port botany expansion – quay wall design and construction
TRANSCRIPT
All are welcome to what will be a most interesting talk.
Note: Attendance may be credited towards Engineers Australia Continuing Professional Development (CPD)
Venue: Function Room, Ground Floor 8 Thomas Street, Chatswood
Inquiries: Alan Betts, Maritime Panel Chair (or his assistant Heli Lähteelä) Phone: 8925 5544
E-mail: [email protected]
Monday, 18 April 2011, 5:30 pm for 6:00 pm start
All welcome. Food and drinks served at 5:30 pm Abstract: The A$500M Sydney Ports Corporation Third Container Terminal at Port Botany required: dredging of more than 10 million m3 of material, more than 60 Ha of reclamation and the construction of over 2 km of quay wall to accommodate Post Panamax container terminal vessels and tug berths. This project was delivered as part of a Design and Construct Project joint venture between Baulderstone Hornibrook & Jan De Nul and a design consortium comprising: Hyder Consulting, Scott Wilson and Golder Associates which involved designers in local, national and international locations. This joint presentation from the three main contributors of the design consortium will discuss the significant engineering challenges involved in this project and the details of the final engineering design adopted. The presentation will cover the full spectrum of civil and structural design, maritime and geotechnical engineering.
NSW Maritime Panel presents
Port Botany Expansion – Quay Wall Design and Construction
by Alan Betts (URS/Scott Wilson)
Sam Harris (Hyder) Jamie McIlquham (Golder Associates)
All are welcome to what will be a most interesting talk.
Note: Attendance may be credited towards Engineers Australia Continuing Professional Development (CPD)
Venue: Function Room, Ground Floor 8 Thomas Street, Chatswood
Inquiries: Alan Betts, Maritime Panel Chair (or his assistant Heli Lähteelä) Phone: 8925 5544
E-mail: [email protected]
The presenters:
Sam Harris: Maritime Manager – Hyder Consulting Ltd Jamie McIlquham: Senior Geotechnical Engineer – Golder Associates, Alan Betts: Australian Maritime Manager – URS/Scott Wilson
Sam has experience in the project management, investigation, planning, design and construction supervision of port and maritime infrastructure projects in Australia, UK, Nigeria, Ireland, Mauritius, Kuwait, Libya and UAE. Sam’s role on this project has been as the Marine Design Manager for the D&C consortium. Contact: [email protected] Jamie has 12 years of experience working on geotechnical projects in Australia, the UK and Gibraltar. During the Port Botany Expansion project he was in charge of several design packages including the dredging and reclamation works and geotechnical design of caisson structures. During construction he led the geotechnical team and provided ongoing geotechnical advice and supervision. Contact: [email protected] Alan has more than 30 years of experience in the planning, design, construction and maintenance of port and harbour works, in Australia, NZ and other overseas locations. Alan undertook local preliminary engineering design and peer review of many of the design elements for this project. Contact: [email protected]
Geotechnical Design of Quay Structures for the Port Botany Expansion (PBE)
Jamie McIlquham - Senior Geotechnical Engineer -
Golder Associates
�Introduction
�Geotechnical Model
�Design Requirements
�Design Solution
Introduction
Design Solution
April 19, 2011 2
�63ha Reclamation
�2km of New Berth Structures
�New Navigation Channels and Basins
�Bridges, Breakwaters, Future Rail Corridor,
Summary of PBE Project
Bridges, Breakwaters, Future Rail Corridor, Revetments
April 19, 2011 3
Site Location
April 19, 2011 4
Geotechnical Model
April 19, 2011 5
�Quaternary sediments up to 80m thick over Hawkesbury
Sandstone
�Four basic soil units:
� Unit 1 – recent estuarine deposits, loose
� Unit 2 – clean sand, dense to very dense, peat and clay
layers
Geotechnical Model
layers
� Unit 3 – mainly organic clay, very stiff to hard, fissured
� Unit 4 – clay, very stiff to hard, some fissuring and less
organic content than Unit 3
�Soils are highly discontinuous laterally.
April 19, 2011 6
Geotechnical Model
April 19, 2011 7
Section showing Dredging and Reclamation
Section showing Counterfort and Reclamation
RL+4mCD
Unit 2 Sand
Upper Reclamation Fill
Lower Reclamation Fill
Unit 2 Sand
Front Crane Rail Rear Crane Rail
RL-17.5mCD
Counterfort
Structure
1m Scour Protection
Cope Beam
RL-10mCD
35m
Counterfort
Backfill
April 19, 2011 9
Unit 3 Clay
Unit 4 Clay
Unit 3 Clay
Unit 6 Sandstone Bedrock
Trench Backfill
0.8m Thick Basal Trench
Rock
Base of Trench at RL-30mCD
1m Thick Foundation
Pad
Note: 0m Chart Datum = – 0.925m Australian Height Datum
Construction Sequence
Existing Seabed
Stage 1: Before Dredging Commences
April 19, 2011 10
Existing Seabed
Unit 2 Sand
Unit 3/4 Clay
Unit 1 Sand
Construction Sequence
Stage 2: Trench Foundation Dredged to RL-30mCD
April 19, 2011 11
Unit 2 Sand
Unit 3/4 Clay
Construction Sequence
Stage 3: Trench Foundation Overfilled with Sand to RL-13.5mCD
April 19, 2011 12
Unit 2 Sand
Unit 3/4 Clay
Construction Sequence
Stage 4: Trench Foundation Vibrocompacted and Stripped
April 19, 2011 13
Unit 2 Sand
Unit 3/4 Clay
Construction Sequence
Stage 5: Counterfort Unit Placed
April 19, 2011 14
Unit 2 Sand
Unit 3/4 Clay
Construction Sequence
Stage 6: Reclamation overfilled to RL+3.5mCD
April 19, 2011 15
Unit 2 Sand
Unit 3/4 Clay
Construction Sequence
Stage 7: Counterfort Backfill Vibrocompacted
April 19, 2011 16
Unit 2 Sand
Unit 3/4 Clay
Construction Sequence
Stage 8: 300kN/m Kentledge Applied for 3 Days
April 19, 2011 17
Unit 2 Sand
Unit 3/4 Clay
Construction Sequence
Stage 9: 90kPa Preload (above RL+2.5mCD) Applied for 1 Month
April 19, 2011 18
Unit 2 Sand
Unit 3/4 Clay
Construction Sequence
Stage 10: Install Rear Crane Beam Piles
April 19, 2011 19
Unit 2 Sand
Unit 3/4 Clay
Construction Sequence
Stage 11: Install Front and Rear Crane Beams
April 19, 2011 20
Unit 2 Sand
Unit 3/4 Clay
Construction Sequence
Stage 12: Backfill to RL+4mCD and Install Scour Protection
April 19, 2011 21
Unit 2 Sand
Unit 3/4 Clay
�PSTR - design requirements
�Stability Criteria
�Serviceability Criteria
�Loading Information (Only for PBE)
Design Requirements
�Loading Information (Only for PBE)
April 19, 2011 22
Design Solution - Trench Foundations
� Removal of fissured clay required to RL-30mCD over
1680m out of 1850m of main berth length (Approx 0.8Mm3 )
� Strength and stiffness of backfill controlled by stability and
movement criteria for PBE berth structures
� Target backfill stiffness: Secant Modulus (Es’) ≥ 100MPa
at a reference confining pressure of 100kPa; and
°at a reference confining pressure of 100kPa; and
� Target strength: friction angle (Φ’) of 37°� Stiffness generally dictated amount of compaction
� Trench size was then optimised to provide the required
stability performance, taking into account dredging
tolerances
April 19, 2011 23
�2D PLAXIS
�SLOPE/w
�Spreadsheets - Sliding, Overturning & Bearing Capacity
Design Solution – Analysis Methods
�Collaborate (Match Geotechnical & Structural Models)
�Communication (Internal & External)
April 19, 2011 24
�Stability criteria were:
�Sliding & Overturning – FoS > 2.00
�Bearing Capacity – FoS > 3.00
�Global Stability – FoS > 1.40 / 1.50
Design Requirements - Stability
Global Stability – FoS > 1.40 / 1.50
�Seismic (Sliding & Overturning / Global) –FoS > 1.10
April 19, 2011 25
Stability Assessment
April 19, 2011 26
�Serviceability criteria were most critical:
�Vertical settlement <40mm at 20 years
�Horizontal movement <40mm at 20 years
�Crane gauge 30mm at 20 years (Initially
Design Requirements - Serviceability
Crane gauge 30mm at 20 years (Initiallytighter)
April 19, 2011 27
�Backanalysis of EBD counterforts to select deformation parameters
�Laboratory testing, design of EBD and statistical assessment were also considered
Sensitivity analyses completed to check
Design Solution - Serviceability
�Sensitivity analyses completed to check potential impacts
April 19, 2011 28
�PLAXIS used to assess movement and earthpressures acting on the structures
�Staged construction in model
Design Solution - Serviceability
April 19, 2011 29
Design Solution - Serviceability
April 19, 2011 30
� Pressures derived from PLAXIS analyses
� Geotechnical models calibrated against structural models in
iterative process
� Counterforts
� Ka at shallow depth
� K in trapped wedge at base
Lateral Soil Pressures on Wall Structures
� K0 in trapped wedge at base
� Blockwork caissons tend towards full depth K0 profile
April 19, 2011 31
�Seismic Bearing Capacity
�Vibrocompaction next to structures
Design Solution
April 19, 2011 32
Seismic Bearing Capacity
April 19, 2011 33
�Conventional Limit Equilibrium seismic bearing capacitysupplemented with displacement based criteria
�Assessed using dynamic PLAXIS analysis
�Similar movement mechanism to port caisson units afterKobe Earthquake
Seismic Bearing Capacity
� Local yielding at toe and heel
� Minimal settlement
� Seaward translation
� Analysis results can be compared to performance requirements
April 19, 2011 34
Seismic Design
April 19, 2011 35
� Need to control earth pressure to limit serviceability design
for concrete durability
� Need to balance compaction required for backfill strength
and stiffness against earth pressures
� Conceptual Soil Stress Path for PBE wall backfill:
� K on first filling, possible arching
Effect of VC on Wall Structures
� K0 on first filling, possible arching
� Increased horizontal earth pressures due to VC, no arching
� Relief during/after compaction to Ka as the structure moves
� K0 remains in trapped wedge
� Design VC probe offset based on published data effects
� Site trials necessary to assess impact of VC
April 19, 2011 36
Effect of VC on Wall Structures
April 19, 2011 37
� Field trials using V48
VC Rig
� Eccentric force 230-
470kN @ 60Hz
� Trials completed
behind
Effect of VC on Wall Structures - Trials
behind
� Sheet pile wall
� Caisson structure
� Counterforts
April 19, 2011 38
Effect of VC on Wall Structures - Trials
April 19, 2011 39
Counterfort Compaction Trial
April 19, 2011 40
� Revised compaction method (Grid Typ. 3.6-4.2m)
� Full Energy
�40 Secs compaction per 1m lift; or
�400 Amps drawn by motor
� Reduced Energy
Effect of VC on Wall Structures - Trials
� Reduced Energy
�20 Secs compaction per 1m lift; or
�300 Amps drawn by motor
April 19, 2011 41
Revised Compaction Criteria
April 19, 2011 42
� Final profile closely matches predicted PLAXIS
profile for wished into place fill
� Earth pressures were consistent with wall
movements
� Peak transient pressure high during VC (1-1.5 x K0)
Effect of VC on Wall Structures – Trial Results
� Peak transient pressure high during VC (1-1.5 x K0)
but <structural limit
� Earth pressures reduce within about 10 minutes
after VC to Ka (shallow) to K0 (deep) earth
pressure profile
April 19, 2011 43
Managed Earth Pressure Risk by:
� Considering alternative compaction equipment
� Adopting reduced energy VC points within 2.5m of wall
� Revising compaction criteria behind structure
Effect of VC on Wall Structures – Trial Results
� Verification of assumptions with earth pressure cells and survey
Important to consider sequence of VC locations, particularly in ‘confined’ locations
April 19, 2011 44
Dredging – Hydrographic survey – Mar 2009
Information provided by PB (Project Verifier)
Dredging – Hydrographic survey – Dec 2009
Information provided by PB (Project Verifier)
Dredging – Hydrographic survey – Mar 2010
Information provided by PB (Project Verifier)
Dredging – Hydrographic survey – Aug 2010
Information provided by PB (Project Verifier)
Jamie McIlquhamSenior Geotechnical EngineerGolder Associates124 Pacific HighwaySt LeonardsNSW 2065 Australia
Thank You
Tel: +61 (0) 2 9478 3900Mob: 0422 538155
E-Mail: [email protected]: www.golder.com
April 19, 2011 49
Port Botany Container Terminal Expansion – Quay Wall D&C
Date: Monday 18th April 2011Presented By: Sam Harris
Presentation Overview
• Project Summary • Project Team• Key Client Performance Criteria• Confidence in Concrete• Design Approach
• Chloride Diffusion Modeling• Concrete Mix Design • Concrete Quality Control• Limit States Design Approach
• Counterforts• Landward Crane Beam• Other Aspects
Project Summary
• $1B development (including 3rd terminal operator investment)
• 1855m long by -16.5m CD deep container quay• 199 counterfort units
• 4 segmental block caissons
• 157m long by -7m CD deep tug berth• 17 counterfort units
• Total 90,000m3 concrete
• Total 15,000t steel
• >11M m3 dredged material
• 63Ha terminal reclamation (8.4M m3)
• Foreshore enhancement and road/service works
• Navigation aids
• Terminal development by future operator (rails, pavements, buildings, internal terminal services etc)
Port Botany Expansion
before September 2008
Port Botany Expansion
in December 2010
Comparison PBE site before and almost complete
Project Team
Technical Advisers to SPC
Lead Design Consultant
Maritime Design Sub-Consultant
Geotechnical Design Sub-Consultant
D&C Contractor
Client
3rd Terminal Operator
Project Verifier
Key Client Performance Criteria
• 100 year design life• Confidence in durability with minimal maintenance• Tight lateral and vertical movement and rail gauge limits • Post-Panamax vessels
• 8000TEU & 106,000DWT
• 347m LOA
• 46m beam
• 14.5m loaded draft
• Design crane loads• 120t operating wheel loads
• 8 wheel bogie set
• 1900t crane dead load
• 120t bollards• 40kPa between rails/ 60kPa in yard stacking surcharge
Counterfort Structure
Confidence in Concrete
• Reinforced concrete = cost effective
• High level of assurance in achieving durability requirements
• Mouldability
• Plant available economically
• Precast modular construction
• Fabrication/batching on site
• Use of recycled materials
• Local concrete products
• Construction skills relatively
straightforward and local
• Quality control relatively simple
• Lends to gravity type structure
• Confidence in performance only if a well managed and informed
design process is followed
Exposure Classifications
Design Approach
Chloride Diffusion Modelling
• Differing approaches to durability in various Australian Standards
• Chloride Diffusion Model (Luping and Gulikers) is key to 100 year design life:
• The model considers:• Chloride concentration threshold at the
reinforcement for the initiation of corrosion
• Cover
• Surface chloride concentration
• Rate of chloride diffusion
• Time to onset of corrosion
Design Approach
Concrete Mix Design
• Zone 1 mix: Continuously submersed or buried• Medium level chloride diffusion coefficient
(D= 5.2 x 10-12 m/s)
• Medium level drying shrinkage (600x10-6)
• 50MPa
• 52%SL, 25% Fly Ash, 23% Blast Furnace Slag
• 600kg/m3 cementitious content
• 0.38 w/c ratio
• Zone 2/3 mix: Tidal splash zone• Lower level chloride diffusion coefficient
(D=3.4 x 10-12 m/s )
• Lower level drying shrinkage (500x10-6)
• Zone 1 mix used for Zone 4 (low risk)
Design Approach
Concrete Cover
•
•
Design Approach
Concrete Quality Control
• Boral on site batching plant
• On site precast yard
• Concrete mix approval process
• Quality Assurance processes
• Independent surveillance
• Steel formwork used – seaward face poured face down on vibrated formwork
• 28 days wax based curing compound before placement in water
Assurance Through Design Detailing
• Seaward face = compression face
• Joint between wall and base component in compression
Design Approach
Limit State Design Approach – Appropriate Loads & Combinations
• Key Design Loads:• Construction Loads
• Ciria C660 Early Age Thermal
• Lateral earth pressure
• Lateral berthing and mooring loads
• Vertical and lateral crane loads
• Seismic
• Combinations:• Construction Loads
• Quasi-Permanent/Sustained Loads
• Transient Load Combinations
• Ultimate Load Combinations
Design Approach
SLS Load Combinations
Design Approach
Calibration of Soil/Structure Interaction
Plaxis 2D FEASoil/Structure Model
Strand7 3D FEAStructural Model
Strand7 and PlaxisDeflections Consistent
Apply Lateral Soil Loads in Structural Design
YES?
NO?
OUT:
Soil Pressure
Deflections
OUT:
Deflections
Design Approach
Serviceability Limit State
• Quasi-Permanent/Sustained Load CombinationsDL + Permanent Soil Loads + Sustained Crane Load + Sustained Surcharge Load
Flexural/Tensile Crack Width Assessment & Mapping0.3mm Max for Zones 1 and 4
0.2mm Max for Zones 2 and 3
Limiting Bar Stress AS3600 limits for Zones 1 and 4 (280MPa Typ)
AS4997 limits for Zones 2 and 3 (150-180MPA Typ)
• Transient Load CombinationsDL + Permanent Soil Loads + Op Crane Load + Op Sustained Surcharge Load + Mooring/Berthing
400MPa Limiting Bar Stress – Remain in elastic range
Ultimate Limit State
Counterfort Details & Construction
• Details:• Unit Weight = 640t• Concrete/Unit = 245m3 • Steel/Unit = 52t• 20m tall • 9m wide• 15m base length• 2 buttresses• 216no
• Trench Foundation to -30m CD
• Vibrocompacted reclamation fill
• Vertical grout bag & temporary flexible
seals between units
3D PDFWall to base
joint detail Sea Side
Flexible Membrane
Counterfort Details & Construction
Counterfort Precast Facility
Ringer Crane
Reo Prefab on Outer Ring
4 Base Forms
4 Wall Forms
5 Assembly Beds
Sheds cover
base and
wall forms
Counterfort Details & Construction
Counterfort Details & Construction
Counterfort Storage/Transport
...and Placement
Structure Details & Construction
Landward Crane Beam
• Accommodates crane rail, stowage pins, buffer stops and crane delivery – designed as piled raft
• EW=520m & NS=1300m continuous
• 900mm dia CFA piles
• 4.5m pile spacing - staggered
• 14m pile length
• 1.5m x 2m landward crane beam
Typically 84 N32
Longitudinal bars
12 N28 verticals
(16 starters) and
N16-200 helix
(reinforced top 9m)
Continuous Beam Design
Why Design Beams Continuously?1) Improved load distribution
2) The expansion joint arrangements are complex
3) Rigid foundation results in a near continuous condition
Tension Inducing Factors 1) Shrinkage
2) Thermal contraction (time series &
steady state thermal analysis)
3) Construction sequence (stitch location/timing)
Drawing on Past Experience:Hyder design of Dubai Festival City
Building had a 650m long x 200m wide basement constructed without expansion and contraction joints and supported by piles. Basement required to be water tight.
Foreshore Enhancement Works
• Penrhyn Estuary reprofiling & improvement works
• Landscaping
• Revetments and breakwaters
• Boat ramp
(incl. navaids, wash down and fish cleaning)
• Mill stream lookout
• Footpaths
• Amenities building
• Car parks
Road and Utility Works
• Terminal access bridge
• Pedestrian bridge
• Foreshore road works
• Service supply works:• Electrical
• Lighting
• Water
• Sewer
• Comms
• Stormwater
Acknowledgements
Thanks to:
• Sydney Ports Corporation
• Baulderstone & Jan de Nul
• Golder – Geotechnical Design Sub-Consultant
• Scott Wilson – Maritime Design Sub-Consultant
Thank You
Sam Harris
Deputy Director – Ports & Maritime Australasia
Hyder Consulting Pty Ltd
Level 5, 141 Walker Street
North Sydney NSW 2060 Australia
Mobile: 0429 535 283
Direct: +61 (0) 2 8907 3966
Fax: +61 (0) 2 8907 9001
Email: [email protected]
Web: www.hyderconsulting.com
www.urs-scottwilson.compassionate | ambitious | collaborative | knowledgeable
Presented by: Alan BettsDate: 18/4/2011
For: NSW Maritime Panel
www.urs-scottwilson.compassionate | ambitious | collaborative | knowledgeable
The presentation covers structures other than the counterfort retaining wall units and the landward crane beam and geotechnical considerations (covered by others), including:
• Blockwork Structures• Brotherson Dock Transition • Cope Beam• Fenders/ Bollards/ ladders• Navigation Piles• Main Berth Scour Protection
www.urs-scottwilson.compassionate | ambitious | collaborative | knowledgeable
• 4 main blockwork structures:• North West and South West Corner Blocks• Brotherson Dock Transition Block • Brotherson Dock Infill block
• Component maximum weight 630 tonnes• Same concrete mix and cover as for counterforts• Similar foundation as for counterforts• Sand backfill, vibro compacted, kentledge and sand surcharge as for
counterforts. • Horizontal and vertical grouted seals + horizontal butyl seals between
elements• Grouted vertical bars tying units together on seaward faces
www.urs-scottwilson.compassionate | ambitious | collaborative | knowledgeable
www.urs-scottwilson.compassionate | ambitious | collaborative | knowledgeable
• Design loads similar to counterforts• Analysis undertaken using:
• Microstran and Finite Element Analysis - using Strand 7• SlopeW used to assess global stability• Plaxis used to assess soil pressures and wall
movements
www.urs-scottwilson.compassionate | ambitious | collaborative | knowledgeable
• BDT, SW corner and NW corner caissons:• Segmental structures: 4 cells, 4 high, shear keys in internal and external walls
• BDT Infill Block work Structure:• Segmental structures: 2 cells, 7 high, shear keys in internal and external walls
• Partial reinforcement cage prefabrication • Peri formwork system• Each block constructed in 2 pours• Transported and placed with shear leg barge• Diver assisted grout bag joint seals• External wall thicknes: 400mm• Internal wall thickness: 500mm• Base thickness: 500mm
www.urs-scottwilson.compassionate | ambitious | collaborative | knowledgeable
www.urs-scottwilson.compassionate | ambitious | collaborative | knowledgeable
www.urs-scottwilson.compassionate | ambitious | collaborative | knowledgeable
www.urs-scottwilson.compassionate | ambitious | collaborative | knowledgeable
Need to modify existing structure to accommodate the new quay crane rail loads and the transition beam. Involving: • Removal of existing wharf bollards/ fenders/ part cope beam• Jet grout of south west cell for ground improvement• Part block work demolition works• Construction of transition beam
landing pad and anchorage • Reinstatement of cope beam • Installation of transition cope
beam• Reinstatement of bollards/
fenders/ crane rail/ crane buffer
www.urs-scottwilson.compassionate | ambitious | collaborative | knowledgeable
• Blockwork structures required to make transition between the existing and new structure, including:
• Modification to existing BDT caisson, including ground improvement within cell
• New 4 cell
• 15m long transition beam:• 900mmx800mmx105mm elastomeric base bearing – 4no.• 170mmx350mmx80mm elastomeric buffer bearings – 6no.
• Deadman anchors on BDT blockwork structures to control differential movement limits/crane continuity
www.urs-scottwilson.compassionate | ambitious | collaborative | knowledgeable
• Construction sequence:• Dredge and place bedding• Place larger BDT caisson structure • Fill up to 0.5m below base of infill blocks• Place base infill block on temp supports and concrete beneath• Finish placing infill blocks• Place adjacent counterfort units• Infill blocks, backfill and vibrocompact• Surcharge and kentledge loading• Install deadman anchor system• Grout vertical grout bags and seaward face horizontal seals• Install vertical anchor bars and grout up• EBD caisson improvement works• Cope beam construction and fill to final levels• Transition cope beam construction and installation
www.urs-scottwilson.compassionate | ambitious | collaborative | knowledgeable
• Anchors required for stability of new BDT block & infill block• Located 5m landward of landward crane beam • Concrete anchor: Total length 17m, consists of precast sections
approx. 6m long x 2.5m high x 0.6m thick. • Tie rods McAlloy bars:• Particular provisions for corrosion protection and tie rod settlement • - 50mm dia. Approximately 33m length, sections joined with couplers,
Densopol 60 covering, plus annular concrete duct, all placed at base of 300mm dia settlement duct.
• Level of tie rods; approx mean sea level• Tie rods for transition block go through blockwork rear wall
www.urs-scottwilson.compassionate | ambitious | collaborative | knowledgeable
www.urs-scottwilson.compassionate | ambitious | collaborative | knowledgeable
Typical deadman anchor details
Typical detail through caisson wall
www.urs-scottwilson.compassionate | ambitious | collaborative | knowledgeable
• Deadman anchors
Anchor within caisson
Details at Deadman anchor
www.urs-scottwilson.compassionate | ambitious | collaborative | knowledgeable
• Transition Beam provides for articulation of foundations (1 in 1000 grade limit for crane rail)
• Beam weight approx. 350 tonnes, 14 m long, supports front container crane rail
• Four main support bearings laminated rubber elastomeric, two at each end
• Six side bearings, three at each end• Bearings consist of rubber and
stainless steel plates. • Design allows for main bearing
replacement using flat jacks and manhole access at land side
www.urs-scottwilson.compassionate | ambitious | collaborative | knowledgeable
Plan on beam Plan on side bearings
www.urs-scottwilson.compassionate | ambitious | collaborative | knowledgeable
www.urs-scottwilson.compassionate | ambitious | collaborative | knowledgeable
• Total length over 2km: 650m – EW berth, 1300m -NS berth,-150m tug berth (no joints other than construction)
• Consists of combination of precast and cast in-situ concrete elements• Precast elements comprise the front face of the beam.• 120 tonne bollards @ 24m spacing • Cell fenders @12m spacing (Shibata CSS 1450H) with frontal frames• Crane rail and cable slots • Stowage pin rebates at 30m centres• Blockouts for crane end stop buffers• Type F Gatic covers for service pits • Designated quay crane delivery and maintenance areas• Cope level of +3.65mCD for EW berth and +4.0mCD on NS berths• Service pits; Shore Power Supply Pit (SPSP), Crane Cable Pit (CCP), Water Pit (WP)
Cope Beam Section Size Depth WidthNS Berth 1.5m 3.2mEW Berth 1.5m 3.41mTug Berth 1.5m 2m
www.urs-scottwilson.compassionate | ambitious | collaborative | knowledgeable
www.urs-scottwilson.compassionate | ambitious | collaborative | knowledgeable
• Cast monolithically with quay structure below to allow direct transfer of loads to supporting quay structure
• Cast in-situ beam carries primary longitudinal bending in the cope beam as it acts to distribute loads along its length
Typically 117 N32 Longitudinal bars
Counterfort Starter Bars
Precast Starter Bars
• Counterforts and trench foundation rely on cope beam to distribute loading
www.urs-scottwilson.compassionate | ambitious | collaborative | knowledgeable
Vertical Loads: • Crane loading• Vertical bollard loading• Vertical fender loading• Differential settlement• Crane delivery and maintenance• Vehicle loads (e.g. reachstacker)
• Horizontal Loads: • Bollard loads• Fender loads• Crane loading• Post cope beam construction soil loads• Seismic loading• Differential movements
• Shrinkage • Thermal loading• Load combinations
www.urs-scottwilson.compassionate | ambitious | collaborative | knowledgeable
Design Analysis
• Microstran/SAP 2000/Strand 7 used for the cope beam design• Design for coincident design actions from worst case combinations
www.urs-scottwilson.compassionate | ambitious | collaborative | knowledgeable
Precast formwork on front faceTypical Section
Additional precast formwork for crane cable service pit
www.urs-scottwilson.compassionate | ambitious | collaborative | knowledgeable
NW Corner SW Corner
Cope beam needed to be significantly widened at the corners and Brotherson Dock Transition to tie all units together and for seismic stability constraints
www.urs-scottwilson.compassionate | ambitious | collaborative | knowledgeable
SW Corner Cope Beam Under Construction• ~670m3 of Concrete• ~200t of Steel
www.urs-scottwilson.compassionate | ambitious | collaborative | knowledgeable
Summer Winter60 Days 14 Days 60 Days 14 Days
Typical Section Jacking CCP Stitch Typical
Section Jacking CCP Stitch Typical Section Jacking CCP Stitch Typical
Section Jacking CCP Stitch
EW
Top 41 42 38 51 44 45 38 51 36 36 34 42 37 37 34 42Bottom 38 42 35 48 41 46 35 48 34 36 32 42 35 36 32 42Landward 16 16 19 23 20 20 25 23 16 16 17 16 16 16 19 16Seaward 16 16 22 25 22 22 26 25 16 16 17 17 16 16 19 17TOTAL 111 116 114 147 127 133 124 147 102 104 100 117 104 105 104 117
NS
Top 40 40 36 52 43 45 41 52 35 35 33 44 36 36 33 44Bottom 35 40 31 46 37 47 38 46 33 33 31 40 34 34 31 40Landward 16 16 20 22 19 19 22 22 16 16 16 16 16 16 17 16Seaward 17 17 22 25 21 21 24 25 16 16 16 17 16 16 17 17TOTAL 108 113 109 145 120 132 125 145 100 100 96 117 102 102 98 117
• Length of each pour: ~33m• Length of stitch pour: 3m• Stitches generally occur above counterfort joints.• Reinforcement varied according to summer or winter
temperature and duration between pours
All bars are N32
www.urs-scottwilson.compassionate | ambitious | collaborative | knowledgeable
Element Location Height (m)
Depth (m)
Thickness (m)
ApproximateSteel Reinforcement/ Concrete Volume (kg/m3)
Cope BeamNS Typical 1.5 3.2 195.5
Stitch 1.5 3.2 244.2
EW Typical 1.5 3.41 204.2Stitch 1.5 3.41 248.6
Landward Crane Beam NS Beam 2 1.5 302.6
Pile 0.9 354.4Cope Beam Precast Unit NS Fender Block 192.8
SPSP 261.8
Counterfort NSBase 8.92 14.368 0.3 318.7Wall 17.64 8.92 0.35 169.7Buttress 18.8 10.313 0.35 174.5
Corner Blockwork SW Base Slab 16.248 14.667 0.5 290.4Unit24 Seaside Wall 5.78 12.75 0.4 175.6
www.urs-scottwilson.compassionate | ambitious | collaborative | knowledgeable
Number of Pits NS Berth EW BerthCrane Cable Pit (CCP) 12 5Shore Power Supply Pit (SPSP) 23 9Water Pit (WP) 12 4
Precast Units with Pits Length VolumePCB-NSD Crane cable pit 8.18m 16.1m3
PCB-NSE Shore power supply pit 9.16m 11.6m3
PCB-NSF Fender block with water pit 7.39m 15.8m3
PCB-EWE Shore power supply pit 9.16m 9.0m3
PCB-EWF Fender block with water pit 7.39m 12.5m3
Pit Type Number Depth Width LengthShore Power Supply Pit 32 1.1m 1.2m 4mCrane Cable Pit 17 2.2m 1.65m 6mWater Pit 16 1.1m 1.2m 3m
Crane Cable Pit for EW berth is located on the landward side of the cope beam.All other pits for NS and EW berth are located on the seaward side of the cope beam.
www.urs-scottwilson.compassionate | ambitious | collaborative | knowledgeable
www.urs-scottwilson.compassionate | ambitious | collaborative | knowledgeable
• Crane rail not installed (stevedore to supply)• Blockouts (40mm dia. x 260mm long)
provided for 24mm dia. crane rail bolts• Stainless Steel (grade 316) Edge Protection
for concrete at crane cable slots
www.urs-scottwilson.compassionate | ambitious | collaborative | knowledgeable
• Construction following all quay wall and earthworks processes• Limited work above/next to water• Shelf between counterfort corbels provides part of the base formwork• Precast front elements comprise the seaward form
Temporary Precast Support
www.urs-scottwilson.compassionate | ambitious | collaborative | knowledgeable
• Cope beam precast standardised to facilitate mass production• North South berths – 6 types & 140 units• East West berth – 5 types & 51 units
• Reinforcement connectivity provided with cast in-situ cope beam
www.urs-scottwilson.compassionate | ambitious | collaborative | knowledgeable
www.urs-scottwilson.compassionate | ambitious | collaborative | knowledgeable
www.urs-scottwilson.compassionate | ambitious | collaborative | knowledgeable
www.urs-scottwilson.compassionate | ambitious | collaborative | knowledgeable
• 168 rubber fenders (Shibata CS 1450 circle type) with frontal frames, 2.3m wide x 3.5m high.
• Aluminium anodes at low level on frames• Galvanised chains• Stainless steel u-bolts for fender restraint/
support chains in concrete cope beam• Ultra high molecular weight polyethylene facing
panels on frontal frames – varying sizes, 40mm thick
• Fenders at 12m spacing but closer at ends
www.urs-scottwilson.compassionate | ambitious | collaborative | knowledgeable
www.urs-scottwilson.compassionate | ambitious | collaborative | knowledgeable
Installed Fenders NS Berth.
www.urs-scottwilson.compassionate | ambitious | collaborative | knowledgeable
• Cast Steel Bollards• Finite Element Analysis design and
load tested• Hollow, concrete filled,& painted• Stainless steel (316 grade) bollard
bolts• Special cap and epoxy mastic
filling around nuts• Bollards generally installed at 24m
centres with provision for future installation with recesses and bolt blockouts.
www.urs-scottwilson.compassionate | ambitious | collaborative | knowledgeable
www.urs-scottwilson.compassionate | ambitious | collaborative | knowledgeable
www.urs-scottwilson.compassionate | ambitious | collaborative | knowledgeable
• 3 off • Piles 965mm OD and 16-20mm wall
thickness• Typical embedment depth: 15.5-18.5m• Nominated vessel impact: 50% energy
of 5 tonne vessel travelling at 3m/s.• Corrosion protection:
• Denso Seashield 100 system extend to - 0.5 m
• 2 Aluminium anodes at lower level (-0.5 m to -1.7 m)
• Aluminium superstructure platform (isolated from steel)
• Aluminium ladder with hardwood fenders.
www.urs-scottwilson.compassionate | ambitious | collaborative | knowledgeable
Scour Armour Rock
TypeMass
Mmin (kg) M50 (kg) Mmax (kg)S1 150 300 600S2 28 76 159
www.urs-scottwilson.compassionate | ambitious | collaborative | knowledgeable
• Basalt rock, 2.65 t/m³• Stringent specification to
avoid degradation• Two main rock grading
sizes, largest adjacent to quay
• Extends 15m from quay wall• Thickness varies from 0.6m
to 1.0 m• Placed on geotextile fabric,
Geomac 500E• Fabric placed with purpose-
built frame to avoid diver placement
www.urs-scottwilson.compassionate | ambitious | collaborative | knowledgeable
Frame used to place geotextile
www.urs-scottwilson.compassionate | ambitious | collaborative | knowledgeable
Thanks to:
• Sydney Ports Corporation• BHJDN• Hyder Consulting – Lead Designer• Golder Associates – Geotechnical Design Sub-Consultant
www.urs-scottwilson.compassionate | ambitious | collaborative | knowledgeable
Acknowledgements: Presentation compiled by: • Kenan Aldemir – Maritime Engineer – Sydney • Heli Lähteelä – Project Administrator – Sydney • Reviewed by Alan Betts • Questions and inquiries to Alan Betts: Contact details:
• Email: [email protected]• Telephone +612: 8925 5545