Downtime Analysis Methods for Offshore Dredging Operations

G.J. Grundlehner1, R.J. van der Wal2, and G.J. de Boer3 Abstract: The operation of dredgers at sea may be seriously affected by the marine environment. This can lead to downtime during operations. The question whether a system is able to operate in specific seastates is defined as 'workability'. In recent decades improvements have been made in the hydrodynamic modelling of marine structures. However, the coupling with the actual workability for a certain project and location is less developed. This paper presents Dredsim2000 as the result of a Joint Industry Project to develop an integrated tool to determine the workability. The paper further focuses on two different methods to determine the workability (or downtime) in an accurate manner, using the results of (hydro-)dynamic analysis as input. The first method is widely used in the industry: prediction of the downtime on the basis of wave scatter diagrams. The second method is less common but results in a more reliable downtime prediction: determination of the 'job duration' on basis of scenario simulations. The analysis based on wave scatter diagrams simply checks which entries of the diagram satisfy the operational limits. The combined probability of all acceptable entries results in the workability. The workability is used to correct the required nett productive hours to determine the gross project duration. This approach can be used for each operational mode individually, however applying this approach for a combination of modes is principally impossible In the determination of the gross project duration on the basis of scenario simulations, long term seastate time records are analysed by checking for each subsequent time step which operational mode is applicable. Past events and weather forecast are taken into account. The gross project duration is defined by the consumed time between start of the operation and the moment when the nett dredging hours are achieved. In a case study the two methods are compared and discussed for a realistic dredging project. The clear differences between the methods will be presented and suggestions for further applications in offshore dredging operations are given. Keywords: downtime analysis, workability, scenario, criteria, operational limits

Baggermaatschappij Boskalis bv, Rosmolenweg 20, P.O. Box 43, 3350 AA Papendrecht, the Netherlands, Telephone +31 (0)78 6969 359, Fax +31 (0)78 6969 300, g.j.grundlehner@boskalis.nl 2 Maritime Research Institute Netherlands MARIN, Haagsteeg 2, P.O.Box 28, 6700 AA Wageningen, the Netherlands, Telephone +31 (0)317 493 495, fax +31 (0)317 493 245, R.J.v.d.Wal@marin.nl, www.marin.nl 3 Maritime Research Institute Netherlands MARIN, Haagsteeg 2, P.O.Box 28, 6700 AA Wageningen, the Netherlands, Telephone +31 (0)317 493 266, fax +31 (0)317 493 245, G.de.Boer@marin.nl, www.marin.nl

1. Introduction By their nature, dredgers are exposed to the marine environment. This means wind, waves and current may hamper dredging operations or even may cause them to be suspended. The prediction of this 'Wait-on-Weather Downtime', or its more optimistic conjugate 'Workability', is one of the elements to be addressed in the cost estimation of dredging projects. In practice the nett required operational hours are corrected with a 'workability percentage' to find the gross project duration, which plays a primary role in the pricing of a project. Other delay factors may also increase the project duration, but these are no subject of this paper and left out of consideration. Which environmental factors have the most impact on the workability depends on their respective magnitudes, the response of the dredging spread and the ability of the spread to deal with this response. In offshore / nearshore conditions, waves are normally the most important factor. Section 2 will mention some typical effects that waves may have on the most common dredger types Cutter Suction Dredger and Trailer Suction Hopper Dredger. In order to quantify the workability for a certain project execution period, the workability prediction should address the following issues: i) Assessment of the environmental conditions at the project location. This is still a challenging issue and subject to considerable research effort initiated by some dredging companies. It will however not be addressed in this paper. Determination of the operational limits of the dredger and its auxiliary equipment, in view of project requirements and operating methods. In last decades major improvements have been made in the (hydro-)dynamic analysis of marine structures, among them dredgers. This paper addresses a recent improvement for this purpose: 'Dredsim2000'. Combination of the environmental conditions and operational limits into a workability, with due account of the limitations and opportunities within the project. Dredsim2000 features two essentially different methods to predict workability: - Directly based on scatter diagrams, further referred to as 'Scatter approach'. - Project scenario analysis based on long term seastate time records, referred to as 'Scenario approach'.

ii)

iii)

A fictive, though realistic, case study will be used to illustrate the differences between the above two prediction methods and their practical consequences. Under full appreciation of the effects that wind and current may have in some cases, the case study will focus on workability determined by waves only. Both prediction methods can however also be used for workability limited by wind or current or combination thereof. 2. Factors limiting the operability in waves Each type / design of dredging equipment has its own particularities with regard to workability due to waves. This section suffices to mention a few aspects for two common types of dredgers. 2.1 Trailer Suction Hopper Dredger (TSHD) Due to its hinging suction tube, a TSHD is relatively tolerable to wave induced motions, provided that the draghead lifting wire is heave compensated. Still a number of aspects deserve attention, like: deployment and recovery of the suction tube from a rolling vessel may involve the risk of the draghead damaging the hull. Heave of the draghead gantry may exceed the heave compensator stroke, causing slack lifting wire and subsequent snap loads. Vessel motions may impose backward motions of the draghead, which may get stuck in the seabed and thus induce large buckling forces in the suction tube ('stand on the pipe'). Connecting the floating discharge hose to the dredger's bow coupling. Keel clearance margins in shallow waters are further reduced by the vessel's motions, allowing less spoil to be carried.

It is evident that some of the limiting factors can be made less harmful by changing working method or improvement of sub-systems. Furthermore not all factors illustrated above can be clearly measured and given clear operational criteria for the crew to decide upon. Therefore the specific skills and experience of the key crewmembers still remains a major factor in the final workability that can be achieved.

2.2 Cutter Suction Dredger (CSD) The CSD's rigid spud system is capable to keep the cutter accurately in the breach, even in hard soils. A disadvantage of the spud is that it makes the CSD a mass spring system in the horizontal plane, with natural periods within the wave period regime. Large dynamic spud reactions are the consequence, in particular when the cutter is lifted. When the cutter is in the breach, pitch motions cause the cutter to pound into it, leading to problems like slack ladder hoist wire, stalling cutter drive and even damage of teeth or blades. On top of that, handling of the swing wire anchors, auxiliary boat operations and floating discharge line will put other restrictions on the operability of the CSD. Again, improvements in work method and subsystems combined with an experienced crew can improve the workability, but still the limitations are evident. 3. Description of Dredsim2000 A great number of the workability phenomena addressed in the previous section, can be analysed by accepted (hydro) dynamic ship motion analysis programs. Dredsim2000 was a joint industry effort to integrate and customise numerical programs into a complete workability assessment tool for use by the dredging industry. This section briefly addresses the program and concludes with the differences between the Scatter approach and Scenario approach. 3.1 Joint Industry Project In 1998 the following dredging companies together with Maritime Research Institute Netherlands (Marin), launched a Joint Industry Project to investigate the feasibility of developing a computer program to predict the workability in a structured and integral manner, based on state-of-the-art analysis techniques. The participating companies were: Ballast Nedam Baggeren BV* Baggermaatschappij Boskalis BV Hollandse Aanneming Maatschappij BV* IHC Holland NV Tideway Marine and Offshore BV Van Oord ACZ BV *) Now merged to Ballast-HAM Dredging During the feasibility study and subsequent project execution phase the 'Vereniging van waterbouwers in Bagger-, Kust- en Oeverwerken' (VBKO) acted as Marins contract partner, on behalf of herself and above participants. These parties together jointly funded the project. Governmental support was obtained through Senter, the Dutch governmental agency responsible for the execution of grant schemes for developments in the field of technology, energy, environment, exports and international partnerships. 3.2 Global set-up Dredsim2000 is basically an integrated suite of computer programs in the field of wave loading, dynamic response and operability prediction. The hydrodynamic programs were already existent within Marin, the workability programs were defined in close consultation with the participating dredging companies. Dredsim2000 is capable of calculating the workability of a dredger in wind, waves and current. Fig. 1 gives the global set-up of the program.

Dredger Motion Characteristics Motions/loads

Environmental conditions Waves, wind, current

Criteria and typical project information

Downtime/workability

Fig. 1: Global set-up Dredsim2000 The dredger types which are incorporated in the program are: Cutter Suction Dredger (CSD), including spud, Xmas tree, swing wires and a model for cutterseabed interaction (Wichers 1987). Trailing Suction Hopper Dredger (TSHD), including the effects of the suction tubes and dragheads. Plain Suction Dredger (PSD), including the effects of suction pipe and spread mooring. Stone Dumping Vessel (SDV), including DP capability check and effect of dumppipe. Dredsim2000 distinguishes the various operational modes specifically for each type of dredger: dredging, stand-by, sailing, (dis-)connecting, discharging and survival, etc. For each mode the operational limits can be specified or calculated and their effect in the total workability can be quantified. 3.3 Response analysis The response of the dredger is calculated for a number of relevant single seastates. The single seastates are described by: Wave direction relative to the vessel. Seastate characteristics which are generally described by a wave spectrum. Wind and current speeds and directions. Further the response analysis requires: The (hydro-)dynamic properties of the vessel. Loads or other effects resulting from the dredging process (like draghead force, cutter RPM, swing speed, etc.). Dredsim2000 implements two different response analysis methods: The free floating TSHD and SDV respond practically linear with the wave height. In that case the numerically efficient frequency domain analysis can be used. For strongly non-linear dynamic systems, like a CSD with its cutter pounding in the breach, Dredsim2000 resorts to time domain simulations. For both types of analysis the results are mainly expressed as statistically extreme responses for the subject irregular seastate. It is evident that these analyses are already a challenge on their own. They will however not be further detailed in this paper. Instead reference is made to previous publications (Wichers and Claessens 2000). 3.4 Operational limits In general the dredger / mode specific operational limits are expressed by 'downtime lines': the maximum allowable wave height, as function of primarily wave direction and period. Seastates higher than the downtime lines are considered not-workable for the subject operational mode, as they result in responses that exceed maximum allowable response values (the 'criteria'). Downtime lines are either defined by the user or computed from the dredger's extreme responses for a suitable grid of single seastate analyses. In the latter case the user has to specify the limiting criteria. In principle there can be several downtime lines, each of them governed by its own criteria, for instance a downtime line for maximum allowable dynamic spud reaction and one for cutter torque variations.

3.5 Workability prediction based on the Scatter approach Wave climates are normally given as wave scatter diagrams: the joint probability of occurrence of specific Hs Tz combinations. Often these diagrams are given for different wave directions and seasons. Fig. 2 illustrates how only the area enclosed by all the downtime lines can be marked as workable.
Zero upcrossing period Tz
0.25 0.75 1.25 1.75 2.25 2.75 3.25 3.75 4.25 4.75 5.25 5.75 6.25 6.75 7.25 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 4 0.019 0 0.043 0 0.003 0 0 0 0 0 DTL3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 [ ] 6 0.004 0 0.091 0.021 0.083 0.123 0.010 0.161 0.023 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 workable 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0.004 0.009 0.082 0.152 0.039 0.001 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 9 0 0 0.001 0 0 0 0.002 0 0.023 0 0.059 0.002 0.027 0.009 0.002 0.008 0 0 0 0 0 0 0DTL1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 11 0 0 DTL2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.001 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Fig. 2: Determination of workability by scatter approach. The sum of all workable entries (shaded area) is finally the workability for the subject operational mode. This workability may still depend on wave direction and operating season. The Scatter approach is simple and gives a quick overview of the dredgers operational limits relative to the prevailing weather conditions. It should be noted however that each operational mode will have its own workability. The question is how the respective operational modes of a dredging operation contribute to the gross project duration. Here we encounter a major limitation of the Scatter approach, as will be illustrated by the following example. Assume a dredging spread whose workability is governed only by two operational modes: - A dredging mode that can be sustained up to Hs = 2 m, in this example corresponding with workability of 70 %. For Hs > 2 m a floating discharge hose must be disconnected and the spread will have to wait on weather at the dredge location. - Re-connecting the discharge hose is the other mode. This is a weather sensitive mode that can only be accomplished for Hs <1 m, now corresponding with 25 % workability. Connecting takes 2 hours. The workability of the total project will be somewhere in the range 25 - 70 %, but based on the Scatter approach it is principally not possible to be more precise: - The number of periods with Hs > 2 m determines how often must be re-connected. - The time after a bad weather period before Hs < 1 m determines how long must be waited before re-connecting can commence. - The probability of a period with Hs < 1 m being longer than 2 hours determines how often re-connecting can actually be completed. Particularly in situations where there is a large difference in the operational limits of subsequent modes, the Scatter approach is in principle unable to quantify the gross duration and one has to resort to a more advanced method: the Scenario approach. 3.6 Workability prediction based on the Scenario approach A job scenario analysis simply follows a long term seastate time record and determines for each time step which operational mode is applicable. Fig. 3 illustrates how the operational modes will follow a certain sequence, the socalled job scenario, depending on the status of the dredging spread.

Signifiant wave height Hs

Hs [m] D Stop C,Start C,Start Time Dredging Hs,max for connecting floating hose: Hs,max for disconnecting floating hose: Hs,max for dredging: Fig. 3: Example of job scenario. Fig. 3 shows that the status of the spread, in a certain time step, is determined by the operational limits and the past weather conditions. When the CSD had to disconnect the floating hose, because of the past severe wave conditions (points D), a re-connection has to be accomplished before dredging can be resumed (points 'C'). This requires smaller wave heights and longer waiting time than when disconnection was not necessary (point 'R'). Depending on the weather forecast, the dredge master could even decide to go to the harbour when he expects that the next workable period is so short that staying stand-by on location is not effective. In such case the dredger can probably be of more use in the harbour. These kind of considerations are common in dredging projects, but often decisions resulting from them are still made by arbitrary judgment. By repeating a job scenario a sufficient number of times, decisions can be made more rationally. The input required for a scenario analysis is: The sequence of operational modes to facilitate the dredging process. For the types of dredgers covered in Dredsim2000 these have already been implemented as logic decision trees. The downtime lines for each operational mode. As addressed in section 3.4 they can be directly specified by the user or can be calculated by Dredsim2000 based on specified criteria. Seastate time records that: - apply for the project location and the appropriate seasons - are sufficiently long for the gross duration of the dredging project - are available for a sufficient number of years to produce sufficient job scenario analysis, thus a statistically stable prediction of the gross project duration 3.7 Discussion on the use of Dredsim2000 As mentioned before, the response prediction of dredging equipment is largely based on existing programs. Dredsim2000 integrates these programs in one tool. It should be noted however, that an appropriate response assessment still requires expertise to select realistic input values and interpret the results in a correct manner. In essence the determination of downtime lines is a simple process and it is tempting to see it as a black box. In practice the results can, for instance, be dominated by a single phenomenon, which, when judged in a slightly different way, may lead to a considerably different evaluation. The user should always have a critical attitude to the results and / or the criteria used as input. The traditional prediction of workability based on wave scatter diagrams gives a quick overview of the operability of a dredging spread in certain project conditions. In many cases they will provide a sufficiently accurate prediction of the downtime. Besides, these assessments take only little time. However, in projects where downtime can be significant and a single, though short, operation may cause considerable waiting time, a more advanced scenario analysis will also give a more realistic prediction of the gross project duration. CSD projects in relatively harsh offshore / nearshore areas are a typical example where a more advanced, but also more time consuming, method really pays-off. Dredging Dredging D Stop R,Start

For a long time, seastate time records over a sufficient number of years, were scarce. These time records are a prerequisite for job scenario analysis. Developments in wave hindcasting based on meteorological models have however continued, enabling the generation of these time records (Wichers and Claessens 2000). Also the emergence of satellite based wave measurements has given access to historical wave information. Together with improvements in the models that transform offshore waves to nearshore waves it is now becoming more feasible to acquire realistic long term historical seastate information for any offshore / nearshore project location. 4. Project example case The following fictive project is meant as an example case to show in particular the effect of the used workability prediction method. It is evident that an actual project may be more complicated, however, principles will be fully comparable. 4.1 Project description The project is located in a coastal region. The basic scope is deepening of a harbour access channel, which is fully exposed to the waves, and involves 500 nett dredging hours. The entire project requires a CSD. The excavated material will be pumped ashore through a floating discharge line. The base case project will start June 1 and will continue until the work is finished. As a variation also start date September 1 will be considered. 4.2 Environmental conditions The basic data apply for the access channel and reflects a realistic 20 year time history trace, consisting of significant wave height Hs and zero-up crossing period Tz. For simplicity the effect of wave direction is neglected. The weather forecast is assumed 100 % reliable over each next 48 hrs. The following figures give an impression of the wave conditions.
3.0

Hs mean
2.5

Hs,mean - 2*StDev. Hs,mean + 2*StDev.

2.0

Hs [m]

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Month 7 8 9 10 11 12

Fig. 4: Seasonal variation (monthly average Hs and 95 % confidence interval).

all years/all seasons/all directions: Hs (m) 0.25 0.75 1.25 1.75 2.25 2.75 3.25 3.75 4.25 4.75 5.25 5.75 6.25 6.75 7.25 Tot % Av. Zero Cros 3.00 4.50 6.00 7.50 4.45 12.27 3.30 0.45 1.72 18.91 11.37 2.61 0.00 4.36 13.94 2.47 0.00 0.07 7.85 3.52 0.00 0.00 1.22 4.65 0.00 0.00 0.01 2.35 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.18 35.61 37.69 16.46 Per (sec) Total 9.00 10.50 12.00 13.50 15.00 16.50 (%) 0.08 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 20.56 0.20 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 34.84 0.21 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 20.99 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 11.59 0.24 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.12 0.75 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.13 1.07 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.49 0.66 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.73 0.13 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.32 0.01 0.11 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.05 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.50 0.51 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00

Fig. 5: Year round Hs Tz scatter diagram based on the average of the 20 years (the downtime predictions are based on monthly scatter diagrams, which are not presented).
2.0 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.2 Hs [m] 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Year [-] Mean Hs June, per year Average Hs in June (over 20 yr) Mean Hs September, per year Average Hs in September (over 20 yr)

Fig. 6: Variation of monthly average Hs over the subsequent years for months June and September. 4.3 Operational limitations Fig. 7 and Table 1 summarise the operational modes and limits of the CSD. The presented downtime lines (operational limits) are just assumed here, but normally they result from a preceding analysis.
waves mode 2 mode 1 harbour mode 7 modes 3,4,5,6

Fig. 7: Overview of operational modes and limits (Base case)

Mode 1 2 3

Name Sail from harbour to dredge location Sail from dredge location to harbour Connect, before the CSD is able to dredge, the floating hose and swing wires have to be connected Dredging

Downtime line unlimited unlimited Hs = 0.75 m Hs = 1.5 m for Tz< 6s. Hs = 0.75 m for Tz> 9s. Linear relation for 6sTz9s Hs = 2.0 m Hs = 2.0 m unlimited

Duration 2 hours 2 hours 2 hours

500 hours

Disconnect before the dredger can sail back to the harbour, the floating hose and swing wares will be disconnected Stand-by CSD is stand-by, i.e. spud pole 6 and ladder are raised Wait in harbour CSD is waiting for better 7 weather conditions Table 1: Overview of operational modes and limits (Base case) 5 4.4 Operational considerations

0.5 hours n.a. n.a.

A dredging contractor is typically confronted with questions like: - What is the expected gross project duration and risk of exceedance? - What is the effect of delayed arrival of the dredger? - Which operational improvements can reduce gross project duration and to what extent? The following section will discuss how these questions can be answered by respectively the scatter and the scenario approach. 5. Results and discussion The Base case and a few variations will hereafter be discussed in more detail. An overview of the various key results for the work in the exposed access channel is given in Table 2. Case 1: Base case Case 2: Identical to Base case only job starts in September 1 Case 3/4 : Identical to Base case only connect limits are changed respectively 0.25 m and + 0.25 m Case 5/6: Identical to Base case only dredging limits are changed respectively 0.25 m and + 0.25 m Overview consumed durations Scenario Case number 1Base case 2 3 4 Nett duration [hr] 506.5 Mean duration [hr] 649 891 777 621 Scenario minimum duration [hr] 534 655 541 543 maximum duration [hr] 916 1643 1196 801 St.dev. of durations [hr] 98 242 169 77 Overview consumed durations Scatter method Nett duration [hr] 506.5 Duration Month June [hr] 592 592 596 591 Scatter Duration Month September [hr] 690 Duration Month October [hr] 780 Table 2: Overview of results from calculations using Scenario and Scatter approach 5.1 Comparison of scatter and scenario approaches Table 3 gives the expected gross durations of the various modes for the envisaged execution periods based on the Scatter approach. Note that the scatter diagrams were derived from the same time records as used for the Scenario approach. Thus the subject wave climate is exactly the same.

5 715 564 942 108

6 618 513 872 94

677 -

562 -

Mode Nett duration

Dredging 500

Connecting 2

Disconnecting 0.50

Sailing 2+2 2+2 2+2 2+2 2+2 2+2

Total 506.5 591.9 571.8 623.7 689.8 779.8

June 583.0 4.36 0.52 July 563.2 4.05 0.52 August 614.9 4.26 0.54 September 680.0 5.24 0.56 October 768.7 6.54 0.60 Table 3: Consumed (gross) duration of Base Case using Scatter approach

As clarified in Section 3.5 the Scatter approach can only provide the workability for each mode separately. In order to compare the scatter approach with the Scenario approach, we have to assume the number of times the CSD has to sail to / from location and (dis-)connect. In the best case this is only once. Above results fit in the trends of Fig. 4. The 20 year of wave data allowed to perform 20 job scenario analyses. Fig. 8 illustrates a sample of the scenario analysis. The waiting time before a re-connection can be made is clearly presented, as are other steps in the operational sequence. The scenario analysis continues until the total dredged hours equals the required 500 hr. The following typical events can be distinguished (see also Fig. 8): 1: After sailing from harbour and connecting the dredging mode starts 2: Wave height exceeds the maximum allowable wave height for dredging: Stop dredging; Dredger is stand-by 3: Dredging resumed (actual wave height is smaller than maximum allowable wave height for dredging) 4: Wave height exceeds the maximum allowable wave height for dredging: Stop dredging. dredger is stand-by 5: Dredging resumed (actual wave height is smaller than maximum allowable wave height for dredging) 6: Wave height exceeds the maximum allowable wave height for dredging: Stop dredging; dredger is stand-by 7: Wave height exceeds the maximum allowable wave height for stand-by: disconnection and Sail to harbour 8: Sail from harbour to dredging location, connect and start dredging 9: Wave height exceeds the maximum allowable wave height for dredging: Stop dredging; dredger is stand-by
3 1 2.5 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 2 Hs [m] disconnect / stand-by 9

1.5

dredging (Tz<6s)

1 dredging (Tz>9 )/ t 0.5

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Time [days] 10 11 12 13 14 15

Fig 8: Sample Scenario analysis Fig 9 summarises the scenario results for the Base Case: - Nett duration line (no downtime) added for reference. - Stochastic variation over the years is considerable. 7 out of the 20 analyses result in durations that are actually less than the gross duration based on the Scatter approach (591.9 hr, see Table 3). These are the 'good luck seasons' where the wave conditions tend to be more favourable than in average.

Unfortunately there are also 'bad luck seasons'. In one case the gross duration is even 1.55 x mean duration. In average however the scenario approach yields a more conservative project duration than the scatter approach: for the base case 649 hr vs. 592 hr, so 10% more.
1000 900 800 700 Job duration [hr] 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 Job no.[-] 12 14 16 18 20 BASE CASE total: 20 jobs Nett duration: 506.5 hr Job duration Mean of job durations Nett duration (no downtime)

Fig. 9: Results of 20 job scenario analyses (Base Case). 5.2 Effect of delay of start date When the CSD is delayed on another project, the start date may enter a less favourable season. For this example September 1 was chosen. Fig. 10 compares the results for start date September 1 with the results of the Base Case (start June 1): - The average gross project duration is now 891 hr for the Scenario approach against 690 hr for the Scatter approach, so the difference between the two approaches is now increased to 29 %. - As now more re-connections are required there are now only 3 jobs where the scenario analysis gives a shorter duration than the scatter approach. - The stochastic variation, presented by the standard deviation of the job durations, has increased considerably. The worst case duration becomes even worse: 1.85 x mean duration.
1800 1600 1400 Duration of job [hr] 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 Job no.[-] 12 14 16 18 20 Start September 1st Mean start September 1st Start June 1st Mean start June 1st Effect of delay of start date total: 20 jobs Nett duration: 506.5 hr

Fig. 10: Effect of delayed start date using the scenario approach (basic scope only).

5.3 Effect of system improvements Just to demonstrate the value of the Scenario approach, the connecting limit is varied by +/- 0.25 m. The effect is plotted in Fig. 11, which shows a histogram of the gross durations of the twenty simulations, and summarised in Table 2 (cases 3, 4). For the base case, a reduction of the connecting limit from 0.75 to 0.50 m increases the mean job duration by 20 % and the variability even more. Note that with the Scatter approach these effects are not found. Reduction of the dredging limit by 0.25 m (see Fig 12 and cases 5, 6 in Table 2) has a comparable effect in this case. Improvement of connecting and dredging limits with 0.25 m leads to roughly 5 % reduction in mean job duration. For start date September 1 this would be more. In that case improvement of the connecting procedure / equipment (for instance quick connect / release hooks) may yield a considerable saving in downtime. Increase of the dredging limit is probably more costly but likely yields no larger saving. The Scenario approach could be helpful to support such decisions.
10 9 8 7 Frequency [-] 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 Duration of job [hr] Hs_connect=1.0 m Base Case Hs_connect=0.5 m Effect of Connect limits total: 20 jobs, class width: 100 hr Nett duration: 506.5 hr

Fig. 11: Effect of variation connecting limit (basic scope only)

12 Effect of Dredging limits total: 20 jobs, class width: 100 hr Nett duration: 506.5 hr

10

8 Frequency [-] Hs = 1.25m (Tz<6s) - 0.5m (Tz>9s) 6 Base Case Hs = 1.75m (Tz<6s) - 1.0 m (Tz>9s)

0 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 Duration of job [hr]

Fig. 12: Effect of variation dredging limit (basic scope only)

5.4 Comments on the practical application of the Scenario approach The examples of the previous sections, and as summarised in Table 2, are just illustrations of the value of the Scenario approach. Its value is most apparent in cases where the downtime is relatively large and / or some operational modes can hold up the entire dredging process. For an accurate prediction of the workability, realistic operational limits and reliable local wave data are crucial. This applies however also for the Scatter approach. The major additional requirement that the Scenario approach imposes is the need for wave history time traces. One may argue whether the observed differences between Scatter and Scenario approach are worth the additional effort. For a 1 month project, 10 % difference equals 3 days, which readily justifies the effort when considering the day rates of large CSD's. For longer and more sensitive projects the answer is even more pronounced. Still, even in the case of perfectly executed scenario analyses with sufficient number of job scenario analyses, the actual realisation can be far off the prediction. This is an unavoidable 'fact of life', but at least we now have an impression of this variation and can use it in settling the contract. The scatter approach gives no insight in these variations at all. This brings us to the convergence of the gross duration prediction based on the scatter approach. In the cases addressed above as much as 20 years were available, this means 20 realisations of the stochastic seastate process. In practice this will often be less. The question is how many realisations are required for a reliable prediction based on the scenario approach. A theoretical treatment of this matter is beyond the scope of this paper, but some feeling can be obtained by plotting the average duration for an increasing number of job realisations. See Fig. 13. The order of the realisations will have some influence, but is maintained as per original data set.
1000 900 800 Average duration [hr] 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Number of jobs used for average duration [-] Base Case Starting date Sept. 1st Mean duration Base case Mean duration Starting date Sept.1st

Fig 13: Convergence of mean project duration. Because of the lower workability the case for start date September 1 converges slower than for start date June 1. In any case 7 10 job realisations seem to be sufficient, but at least 5 seem necessary for this example. 6. Summary and conclusions Dredsim2000 is the result of a joint industry development to make the workability (or downtime) prediction of common dredging projects more structured and integral. It implements existing and new methods for the determination of operational limits and the prediction of downtime, using site specific environmental data as input. The workability prediction based on scatter diagrams is simple and gives a quick overview of the operational limits relative to the prevailing environmental conditions. However, many projects involve operational modes that, although they may last short, have clearly lower operational limits than other modes. These critical modes may hold-

up the entire process, causing a considerable increase in downtime. Such effects cannot be quantified by the Scatter approach, so that job scenario analyses need to be performed. Pre-requisites for the Scenario approach is the definition of the sequential relation between the various modes and sufficiently long seastate time records so that a project can be analysed for at minimum 5 job realisations. The first requirement can easily be fulfilled and is implemented in Dredsim2000. The availability of representative long term seastate time records becomes increasingly accessible for the industry, due to developments in metocean engineering. A simple CSD project example case is evaluated by the Scatter and Scenario approaches. The latter gives a more conservative prediction, though more realistic because of its due inclusion of all modes and waiting times between subsequent modes. Furthermore the scenario approach gives much more insight in operational issues like: - stochastic variation of project durations - 'bottlenecks' in the dredging operation - effects of operational strategies and system improvements The more accurate prediction of downtime and the increased insight in above kind of effects may in many cases be well worth the effort that the Scenario approach requires. References 1. Feikema, G.J. (1995) Assessment of the Downtime of Dredges in Waves, WODCON, Amsterdam 2.Van den Bos, L. (1998) Bepaling van de werkbaarheid van materieel offshore, Master Thesis, Delft University of Technology, Delft (in Dutch). 3 Wichers, J.E.W. (1980) On the Forces on a Cutter Suction Dredger in Waves, WODCON IX, Vancouver 4. Wichers, J.E.W. (1981) Hydrodynamic Behavior Of Cutter Suction Dredges in Waves, World Dredging and Marine Construction, November 1981 5. Wichers, J.E.W. (1987) Handbook of Coastal and Ocean Engineering, Volume 3, Chapter 7. The behavior of dredging equipment operating in waves, ISBN 0-87201-452-5. 6. Wichers, J.E.W. and E.J.Claessens (2000) Prediction Downtime of Dredges Operating in the open sea. WEDA, Rhode Island Acknowledgements The authors wish to thank the organisations that participated in Dredsim2000, for their permission to present in this paper the program and results obtained with it.