See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/278783053

TECHNICAL INPUTS TO DREDGING COST ESTIMATES

Conference Paper · June 2011

CITATIONS READS
0 1,277

1 author:

Robert C. Ramsdell
Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Company
36 PUBLICATIONS   116 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

The Delft Head Loss & Limit Deposit Velocity Framework View project

Dredging View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Robert C. Ramsdell on 20 June 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Table of Contents

Proceedings, WEDA XXXI Technical Conference & TAMU 42 Dredging Seminar

TECHNICAL INPUTS TO DREDGING COST ESTIMATES

R. Ramsdell1

ABSTRACT

Tendering a price for a dredging project involves producing an estimate that answers three questions; how much
work is there, how much time will it take, and how much will it cost? At Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Company
(GLD&D), the question about time is answered by a Production Engineer, who develops a technical estimate that
takes into account the geotechnical information, layout of the dredging location, layout of the disposal area, and the
capabilities of the chosen dredge. The engineer does this by estimating the productivity of the dredge in the
expected conditions of the project, and comparing it to the performance of the dredge on the same or similar projects
in previous years. In addition the engineer looks at other factors that might affect the execution of the project, such
as weather, access restrictions or environmental conditions. This paper discusses the factors that GLD&D takes into
account when preparing such estimates, presents some common pitfalls, and presents a case study of an estimate for
a project that GLD&D bid, was awarded and performed successfully.
Keywords: Production, pump, layout, limit theory, dredge cycle, tender
INTRODUCTION
When tendering a project, any dredging contractor must first prepare an estimate of the cost of the project. While
different contractors approach estimating from different perspectives, all must produce some sort of estimate in
order to determine if they wish to tender the project and at what price. In order to produce an estimate, they must
understand the scope of the project, the cost of operating the equipment, and how productive the equipment will be
on the project. These three tasks in estimating can be characterized in terms of three questions to be answered:
1. How much work is there to do?
2. How much time will it take to do?
3. How much will it cost?
At GLD&D, each of these questions is answered by a different member of the estimating team. In addition, a larger
group provides advice, insight or oversees the process. In all, a team of 10 or more people may be involved in the
estimating process in one way or another, but the engineers answering these three questions are the most closely
involved in the process.
Production Engineers at GLD&D have the job of answering the question of how much time it will take, by
estimating the productivity of dredging equipment on the project. They do this using both technical models of
dredge production and empirical evidence from similar projects.
THE ESTIMATING TEAM
As mentioned in the introduction, the estimating team consists primarily of a Cost Estimator, a CAD Engineer, and a
Production Engineer. A larger team of experts and managers assists with training, advice and supervision.
Cost Estimator
The Cost Estimator is responsible for estimating how much the project will cost. Dredging itself is usually paid for
on a volume basis, but all dredging projects have some additional components of cost. These can include mobilizing
and demobilizing the dredge, environmental monitoring, ancillary construction activities (such as dike construction,
walkways or planting on the beach, etc.), or even works to enable the dredging process, such as fabrication of
specialized equipment. The Cost Estimator will determine the prices of such ancillary activities, using prices from
similar projects, quotes from subcontractors or from specialists within GLD&D. In addition this engineer will
determine a daily or weekly cost of the dredge. This cost, multiplied by the time that the Production Engineer
estimates, will be the estimated cost of the project.

1
Production Engineering Manager, Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Company, 2122 York Road, Oakbrook, IL, USA,
60523 T: 630-574-3000, F: 630-574-2909, Email: [email protected].

78
 Table of Contents

Proceedings, WEDA XXXI Technical Conference & TAMU 42 Dredging Seminar

CAD Engineer
At GLD&D a CAD Engineer does a takeoff to determine the scope of the project. The first part of this takeoff is a
volume calculation of the dredge area and fill area based on survey information provided by the owner. Then the
engineer will determine the size of the area to be dredged, and the distance to transport the spoil. This engineer is
also responsible for preparing plan view drawings, cross-sections (Figure 1) and profiles of the dredge area,
including specialized drawings such as rock contour maps (Figure 2). These drawings can be crucial in helping the
rest of the team understand any details of the project that the overall numbers hide.

Figure 1. An example of two cross-sections with similar areas and volumes, but very different layouts, which
will require different digging methods.

Figure 2. A rock-contour map helps the engineering team visualize where the most difficult work might be.
The Geotechnical Specialist will help the CAD Engineer lay out this drawing for the benefit of the estimating
team.
Other Team Members
The three primary team members have a large cast of others to call upon for advice and assistance. These include
more senior members of their respective departments or specialists such as geotechnical engineers and cost
accountants.
In addition the estimators have access to current or former field personnel who provide guidance to the intricacies
and pitfalls of a dredging project. Lastly, the estimate will be reviewed by the senior personnel who make the
pricing decisions.

79
 Table of Contents

Proceedings, WEDA XXXI Technical Conference & TAMU 42 Dredging Seminar

THE ROLE OF THE PRODUCTION ENGINEER

The Production Engineer has the primary duty of determining how long the project will take. She does this by
estimating the productivity of the dredge and applying that to the quantities determined by the CAD Engineer. The
Production Engineer estimates dredge production using three methods:
 A theoretical method that uses production models to compare the capability of the dredge to the conditions
of the project
 A method based on historical performance on similar projects in the past
 A method that combines the two by calibrating production models on past projects, then extends the model
to the current project, based on it’s unique parameters
Project Characteristics and Site Conditions
In preparing to look at a project the Production Engineer will gather information of a number of key characteristics
of the project.

Figure 3. A ladder-depth layout to determine CSD ladder angles and clearances.

80
 Table of Contents

Proceedings, WEDA XXXI Technical Conference & TAMU 42 Dredging Seminar

These include:
 The layout of the dredging area – depth and width of cut as well as thickness (face) to be dredged
 The disposal location, upland or offshore, and transport distances and any processing that is required
 Any access restrictions due to shallow existing depths, that may restrict the equipment that may be used or
require flotation digging
 Deep required depths that may affect the productivity or suitability of the dredge (Figure 3)
 Soil parameters of the material to be dredged:
o Soil type: sand/clay/rock or other
o Density, stiffness or hardness of the material, how difficult will it be to cut
o Grain size and pumpability, how will it behave in a slurry
 Expected weather conditions (including tide ranges) that may affect working time or impact production
 Environmental restrictions such as specialized equipment or monitoring that may impact production or
working hours
Information Quality
In preparing the estimate, the Production Engineer must be on the lookout for inaccurate or contradictory material
that may increase the risk of the project. A good example of this was on a project that GLD&D performed in 1997
(see Figures 4 and 5). In this project, the owner provided borings that showed mostly sand to be dredged, with a
layer of rock occurring just below the required depth. The estimate, based on this information was for a production
of 1440 m3/WH (mostly pump limited) and 5 teeth/day. The lowest production and greatest tooth usage was
expected in the deepest portion of the project where the dredge would need to cut some rock to leave grade.

Figure 4. Borings provided by the owner pre-tender showing a rock layer below the required dredging
depths.
Once the project started, the dredge encountered much more rock than was expected and GLD&D initiated a boring
campaign to better understand the project. In the original campaign the owner’s representatives had performed
Standard Penetration Tests (SPTs) in all borings regardless of the material type. SPTs involve driving a 50 mm
O.D. (2 inch), 35mm I.D. (1 3/8 inch) split spoon sampler into the ground with a 63.5 kg (140 lb) weight dropped
760 mm (30 inch). The number of blows of the hammer required to drive the sampler 0.3 meter (1 foot) is called the

81
 Table of Contents

Proceedings, WEDA XXXI Technical Conference & TAMU 42 Dredging Seminar

‘blow count’, and is a common method of determining the relative density of soil. However SPTs can give
erroneous results in certain types of weak to moderately strong conglomerate rock underlain by softer sediments.
In this case the split spoon broke through and fractured the rock layers, sometimes giving blow counts lower than in
the surrounding sand layers, and retrieving broken rock samples as gravel and sand. GLD&D’s more careful
investigation included drilled cores when rock was suspected, revealing the much more extensive rock layers shown
in Figure 5. In the end the dredge achieved an average of 605 m3/WH and used 105 teeth/day, resulting in much
higher costs.

Figure 5. Borings taken by GLD&D showed much more extensive rock layers throughout the dredge area.

Theoretical Estimates – Cutter Suction Dredge

The theoretical estimates the Production Engineer produces are based on a cycle analysis of the dredging process,
with the digging portion of the cycle determined using limit theory. A typical simple cycle for a Cutter Suction
Dredge (CSD) working on wires is shown in Figure 6 below. The cycle consists of the dredge swinging from point
A to point B, stopping and stepping ahead from B to C, swinging back to A´, stepping ahead and starting the cycle
again. More complicated patterns and cycles are possible, but the basic outlines are the same.

82
 Table of Contents

Proceedings, WEDA XXXI Technical Conference & TAMU 42 Dredging Seminar

Figure 6. Typical dredge cycle.

The production for the dredge is calculated as follows:

Qcycle
Pdig  (1)
t step  t misc  t swing

Where:
Pdig is the overall production
Qcycle is the quantity removed in the course of a cycle and is equal to:

Qcycle  f dig  s  w (2)

fdig is the face, or thickness of material removed

s is the step length
w is the width of cut
tstep is the time the dredge takes to step ahead
tmisc is any miscellaneous time in the cycle, used to account for acceleration/deceleration or operator inefficiency
tswing is the time the dredge spends swinging
The first two elements of the cycle time, tstep and tmisc are generally empirical estimates, based on observations of the
dredge in question. These can account for up to 30% of the cycle time.
Limit Theory
The last element of the cycle, tswing, is the subject of limit theory. Limit theory is the observation that at any given
moment there is some limitation to the instantaneous production (as opposed to the overall production Pdig) of the
dredge. At GLD&D we distinguish a number of different limits at which a dredge can operate:
 Pump Limit – The maximum pumping capacity of the dredge
 Cutter Limit – The maximum cutting capacity of the dredge

83
 Table of Contents

Proceedings, WEDA XXXI Technical Conference & TAMU 42 Dredging Seminar

 Swing Limit – The maximum swing speed at which the dredge still removes material
Bray (1997) provides more detail and some general estimation methods of production limits and cycle calculations
for Cutter Suction Dredgers. van der Schrieck (2010) provides more detail, and approaches production estimating
slightly differently.
Pump Limit
The pump limit of the dredge is a function of the pipeline length and diameter, the suction and discharge elevations,
the material to be pumped, and of course the power of the pump(s) in line. On short pipelines this limit has a
maximum defined by the suction performance (NPSH) of the pump, or by the power of the pumping installation. As
the line gets ever longer, the pump limit approaches 0 asymptotically. However, at some low production the process
becomes difficult to control and it becomes economically beneficial to add a booster pump.
Cutter Limit
The cutter limit is the maximum quantity of material the dredge can disturb given the power of the dredging
installation and strength of material. This is complicated by the fact that a CSD generally ‘spills’ some of the
material cut, so the cutting production must be applied to a larger quantity than the removed or ‘dig’ quantity.
Swing Limit
The swing limit is generally encountered in low face, when the dredge is able to swing as fast as the swing winches
allow, thus maximizing coverage (area covered per unit time), without hitting another production limit.
Swing Time
The swing time in equation 1 is calculated as follows:
w
t swing  (3)
v swing
Where:
vswing is the swing speed of the dredge, calculated as:

Pinst
v swing  (4)
Q
Where:
Pinst is the pump or cutter limited production
Q is the quantity either removed (in the pump limited case) or cut (in the cutter limited case)
In general we take the lowest of the swing speeds calculated from the pump and cutter, or the maximum swing speed
of the winch installation.
CASE STUDY – A SOUTH CAROLINA BEACH PROJECT
In December 2006, GLD&D won a tender for a beach project in South Carolina. GLD&D executed the project the
following summer. The layout of the project is shown in Figure 7, showing the borrow area, fill, and pipeline
routes.

84
 Table of Contents

Proceedings, WEDA XXXI Technical Conference & TAMU 42 Dredging Seminar

Figure 7. South Carolina beach project layout.

The project layout shown in Figure 7 reveals some details about the project. The borrow site is offshore in 6.1 – 9.1
m (20 – 30 ft) of water, with no protection against weather, incurring a risk of downtime. The pipeline length will
be between 6,400 and 7,900 m (21,000 and 26,000 ft), with the bulk of the pipeline, 5,940 m (19,500 ft), as
submerged pipe. The beach to be filled is 3,320 m (10,900 ft) long, with GLD&D’s planned landing in the middle
to minimize shore pipe. The borrow area is broken into 4 sections, with over 760,000 m3 (1M CY) of material
available. The required quantity on the beach was 371,000 m3 (485,000 CY) (versus an advertised quantity of
382,000 m3 (500,000 CY)).
The project was estimated for the Dredge Alaska:
 67.1x17.1x3.8 m (220x56x12.5 ft) Hull, 2.6 m (8.5 ft) draft
 8,430 KW (11,300 HP) installed power
 1040 KW (1400 HP) cutter power
 5370 KW (7200 HP) main pump
 1120 KW (1500 HP) underwater pump
 Digging on wires, to reduce the risk of breaking a spud in high seas
Ultimately the project was performed by the Dredge Illinois, a sister ship to the Alaska with essentially the same
specifications.

85
 Table of Contents

Proceedings, WEDA XXXI Technical Conference & TAMU 42 Dredging Seminar

Material Information
Plenty of material information was provided by the owner. A total of 60 vibracores were taken in and around the
area to be dredged. Vibracores involve vibrating a hollow tube into the seabed to obtain a sample. They provide
little information about the strength or density of the material, but are a relatively quick and cheap way to sample the
sea bottom. The material descriptions in the vibracore logs indicated three types of material present:
 “Coarse, poorly graded sand” - According to ASTM this would be 2.0 – 4.75mm sand which is very
difficult to pump.
 “Fine silty sand” – According to ASTM and the USCS, 0.75 – 0.435 mm sand with >12% fines, which
would be relatively easy to pump
 “Elastic Silt” – Which would be easy to pump but unsuitable for fill
The main concern at the bid stage was the “coarse sand”, due to the potential pumping problems on the long pipeline
length. However, the actual grain size distribution tests provided with the borings indicated that the majority of the
material fell into the second two categories. In particular, the grain size tests performed on material from the
“coarse” layer indicated fine or fine-medium material. This is a common error in the visual classification of sand,
where the field estimation of sand size distribution is coarser than later tests indicate. The overall median grain size
D50 (size at which 50% of the material by weight is finer) was 0.24 mm, comfortably in the fine sand range.
Pumping Capacity
Figure 8 illustrates the pumping capacity of the Dredge Illinois, and the risk attendant in the coarse material. If a
significant fraction of the sand fell in the medium-coarse range the dredge would have difficulty pumping the
material at economically sustainable rates. However, the material analysis described above indicated that we could
expect the higher pumping capacity to hold.

86
 Table of Contents

Proceedings, WEDA XXXI Technical Conference & TAMU 42 Dredging Seminar

2500

Dredge Illinois in Fine Sand

2000
Dig Production (CM/HR)

1500

1000

Dredge Illinois in Medium-Coarse

500

0
80

85

90

95
60

65

70

75

10
00

00

0
00

00

00

00

00

00

00
Line Length (m)

Figure 8. Dredge Illinois pump capacity

87
 Table of Contents

Proceedings, WEDA XXXI Technical Conference & TAMU 42 Dredging Seminar

Dig Production
Face in the borrow area varied from 0.91 m to 3.0 m (3 ft to 10 ft), as indicated in Figure 7, where the contour colors
in the borrow site indicate available face, with red indicating > 3.0 m (10 ft) and black indicating <=0.91 m (3 ft).
The bulk of the material was in areas between 0.91m and 1.8 m (3ft and 6 ft) of face. Figure 9 shows the sensitivity
of the Dredge Illinois production to the available bank height. Given the available cutter power, we expected the
dredge to be able to cut the material with no problems. Depending on the line length, the dredge would likely be
swing limited in low face (indicated by the upward sloping production curve), and pump limited in high face
(indicated by the flattening of the pump curve). The notch in the curve is due to an assumption that the dredge
would only be able to take 2.4 m (8 ft) of face before taking a second swing between steps.

2500

2000
Dredge Illinois on Short Line
Dig Production (CM/HR)

1500

1000
Dredge Illinois on Long Line

500

0
0 1 2 3 4
Face (m)

Figure 9. Dredge Illinois dig production.

88
 Table of Contents

Proceedings, WEDA XXXI Technical Conference & TAMU 42 Dredging Seminar

References
As indicated on the layout in Figure 7, we had information on an adjacent project performed by a competitor in
2005, plus we gathered references from projects performed by GLD&D in similar materials using similar
equipment. Figure 10 shows a summary of these references. The competitor project was performed on slightly
shorter lines than expected for this project, but dredged in higher face. The relevant GLD&D references, by
contrast, are for work on longer lines and higher face. The competitor references validate our decision to discount
the possibility of medium or coarse sand in our estimate. The GLD&D references give us confidence that the
dredge could make our estimate given the capability of our equipment.

2500

GLD&D References
2000
Dig Production (CM/HR)

Competitor Reference
(Shorter Lines)
1500

Dredge Illinois Est

1000

500

0
0 1 2 3 4
Face (m)

Figure 10. Dredge Illinois estimated production vs. references.

Outcome
Table 1 summarizes the outcome of the project, while Figure 11 illustrates the outcome versus the estimated
production curves. The actual performance of the dredge on the project largely fell within the estimated envelope of
productions.

89
 Table of Contents

Proceedings, WEDA XXXI Technical Conference & TAMU 42 Dredging Seminar

Table 1. Project outcome.

Estimated Actual

• 371,000 m3 (485,000 CY) • 372,000 m3 (486,000 CY)

• 6,400 – 7,900 m (21,000 – 26,000 ft) Pipe • 6100 – 9100 m (20,000 – 30,000 ft) Pipe
• 0.94 – 1.4 m (3.1 – 4.5 ft) Face average • 1.3 m (4.4 ft) Face average
• 920 – 1300 m3/WH • 1200 CM/WH (1600 CY/WH) average
(1200 – 1700 CY/WH) average • 2 weeks weather delays

2500

2000
Dredge Illinois Est
Dig Production (CM/HR)

GLD&D Performance
1500

1000

500

0
0

Face (m)

Figure 10: Dredge Illinois Actual vs. Estimated Productions

CONCLUSION
This project was in part successful due to the initial layout by our estimating team in the bidding stage. In particular,
the combination of theoretical and empirical (experience-based) production estimates allows GLD&D to approach
bidding and operations with confidence. Although this obviously does not ensure success, without this or a similar
process the contractor is taking much greater risk when they tender a project.

90
 Table of Contents

Proceedings, WEDA XXXI Technical Conference & TAMU 42 Dredging Seminar

REFERENCES
Bray, R.N., Bates, A.D., Land, J.M. (1997). Dredging; A Handbook for Engineers 2nd Ed., New York: John Wiley
& Sons, Inc.
van der Schrieck, G.L.M. (2010). Dredging Technology; Guest Lecture Notes, Self Published.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (2001). EM 1110-1-1804 Geotechnical Investigations, U. S. Army Corps of
Engineers.
CITATION
Ramsdell, R. “Technical Inputs to Dredging Cost Estimates,” Proceedings of the Western Dredging Association
(WEDA XXXI) Technical Conference and Texas A&M University (TAMU 42) Dredging Seminar,
Nashville, Tennessee, June 5-8, 2011.

91
View publication stats