 01.03.16 08:46
Shipbuilding problems discussing at the III International Forum of Dredging Companies
  
The III International Forum of Dredging Companies took place on 25.02.2016. It was held by media-group Port News together with FSUE Rosmorport and International Association of Dredging Companies (IADC); there was financial support from Mordraga Company (DEME) and also from set of companies including: Yan De Nul, Nonius Engineering, Boskalis, Damen, Idreco, Hydromech, Dredge Yard, Fertoing, Van Oord, China Communications Construction Company Limited (CCCC), BLRT Grupp, "Carolina Engineering, Neptune Shipyards BV, Royal IHC (IHC).
General Director of Marine Engineering Bureau Gennadiy Egorov, Prof., Sc. Dr., was a moderator of session "Shipbuilding".
The following reports were introduced at the session:
• Construction and design of the dredging fleet at Russia (Daniil Garbuz, chairman of Directors' Board of CJSE "Hydro-mechanical Factory");
• Dredging equipment and new technologies from Damen Company (Rene Sens, engineer of Design and Proposal Department of Damen Company);
• Self-transported hold CNG dredgers: next step in Russia (Hans Hessen, Regional Director in Russia of Royal IHC (IHC));
• Import substitution and factories' building for dredging components (Sergey Milushkin, General Director of PJSE "SEZ "Lotos");
• BLRT Grupp presentation and overview of projects of Western Shiprepairing Yard (Dmitriy Kuzmin, BLRT Grupp senior specialist of marketing department);
• Abilities of Holland Shipyards concerning construction and design of dredging machinery (Benjamin Grefkens, member of Executive Board of Neptune Shipyards BV Shipbuilding Group).
There were discussed problems concerning creation and construction of new dredgers and pump-dredgers for work at RF coastal marine zone and internal waterways. Opinions of the dredging leading world developers were introduced as well as modern decisions and new technologies as both technology's development itself and platforms (vessels), including: gas fuel, positioning, ecologic requirements, labor safety. It was noted that Russian design bureaus in interaction with a number of the European firms develop new projects of such equipment, that the Russian factories are able to construct such vessels, that there are also enough abilities to product the processing equipment itself (soil pumps, milling cutters, etc.).
The most part of reports was devoted to problems of new dredgers' construction in the conditions of marine ports or coastal communications.
However the same vessels (often called machines) for works for providing river way conditions are not less important. Therefore some results concerning decisions of the external design problem for technical river fleet vessels are stated below; these results were defined during Marine Engineering Bureau's researches in 2009-2012.
It is interesting that in the XXI century Russian customers received more than 50 new pump-dredgers with Russian River Register class. However, practically all of them are non-self-propelled ones for production of sand-gravel mixes (i.e. they are classical "mining" machines, not vessels that are necessary for ensuring way conditions).
According to the initial version of the Federal Purpose Program (FPP) "Development of RF transport system (2010-2015)", it was foreseen to construct 22 dredgers mainly for State Budgetary Enterprises (SBE) of the Eastern basins.
Table 1
Dredgers which construction was supposed according to the FPP "Development of RF transport system (2010-2015)"
| Class notation, capacity | Supposed coast for
1 dredger, millions of roubles,
2008 year cost | Number | State Budgetary Enterprises of Waterways and Facilities
SBEWF) | | Ladder-bucket dredgers |  O(ice) A, 400 m³/h | 800.0 | 3 | Kama, Ob-Irtysh, Baikal-Angara | | R(ice) A, 250 m³/h | 680.0 | 3 | Kama, Amur, Yenisey, Lena | | Pile-line pump-dredgers | | O(ice) A, 1500 m³/h | 850.0 | 3 | Ob-Irtysh, Ob, Lena | | O(ice) A, 1000 m³/h | 750.0 | 3 | Amur, Northern-Dvina, Lena | | R(ice) A, 350 m³/h | 600.0 | 4 | Northern-Dvina, Pechora, Ob-Irtysh, Ob | | Re-equipment | | O(ice) A, 150-1500 m³/h | 550.0 | 6 | Ob-Irtysh (3), Lena (3) |
Actually, replenishment of all river fleet segments is required.
One can see at Table 2 that the initial version of FPP "Development of RF transport system (2010-2015)" foresaw financing only part of required new fleet. Neediness in buoy, ecological, auxiliary and depth-sounding vessels had to be satisfied practically fully; pump-dredgers and ladder-bucket dredgers had to be constructed only for 30% of required amount; construction of water-bottom clean vessels, floating cranes, scows, anchor laying crafts and discharging quays wasn't foreseen at all.
Table 2
Structure of the river technical fleet and available ways of fleet's replenishment
| Kind of fleet | Available | In operation | Neediness for new vessels | New shipbuilding
due to FPP 2010-2015
(initial version) | | Dredgers | 195 | 119 | 74 | 22 | | Water-bottom cleaning vessels and cranes | 51 | 33 | 26 | Not foreseen | | Floating cranes | 66 | 61 | | Not foreseen | | Scows | 198 | 126 | 27 | Not foreseen | | Anchor laying crafts | 177 | 110 | | Not foreseen | | Other self-propelled vessels | 1396 | 1127 | buoy - 250 | buoy - 250 | | auxiliary - 30 | auxiliary - 32 | | ecological - 20 | ecological - 16 | | water-depth sounding - 74 | water-depth sounding - 32 | | Total - 671 | Total - 330 | | Other non-self-propelled vessels | 738 | 562 | 195 | Not foreseen | | Total | 2821 | 2138 | 993 | 352 |
It is clear that from all technical fleet that includes dredgers, water-bottom cleaning vessels, floating cranes, scows, anchor laying crafts, buoy vessels, auxiliary vessels, water-depth sounding vessels, oil crafts, etc., namely dredgers represent the most complex, expensive in design and construction and highly power-consumption in operation objects.
It is enough to tell that duration of their construction made earlier: 3-4 years for head one and 2-3 years for serial one in our country and abroad.
Now duration of new dredgers construction abroad depends on their design and makes 0.5-1.5 years (the minimum terms for serial non-self-propelled pump-dredgers of small and mean capacity).
Thus 45% of pump-dredgers with summarized capacity 15% are constructed at Russian shipyards; 52% and 47% concern respectively for Czechoslovakian shipyards. For ladder-bucket dredgers figures are as follows: 16% of quantity and 20% of summarized capacity for Russian shipyards, 13% and 38% respectively for Ukrainian shipyards, 44% and 23% respectively for Czechoslovakian shipyards. The part of Finland, Japan and Holland constructed vessels is much lesser.
At last, in the last five years in Russia it was constructed no self-propelled dredgers (those ones which are under construction now at Krasnoe Sormovo Shipyard together with the Damen are the first).
Same time module non-self-propelled pump-dredgers (with no crew living onboard) are constructed at domestic shipyards for mining industry and melioration as usual.
Non-self-propelled pump-dredgers (with no crew living onboard) may be accepted for the central river basins as an effective solution for problem of fleet replenishment. In fact, they are the only type of dredgers which are being built at domestic shipyards.
It is natural that corresponding dredger convoy is required for operation of such pump-dredgers; such convoy should include floating living block (non-self-propelled), anchor laying craft (probably more powerful than usually), 2-3 self-propelled scows or same number of non-self-propelled scows with tug pushers (for example, Volga-Baltic SBE pointed about this).
But SELF-PROPELLED pump-dredgers with CONTINUOUS crew living onboard require practically same dredger convoy, without floating living block only.
Written opinions of Administrations of inland waterways basins (ex. SBEWF) were asked for this problem analysis especially.
Opinion of SBEWF concerning non-self-propelled mode and absence of continuous crew living onboard is shown in the Table 3.
The symbol "+" means consent, "-" means a denial of the proposed solution.
Notes include required autonomy of dredgers, and also list of other technical vessels.
Table 3
Main points of the SBEWF opinions
| # | SBEWF | Opinion about non-self-propelled mode | Opinion about absence of continuous crew living onboard | Notes | | 1. | Volgo-Balt | + | +
floating living blocks | +
- Dredger convoy, living block, anchor laying craft, self-propelled cows (2-3 pcs.);
- Autonomy 10 days | | 2. | Belomor Canal | + | +
floating living blocks | +
- Pillar dredger | | 3. | Kama | + | + | +
- Tankers, buoy vessels;
- Insufficient autonomy | | 4. | Azov-Don | + | +
floating living blocks | +
- Autonomy 7 days;
- Anchor laying craft | | 5. | Kuban | + | + | | | 6. | Northern Dvina | + | +/-
floating living blocks | +
- Autonomy 15 days;
- Bunkering crafts | | 7. | Ob-Irtysh | + | + (Irtysh, Ob);
- (Lower Ob, Ob-Tazov Bay) | +
- Autonomy 15-30 days | | 8. | Ob | +
renovation | 25 people, "Ob-1003" and "Ob" | +
- Autonomy 20 days | | 9. | Yenisey | - | - | | | 10. | Baikal-Angara | Pump-dredgers aren't need at all | | 11. | Amur | Ladder-bucket dredger is required | | 12. | Lena | - | - | - Autonomy 10 days (20-25 days by fuel) | | 13. | Moscow canal | + | + | |
So, there are two opinion groups of waterways Administrations:
• self-propelled pump-dredgers with continuous crew living onboard are required. It is clear that it will be the extremely expensive solution (especially taking into account autonomy 15-30 days). This is suitable mainly for SBE of Eastern basins; dredgers will be constructed for these regions due to FPP;
• cheaper but new NOT SELF-PROPELLED pump-dredgers WITHOUT CREW living onboard are required; such dredgers should be equipped with modern working devices including mills for heavy soil and disintegrator for light soil.
Moreover, due to Azov-Don SBE experience, they started buying of such pump-dredgers and adapting them for their own tasks (the corresponding specification is sent).
Naturally, such pump-dredgers operation requires corresponding dredger convoy.
It was said earlier that FPP "Development of RF transport system (2010-2015)" foresaw financing only part of required new fleet. Neediness in pump-dredgers and ladder-bucket dredgers had to be satisfied only for 30% of required amount; construction of water-bottom clean vessels, floating cranes, scows, anchors laying crafts and discharging quays wasn't foreseen at all.
Even having created the new pump-dredger, one may take into consideration that it is necessary to build not only dredger itself but new dredger convoy in whole. Every new pump-dredger requires floating living block, anchor laying craft, 2-3 self-propelled scows or same number of non-self-propelled scows with tug pushers.
Dredger convoy has to be supplied by fuel, so new tankers for fuel supply are required, i.e. bunkering tankers. Today non-self-propelled oil crafts are outdated both physically and morally (this moment they have single hull).
Fuel store tanks may be increased not very huge; so fuel autonomy may be increased up to 6-7 days only without pontoon's length increase.
Such autonomy increase leads to difficulty of meeting requirements concerning ensuring safe access to the vessel's equipment.
From our point of view, autonomy increase over 6-7 days is possible by next ways:
• due to corresponding increase of pontoon's length and width;
• due to arrangement of additional fuel store within one of slurry pipeline's pontoons.
Proceeding from opinions of SBEWFs, required characteristics of dredgers for each SBEWF are individual, and general range of the required output characteristics is extremely wide.
In table 4 we can find the consolidated data of proposals of SBEWFs and also offer concerning proposals distribution into certain groups due to dredgers' types and characteristics.
Table 4
Offers concerning dredgers' main characteristics from waterways Administrations
| SBEWF | Type, class, prototype | Capacity, m³/h | Depth of soil taking, m | Draught, m | Autonomy, days | Notes | | Volgo-Balt | Self-propelled ladder-bucket dredger,
M 3,0 (ice) A, prototype prj. Р-36 | 900-600 | 10 | 2.10-2.28 | 10 | | | Belomor canal | Self-propelled ladder-bucket dredger,
M 3,0 (ice) A | 900-600 | 10 | 2.10 | 10 | Maximal height not more than 12.0 m | | Yenisey | Self-propelled ladder-bucket dredger,
M 3,0 (ice) A, prototype prj. Р-36 | 900-600 | 10 | 2.10-2.28 | 10 | | | Amur | Self-propelled ladder-bucket dredger,
M 3,0 (ice) A, prototype prj. Р-36 | 900-600 | 10 | 2.10-2.28 | 10 | | | Summarized proposal #1 | Self-propelled ladder-bucket dredger,
M 3,0 (ice) A, prototype prj. Р-36 | 900-600 | 10 | 2,10 | 10 | Maximal height not more than 12.0 m | | Kama | Self-propelled ladder-bucket dredger | 600 | | 2.0-2.20 | | | | Lena | Self-propelled ladder-bucket dredger,
O 2,0 (ice) A | 600 | 14 | 1.80 | 10 /
20-25 by fuel | | | Volgo-Balt | Non-self-propelled ladder-bucket dredger,
R 1,2 (ice) A,
prototype prj. 92-035 | 250 | 7.5 | 1.27 | 10 | | | Kama | Non-self-propelled ladder-bucket dredger | 250 | | 1.20 | | | | Lena | Self-propelled ladder-bucket dredger,
O 2,0 (ice) A | 250 | 10 | 1.20 | 10 /
20-25 by fuel | | | Summarized proposal #2 | Non-self-propelled ladder-bucket dredger,
R 1,2 (ice) A,
prototype prj. 92-035 | 250 | 7.5 | 1.27 | 10 | | | Moscow canal | Non-self-propelled ladder-bucket dredger, prototype prj. 23-75 | 150 | 5.5 | 0,90 | 15-20 | Maximal height (from BL) not more than 11.7 m | | Yenisey | Self-propelled ladder-bucket dredger | | | 0.90-1.00 | | | | Baikal-Angara | Self-propelled ladder-bucket dredger | | | | | | | Lena | Self-propelled ladder-bucket dredger,
R 1,2 (ice) A | 100 | 8 | 1.00 | 10 /
20-25 by fuel | | | Summarized proposal #3 | Non-self-propelled ladder-bucket dredger,
prototype prj. 23-75 | 150 | 5.5 | 0.90 | 15 | Maximal height (from BL) not more than 11.7 m | | Lena | Self-propelled pump-dredger,
O 2,0 (ice) A | 2500 | 10 | 1.90 | 10 /
20-25 by fuel | Hydro disintegrator | | Belomor canal | Non-self-propelled pump-dredger,
O 2,0 (ice) A | 2200 | 16.0 | 2.05 | 7-10 | Milling disintegrator | | Ob | Non-self-propelled pump-dredger O 2,0 (ice) A, donor vessel prj. 1-517-03 | 2500 | 13.0 | 1.05 | 15-20 | Hydro disintegrator. Maximal height (from BL) not more than 10.0 m | | Summarized proposal #4 | Non-self-propelled pump-dredger, O 2,0 (ice) A, donor vessel prj. 1-517-03 | 1500 | 13 | 1,50 | 15 | Hydro and milling disintegrators | | Volgo-Balt | Non-self-propelled pump-dredger,
O 2,0 (ice) A,
prototype prj. 23-112 | 1000 | 10.0 | 1.25-1.43 | 10 | Milling disintegrator | | Ob | Non-self-propelled pump-dredger,
O 2,0 (ice) A,
donor vessel prj. 23-112 | 1000 | 13.0 | 1.50 | 15-20 | Hydro disintegrator. Maximal height (from BL) not more than 10.0 m | | Northern Dvina | Non-self-propelled pump-dredger,
R 1,2 (ice) A | 1000 | 11.0 (with hydro disintegrator) | 1.25 | 15 | Hydro disintegrator | | Ob-Irtysh | Non-self-propelled pump-dredger,
M 3,0 (ice) A | 1000 | 15.0-17.0 | 1.50 | 15-30 | Hydro and milling disintegrators. Crew living onboard | | Lena | Self-propelled pump-dredger,
O 2,0 (ice) A | 1000 | 10.0-12.0 | 1.60 | 10 /
20-25 by fuel | Hydro and milling disintegrators | | Summarized proposal #5 | Non-self-propelled pump-dredger, O 2,0 (ice) A, prototype prj. 23-112 | 1000 | 11.0-15.0 | 1.25 | 15 | Фрезерный и гидравлический разрыхлители | | Belomor Canal | Non-self-propelled pump-dredger,
O 2,0 (ice) A | 850 | 14.0 | 1.50 | 7-10 | Milling disintegrator | | Ob-Irtysh | Non-self-propelled pump-dredger,
O 2,0 (ice) A | 850 | 15.0-17.0 | 1.50 | 15-30 | Hydro and milling disintegrators | | Northern Dvina | Non-self-propelled pump-dredger, R 1,2 (ice) A, prototype prj. 23-110 | 700 | 11.0 (with hydro disintegrator) | 1.10-1.28 | 15 | Hydro disintegrator | | Belomor Canal | Non-self-propelled pump-dredger,
O 2,0 (ice) A | 650 | 10.0 | 1.25 | 7-10 | Milling disintegrator | | Kuban | Non-self-propelled pump-dredger,
O 2,0 (ice) A | 650 | 10.0 | 1.25 | | Milling disintegrator | | Ob-Irtysh | Non-self-propelled pump-dredger,
O 2,0 (ice) A | 650 | 15.0-17.0 | 1.10 | 15-30 | Hydro and milling disintegrators | | Azov-Don | Non-self-propelled pump-dredger,
O 2,0 (ice) A of R 1,2 (ice) A | 600 | 10.0 | 1.25 | 10 | Milling disintegrator | | Summarized proposal #6 | Non-self-propelled pump-dredger,
O 2,0 (ice) A | 650 | 10.0 | 1.10 | 10 | Hydro and milling disintegrators | | Northern Dvina | Non-self-propelled pump-dredger,
R 1,2 (ice) A,
prototype prj. 324 | 350 | 8 (6 with hydro disintegrator) | 0.64 | 15 | Hydro disintegrator | | Moscow canal | Non-self-propelled pump-dredger, prototype prj. 324 | 350 | 8 (6 with hydro disintegrator) | 0.64 | | Maximal height (from BL) not more than 7.5 m | | Summarized proposal #7 | Non-self-propelled pump-dredger, prototype prj. 324 | 350 | 8.0 | 0.64 | 7-10 | Hydro and milling disintegrators. Maximal height (from BL) not more than 7.5 m | | Ob-Irtysh | Non-self-propelled pump-dredger,
R 1,2 (ice) A | 200 | 5.0 | 0.60 | 7-10 | Hydro and milling disintegrators | | Volgo-Balt | Non-self-propelled pump-dredger,
R 1,2 (ice) A, prototype prj. ЗРC | 150 | 8.5 | 0.54 | 10 | Milling disintegrator | | Kuban | Non-self-propelled pump-dredger,
O 2,0 (ice) A | 100 | 5.0 | 0.60 | | Milling disintegrator | | Belomor canal | Non-self-propelled pump-dredger,
R 1,2 (ice) A | 100 | 5.0 | 0.60 | 7-10 | Milling disintegrator | | Summarized proposal #8 | Non-self-propelled pump-dredger,
R 1,2 (ice) A | 100 | 5.0 | 0.60 | 7-10 | Hydro and milling disintegrators |
Two rational ways may be recommended to the Administrations of river basins in order to fleet replenishment:
• to construct new NOT SELF-PROPELLED pump-dredges WITHOUT CREW living onboard; such dredgers should be equipped with modern working devices including mills for heavy soil and disintegrator for light soil (plus for each dredger: floating living block, anchor laying craft, 2-3 self-propelled scows or same number of non-self-propelled scows with tug pushers;
• to apply Russian River Register procedure concerning usage of discarded vessels for building of new dredgers.
|
