatment facility and then back into the waterway to meet strict water quality criteria). After CS1 ended, a new more robust water treatment system was constructed, resulting in the following seasons having 3% or less of dredging time spent on water management.