New South Exit Channel in Río De La Plata: a Preliminary Design Study
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
New south exit channel in Río de la Plata: A preliminary design study Jelmer Brandt, Koen Minnee, Roel Winter, Stefan Gerrits & Victor Kramer TU Delft & University of Buenos Aires 17-11-2015 PREFACE During the Master of Civil Engineering at the TU Delft students can participate in a Multidisciplinary Project as part of their study curriculum. Student with different study backgrounds work together, simulating a small engineering consulting firm. Different aspects of a problem are regarded and a solution needs to be presented in a time-scope of 8 weeks. This project is often executed abroad. We took the opportunity to take this course and found a project in Buenos Aires, Argentina. During these two months we were able to apply our gained theoretical knowledge in a real time project setting. We experienced working and living in a in country with a significant culture difference. Argentina differs with the Netherlands in quite some areas, for example: Language, politics, economy and lifestyle. We had a great time being here working on the project as well as living in Buenos Aires. We would like to thank Ir. H.J. Verhagen (TU Delft) for getting us in touch with the University of Buenos Aires and for his project and content advise. Our supervisors, Eng. R. Escalante (Hídrovia S.A./UBA) in Buenos Aires, Ir. H. Verheij (TU Delft) and Prof. Ir. T. Vellinga (TU Delft) in The Netherlands, have been of great support providing the project group with advice and insights. We also had dinner with Dutch people in the Argentine water sector. A few names of the people who were there where are Niek Boot, Paul Braeken, Tiedo Vellinga and Henk-Jan Verhagen. In Argentina, Leonel Temer (Hidrovía S.A.), Sebastián Garcia (Hidrovía S.A.) and Paul Augustijn (Jan de Nul) gave us a lot of data and advice. Koen Minnee Jelmer Brandt Stefan Gerrits Victor Kramer Roel Winter Buenos Aires, October 2015 SUMMARY The authorities of Argentina wish to improve the accessibility of the ports located in the Río de la Plata and upstream to the Paraná River. The water depth in the Río de la Plata is very shallow and did not suffice for vessels to navigate. Therefore navigation channels have been dredged. Ship drafts have increased in time and nowadays there is a need to be able to accommodate vessels with higher drafts. This report provides possible solutions to increase the accessibility by researching the influence of the expansion of these channels. In particular, the construction of the Magdalena Channel: an additional channel that bifurcates in the point named ‘El Codillo’. This channel does not cross from the Argentinean coast to the Uruguayan coast, but continues along the Argentinean coast towards the Atlantic Ocean. This results in a southbound exit. To conclude the best solution for the posed problem, the following method has been implemented: A shipping prediction is made to estimate the future traffic intensity on the navigation channels. With the obtained information, a design ship is selected. By combining different design vessels and channel layouts, six alternatives were created. With the selected design ships and the available data, concept designs were elaborated using the PIANC manual: Approach channels (2014) as a guide line. For these channel dimensions, both capital and annual maintenance dredging volumes are estimated. The costs and benefits of all the alternatives have been considered and together with a Multi Criteria Analysis recommendation regarding the waterway infrastructure improvements are presented. At the moment the current channel is designed for a ship design draft of 34 feet. Bulk carriers, tankers and containers vessels were indicated as the most important vessels navigating the Río de la Plata. Their expected growth, from 2013 till 2035, is respectively 54.6%, 38.7% and 91.6% for vessels with a draft bigger than 34 feet. From the shipping prediction it resulted that about 10% of the outgoing ships headed towards the south. The design ship for the new Magdalena Channel has in most alternatives length, width and draft dimensions of a New Panamax vessel (Length 352 m, width 48 m, depth 11 m & 12.8 m). In one case the design ship is a bulk carrier (Length 255 m, width 36 m, depth 11 m). In total six alternatives have been developed, excluding the current situation. The current situation implies that the Punta Indio Channel will remain at 34 feet and that there will be no Magdalena Channel constructed, set at Alternative 0. For the remaining alternatives, the table below gives an overview of the design drafts of both the Punta Indio Channel and the Magdalena Channel. Alternative Design draft Punta Indio Design draft Magdalena Width Magdalena based [ft] [ft] on 0 – current situation 34 - - 1 36 - Container ships 2A 36 36 Bulk carriers 2B 36 36 Container ships 3 34 36 Container ships 4A - 36 Container ships 4B - 42 Container ships For the 36 feet design draft, a channel dredging depth of 14.16 meters is designed for both container ships and bulk carriers. For the 42 feet design draft, a channel dredging depth of 16.36 meters is calculated. The width is 144 meters, which is the same for the 36 and 42 feet design draft for container ships. For the bulk carriers at 36 feet, the channel width is set at 117 meters. The slope of the channels is 1:20. From the results of the Multi Criteria Analysis, Alternative 0 with Punta Indio at 34 feet and no Magdalena channel came out best. However, it does not give ships a larger draft to enter or exit Río de la Plata. When it is suitable to have a deeper channel, Alternative 1 and Alternative 3 are the best options. The conclusion of the Cost Benefit Analysis is that none of the alternatives will generate revenue in the considered time period of 20 years. However, compared to the current situation (Alternative 0), Alternative 1 has a higher Net Present Value. In Alternative 1 the Punta Indio channel will be deepened to 36 feet and the Magdalena channel will not be constructed. The data of the Multi Criteria Analysis and the Cost Benefit Analysis are combined. The result is that Alternative 3 scores less on the Cost Benefit Analysis, but scores the same on the Multi Criteria Analysis as Alternative 1. Therefore Alternative 1 is more favorable than Alternative 3 and the other alternatives. This leads to the conclusion that the construction of the new Magdalena channel at 36 or 42 feet is not considered feasible, both economically and financial. TABLE OF CONTENTS PREFACE SUMMARY 1. PROBLEM DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................................................. 1 2. DEVELOPMENT OF SHIP TRAFFIC & DIMENSIONS ........................................................................................... 3 2.1 TOTAL TRAFFIC .......................................................................................................................................................... 3 2.2 TRAFFIC HEADING SOUTH ............................................................................................................................................ 5 2.3 FUTURE GROWTH OF SHIPS .......................................................................................................................................... 7 2.4 EFFECT OF GROWTH SCENARIOS ON THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF SHIPS ...................................................................................... 9 3. DESIGN SHIP ................................................................................................................................................. 10 3.1 TYPES OF SHIPS ....................................................................................................................................................... 10 3.2 DETERMINING THE DESIGN SHIP.................................................................................................................................. 14 4. PROGRAM OF REQUIREMENTS & ALTERNATIVES ......................................................................................... 15 4.1 PROGRAM OF REQUIREMENTS AND BOUNDARY CONDITIONS ............................................................................................ 15 4.2 ALTERNATIVES ........................................................................................................................................................ 16 5. CONCEPT DESIGN ......................................................................................................................................... 17 5.1 WATER REFERENCE LEVELS ........................................................................................................................................ 17 5.2 LAYOUT ................................................................................................................................................................. 18 5.3 SHIPPING ROUTES .................................................................................................................................................... 20 5.4 WIDTH .................................................................................................................................................................. 22 5.5 DEPTH................................................................................................................................................................... 28 5.5.1 PIANC CONCEPT DESIGN .....................................................................................................................................