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.

BALTHMETRIC SURVEY IN THE KEWEENAW WATER WAY IN MICHIGAN, USA, MAKING 3D MODEL, AND COMPARING SONAR EQUIPMENT OF THE MODERN AUV AND THE TRADITIONAL SINGLE BEAM SONAR

This thesis represents the overview of hydrographic surveying and different types of modern and traditional surveying equipment, and data acquisition using the traditional single beam sonar system and a modern fully autonomous underwater vehicle, IVER3. During the thesis, the data sets were collected using the vehicles of the Great Lake Research Center at Michigan Technological University. This thesis also presents how to process and edit the bathymetric data on SonarWiz5. Moreover, the three dimensional models were created after importing the data sets in the same coordinate system. In these interpolated surfaces, the details and excavations can be easily seen on the surface models. In this study, the profiles are plotted on the surface models to compare the sensors and details on the seabed. It is shown that single beam sonar might miss some details, such as pipeline and quick elevation changes on the seabed when we compare to the side scan sonar of IVER3 because the single side scan sonar can acquire better resolution. However, sometimes using single beam sonar can save your project time and money because the single beam sonar is cheaper than side scan sonars and the processing might be easier than the side scan data.