Comparison of common dredging equipment air emissions

The purpose of this study is to provide a procedure to include emissions to the atmosphere resulting from the combustion of diesel fuel during dredging operations into the decision-making process of dredging equipment selection. The proposed procedure is demonstrated for typical dredging methods and data from the Illinois Waterway as performed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Rock Island District. The equipment included in this study is a 16-inch cutterhead pipeline dredge and a mechanical bucket dredge used during the 2005 dredging season on the Illinois Waterway. Considerable effort has been put forth to identify and reduce environmental impacts from dredging operations. Though environmental impacts of dredging have been studied no efforts have been applied to the evaluation of air emissions from comparable types of dredging equipment, as in this study. By identifying the type of dredging equipment with the lowest air emissions, when cost, site conditions, and equipment availability are comparable, adverse environmental impacts can be minimized without compromising the dredging project. A total of 48 scenarios were developed by varying the dredged material quantity, transport distance, and production rates. This produced an “envelope” of results applicable to a broad range of site conditions. Total diesel fuel consumed was calculated using standard cost estimating practices as defined in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Construction Equipment Ownership and Operating Expense Schedule (USACE, 2005). The diesel fuel usage was estimated for all equipment used to mobilize and/or operate each dredging crew for every scenario. A Limited Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) was used to estimate the air emissions from two comparable dredging operations utilizing SimaPro LCA software. An Environmental Impact Single Score (EISS) was the SimaPro output selected for comparison with the cost per CY of dredging, potential production rates, and transport distances to identify possible decision points. The total dredging time was estimated for each dredging crew and scenario. An average hourly cost for both dredging crews was calculated based on Rock Island District 2005 dredging season records (Graham 2007/08). The results from this study confirm commonly used rules of thumb in the dredging industry by indicating that mechanical bucket dredges are better suited for long transport distances and have lower air emissions and cost per CY for smaller quantities of dredged material. In addition, the results show that a cutterhead pipeline dredge would be preferable for moderate and large volumes of dredged material when no additional booster pumps are required. Finally, the results indicate that production rates can be a significant factor when evaluating the air emissions from comparable dredging equipment.

Comparison of three methods for driven pile capacity

A significant cost for foundations is the design and installation of piles when they are required due to poor ground conditions. Not only is it important that piles be designed properly, but also that the installation equipment and total cost be evaluated. To assist in the evaluation of piles a number of methods have been developed. In this research three of these methods were investigated, which were developed by the Federal Highway Administration, the US Corps of Engineers and the American Petroleum Institute (API). The results from these methods were entered into the program GRLWEAPTM to assess the pile drivability and to provide a standard base for comparing the three methods. An additional element of this research was to develop EXCEL spreadsheets to implement these three methods. Currently the Army Corps and API methods do not have publicly available software and must be performed manually, which requires that data is taken off of figures and tables, which can introduce error in the prediction of pile capacities. Following development of the EXCEL spreadsheet, they were validated with both manual calculations and existing data sets to ensure that the data output is correct. To evaluate the three pile capacity methods data was utilized from four project sites from North America. The data included site geotechnical data along with field determined pile capacities. In order to achieve a standard comparison of the data, the pile capacities and geotechnical data from the three methods were entered into GRLWEAPTM. The sites consisted of both cohesive and cohesionless soils; where one site was primarily cohesive, one was primarily cohesionless, and the other two consisted of inter-bedded cohesive and cohesionless soils. Based on this limited set of data the results indicated that the US Corps of Engineers method more closely compared with the field test data, followed by the API method to a lesser degree. The DRIVEN program compared favorably in cohesive soils, but over predicted in cohesionless material.