339
1 INTRODUCTION
According to the Strategic Plan for Brazilian inland
navigation[1]thereisasignificantunderutilizationof
theinlandwaterway,asonly5%ofcargoiscurrently
transportedbythismode.However,thereisevidence
of a potential for growth from 27 to 120 MTPY
(Million Tons Per
Year) from 2016 to 2031. With a
river network of 42,000 km of potentially navigable
waterways,only about 20,000kmarecurrentlyused
for navigation, exposing the weak national
developmentinthiskindoftransport.[2]
TheParaguayRiveroriginatesintheinteriorofthe
South American continent, in the Municipality
of
Cáceres(MatoGrossoState‐MT)andhasitscourse
followingNorth‐Southdirection,uptoNuevaPalmira
(Uruguay). The Brazilian stretch is approximately
1.270kmlong,betweenCáceres(MT)andthemouth
ofApaRiver,beingsubdividedintoNorthSection–
in light blue – and South Section –
dark blue – as
shown in Figure 2. The waterway provides a direct
linkbetweentheBrazilian MidwestandtheAtlantic
Ocean.Agriculture,mainlyfocusedonsoybeansand
livestock, is also a significant activity that uses the
main ports in Cáceres (MT) and Porto Murtinho
(Mato Grosso do Sul State‐MS).
Among the
challenges presented in navigating this section, the
main difficulty is the depth in some of its critical
stretches.
The North Section is generally a region of low
navigationalpotential.TheareasouthofCácereshas
lowdepthsduringthedryseasonbutthenavigational
conditionsimproveasthe
ParaguayRiverapproaches
the city of Corumbá (MS),where it widens, andthe
numberofsandshoals decreases.Navigationonthis
section is currently not very expressive, consisting
mainly of tourist vessels. The minimum depth
establishedis1.80mandthedesignconvoyismade
upof6barges,inthe
2x3configuration.
Conceptual Nautical Dimensions for Paraguay River
Waterway Amelioration Works in Critical Stretches
(Brazil)
J
.P.AlvesSanchez&P.Alfredini
PolytechnicSchoolofSãoPauloUniversity,SãoPaulo,Brazil
ABSTRACT:TheParaguayRiverWaterwayisacrucialaxisforintegrationinSouthAmerica,withacourseof
3.442kmfromCáceres(Brazil)toNuevaPalmira(Uruguay).Toprovidethenavigation,improvethesafety,the
reliabilityandefficiencyofthewaterwaytransport,
foraminimumperiodcorrespondingto90%oftheyear,
interventions with amelioration works are necessary. Among them, dredging in critical stretches stand out,
which currently present some form of obstacle to navigation, either by natural factors (widths, radius of
curvatureanddepths)orbystructures,suchasbridges,and
sandshoals.Thispaperproposesareassessmentof
thecurrentnauticaldimensionsbasedonnewguidelines,assessingcriticalsectionsfordepth,width,andradius
of curvature. The aim is to increase safety and study the feasibility of expanding the waterway by
accommodatinglargerconvoys.
http://www.transnav.eu
the International Journal
on Marine Navigation
and Safety of Sea Transportation
Volume 18
Number 2
June 2024
DOI:10.12716/1001.18.02.10
340
Figure1.SouthAmericacontinentwithParaguayWaterway
areahighlighted.
Figure2.ParaguayWaterway‐Brazilianstretch.[3]
The South Section is about 590 km long and has
some artificial obstacles, including Eurico Gaspar
Dutra railway bridge. Currently, this route carries
mostcargotransportedbythewaterway.Theannual
throughputin2022wasof4.2MTPY,subdividedin:
3,9 MTPY of iron ore, 0.3 MTPY in soybean, 0.02
MTPY
ofsugarand0.01MTPYofironandsteel.The
minimum depth adopted is 3.0 m, with standard
convoysofupto16barges,inthe4x4configuration.
The objective of this paper, which focuses on
shallowdraftnavigation(typicallylessthan5.0min
depth) in unchanneled rivers, is
to carry out a
conceptual evaluation of the nautical dimensions of
ParaguayRiverWaterwayinBrazilianterritory,using
PIANCguidelines[4].Thecriticaldimensions,suchas
depth, width, radius of curvature, and bridge
openings, are identified with regards to the design
vessels.
From117criticalstretches[5,6](shallowareasand
tight
curves) identified – counting North and South
Sections – the 47 critical stretches of South Section
were assessed, considering the dimensions of
suggested design convoy with safe navigation. In
addition, to assessthe necessary amelioration works
toguaranteenavigationwiththerecentclassification
according to PIANC guidelines [4], the works
must
aim to ensure the navigation of convoys for a
minimum period corresponding to 90% of the year,
consistingessentiallyofdredging.
Currently, it is important in Brazil to apply the
stateofartaboutguidelinesfortheinlandwaterways’
dimensions design,as recently published by PIANC
[4] and, in this
sense, adopt updated knowledge in
tune with the modernization in the vessel fleet,
especiallywiththegrowingnumberoflonger,wider
andwithlargedraftvessels.
Accordingto[7],fromabroadpointofview,the
use of inland waterway systems in the region is
hinderedbyseveralfactors,including:
Incomplete, outdated, or missing national and
regionalregulatorystandards;
Lack of a common basis for the classification of
waterways in South America for the navigation
protocolsstandardizationatnationalandregional
levels;
Lack of standardization, vessel and control
procedures;
Lack of investment in construction and
maintenanceof
waterwayinfrastructureandriver
ports;
Weak administrative structures and delays in
building institutional capacity, especially with
regardtohumanandfinancialresources;
Absence of navigation aids, including up‐to‐date
maps, electronic charts, signals and other
navigationservices;
Inadequacyofqualifiedpersonnelandinstitutions
for training and
training highly qualified
professionals.
ThehinterlandoftheParaguayRiverWaterwayis
in full expansion within the agro‐industrial and
mining market. Maize export is estimated to grow
from 15.89 MTPY to 41.50 MTPY from 2015 to 2030
andsoybeansareprojectedtogrowfrom12.42MTPY
to28.75MTPYfor
thesameperiod.[3]
With the increased demand for handling these
loads, it would even be feasible to study the use of
self‐propelled vessels [8]. The use of these vessels
would increase the logistical efficiency of supply
chainsandcouldreplaceothertransportused,suchas
roadand rail.
However,the replacement ofthe fleet
341
bylargervesselsrequiresareassessmentofsectionsto
ensuretheirgoodnavigability.
Based on a possible evolution of the fleet, the
development of inland waterway will enable new
businesses,suchasthetransportofBolivianliquefied
gas,whichwouldallowdeliveringthisproducttoend
consumers where geographic,
demographic, or
environmental specificities do not allow the use of
traditionalmeans.[9]
2 CRITICALPOINTSDESCRIPTION
To carry out the assessment of critical stretches, a
database composed mainly of fluvial charts from
Brazilian Navy was used, which allowed the
characterizationof47SouthSectioncriticalstretches.
After selecting fluvial charts
corresponding to the
critical stretches, the geometric data were read,
followed by the conceptual model elaboration with
the bathymetric information incorporated in the
drawings. The models created are digital terrain
surfacesthatcontaintheisobathsandmorphologyof
chosensections.Itshouldbenotedthatthesemodels
createdhavea
certaindegreeofimprecision,asthey
are not intended for design purposes, but for
qualitativeandconceptualanalysisoftheterrain.
Figure 3 shows an example of the bathymetric
information contained in the nautical chart and the
digitalterrainmodelbuiltintheCivil3Dsoftwarefor
M’Biguastretch.
Figure3. Nautical chart and digital terrain model of
MʹBiguacriticalstretch.
3 CURRENTLYNAUTICALDIMENSIONS
For a waterway to be considered navigable, it is
necessarythatplanialtimetricnauticaldimensionsare
satisfied,toguaranteethe safeandfreetrafficofthe
design vessels adopted. In sections that do not
naturally fit safe dimensions, works to improve the
riverchannelarenecessary,whichare
oftendredging
toadaptthegeometricdesign.
TheBrazilianWaterwaysClassificationiscurrently
based on DNIT‐National Department of Transport
Infrastructure‐guidelines [10]. The classification for
Brazilianwaterwaysisafunctionofbeamdimensions
(B)andlength(L)ofthedesignvesselandincludesa
parameterforminimumoperationaldepth
(P)ofthe
waterway(Table1andTable2).
Table1.Waterwayclassesaccordingtothedesignvessel
beamandlength[10].
________________________________________________
Class B(m) L(m)
________________________________________________
I 48.0 280.0
II 33.0 210.0
III 25.0 210.0
IV 23.0 210.0
V 16.0 210.0
VI 16.0 120.0
VII 12.0 140.0
VIII 12.0 80.0
IX 12.0 50.0
________________________________________________
Table2.Waterwaysubclassesaccordingtothedesignvessel
draft[10].
________________________________________________
Category P(m)
________________________________________________
Special>3.50
A3.50
B3.00
C2.50
D2.00
E1.50
F1.00
________________________________________________
The width of waterway is determined through
followingequations:
Onelanetraffic:W
1=2.2B
Two‐lanetraffic:W
2=4.4B
Althoughthereisnoguidelineforcalculatingthe
channelwidthatapexofcurves,thesectionwherethe
maximumwidthoccurs,inpracticeitiscalculatedby:
2
2
cF
L
WW
R
where:
W
c is the maximum channel width in the apex of
curve;
W
Fisthechannelwidthinastraightreach;
Listhedesignvessellength;
Ristheradiusofthecurve.
Finally,otherdesigncriteriainclude:
Thecurveisdefinedwithradiusintervalbetween
4and10timesthedesignvessellength;
Thedistancebetweenconsecutivecurvesmust
be
atleast5timesthedesignvessellength;
Dredging sites require side slopes of 1:8 for
alluvialchannels;
Rockexcavationsitesrequiresideslopesof1:1.
The 4x4 and5x5 design convoys that navigate in
thesoutherntramofParaguayRiverWaterwayhave
thefollowinggeometriccharacteristics,respectively:
=48m; =60m
=290m; =360m
=2.6m; =2.6m
For Paraguay River Waterway South Section, the
minimumDNITguidelinesrecommendedfornautical
designinthecurrentlyconditionsarethedimensions
giveninTable3.
342
Table3.ParaguayRiverWaterwaySouthSection
recommendednauticaldimensions(DNITguidelines).
________________________________________________
Depth(m) Width(m) Radius(m)
________________________________________________
3.00 105.6 1,160–2,900
________________________________________________
DNIT criterion, although published in 2016, is
based on European guidelines from the 1950s and
adopted for self‐propelled vessels. This shows the
need to present most recent guidelines regarding
transportandriverdynamics,justifyingtheadoption
of most recent PIANC guidelines [4], comparing
classificationsandverifyingthepossibilityof
improve
navigationincriticalstretches.
4 PIANCGUIDELINES[4]
PIANCWorkingGroupInComWG141,motivatedby
the lack of international guidelines, sought to
establish a systematization for the minimum
dimensions of inland waterways. It includes
guidelinesforwidth, depth, draft and headroom for
boat and ferry traffic, as well
as guidelines for safe
navigation, the environment, and other practical
considerations. This paper was limited to assess the
maingeometricdesignparameters:minimumwidth,
depth,andradiusofcurvature.
PIANC guidelines [4] compared a trapezoidal
profile in canals and rivers of several countries,
including China, Netherlands, France, Germany,
Russia,andUnited
States.FromratiosW_F/Bandh/T
(depth to draft) of existing waterways and relating
themtonavigationqualityofeachchannel–whereA
is almost unrestricted navigation; B Moderately to
severely restricted navigation; C strongly restricted
navigation over short distances – it was possible to
elaborate Table 4
for the Paraguay River Waterway,
which shows the values for minimum width, depth
and radius of curvature for each adopted quality
classification.
Regarding the minimum depth of channel, a 1.3
times of draft ratio is proposed. This value ensures
good drive quality, with sufficient under keel
clearanceinshallowwaterand
canbereducedtothe
but should not be less than 1.2. In this case, the
designer must define under keel clearance, which
depends on the river bottom nature, as well as the
type and vessel equipment. The following aspects
mustbeconsidered:
The squat increases with vessel speed
relative to
the water. Thus, easy navigation at high speeds
requiressufficientunderkeelclearance;
As depth/draft ratio decreases, the vessel speed
used tends to be reduced. Therefore, a minimum
dynamic sink of 0.20 m should be considered,
which generally allows for sufficient speed in
shallowwater;
In case
of the speed reduction mentioned in
previous item, this can lead to large widths,
especially in cross current fields and to consider
wind influences, but also in curves on a
downstreamnavigation;
If the channel width cannot be increased, a
minimum extra under keel is required for safe
navigation,
increasingtheminimumfrom20cmto
40cm,incaseofsolidrockontheriverbottom,50
cm for bottom on gravel and 50 cm for fully
effectivebowthruster.
Compiling the considerations and criteria briefly
describedtheWorkingGroupproposedthreeclasses
of navigation quality, based on the
channel
dimensionsandvesseltype.InTable4arepresented
theminimumPIANCguidelines[4]recommendedfor
nautical design characteristics in the currently
conditions.
Table4.PIANCguidelines[4].
________________________________________________
Waterway Fairwaywidthforalternate Remarks
single‐lane
________________________________________________
Easyquality
CB A
________________________________________________
MinWF 3B=144 3.4B=163.2 Forsecurity
(straight 2.8B=3.2B=reasons
sections)(m) 134.4 153.6
Minh 1.2T=1.3T= ≥ 1.3T=3.64 Duetosquat
(overentire 3.12 3.38&efficiency
fairwayofbow‐
width)(m)thrusters
MinR 2L= 3L= 4L= Depending
(m) 5808701,160 onnatural
condition
________________________________________________
5 EXTRAPOLATIONFOR5X5CONVOYS
The largest convoy navigating Paraguay River
Waterway operates in the downstream section,
between Santa Fe (Argentina) and Nueva Palmira
(Uruguay). The section is fluvio‐maritime and
comprises convoys with 5x5 formation, with a load
capacity of up to 40,000 DWT [11]. The use of this
maximum transport capacity inthe Brazilian section
would lead to changes in classifications of South
Sectioncriticalstretches,intermsofwidthandradius.
6 AMELIORATIONWORKS
The last stage of this study was to verify the
amelioration works necessary quantitative and
qualitatively for critical stretches to be classified in
category
A – as much as possible for the three
variables–forcurrentnavigation(accordingto[4]).In
additiontoinferringwhatadditionalworkswouldbe
necessarytoenablecriticalstretchesfornavigationof
5x5 type convoy, which already navigates the
stretches under Paraguayan and Argentine
jurisdictionfurthersouthof
waterway.
Amelioration works services can be summarized
as dredging and demolition services, the first being
themostimportantduetotheriverbednature.
Dredging is the process of removing sediment,
sand, mud, and other materials from the bottom of
water bodies to maintain adequate depths for
navigation and ensure navigation safety.
Additionally, is performed using a variety of
techniques and technologies, including mechanical
dredges,suctiondredges,andhydraulicdredges.The
choiceofdredgingtechniquewilldependonvarious
343
factors, including location, depth, and the nature of
materialtoberemoved.
Demolition is an activity that involves removing
rocksandstonesfromthefloortodeepennavigation
channels or for other purposes. This activity is
important for ensuring the safety and efficiency of
navigation.
7 RESULTS
7.1 DNIT
xPIANCguidelines[4]forcurrentnavigation
Table 5 displays the classification of the 47 critical
stretches studied in South Section, with respect to
width,radius,anddepth,forbothcriteriaadoptedin
this study. Following the assessment, graphs were
constructed grouping the classifications for each
geometricvariableofthenavigable
channel.
Figures 4 to 8 show the percentages of the 47
selectedcriticalstretchesthatfiteachclassificationfor
the current type of convoy (4x4) and for a future
phaseofthewaterway(5x5convoy),withthepurpose
of verifying the feasibility of a possible waterway
expansion.
Figure4. Verification of the sections regarding radius
criteria.
ItappearsthataccordingtoDNITguidelines24.5%
of critical stretches do not meet the minimum
requirements for radius of curvature proposed, but
accordingtoPIANCguidelines[4],asmallernumber
of stretches does not meet the minimum bending
radiusrequirements(6.1%).
Table5.ComparisonofDNITandPIANCguidelines[4].
________________________________________________
CriticalStretchesDNITPIANC
W R D W R D
_______________________________________________
ClosetoRepublicaIsland Ok SS Ok UR SS A
PortoSastreOk UR Ok UR B A
ClosetoCanchaEstrela Ok SS Ok A SS A
BocainferiorriachoCelina Ok UR Ok A UR A
ClosetoPortoMurtinho Ok UR Ok UR C A
TarumãOk Ok
Ok A A A
FechodosMorroIslands Ok Ok Ok UR A A
CambaNupaOk SS Ok A SS A
BarrancoBrancoOk UR Ok A B A
OlimpoOk Ok UR A A UR
FuradodoNabileque Ok UR UR C UR UR
CuruçuOk SS UR
A SS UR
BragaIslandOk SS Ok A SS A
FromRabodeEmaIsland Ok Ok Ok A A A
toSpinelloIsland
PortoMirhanovichOk UR Ok UR UR A
AlegreteInferiorOk Ok Ok A A A
AlegreteSuperiorOk SS Ok A SS A
Closeto
NuGuazuFarm Ok Ok UR A A UR
PeriquitosOk Ok Ok A A A
PortoEsperanzaOk SS Ok A SS A
CururuOk Ok Ok A A A
BaíaNegraOk Ok Ok A A A
NegroRiverOk Ok Ok A A A
IsladelSauce
Ok Ok UR A A UR
SantaRosaIslandOk Ok UR A A UR
ClosetoSantaFéIsland Ok UR Ok B C A
PortoBurshOk Ok Ok C A A
MʹBiguáOk Ok UR A A UR
RebojoGrandeOk SS Ok A SS A
Paratudal
Ok Ok Ok A A A
ClosetoPrimaveraFarm Ok UR UR A C UR
PiuvasInferiorOk UR Ok A C B
PiuvasSuperiorOk SS Ok A SS A
VoltadaFerraduraOk UR Ok A C A
ClosetoMorrodoConselhoOk UR Ok A
B A
ClosetoBugioIsland Ok UR Ok A B A
ClosetoRioBrancoBr idge Ok Ok Ok A A A
ClosetoNossaSenhoradoOk Ok Ok A A A
PantanalBridgeandJacaré
CaraguatáOk SS UR B SS UR
ClosetoCambaráFerrado Ok Ok
Ok B A C
Island
AbobralOk SS Ok A SS A
ClosetoPortodaManga Ok SS Ok A SS A
ClosetoTaquariRiver Ok Ok Ok A A A
MacunãOk SS Ok A SS A
ClosetoTiraCatingaIsland Ok SS Ok A SS
A
VoltaMiguelHenrique Ok Ok Ok A A A
SantanaorJatobáOk Ok Ok C A A
_______________________________________________
W–Width
R–Radius
D–Depth
SS–Straightsection
UR–Unmetrequirement
Accordingto nautical charts,18.4% of the critical
stretches have insufficient average depth for
navigation both by DNIT guidelines and PIANC
guidelines [4](Figure 5), resulting in a loss of
operationalefficiency.
Unlike DNIT guidelines, in which the minimum
widthis105.6m,resultingin100%approvalofcritical
stretches, PIANC guidelines
[4] is more demanding
withregardto theminimumwidth of thenavigable
channel.Thus,10.20%ofcriticalstretchesdonotmeet
thecriterion(Figure6).
344
Figure5.Verificationofsectionsregardingdepthcriteria.
Figure6. Verification of sections regarding the width
criteria.
7.2 Ameliorationworksforcurrentnavigationaccording
toPIANCguidelines[4]
Aftermodellingallcriticalstretches,itwaspossibleto
create cross sections to obtain the width of each
section navigable range, setting the minimum depth
to 3.64, which is A rating, according to PIANC
guidelines[4].
The calculation of the
dredged volume was
performed with the help of the Autodesk Civil 3D
software in which 3D surfaces are constructed, one
with the elevations and morphology of the existing
channel and the other with the elevations and
geometry of the proposed channel, and subtracted
fromeachother,resultinginasurface
thatcarries–in
thecontextofthestudy–thevolumetobedredgedto
obtaintheproposedchannel.
Table 6 summarizes results obtained from the
dredging quantities for selected critical stretches,
corresponding to a total volume of 15,345,375 m³.
Considering only a sample of the critical stretches
markedby
*,thedredgingvolumesneededwouldbe
1,435,676 m3, while employing the DNIT guidelines
thefigurewould be only 330,750m3 (thislast value
obtainedfrom[11]),thatis4.34timesmorethanthe
dredgingcurrentlymade.Thisfactimpliesaconstant
attackonthebanksoftheriverin
thecurvedsections,
duetoinsufficient worksofdredgingand highlights
the need of adopting a safer design guideline
regardingthecriteriaforsizingthewaterway,likethe
recentlypublishedPIANCguidelines[4],accordingto
eachpermittedconvoytype.
7.3 Extrapolationresultsfor5x5convoysnavigation
For5x5convoysnavigation, a
surveyofthesections
was carried out according to PIANC guidelines [4]
classification for width and radius. The results are
showninFigures7and8.
Table6.Dredgingameliorationworksquantitative
summary.
________________________________________________
CriticalStretchesCut Mean Mean
Volume dredging channel
(m³) depth(m) elevation(m)
________________________________________________
ClosetoRepúblicaIsland 609,946 0.97‐5.31
PortoSastre644,710 1.25‐3.85
ClosetoCanchaEstrela 103,385 0.18‐8.57
BocainferiorRiachoCelina 318,081 0.47‐7.58
ClosetoPortoMurtinho 411,960 0.63‐6.84
Tarumã375,271 0.40‐6.62
FechodosMorrosIsland 419,646 0.59‐6.41
CambaNupa223,600 0.15‐6.14
BarrancoBranco
368,547 0.55‐8.38
*Olimpo175,023 0.39‐5.12
FuradodoNabileque 917,136 0.88‐5.06
*Curuçu48,589 0.07‐4.05
BragaIsland254,195 0.33‐6.17
FromRabodeEmaIsland 111,873 0.25‐6.46
toSpinelloIsland
PortoMirhanovich585,448 0.64‐8.56
AlegreteInferior209,587 0.30‐7.63
AlegreteSuperior265,433 0.45‐9.40
*Closeto
NuGuazuFarm147,416 0.29‐7.27
Periquitos616,308 0.56‐7.57
PortoEsperanza140,259 0.33‐8.07
Cururu120,027 0.27‐6.77
BaíaNegra194,579 0.37‐7.05
RioNegro207,707 0.48‐6.77
*IsladelSauce189,677 0.32‐5.98
*SantaRosaIsland186,664 0.27‐5.36
ClosetoSantaFéIsland 168,060 0.20‐5.43
PortoBursh
870,958 0.85‐4.59
*MʹBiguá67,839 0.22‐4.90
RebojoGrande362,183 0.87‐7.60
Paratudal422,943 0.86‐5.01
*ClosetoPrimaveraFarm284,663 0.25‐6.39
PiuvasInferior243,449 0.43‐4.89
PiuvasSuperior133,350 0.16‐7.33
VoltadaFerradura324,488 0.24‐8.53
ClosetoMorrodoConselho 329,714 0.40‐8.71
Closeto
BugioIsland 865,396 0.77‐7.53
doJacaré+RioBrancoBridge 192,500 0.22‐6.32
ClosetoNossaSenhorado 31,909 0.15‐8.11
PantanalBridge
*Caraguatá379,805 0.97‐3.95
ClosetoCambaráFerrado 704,333 1.09‐4.23
Island
Abobral49,612 0.12‐7.57
ClosetoPortodaManga 103,870 0.15‐7.79
ClosetoTaquari
river 36,469 0.19‐6.55
Macunã50,893 0.17‐5.14
ClosetoTiraCatingaIsland 36,767 0.08‐6.23
VoltaMiguelHenrique 1,092,5850.78‐7.07
SantanaorJatobá748,522 0.59‐6.95
________________________________________________
345
Figure7.Radiuscriteriacomparison.
Figure8.Widthcriteriacomparison.
Observingthegraphs,it is possibletoverifythat
therewouldbeanincreaseof4.1%instretchesthatdo
notmeet theminimumrequirements intermsofthe
minimumradius andof 12.2%in terms of width. In
addition, for both variables, there is a decrease of
12.2%insections
classifiedasA.
7.4 Dredgingvolumescomparison
The results of dredging volumes in each section to
allownavigationofthecurrentconvoy(4x4)inclass
“A” of PIANC guidelines [4] and the volume
verification to make it navigable in this same
conditionfor the5x5 convoy, canbe exemplifiedby
volumesobtainedforFuradodoNabilequepresented
Table7.
FuradodoNabilequedoesnotmeettheminimum
requirementsofDNITandPIANCguidelines[4]for
curvatureradiusanddepth,asshowninTable5and
fitsthewidthcriterionCofPIANCguidelines[4].
Table7showsthedredgingvolumesnecessary
to
classify the stretch as “A” for the 4x4 and 5x5
convoys,917,136m³inthefirstcaseand2,755,307m³
inthesecondcase,withanincreasingof1,838,170m³.
Table7.AmeliorationworksforFuradodoNabileque.
________________________________________________
Convoy MeandredgingDredgedVolume
depth(m) (m³)
________________________________________________
4x4 ‐0.88917,136
5x5 ‐2.412,755,307
________________________________________________
‐1.531,838,170 Dredgingincrease
8 CONCLUSIONS
The potential of inland navigation in the Paraguay
RiverWaterwayliesnotonlyinmakingbetteruseof
existing infrastructure, but also in expanding the
network as a large part of the waterway system in
SouthAmerica.
The waterway can have a positive impact on the
region,increasingthe
competitivenessofthecountries
involved, promoting trade and economic integration
between nations and improving logistics for
transportinggoods.Inaddition,itcangeneratedirect
andindirectjobs,leverageinfrastructuredevelopment
andboostlocaltourism.
Theimplementationofnewguidelinesconsidering
good global practices for waterways sizing and
classification is fundamental
and urgent for
conceptual design of Brazilian waterways, since
currentlyguidelinesdatebacktopracticesfromprior
tothe1960s,basedonEuropeanself‐propelledvessels
ratherthanpushtowconvoys.Fromthattime,inland
waterways research had enormous progress and
many technological resources and equipment were
adoptedinthefield
ofaidstonavigationandinnaval
designstoimproveconvoysmanoeuvring.
The choice to select Paraguay River Waterway
allowedtoevaluatethefiguresofdredging volumes
forameliorationworksofnavigationandshowedthe
enormous difference from currently practice if the
figuresrecommendedwithrecentlypublishedPIANC
guidelines [4]
would be adopted for the conceptual
design, instead of outdated insufficient DNIT
guidelines.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The authors would like to thank Rear Admiral Reinaldo
Antonio Ferreira de Lima, for his personal interest in
obtaining the bathymetric soundings of the hydrographic
surveys of the Paraguay River at the National
Oceanographic Data Bank – BNDO, of the Navy
Hydrography Center – CHM, from the Board of
Hydrography and
Navigation – DHN – of the Brazilian
Navy
REFERENCES
[1]MinistériodaInfraestrutura,„RelatórioTécnico–Plano
NacionaldeIntegraçãoHidroviáriaBaciadoParaguai”,
2013,
[2]Universidade Federal do Paraná, Instituto Tecnológico
de Transporte e Infraestrutura,ʺHidrovia do Rio
Paraguai, Estudo de Viabilidade Técnica, Econômica e
Ambiental: Relatório dos Estudos e Projetos dos
Melhoramentos Cotejados,ʺ Instituto Tecnológico de
Transportese
Infraestrutura,Curitiba,UFPR/ITTI,2015,
[3]Universidade Federal do Paraná, Instituto Tecnológico
de Transporte e Infraestrutura,ʺHidrovia do Rio
Paraguai, Estudo de Viabilidade Técnica, Econômica e
Ambiental: Matriz de Oportunidades da Hidrovia
Paraguai‐Paraná,ʺInstitutoTecnológicodeTransportese
Infraestrutura,Curitiba,UFPR/ITTI,2015,
[4]PIANC,ʺDesign Guidelines for inland waterway
dimensions,ʺ
InComWG141–2019,
[5]MarinhadoBrasil‐CentrodeHidrografiaeNavegação
doOeste,ʺNavegabilidadenoRioParaguaideCorumbá
à Foz do Rio Apa,ʺ [Online]. Available:
<marinha.mil.br/chn‐6/?q=node/33>. Accessed: Apr. 08,
2021.
346
[6]MarinhadoBrasil‐CentrodeHidrografiaeNavegação
doOeste,ʺNavegabilidadenoRioParaguaideCorumbá
à Foz do Rio Cárceres,ʺ [Online]. Available:
<marinha.mil.br/chn‐6/?q=node/32>. Accessed: Apr. 08,
2021.
[7]A. Jaimurzina and G. Wilmsmeier, “Inland navigation
and a more sustainable use of natural resources:
networks, challenges, and opportunities for
South
America”,BulletinFAL351,ECLAC,Nov.2016.
[8]J. Kulczyk and T. Tabaczek, “Logistic condition of
container transportation on the Oder Waterway”, The
International Journal on Marine Navigation and Safety
of Sea Transportation, vol. 12, no. 1, Mar. 2018, doi:
10.12716/1001.12.01.15.
[9]T, Kalina and P, Piala, “River –
sea technology in
transportofenergyproducts”,TheInternationalJournal
onMarineNavigationandSafetyofSeaTransportation,
vol,6,no,4,Dec,2012,
[10]PIANC,ʺDevelopment of a proposal of inland
waterway classification for South America,ʺ InCom
InterimReportNo,201–2018.
[11]D.A.Francisco,ʺEstudode Viabilidade
deMelhorias
na Navegabilidade da Hidrovia Paraguai‐Paraná,ʺ
Dissertação de Mestrado, Instituto Militar de
Engenharia,RiodeJaneiro,2014.
