0
Research Papers: Piper and Riser Technology

Continuous Line Bucket Lifting Versus Pipe Lifting

[+] Author and Article Information
Wenbin Ma

Department of Maritime and
Transport Technology,
Delft University of Technology,
Mekelweg 2,
Delft 2628 CD, The Netherlands
e-mail: W.Ma@tudelft.nl

Dingena Schott

Department of Maritime and
Transport Technology,
Delft University of Technology,
Mekelweg 2,
Delft 2628 CD, The Netherlands
e-mail: D.L.Schott@tudelft.nl

Gabriël Lodewijks

Professor
Department of Maritime and
Transport Technology,
Delft University of Technology,
Mekelweg 2,
Delft 2628 CD, The Netherlands
e-mail: G.Lodewijks@tudelft.nl

Contributed by the Ocean, Offshore, and Arctic Engineering Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF OFFSHORE MECHANICS AND ARCTIC ENGINEERING. Manuscript received November 9, 2016; final manuscript received March 13, 2017; published online May 25, 2017. Assoc. Editor: Xi-Ying Zhang.

J. Offshore Mech. Arct. Eng 139(5), 051704 (May 25, 2017) (9 pages) Paper No: OMAE-16-1139; doi: 10.1115/1.4036375 History: Received November 09, 2016; Revised March 13, 2017

In the literature, the continuous line bucket (CLB) lifting system and the pipe lifting system (PLS), as two typical mineral lifting methods in deep sea mining (DSM) systems, have been discussed since the 1960s. The purpose of this paper is to determine an appropriate lifting method for deep sea mining systems at different working conditions. The determination is based on the comparison of the analysis results of the two typical lifting methods considering the technology performance and the profitability. The analysis is based on a numerical calculation performed in a matlab environment. This paper shows the comparison of the results of the CLB system and PLS in terms of the lifting efficiency, the energy consumption, and the profitability. The research reported in this paper can be utilized to select a proper lifting method for a DSM project depending on its specific criteria analysis.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2017 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

A new innovated CLB system

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

The schematic diagram of the deep sea mining PLS system

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

The energy consumption per tonnage mineral versus the mining depth of the CLB system

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

The energy consumption per tonnage mineral versus the mining depth of PLS systems

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Energy consumption per tonnage mineral versus the mining depth and the solid mineral production rate. Note that (a)–(f) represent the solid mineral production rate at 50 ton/h, 200 ton/h, 300 ton/h, 400 ton/h, 600 ton/h, and 800 ton/h, respectively.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

The benefit per tonnage mineral versus the mining depth of the CLB and the PLS systems. Note that (a)–(f) represent the solid mineral production rate to be 50 ton/h, 200 ton/h, 300 ton/h, 400 ton/h, 600 ton/h, and 800 ton/h, respectively.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

The benefit per tonnage mineral versus the mining depth and the solid mineral production rate. Note that (a)–(f) represent the solid mineral production rate at 50 ton/h, 200 ton/h, 300 ton/h, 400 ton/h, 600 ton/h, and 800 ton/h, respectively. The shapes of o, □, ∇, and ☆ represent the winch force to be 860 kN, 700 kN, 500 kN, and 300 kN, respectively.

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In