Response to Vizhinjam Seminar 110713

7/28/2019 Response to Vizhinjam Seminar 110713

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/response-to-vizhinjam-seminar-110713 1/20

Response to Seminar on “Vizhinjam – Prospects and Challenges” by Theeradesa Samyuktha

Samithi

12th July 2013

Completeness of the Study

The presenter has raised the allegation that the report prepared for the EIA study is incomplete insuch a manner that erosion studies, area development issues, structural design of the port and

sourcing of construction materials etc has not been addressed properly.

Response

The stage of the project which we are currently in has to be noted particularly by the readers. The

finished process of public hearing on 29th June, 2013 is for the “Environmental Impact Assessment” of

the port which is a mandatory clearance process required by MOEF. The document was

supplemented by various studies such as “Detailed Project Report”, “Assessment of Long Term

Shoreline Changes in and around Proposed Port”, “Mathematical Modeling Report for Waves” etc.

These reports clearly states more than required information asked for by the MOEF guidelines.MOEF asks for a 5km impact area study for the port, meanwhile a 10km radius was included for all

the studies.

It has to be noted that the hearing was for EIA and not for “Area Development Study”. A separate

study is being conducted by CEPT Ahmedabad based on the mitigation measures asked for in the

EIA report and this report shall be concretely stating how the area has to be developed. For this

purpose of EIA study all required information asked for by MOEF has been submitted. A detailed

study of long term shoreline changes has been published separately by VISL and is available in the

website. Regarding concerns on Erosion, it has been proven that “Accretion” takes place at South of

the Port and due to the presence of “Stable Rocky Patches” at North portion no significant erosion

would take place. The complainant also has asked to study the impact of this port till Perumathuraand South till Colachel/Kanyakumari. To note is that this stretch asked for is more than 80km stretch

and a port like Vizhinjam in between shall be bringing negligible impact in such a long distances. It

also has to note that the stretch between Vizhinjam till Shangumugham is protected using seawall

and erosion issues are not expected in this region. (Details are provided in the attached Appendix 1 -

Shoreline mapping of Trivandrum District)

Again, to note is that structural design of the port has not been completed and is not required at this

stage of the project. The structural design responsibility rests with the EPC (Engineering,

Procurement and Construction) Contractor and he has to detail the master plan suitable enough of

his construction. He can use his methodology for design based on his experience and availability of

materials and his machinery. This includes all rock supply and concrete, piles etc. The rock supplyshall be completely his responsibility and he can source it from any required distance as he may

require. The quarries identified in the report is only indicative such that rock is available nearby and

transport method suggested for such rock supply is using barges and not trucks as against raised in

the seminar.

VISL has also promised during the public hearing that any missing details as raised by any of the

complainants shall be addressed properly before issuing the final document to MOEF.



Siltation

The seminar had called for a relook into the siltation pattern inside the port. The presenter has

mentioned that there would be a large runoff from the land towards the sea and thus the dredged

channel would be silted in the tune of 3 Million Cubic metres after every monsoon. The presenter also

mentioned that the source of silt being mountains and land area as far as the Western Ghats.

Response

It has to be agreed that in generic the origin of sediments is from land and not from sea. However,

this pattern changes from area to area and cannot be compared with any other region. A large

number of ports in India are riverine ports or located at the mouth of the river, which itself is cause of

siltation. To note is that this chosen location has no rivers nearby, nor does the land behind is sandy

or silty enough to pour in the silt to the basin. As the public in Trivandrum knows clearly, the region of

Kovalam and Vizhinjam is founded with rocky patches and these rocks itself would be a natural

barrier against the silt flow. This is also a reason why Poovar was not chosen against this location at

Vizhinjam. Also as shown by the presenter a figure on silting issues, the shown diagram is to be

mentioned as factually wrong. The presenter had missed out a key component of the port – its Quay

Wall or the Berthing Structure where the ships berth against the wharf. This structure itself is a barrier

against the silt to be formed inside the basin. Hence it can be concluded that the issue of siltation

from land side is very minimal. (Explained in diagram below).

Diagram as Shown by the Presenter



In Reality

Siltation due to littoral drift could be prevented by the 500m long South Side revetments. The

accretion is expected to form in the area less than 50m (26m as modeled) and the remaining area

shall thus prevent any such siltation in the port. The siltation volume at the existing port was recorded

as 3,800 m3 per year. Once the new port is built this volume will be reduced to such low extends as

200 m3 per year . The presenter has mentioned that 3 Million m3 will be silted inside the port. It is

requested that such in-factual and misleading figures may not be thrown out into the public.



Tranquility Effect due to Wind

The presenter had mentioned that the West Coast and in particular South Kerala region is prone to

very heavy winds and thus the port would be operationally dysfunctional during the monsoon seasons

(May to August). The winds will affect movement of the vessels into the port, container handling

operations and stacking as mentioned by the presenter.

Response

Quoted from EIA Report and Data from LTR:

“During summer, the wind was blowing predominantly from the NE direction. It reached a maximumspeed of about 3.6 – 5.7 m/s. The average wind speed for this season was 0.56 m/s. In summer,almost 61.75% of the wind was calm less than 2 m/s.

The Monsoon season has two predominant wind directions, SW and NEnorth-east, which depicts thetwo different seasons of monsoon (south-west monsoon and north-east monsoon). The average wind speed of this season was recorded at 0.51 m/s and 60.36% of the total wind in that region was calm.Higher wind speeds were recorded in the range of 2.1 – 3.6 m/s. In the winter season, the wind wasblowing from NE direction predominately. The wind speed was in the range of 3.6 – 5.7 m/s. Theaverage wind speed was recorded at 0.58 m/s.”.

The maximum wind speed near the location is in the order of less than 6 m/s (~ 12 knots) and is notfrequent. Even this figure is in a Beaufort scale of 4 and is considered as “Moderate Breeze”.

For container handling operations to come to a halt a Beaufort Scale of 8 (17 m/s) or more isrequired. The design parameters for buildings in any windy region and container handling equipmentare in the order of 43.5 m/s as per Indian Standard Codes. It is typical to design the quay cranes and

yard cranes to withstand winds more than 35 m/s.

Even for stacking of empty containers the international guideline is to stack lower when the windexceeds 10 m/s. More details provided in the attached technical paper.

Vizhinjam area experiences much less wind conditions than prescribed above and thus the pointraised against wind issues stands invalid. It has to note that these vessels with 18,000 TEU isconstantly travelling against wind and waves in the rough seas before reaching any port. It isdesigned to withstand those heavy metocean conditions. There are ports all over the world includingTaiwan, Hong Kong and California which has heavy Typhoons and Cyclones compared to “ZERO”cyclone event at Vizhinjam. All those places have ports built 10 times bigger than the proposed portat Vizhinjam. Thus the above argument stands invalid.



Corrosion

The presenter also states that there will be corrosion issues due to the salinity nature at coastal

region. The containers and equipment will get corroded.

Response

Corrosion for structural elements are discussed in the Engineering domain and numerous solutions

are in place today to rectify those. Few of them being listed as Surface protection using corrosion

protective paintings, biofilm coatings etc. Cathodic Protection using Sacrificial Anodes is also a very

common methodology (These elements sacrifices itself protecting the adjoined steel structure using

chemical reactions), Impressed current protection etc.

All the above mentioned technologies are very common in Maritime Structures domain and helps in

protecting the system against any corrosion. The typical lifetime of these container cranes are 25 to

30 years and the crane manufacturers ensures that proper corrosion protection systems are in place

for such systems.

The example of ships sailing in the sea for more than 99% of its life is the perfect example for

corrosion protection. These vessels are steel bodied and is prevented against corrosion. Containers

are also having its significant part of lifetime spent in open seas and coastal regions. It can be said

that corrosion has been identified by Engineers ages ago and the current systems in place to prevent

those is good enough for ports to sustain.

(Anodes places on Steel Structural Elements to prevent Corrosion)



Reclamation and its effect on Environment

The Seminar also raised many concerns regarding any adverse effects of reclamation in the sea and

no such project has taken place in Kerala undertaking any reclamation.

Response

Reclamation is a very common process all over the world and in many parts of India. Till date many

ports in India are formed as riverine ports due to the non-requisite needs for deep draft. For reaching

a draft in the order of 14-18m the most suitable method followed all over the world is reclamation.

For Vizhinjam the final stage reclamation asked for is only in the order of 80 Hectares. The

reclamation volumes for Maasvlakte Project in Rotterdam with much adverse conditions than

Vizhinjam is in the order of 2,000 Hectares and 700 Hectares of this was completed in April 2013.

Several such examples are available in the world for reclamation.

Artist Impression and Actual Reclamation at Rotterdam

The process of reclamation will also be contained within the breakwater and using reclamation bunds.

The Breakwater would be constructed prior to any land filling in the sea thus preventing any

suspension of solids. The dredging process involved could also be contained properly using the

modern day technology available using silt curtains which traps any sediments during the dredging

process. The dispersion while any dumping process could also be contained using this process.



APPENDIX 2 – Wind Influence on Container Handling



CONTAINERHANDLING

Over the course of hundreds of hours per year, ports experience

the influence of wind on nautical and terminal operations. This

influence is increased by the global trend of ever increasing vessel

sizes and the movement of ports to deeper water near or even

beyond the coastline. The influence of wind and possible solutions

to this problem are discussed in this article.

IntroductionWind is an uncontrollable source of disturbances, reducing

efficiency of port operations and sometimes even causing

downtime. Because of the increase in scale, the movement further

towards sea and also stricter regulations, the impact of wind

continues to increase.

Wind influence on container handling,equipment and stackingW. van den Bos, Faculty of Mechanical, Maritime and Materials Engineering, Section Transport Technology and Logistics, Delft University,The Netherlands

Figure 1. The effect of wind increases due to larger wind surfaces of cranes and because of the extra wind speed at higher altitudes.

Scale of Beaufort Mean Wind speed [m/sec] Description

6 10,8 – 13,8 Strong breeze Large waves begin to form; white foam crests, probably spray.

7 13,9 – 17,1 Near gale Sea heaps up and white foam blown in streaks along the directionof the wind.

8 17,2 – 20,7 Gale Moderately high waves, crests begin to break into spindrift.

9 20,8 – 24,4 Strong gale High waves. Dense foam along the direction of the wind. Crests of waves begin to roll over. Spray may affect visibility.

10 24,5 – 28,4 Storm Very high waves with long overhanging crests. The surface of thesea takes a white appearance. The tumbling of the sea becomesheavy and shock like. Visibility affected.

11 28,5 – 32,6 Violent storm Exceptionally high waves. The sea is completely covered with longwhite patches of foam lying in the direction of the wind. Visibility

affected.

12 32,7 – more Hurricane The air is filled with foam and spray. Sea completely white withdriving spray. Visibility very seriously affected.

TABLE 1: BEAUFORT SCALE (MEAN WIND SPEED IS 10 MIN AVERAGE AT 10 M)

PORT TECHNOLOGY INTERNATIONAL 89



90 PORT TECHNOLOGY INTERNATIONAL www.porttechnology.org

CONTAINERHANDLING

Wind characteristicsWind can be characterised by speed and direction. Unfortunately

in the working environment of ports there is confusion about

Beaufort scale (Table 1) and wind speed. The wind speed of

the Beaufort scale is ‘the average wind speed taken over the

ten minutes preceding the time of observation at 10 m’(J. Weringa en P.J. Rijkoort Windklimaat van Nederland, KNMI)

or mean wind. Sometimes however, a wind regime at Beaufort

6 is wrongly interpreted as gusts of wind with speeds varying

between 10.8 and 13.8 m/s.

By definition of the European standard for Crane design

(European standard EN13001 Cranes – general design) the

gust wind is the average three-second wind. Table 2 shows the

relation between the maximum wind speed and the measure

time interval. The table shows that wind speed increases with

decreasing interval time. The maximum gust wind at Beaufort 6

is therefore not 13.8 but 13.8*1.5=20.7 m/s!

Increase of wind velocityTo handle vessels with deep draught the international trend is to

construct new ports closer to the sea, while older docks near city

centres become less important or are even closed. The difference

in wind speed between the coast and the open sea is indicated by

the Royal Meteorological Institute of the Netherlands (KNMI) as:“under equal circumstances ... it is concluded that potential wind

on sea is 12% stronger than on open terrain on shore only because

of the difference in roughness. However, most experiments reveal

a difference of 20% or more mainly because the shore terrain is

not open but rugged.”

This is also confirmed by our own research where we found

that 30 km off-shore the mean wind speed is up to two m/s

higher than on shore, while for wind gusts, the difference can

be even four m/s. If we assume that moving five km towards sea

(from Maasvlakte I to Maasvlakte II) increases mean wind speed

with one m/s, the amount of hours with troubling winds and loss

of productivity on a container terminal due to wind will double.

Figure 2. Wind map of Europe (EN 13001). Figure 3. Wind pressure based on gust winds (EN 13001).

Figure 4a) Wind load of crane in operation, b) Unfavorable wind directions.

Gust factor

Period [s] 1 3 5 10 30 60 120 600

(1 min) (2 min) (10 min)

V(t)/Vmean [.] 1.6 1.5 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.1 1

TABLE 2. RELATION BETWEEN AVERAGE WIND SPEED OVER VARIOUS PERIODS AND MEAN SPEED (SOURCE EN 13001)




CONTAINERHANDLING

Increase of wind pressureThe increase in world sea trade causes an increase in port

equipment and vessel size. For example, the 9500 TEU container

vessel commissioned in 2005 is almost ten times the capacity of

the first generation container vessels of 1962. This also affects

the size of the cranes. The effect of wind increases due to

larger wind surfaces of cranes and vessels, but the effect is also

augmented because of the extra wind speed at higher altitudes.

Besides the affects on vessels and cranes, high investments in

quay strength are also needed, in order to support the high

corner pressures of a 110 m high stowed crane, which is exposed

to storm winds (Figure 1).

Strict regulationsOver the years society has become stricter in terms of

accepted pollution and hazard level. An example of this

increased attention is the stricter interpretation of wind

pressure due to wind gusts in the new European crane design

standard EN13001. Wind pressure on cranes is now explicitly

dependent on wind gusts, while previously in National

Standards (Din 15019 teil 1 Krane, Standsicherheit; NEN

2018 Hijskranen) only the wind categories ‘light, normal,

and heavy’ were defined. Furthermore, terrain roughness

factors account for higher coastal winds, while wind loads

no longer depend on countries, but rather on a wind map

where Europe is divided into wind regions (A to F) based on

measured data (Figure 2).

Figure 5a. Computer simulation model for machine trolley vs rope trolleyconfiguration.

Figure 5b. Dynamic container displacement due to wind load for both configurations.

Figure 6. Trailer stability depending on gust wind velocity and trailer speed while turning.

Figure 7. Straddle carrier stability.




CONTAINERHANDLING

Effects of windPort proceduresIn general, international standards and port or terminal authorities

both assume that ports are operational up to 6-8 Beaufort. At

terminals in the port of Rotterdam, operations are suspended at

Beaufort 8 or when gust wind speed exceeds 25 m/s. From figure

3, it can be deduced that a gust wind speed of 25 m/s signifies

a mean wind speed of 25/1.5= 17 m/s, which means that port

operations in practice stop at the end of Beaufort 7.

Vessel mooring

For ship-shore loading and unloading, the movements of thevessel due to wind load need to be limited. We researched the

dynamic response of a moored Ultra Large Container Vessel

(ULCV) which carries 12.500 TEU on a typical wind spectrum

at Beaufort scales 6 and 7. We found out that the maximum

movements of the cell guides are acceptable for positioning

containers in the cell guides, but the maximum calculated force

of 150 kN in the mooring lines requires special lines and wharf

bollards. For wind at Beaufort 8 or higher, storm bollards for these

vessel types are highly recommended.

Crane operationBeside vessel movement, wind also causes problems with

crane operations. Wind causes undesirable movements (mainly

sway and skew) of the container in the crane (Figure 4a andb). The crane driver can correct disturbances in sway, but an

effective way to control skew does not yet exist. Heavy sway is

generated by head on winds, but the crane driver can correct

these movements. Skew is mainly generated by diagonal winds.

If diagonal winds can be avoided, production loss due to

uncontrollable skew can be reduced.

The vulnerability of the container in the crane to both skew

and sway depend on the type of trolley. Because a (semi) rope

trolley has a V-shape cable configuration the stiffness of the

configuration in sway direction is higher than with machine

trolley with vertical inner ropes. A computer simulation of the

movements of the container exposed to wind for both trolley

types show a 40% decrease in sway for the (semi) rope trolley(Figure 5a and b).

Terminal equipmentBecause of the relative high frame height (1.1 m) and the

unlashed container load, the MTS-trailer is used to calculate the

maximum wind for safe (container) transport on the terminal.

Side wind reduces total trailer stability and can cause tilt of the

(empty) container. The container/trailer combination stability

while turning is sufficient during low gust winds, but at high

speed and with gust winds above 22 m/s, an empty container can

tilt from the trailer frame. It is therefore recommended to drive at

lower speeds during high winds (Figure 6).

Another vulnerable container transportation vehicle to wind is

the straddle carrier. Because of the high position of the container

during transport, these vehicles have limited maximum speed. The

stability of a straddle carrier loaded with a 45 ft empty container,as well as a straddle carrier with a maximum loaded (30 tonnes)

45ft container, decreases during higher gust winds. As with MTS-

trailers it is recommended to lower driving speed during high

gust winds (Figure 7).

Empty container stackingFor storage, empty containers at the terminal area are stacked up

to 10 high. The risk of a single container sliding, or the tilting

of a whole row of containers, is calculated with wind pressure

according to the Dutch TGB standard (Nen 6720). Depending on

the stacking height, the risk of the total row tilting increases. In

respect to a container sliding, a friction coefficient of 0.1 is taken

(the lowest steel-steel contact friction). The sliding and tilting risk

is calculated for several different container types, but for safetyreasons, the wind speed at which the first container type starts

to slide or tilt is plotted. The calculations clearly show that tilting

and sliding can occur at low wind speeds near or around 10 m/s

(Figure 8). Lashing down stacked empty containers and reshuffling

empty containers in normal stack to lower positions is therefore

necessary at Beaufort 5 or even at lower wind regimes!

Reduction of wind influence

Reduction of windThe wind regime on a wind sensible terminal location can be

lowered by raising the ‘climatological’ roughness. The terminal

should be planned in the shadow of other industrial installations

or buildings, and quay and cranes should be properly orientedto reduce the influence of the dominant wind direction. As an

alternative, one can also use a lashed empty container stack as a

roughness increasing obstacle.

Figure 8. Risk of empty container sliding or tilting.



CONTAINERHANDLING

Wouter van den Bos graduated in 1998 from

Delft University in Mechanical Engineering (MSc).

He is employed at the section Transport Technology

and Logistic at the same university. He has carried

out various research programmes with a focus on

transport, cranes and load influences on mechanical

designs.

The field of ‘Transport Engineering and Logistics’ at

Delft University encompasses the controlled handling

and transportation of unit loads and bulk materials.

The research and teaching involve the use of basic

principles and applied engineering to design industrial

systems and equipment for the handling and transport

of unit loads and bulk materials. In addition to the

equipment itself, aspects such as energy consumption,

the exchange of information and automation are given

due consideration. The functions to be fulfilled by the

equipment are defined on the basis of an inventory of

requirements. The research activities are carried out

in close cooperation with the Netherlands Research

School for Transport, Infrastructure and Logistics,

(TRAIL), and with industrial partners, especially those

located in the Rotterdam area of the Netherlands.

Wouter van den Bos

Faculty of Mechanical, Maritime and Materials

Engineering

Section Transport Technology and Logistics

Mekelweg 2

2628 CD Delft

The Netherlands

E-mail: [email protected]

ABOUT THE AUTHOR AND THE COMPANY ENQUIRIES

Figure 9. Carrier Crane concept, TU Delft.

Wind on vesselsTo avoid the breakage of mooring lines or wharf bollards at Beaufort

8 or higher, severe storms bollards must be installed on the wharf.

Container ship-to-shore cranesThe effect of severe wind on ship-to-shore operations can be

limited by using a rope trolley instead of a machine trolley. Another

way of reducing wind influence on the load and unloading process

is to change the crane cycle under stormy conditions. With

‘rectangular hoisting,’ combined horizontal and vertical movementsare avoided, which reduce sway and skew significantly, but the

loading and unloading process becomes slower. Another possibility

is a new crane concept, the Carrier Crane, where a container is

hoisted from the ship by a trolley, transported over the main crane

beam with a carrier and again, on land, unloaded with a trolley. This

division of the crane cycle significantly increases crane performance

because the cycle time of each process is a lot shorter than that of

an original total load or unload cycle (Figure 9).

Terminal equipmentIf terminal operations have to continue at Beaufort 8, terminal

movements have to be performed by equipment other than

straddle carriers. In order to use MTS-trailers or similar

transportation equipment at stormy conditions, containers needto be fixed on the frame.

ConclusionWind causes production loss, and heavy winds even cause

downtime at the terminal. Port expansions move in the direction

of the sea, and in this perspective, more wind and additional

wind problems for terminals can be expected. Therefore, wind

influences should receive proper attention as a design aspect for

new terminals and port expansion programmes.

Wind speed can be reduced by using obstacles which increase

the climatological roughness of the area. If no installation or

natural barrier is available, an empty container stack can be used

as an obstacle.

The effects of wind can also be reduced by proper orientation

of the quay to the dominant wind direction, and use of a rope

trolley combined with the ‘rectangular hoisting’ procedure

for ship-to-shore movements. Use of new crane types, such as

the Carrier Crane, can improve production as well as reduce

vulnerability to wind.

Empty containers are sensitive to wind, and lashing of container

stacks and reshuffling of empty containers in normal stacks is

necessary even at Beaufort 5. During stormy conditions, it is

advised to lock containers to the transporting vehicle frame and

to avoid the use of straddle carriers.

Response to Vizhinjam Seminar 110713

Documents

Transcript of Response to Vizhinjam Seminar 110713