combined jdm-sh-akb - pbe presentation by golder, hyder & scott wilson

8/12/2019 Combined JDM-SH-AKB - PBE Presentation by Golder, Hyder & Scott Wilson

1/127

Monday, 18 April 2011, 5:30 pm for 6:00 pm start

All welcome. Food and drinks served at 5:30 pmAbstract:

The A$500M Sydney Ports Corporation Third Container Terminal at Port Botany required: dredging ofmore than 10 million m3of material, more than 60 Ha of reclamation and the construction of over 2 km ofquay 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 BaulderstoneHornibrook & Jan De Nul and a design consortium comprising: Hyder Consulting, Scott Wilson andGolder Associates which involved designers in local, national and international locations.

This joint presentation from the three main contributors of the design consortium will discuss thesignificant engineering challenges involved in this project and the details of the final engineering designadopted. The presentation will cover the full spectrum of civil and structural design, maritime andgeotechnical engineering.

NSW Maritime Panel presents

Port Botany Expansion Quay Wall Design and Construction

byAlan Betts (URS/Scott Wilson)

Sam Harris (Hyder)Jamie McIlquham (Golder Associates)


2/127

The presenters:

Sam Harris: Maritime Manager Hyder Consulting LtdJamie 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 constructionsupervision of port and maritime infrastructure projects in Australia, UK, Nigeria, Ireland, Mauritius,Kuwait, Libya and UAE. Sams role on this project has been as the Marine Design Manager for the D&Cconsortium.

Contact:[email protected]

Jamiehas 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 thedredging and reclamation works and geotechnical design of caisson structures. During construction heled the geotechnical team and provided ongoing geotechnical advice and supervision.Contact:[email protected]

Alanhas 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 preliminaryengineering design and peer review of many of the design elements for this project.Contact:[email protected]
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]


3/127

Geotechnical Design of Quay Structures

for the Port Botany Expansion (PBE)Jamie McIlquham - Senior Geotechnical Engineer -

Golder Associates


4/127

Introduction

Geotechnical Model

Design Requirements

Desi n Solution

Introduction

April 19, 2011 2


5/127

63ha Reclamation

2km of New Berth Structures

New Navigation Channels and Basins

Brid es, Breakwaters, Future Rail Corridor,

Summary of PBE Project

Revetments

April 19, 2011 3


6/127

Site Location

April 19, 2011 4


7/127

Geotechnical Model

April 19, 2011 5


8/127

Quaternary sediments up to 80m thick over HawkesburySandstone

Four basic soil units: Unit 1 recent estuarine deposits, loose

Unit 2 clean sand, dense to very dense, peat and clay

Geotechnical Model

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


9/127

Geotechnical Model

April 19, 2011 7


10/127

Section showing Dredging and Reclamation


11/127

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

Structure1m Scour Protection

Cope Beam

RL-10mCD

35m

CounterfortBackfill

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


12/127

Construction Sequence

1

April 19, 2011 10


13/127


2 30

April 19, 2011 11


14/127


3 13.5

April 19, 2011 12


15/127


4

April 19, 2011 13


16/127


5

April 19, 2011 14


17/127


6 +3.5

April 19, 2011 15


18/127


7

April 19, 2011 16


19/127


8 300/ 3

April 19, 2011 17


20/127


9 90 ( +2.5) 1

April 19, 2011 18


21/127


10

April 19, 2011 19


22/127


11

April 19, 2011 20


23/127


12 +4

April 19, 2011 21


24/127

PSTR - design requirements

Stability Criteria

Serviceability Criteria

Loadin Information Onl for PBE

Design Requirements

April 19, 2011 22


25/127

Design Solution - Trench Foundations

Removal of fissured clay required to RL-30mCD over1680m 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) 100MPaat a reference confining pressure of 100kPa; and

Target strength: friction angle () of 37

Stiffness generally dictated amount of compaction

Trench size was then optimised to provide the required

stability performance, taking into account dredgingtolerances

April 19, 2011 23


26/127

2D PLAXIS

SLOPE/w

Spreadsheets - Sliding, Overturning &Bearing Capacity

Design Solution Analysis Methods

Collaborate (Match Geotechnical & StructuralModels)

Communication (Internal & External)

April 19, 2011 24


27/127

Stability criteria were:

Sliding & Overturning FoS > 2.00

Bearing Capacity FoS > 3.00

Global Stabilit FoS > 1.40 / 1.50

Design Requirements - Stability

Seismic (Sliding & Overturning / Global) FoS > 1.10

April 19, 2011 25


28/127

Stability Assessment

April 19, 2011 26


29/127

Serviceability criteria were most critical:

Vertical settlement


30/127

Backanalysis of EBD counterforts to selectdeformation parameters

Laboratory testing, design of EBD andstatistical assessment were also considered

Design Solution - Serviceability

Sensitivity analyses completed to checkpotential impacts

April 19, 2011 28


31/127

PLAXIS used to assess movement and earthpressures acting on the structures

Staged construction in model

Design Solution - Serviceability

April 19, 2011 29


32/127


33/127

Pressures derived from PLAXIS analyses

Geotechnical models calibrated against structural models initerative process

Counterforts

Ka at shallow depth

Lateral Soil Pressures on Wall Structures

0

Blockwork caissons tend towards full depth K0 profile

April 19, 2011 31


34/127

Seismic Bearing Capacity

Vibrocompaction next to structures

Design Solution

April 19, 2011 32


35/127


April 19, 2011 33


36/127

Conventional Limit Equilibrium seismic bearing capacitysupplemented with displacement based criteria

Assessed using dynamic PLAXIS analysisSimilar movement mechanism to port caisson units afterKobe Earthquake


Local yielding at toe and heel Minimal settlement

Seaward translation

Analysis results can be compared to performancerequirements

April 19, 2011 34


37/127

Seismic Design

April 19, 2011 35


38/127

Need to control earth pressure to limit serviceability designfor concrete durability

Need to balance compaction required for backfill strengthand stiffness against earth pressures

Conceptual Soil Stress Path for PBE wall backfill:

Effect of VC on Wall Structures

0 ,

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


39/127

Effect of VC on Wall Structures

April 19, 2011 37


40/127

Field trials using V48VC Rig

Eccentric force 230-

470kN @ 60Hz

Trials completed

Effect of VC on Wall Structures - Trials

Sheet pile wall Caisson structure

Counterforts

April 19, 2011 38


41/127


April 19, 2011 39


42/127

Counterfort Compaction Trial

April 19, 2011 40


43/127

Revised compaction method (Grid Typ. 3.6-4.2m)

Full Energy

40 Secs compaction per 1m lift; or400 Amps drawn by motor

Reduced Ener


20 Secs compaction per 1m lift; or300 Amps drawn by motor

April 19, 2011 41


44/127

Revised Compaction Criteria

April 19, 2011 42

Eff f VC W ll S T i l R l


45/127

Final profile closely matches predicted PLAXIS

profile for wished into place fill

Earth pressures were consistent with wallmovements

Peak transient ressure hi h durin VC 1-1.5 x K

Effect of VC on Wall Structures Trial Results

but


46/127

Managed Earth Pressure Risk by:

Considering alternative compaction equipment

Adopting reduced energy VC points within 2.5m ofwall

Revising compaction criteria behind structure

Effect of VC on Wall Structures Trial Results

Verification of assumptions with earth pressurecells and survey

Important to consider sequence of VC locations,particularly in confined locations

April 19, 2011 44


47/127

Dredging Hydrographic survey Dec 2009


48/127

Dredging Hydrographic survey Dec 2009

Information provided by PB (Project Verifier)

Dredging Hydrographic survey Mar 2010


49/127

Dredging Hydrographic survey Mar 2010


Dredging Hydrographic survey Aug 2010


50/127

Dredging Hydrographic survey Aug 2010


Thank You


51/127

Jamie McIlquhamSenior Geotechnical EngineerGolder Associates124 Pacific HighwaySt LeonardsNSW 2065 Australia

Thank You

Tel: +61 (0) 2 9478 3900Mob: 0422 538155

E-Mail: [email protected]

Web: www.golder.com

April 19, 2011 49


52/127

Port Botany Container Terminal Expansion Quay Wall D&C

Date: Monday 18thApril 2011Presented By: Sam Harris

Presentation Overview


53/127

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


54/127

$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)

Comparison PBE site before and almost complete


55/127

Port Botany Expansionbefore September 2008

Port Botany Expansionin December 2010

Project Team


56/127

Technical Advisers to SPC

Lead Design Consultant

Maritime DesignSub-Consultant

Geotechnical DesignSub-Consultant

D&C Contractor

Client

3rd Terminal Operator

Project Verifier

Key Client Performance Criteria


57/127

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


58/127

Confidence in Concrete

Reinforced concrete = cost effective


59/127

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


60/127

Design Approach

Chloride Diffusion Modelling


61/127

g

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


62/127

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


63/127

Design Approach

Concrete Quality Control


64/127

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


65/127

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


66/127

Design Approach

Calibration of Soil/Structure Interaction


67/127

Plaxis 2D FEASoil/Structure Model

Strand7 3D FEAStructural Model

Strand7 and Plaxis

Deflections Consistent

Apply Lateral Soil Loadsin Structural Design

YES?

NO?

OUT:

Soil Pressure

Deflections

OUT:

Deflections

Design Approach

Serviceability Limit State


68/127

Quasi-Permanent/Sustained Load CombinationsDL + Permanent Soil Loads + Sustained Crane Load + Sustained Surcharge Load

Flexural/Tensile Crack Width Assessment & Mapping

0.3mm 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 Combinations

DL + 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:

U it W i ht 640t


69/127

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 detailSea Side

FlexibleMembrane


Counterfort Precast Facility
http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_2/XS3D-COPEBEAM-ARRANGEMENT-NS.pdfhttp://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_2/XS3D-COPEBEAM-ARRANGEMENT-NS.pdfhttp://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_2/XS3D-COPEBEAM-ARRANGEMENT-NS.pdf


70/127

Ringer Crane

Reo Prefab on Outer Ring

4 Base Forms

4 Wall Forms

5 Assembly Beds

Sheds cover

base and

wall forms


71/127


Counterfort Storage/Transport


72/127

Counterfort Storage/Transport

...and Placement


73/127

Continuous Beam Design

D i P t E i


74/127

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 x200m wide basementconstructed without expansionand contraction joints and

supported by piles. Basementrequired to be water tight.

Foreshore Enhancement Works

Penrhyn Estuary reprofiling & improvement works


75/127

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


76/127

Terminal access bridge Pedestrian bridge

Foreshore road works

Service supply works:

Electrical

Lighting

Water

Sewer

Comms

Stormwater

Acknowledgements

Thanks to:


77/127

Sydney Ports Corporation

Baulderstone & Jan de Nul

Golder Geotechnical Design Sub-Consultant

Scott Wilson Maritime Design Sub-Consultant

Thank You


78/127

Sam Harris

Deputy Director Ports & Maritime Australasia

Hyder Consulting Pty Ltd

Level 5, 141 Walker StreetNorth 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
mailto:[email protected]://www.hyderconsulting.com/http://www.hyderconsulting.com/mailto:[email protected]


79/127

www.urs-scottwilson.compassionate | ambitious | collaborative | knowledgeable

Presented by: Alan BettsDate: 18/4/2011

For: NSW Maritime Panel


80/127


The presentation covers structures other than the counterfortretaining 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


81/127


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 forcounterforts.

Horizontal and vertical grouted seals + horizontal butyl seals betweenelements

Grouted vertical bars tying units together on seaward faces


82/127



83/127


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 wallmovements


84/127


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


85/127



86/127



87/127



88/127


Need to modify existing structure to accommodate the new quay crane railloads 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


89/127


Blockwork structures required to make transition betweenthe existing and new structure, including:

Modification to existing BDT caisson, including groundimprovement 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


90/127


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


91/127


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 sectionsapprox. 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 baseof 300mm dia settlement duct.

Level of tie rods; approx mean sea level

Tie rods for transition block go through blockwork rear wall


92/127



93/127


Typical deadman anchor details

Typical detail through caisson wall


94/127


95/127


Transition Beam provides forarticulation of foundations (1 in1000 grade limit for crane rail)

Beam weight approx. 350 tonnes,14 m long, supports front containercrane rail

Four main support bearingslaminated rubber elastomeric, twoat each end

Six side bearings, three at each end

Bearings consist of rubber andstainless steel plates.

Design allows for main bearingreplacement using flat jacks andmanhole access at land side


96/127


Plan on beam Plan on side bearings


97/127



98/127


Total length over 2km: 650m EW berth, 1300m -NS berth,-150m tug berth (no jointsother 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 Width

NS Berth 1.5m 3.2m

EW Berth 1.5m 3.41m

Tug Berth 1.5m 2m


99/127



100/127


Cast monolithically with quay structure below to allow direct transfer of loadsto supporting quay structure

Cast in-situ beam carries primary longitudinal bending in the cope beam as itacts to distribute loads along its length

Typically 117 N32

Longitudinal bars

Counterfort Starter Bars

Precast Starter Bars

Counterforts and trench foundation relyon cope beam to distribute loading

Vertical Loads:


101/127


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

Design Analysis


102/127


Design Analysis

Microstran/SAP 2000/Strand 7 used for the cope beam design

Design for coincident design actions from worst case combinations


103/127


Precast formwork on front faceTypical Section

Additional precast formwork for crane cableservice pit

Cope beam needed to be significantly widened at the corners and


104/127


NW Corner SW Corner

Cope beam needed to be significantly widened at the corners andBrotherson Dock Transition to tie all units together and for seismic stabilityconstraints


105/127


SW Corner Cope Beam Under Construction ~670m3 of Concrete ~200t of Steel


106/127


Summer Winter

60 Days 14 Days 60 Days 14 Days

TypicalSection

Jacking CCP StitchTypicalSection



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 42

Landward 16 16 19 23 20 20 25 23 16 16 17 16 16 16 19 16

Seaward 16 16 22 25 22 22 26 25 16 16 17 17 16 16 19 17

TOTAL 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 44

Bottom 35 40 31 46 37 47 38 46 33 33 31 40 34 34 31 40

Landward 16 16 20 22 19 19 22 22 16 16 16 16 16 16 17 16

Seaward 17 17 22 25 21 21 24 25 16 16 16 17 16 16 17 17

TOTAL 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


107/127


Element LocationHeight(m)

Depth(m)

Thickness(m)

ApproximateSteel Reinforcement/Concrete Volume

(kg/m3

)

Cope Beam

NSTypical 1.5 3.2 195.5

Stitch 1.5 3.2 244.2

EWTypical 1.5 3.41 204.2

Stitch 1.5 3.41 248.6

Landward Crane

Beam NS

Beam 2 1.5 302.6

Pile 0.9 354.4Cope BeamPrecast Unit

NSFender Block 192.8

SPSP 261.8

Counterfort NS

Base 8.92 14.368 0.3 318.7

Wall 17.64 8.92 0.35 169.7

Buttress 18.8 10.313 0.35 174.5Corner Blockwork SW

Base Slab 16.248 14.667 0.5 290.4Unit24 Seaside Wall 5.78 12.75 0.4 175.6


108/127


109/127



110/127


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 Protectionfor concrete at crane cable slots

Construction following all quay wall and earthworks processes


111/127


g q y p

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


112/127


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


113/127



114/127



115/127


116/127


168 rubber fenders (Shibata CS 1450 circletype) 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 facingpanels on frontal frames varying sizes, 40mmthick

Fenders at 12m spacing but closer at ends


117/127



118/127


Installed Fenders NS Berth.


119/127


Cast Steel Bollards

Finite Element Analysis design and

load tested Hollow, concrete filled,& painted

Stainless steel (316 grade) bollardbolts

Special cap and epoxy masticfilling around nuts

Bollards generally installed at 24mcentres with provision for future

installation with recesses and boltblockouts.


120/127



121/127


3 off


122/127


3 off

Piles 965mm OD and 16-20mm wallthickness

Typical embedment depth: 15.5-18.5m

Nominated vessel impact: 50% energyof 5 tonne vessel travelling at 3m/s.

Corrosion protection:

Denso Seashield 100 systemextend 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.

Scour Armour Rock


123/127


TypeMass

Mmin (kg) M50 (kg) Mmax (kg)

S1 150 300 600

S2 28 76 159

Basalt rock, 2.65 t/m


124/127


Stringent specification toavoid degradation

Two main rock gradingsizes, largest adjacent toquay

Extends 15m from quay wall

Thickness varies from 0.6mto 1.0 m

Placed on geotextile fabric,Geomac 500E

Fabric placed with purpose-built frame to avoid diverplacement


125/127


Frame used to place geotextile


126/127


Thanks to:

Sydney Ports Corporation

BHJDN

Hyder Consulting Lead Designer

Golder Associates Geotechnical Design Sub-Consultant


127/127


Acknowledgements:

Presentation compiled by: Kenan Aldemir Maritime Engineer Sydney

Heli Lhteel Project Administrator Sydney

Reviewed by Alan Betts Questions and inquiries to Alan Betts: Contact details:

Email: [email protected]

Telephone +612: 8925 5545

combined jdm-sh-akb - pbe presentation by golder, hyder & scott wilson

Documents