port e 2014 m /v p a b u c p e - cloudinary
TRANSCRIPT
PPOORRTT EEVVEERRGGLLAADDEESS
22001144 MMAASSTTEERR//VVIISSIIOONN PPLLAANN
AAPPPPEENNDDIIXX GG::BBUULLKKHHEEAADD SSTTUUDDYY UUPPDDAATTEE AANNDD CCAATTHHOODDIICC
PPRROOTTEECCTTIIOONN SSYYSSTTEEMM EEVVAALLUUAATTIIOONN
PPRREESSEENNTTEEDD BBYY
BULKHEAD STUDY UPDATE AND
CATHODIC PROTECTION SYSTEM
EVALUATION FOR
PORT EVERGLADES
BERTHS 1 THROUGH 29
AUGUST 2010
PORT EVERGLADES
BERTHS 1 THROUGH 29
BULKHEAD STUDY UPDATE AND CATHODIC PROTECTION SYSTEM
EVALUATION
AUGUST 2010
Prepared by: Halcrow, Inc.
1101 Channelside Dr., Suite 400N
Tampa, FL 33602
1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Halcrow, Inc. was contracted as a Sub Consultant to Craven Thompson &
Associates, Port Everglades General Engineering Consultant, to provide an update to
the 2007 “Port Everglades Toewall Improvements & Bulkhead Analysis” Report by
others.
This “Bulkhead Study Update and Cathodic Protection System Evaluation for
Port Everglades, Berths 1 through 29” provides recommended replacement phasing for
the over 25,100 linear feet of steel sheet pile bulkheads throughout Port Everglades.
The replacement order proposed is based upon coordination of the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineer’s future channel dredging, the proposed Port Everglades Master/Vision Plans,
and the current condition of the existing steel sheet pile bulkhead walls.
Existing conditions of the steel sheet pile walls were reviewed based upon
existing data provided by the Port. The data on toe embedment, steel section loss due
to corrosion and the age of the walls was compiled. Then an overall rating for discrete
segments of the bulkhead walls was developed. Proposed replacement schedules
were developed based upon the overall ratings and incorporation of market driven
components of the draft Master/Vision Plans.
In addition to developing the proposed replacement schedules, Halcrow
performed a site visit to review the remaining components of impressed current cathodic
systems at the Port. These systems are no longer in active service and have
deteriorated to the point that rehabilitation of these systems is not deemed suitable.
To assist the Port is comparing installation of impressed current and sacrifical
anode cathodic protection systems, Halcrow performed a life cycle cost analysis of both
systems on all the bulkhead walls in Port Everglades. This life cycle cost analysis
resulted in a lower installation and maintenance cost for sacrificial anodes. Therefore,
Halcrow recommends the installation of sacrificial anode cathodic protection on all
Berths not scheduled for replacement until after 2021 and implementing a replacement
schedule to replace all bulkhead walls in Port Everglades by 2041.
i
PORT EVERGLADES BULKHEAD STUDY UPDATE AND CATHODIC
PROTECTION SYSTEM EVALUATION
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page No.
TRANSMITTAL LETTER
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
LIST OF FIGURES iv LIST OF TABLES iv
1. INTRODUCTION 1-1
1.1 FACILITY DESCRIPTION 1-1
1.2 SCOPE 1-2
1.3 2007 TOEWALL IMPROVEMENTS & BULKHEAD ANALYSIS REPORT 1-6
2. COORDINATION WITH OTHER WORK 2-1
2.1 COORDINATION ON FUTURE DREDGING 2-1
2.2 COORDINATION WITH DRAFT MASTER/VISION PLANS 2-6
3. DEVELOPMENT OF THE RATING SYSTEM FOR WALL CONDITIONS 3-1
3.1 EMBEDMENT RATIO RATING 3-2
3.2 STEEL SECTION LOSS RATINGS 3-5
3.3 AGE RATING 3-8
3.4 COMBINED RATINGS 3-11
4. PROPOSED REPLACEMENT SCHEDULES 4-1
4.1 RECOMMENDED SCHEDULE WITHOUT MASTER/VISION PLAN 4-1
4.2 RECOMMENDED SCHEDULE WITH MASTER/VISION PLAN 4-4
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT’D)
Page No.
ii
5. CATHODIC PROTECTION 5-1
5.1 EVALUATION OF EXISTING IMPRESSED CURRENT EQUIPMENT 5-1
5.2 LIFE CYCLE COSTS OF CATHODIC PROTECTION SYSTEMS 5-1
6. PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COSTS FOR PLANNING 6-1
6.1 PLANNING COSTS FOR SACRIFICIAL ANODES 6-1
6.2 PLANNING COSTS FOR IMPRESSED CURRENT 6-2
6.3 PLANNING COSTS FOR REPLACEMENT WALL CONSTRUCTION 6-2
6.4 PLANNING COSTS FOR TOE WALL CONSTRUCTION 6-3
7. CONCLUSION 7-1
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT’D)
Page No.
iii
APPENDIX A – 2007 “PORT EVERGLADES TOEWALL IMPROVEMENTS & A-1
BULKHEAD ANALYSIS” REPORT: VOLUME I
BY LAKDAS/YOHALEM ENGINEERING
APPENDIX B – DRAFT VERSIONS OF PORT EVERGLADES B-1
5, 10 AND 20 YEAR MASTER / VISION PLANS
BY AECOM (VIA EMAIL JULY 23, 2010)
APPENDIX C – MEMORANDUM ON APRIL 5, 2010 SITE VISIT TO C-1
REVIEW EXISTING IMPRESSED CURRENT
CATHODIC PROTECTION
APPENDIX D – SUMMARY OF ASSUMPTIONS USED IN D-1
CATHODIC PROTECTION SYSTEMS
FOR LIFE CYCLE ANALYSIS
APPENDIX E – SACRIFICIAL ANODE VS IMPRESSED CURRENT E-1
LIFE CYCLE COST SUMMARY AND YEARLY BREAKDOWN
IN DISCOUNTED DOLLAR TERMS
APPENDIX F – SACRIFICIAL ANODE VS IMPRESSED CURRENT F-1
LIFE CYCLE COST SUMMARY
IN REAL 2010 DOLLAR TERMS
APPENDIX G – SACRIFICIAL ANODE VS IMPRESSED CURRENT G-1
LIFE CYCLE COST SUMMARY AND YEARLY BREAKDOWN
IN NOMINAL DOLLAR TERMS
iv
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure No. Title Page No.
Figure 1-1 Vicinity Map 1-3
Figure 1-2 Location Plan 1-4
Figure 1-3 Existing Facility Plan 1-5
Figure 2-1 Conceptual Future Dredging Plan per Discussions with USACE 2-2
Figure 2-2 Recommended Offset for Proposed Dredging 2-5
Figure 2-3 Future Facility Plan per Draft 2010-2029 Master / Vision Plans 2-7
Figure 3-1 Section Loss Relative to Age 3-12
LIST OF TABLES
Table No. Title Page No.
Table 3-1 Summary of Embedment Ratio Rating Data 3-4
Table 3-2 Summary of Section Loss Ratings Data 3-7
Table 3-3 Summary of Age Rating Data 3-9
Table 3-4 Summary of Age Rating Data (Continued) 3-10
Table 4-1 Recommended Schedule without Master/Vision Plan (29 Years) 4-3
Table 4-2 Recommended Schedule including Master/Vision Plan (30 Yrs) 4-5
1-1
1. INTRODUCTION
In February 2010, Halcrow, Inc. was contracted as a Sub Consultant by
Craven Thompson & Associates, Inc. to perform a Bulkhead Study Analysis and
Cathodic Protection System Evaluation for Berths 1 to 29 at Port Everglades in
Broward County. The aforementioned study and analysis was associated with
Third Amendment to Agreement between Broward County and Craven
Thompson & Associates, Inc. for General Engineering Services at Port
Everglades, Task 2V, Capital Budget Org. # 6510. The purpose of the analysis
was to provide a sequencing and phasing plan for bulkhead replacement taking
into account both structural stability as well as Port Everglades’ updated
Master/Vision Plans. Additionally, Halcrow, Inc. was to perform a cost/benefit
analysis to evaluate the maintenance of the existing corrosion protection system
including restarting of all non-functioning systems compared to installation of new
corrosion protection.
1.1 FACILITY DESCRIPTION
Port Everglades is located on the southeastern coast of the Florida
peninsula in the cities of Fort Lauderdale, Hollywood, and Dania Beach as well
as portions of unincorporated Broward County. It encompasses 1,742 acres of
upland area and 448 acres of submerged land totaling 2,190 acres of seaport.
Berths 1 to 33 are comprised of over 25,100 linear feet of bulkhead which
accommodate liquid bulk, dry bulk, containerized cargo, Navy ship, and cruise
ship operations. The bulkhead is constructed mainly of steel sheet pile walls with
either a “Z” type or “H-Z” type configuration. A vicinity map, location plan, and
existing facility plan is shown on Figure 1-1, Figure 1-2, and Figure 1-3.
The seaport facility is geographically divided into three (3) separate areas,
Northport, Midport, and Southport. Since the limits of these areas can vary by
user, this report will use the limits for Northport, Midport, and Southport listed in
the Halcrow/HPA “Underwater Inspection and Assessment” reports from 2006,
2007, and 2009.
1-2
“Northport encompasses Berth 1 through 13 (including Berths 1A and 1D,
4A, 8A, and 13A) and supports various dry bulk, liquid bulk, and cruise
ship operations.”
“Midport encompasses Berths 14 through 29 (including the Florida Power
and Light (FP&L) cooling canal bulkhead adjacent to Berth 29) and
supports dry bulk, breakbulk, ro/ro, and cruise ship operations.”
“Southport encompasses Berths 30 through 33 (including Berth 33A
through 33C) and supports containerized cargo ships and ro/ro
operations.”
1.2 SCOPE
The scope of work associated with this report was based on Task Item 2V
of Capital Budget Org. # 6510 in the “Third Amendment Between Broward
County and Craven Thompson & Associates, Inc.” dated December 18, 2009.
The scope was inclusive of the following items:
Review and analysis of the 2007 “Port Everglades Toewall Improvements
and Bulkhead Analysis” performed by Lakdas/Yohalem Engineering, Inc.
and production of a summary update based upon the review and findings
of the Port Everglades 2009 Underwater Inspection Survey performed by
Halcrow, Inc.
Production of a sequencing and phasing plan for replacement of all Port
Everglades bulkheads. Sequencing is to account for structural stability,
age of bulkhead, and existing and future uses of each berth. Halcrow was
to coordinate with the Port’s Master Planning Consultant, the updated 5,
10, and 20 year Master/Vision Plans, and the future dredging plans.
Evaluation of the existing cathodic protection system for adequacy in
corrosion protection of the bulkhead system. Evaluation was to be
inclusive of a cost/benefit analysis to evaluate maintenance and repair of
the existing system versus installation of a new corrosion protection
system.
1-6
1.3 2007 TOEWALL IMPROVEMENTS & BULKHEAD ANALYSIS REPORT
The scope of this report is to provide an update to the 2007 “Port
Everglades Toewall Improvements and Bulkhead Analysis” report produced by
Lakdas/Yohalem Engineering, Inc (LYE). Therefore, a brief review of the LYE
report will be provided as a starting point for this report. Additionally, Volume I of
the 2007 LYE report is attached as Appendix A. This report scope included
analysis on sheet pile wall embedment depths, remediation type comparisons
including complete replacement, cost comparisons associated with those
remediation techniques, potential wall failure mechanisms, and proposed berth
remediation/replacement orders. The 2007 LYE report was concluded by noting
the replacement of all sheet pile bulkheads over 40 years of age is
recommended.
The following is a brief summary of the “Port Everglades Toewall
Improvements and Bulkhead Analysis, Volume I” report produced by Lakdas/
Yohalem Engineering, Inc. in 2007.
(A) AGE OF ORIGINAL BULKHEAD
The 2007 LYE report notes that 68% of the Port’s bulkhead linear footage
was installed prior to 1968. Page 21 of the LYE report quotes from an Arbed
Steel Sheet Pile Manual, “the service life of waterfront structures is expected
today to be 40 to 50 years in general... (Arbed, 1986, p. 60)”. The LYE report
goes on to conclude, “new sheet pile is recommended for all sheet piles over 40
years of age.”
(B) CORROSION AND SECTION LOSS
The 2007 LYE report included a review of the steel sheet pile section
losses noted in the 2006 “Underwater Inspection and Baseline Survey
Assessment of Port Everglades Berths 1 through 33” by HPA (now Halcrow).
These section losses were compared to the steel sheet pile wall’s year of
construction and it was noted that “corrosion loss of the bulkheads . . . typically
increase with age.”
1-7
(C) BULKHEAD FAILURE MECHANISMS
In the 2007 LYE report, six (6) potential sheet pile wall failure mechanisms
were noted, defined, and reviewed. A brief summary of these mechanisms
follows; additional information and diagrams can be found in the 2007 report
(attached as Appendix A).
Deep-seated Soil Failure – A large scale movement of the soil mass on
both sides and the entire height of the sheet pile wall; LYE rated this
mechanism as of minimal concern at Port Everglades.
Wale System Failure – A separation of the wall from the tie rod, allowing
movement at the top of the wall; rated as a minimal concern.
Anchor Passive Failure – A movement of the anchorage system through
the soil, allowing movement at the top of the wall; rated as a minor
concern.
Flexural Failure of Sheet Pile – The development of a plastic hinge in the
steel sheet pile, allowing movement of the middle portion of the wall; rated
as a minor concern.
Tie Rod Failure – The yielding and/or fracture of the steel tie rods
connecting the sheet pile wall, allowing movement at the top of the wall;
rated as a moderate concern.
Toe Failure – Loss of soil resistance at the dredge line due to insufficient
embedment of the sheet pile wall toe, allowing movement of the wall
embedded below the dredge line; rated as a moderate concern. To
review the potential for toe failure, LYE performed 28 computer analyses
of existing wall segments. Of these 28 computer analyses 12 produced
factors of safety less than 1.0 and an additional 8 were between 1.0 and
2.0 (a minimum factor of safety recommended for design).
1-8
(D) REMEDIATION RECOMMENDATIONS
In the Lakdas/Yohalem Engineering, Inc. 2007 report, four (4) repair
options were reviewed:
Cathodic Protection – LYE noted that the installation of cathodic protection
slows the progress of corrosion and deterioration, which would delay flexural
failure of the steel sheet piles. However, it fails to repair the damage previously
done and provides little protection against anchor passive failure, tie rod failure or
toe failure without additional remediation.
New Tie Rod and Anchorage – Installation of new tie rods and anchorage
systems resists wale system failure, anchor passive failure and tie rod failure.
However, it does not provide any protection against a flexural failure or toe failure
without additional remediation.
Toe Wall Installation – Installation of toe walls increases the effective
penetration of the existing wall and reduces the possibility of toe failure.
However, it does not provide protection against anchor passive failure, tie rod
failure or flexural failure without additional remediation.
Replacement Wall – Installation of a replacement wall in front of the
existing wall provides protection against flexural failure and toe failure. However,
it provides little protection against anchor passive failure, tie rod failure or toe
failure without additional remediation
The 2007 Lakdas/Yohalem report provided cost estimates for seleceted
repair options and recommended installation of new sheet pile with a new
anchorage system. “New sheet pile is expected to provide a longer design life
than toe wall repairs. This longer design life is typically expected to make up for
the price differential over the life of the work.” (LYE, 2007)
The following portions of this report, update the 2007 LYE report with
ratings for the existing walls and propose replacement sequencing based upon
these ratings and coordination with the Port’s Master/Vision Plans.
2-1
2. COORDINATION WITH OTHER WORK
Prior to the determination of a proposed bulkhead replacement order, the
potential impacts of future dredging on existing bulkheads and geometric
changes to the layout of bulkheads proposed in the Master/Vision Plans were
reviewed.
2.1 COORDINATION ON FUTURE DREDGING
Halcrow contacted the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) to discuss
plans for future channel deepening in Port Everglades. Based upon these
discussions, in July 2010, the following description of the proposed channel
deepening was reviewed for potential impacts on the existing bulkheads. The
Future Dredging Concept Plan is shown in Figure 2-1.
The Entrance Channel shall be deepened to a maximum depth of 52 feet
(based upon a design depth of 50 feet plus 1 foot of required over depth plus 1
foot of allowable over depth). The Entrance Channel will then lead into the
deepened Main Turning Basin with a maximum depth of 52 feet.
In addition to the Entrance Channel and Main Turning Basin, the proposed
dredging will include the realignment and deepening of the Southport Access
Channel and deepening of the existing Turning Notch. The Southport Access
and exisiting Turning Notch will have a maximum depth of 52 feet. The
realignment of the Southport Access Channel will increase the distance from the
existing bulkheads to the channel for Midport Berths from approximately 110 feet
to a over 160 feet.
In addition to the USACE dredging, it is expected that Port Everglades will
extend the Turning Notch to the west and dredge the berth areas of Berths 30 to
32.
2-3
From the Turning Notch to the southern end of Berth 32, the dredging will
include the Southport Access Channel. In this area, dredging to be performed by
Port Everglades will extend the 52 foot maximum depth all the way to the face of
the existing steel sheet pile walls.
Based upon the information provided by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Halcrow preformed some conceptual calculations to estimate the
effect of the proposed dredging on existing walls for Berths 1 to 29. Based upon
the dredging plan described above, any dredging at these walls is not expected
to extend up to the existing walls. At these locations it is expected the proposed
dredging will remain at least 160 feet from the face of the wall. Most of this 160
foot width will remain at the existing berth depth, followed by a transition down to
the new 52 foot channel dredge depth.
To estimate the effect of this proposed dredge depth configuration,
analyses of a typical berth in the current configuration and the post dredge
configuration were run using the software CWALSHT (U.S. Army Corps of
Engineer’s Program #X0031, Version Date 2006/04/12). This software allows
the user to define the shape of either the dredge side of the model or the retained
soil.
For this analysis: the level of the retained soil was assumed as Elevation
+8.0 ft MLW; the existing dredge elevation was taken as -38 ft MLW; the tie rod
was assumed at Elevation 0.0 ft MLW; the proposed dredge elevation was taken
as -52.0 ft MLW; and the transition from the existing to proposed dredge depth
was assumed to be a 3 horizontal to 1 vertical slope. The analysis was run
assuming the soil friction angle ( ) was 30 degrees for the entire soil mass. This
soil friction angle was selected based upon the minimum soil angle for any layer
recommended by the geotechnical engineer for the 2007 Lakdas/Yohalem
Engineering Report. The angle of soil-wall interface friction ( ) was assumed as
one-third of the soil friction angle ( /3).
Initially, an analysis was run based upon the existing dredge depth only.
This was followed by a series of runs with the distance from the face of the wall
to the new dredge limits increasing on each run. When the distance from the
2-4
wall to the new dredge limit produced approximately equivalent results for wall
embedment, maximum wall bending moment, maximum wall deflection and
anchor force, the effects due to dredging were considered negligible.
For planning purposes, Halcrow recommends that dredge deepening be
maintained at least 100 feet from the existing bulkheads (See Figure 2-2).
Halcrow also recommends that before any dredge deepening a more detailed
dredge analysis be performed to evaluate the dredge deepening effects on the
individual bulkheads.
2-6
2.2 COORDINATION WITH DRAFT MASTER/VISION PLANS
In December 2007, the Broward County Board of County Commissioners
approved the Port Everglades Master Plan Report; including a 5-Year Master
Plan, a 10-Year Vision Plan and a 20-Year Vision Plan. Currently the Port is
updating the Master/Vision Plans with the assistance of their contracted
consultants AECOM USA, Inc.
These Master/Vision Plans call for several projects throughout Port
Everglades “to maximize market share and revenue.” The projects that have the
most direct impact on the existing Northport and Midport Berths are the
lengthening of Berth 4, widening of Slip 2, widening of Slip 1 and widening of Slip
3. In addition, the Master/Vision Plans call for the Expansion of the Turning
Notch and Lengthening of Berth 33 in Southport (these 2 projects are beyond the
limits of this study, but are listed for completeness).
The Port has requested that Halcrow coordinate with the Master/Vision
Plan consultant AECOM. This coordination allows the work of both Halcrow and
AECOM to produce reports that reflect their findings and provide the Port with a
cost-efficient plan for future work. As part of this coordination, Halcrow and
AECOM held a number of discussions. During the course of these discussions,
Halcrow provided AECOM with preliminary findings on the conditions of the
bulkheads and a draft version of this report. AECOM provided Halcrow with the
most current draft layout of the Master/Vision Plans (July 23, 2010). Based upon
this coordination, Halcrow adjusted the proposed wall replacement orders, shown
in Section 4.2, and AECOM modified the Master/Vision Plans to account for the
replacement of walls in the worst reported condition.
The most recent Master/Vision Plans provided by AECOM are attached
included in Appendix B. In addition, Figure 2-3 shows a summary of the
Conceptual Future Facility Plan used for sequencing and phasing of bulkhead
replacements.
3-1
3. DEVELOPMENT OF THE RATING SYSTEM FOR WALL CONDITIONS
To produce a relative ranking of the existing wall conditions, each steel sheet pile
wall segment was rated in 4 categories. The categories were embedment ratio,
average section loss, maximum section loss and age. These categories were selected
to review the potential for toe failure, the extent of sheet pile corrosion and potential
corrosion of non-visible portions of the wall system. The data sets for these categories
were compiled from previous studies, reports and existing drawings.
To produce the ratings for each category, the compiled data sets were initially
reviewed for outlier data. For instance, in the embedment ratio data, there were 2 data
points that were so significantly different than the other 42 points that rating all 42 on a
single scale might skew the ratings (embedment ratios of 2.074 and 1.713 while the
other 40 points were between 0.157 and 0.655 with an average – arithmetic mean – of
0.338). Once the outliers are identified, they are assigned ratings individually.
For the majority of the data points linear interpolation is used to assign ratings.
Initially, the worst case data point is assigned a rating of 1 and the best case data point
is assigned a rating of 49, based upon the total number of data points. Then all
intermediate data points are assigned ratings based upon linear interpolation between
the maximum and minimum ratings.
This methodology of assigning the maximum and minimum ratings manually
based upon the number of data points and using linear interpolation for all points in
between produces relative ratings that account for the relationships of the data points.
For instance, all walls that were constructed in the same year will have the same rating
and walls that were constructed only a year or two later will have a similar rating.
The first step in assigning ratings to the wall segments was to select and define
the limits of each wall segment. The initial definition of wall segments was based upon
the berth numbers used by Port Everglades. Since portions of walls in a single berth
were sometimes constructed at different times, these wall segments were broken into
smaller segments such that each segment would have only a single year of
construction, based upon Port Everglades Drawing 92S 3912 (dated 10/12/92).
Once the wall segments were selected, the available data was compiled to
produce each of the 4 ratings.
3-2
3.1 EMBEDMENT RATIO RATING
To account for the possibility of toe failure, the embedment ratio was used. This
ratio between the length of sheet pile (or king pile in a combination wall) below the
dredge line to the length of wall above the dredge line gives an approximate
representation of the resistance to toe failure. The further a sheet pile wall extends
below the dredge line, the greater the capacity of the wall to resist toe failure. While the
higher the wall extends above the dredge line the greater the toe force to be resisted by
the embedded portion of the wall. Therefore, this simple ratio based only upon the
geometry of the wall, provides a useful comparison for the resistance to toe failure for
walls with a number of different dredge depths.
To establish the length of sheet pile (or king pile) below the dredge line and
length of wall above the dredge line, three elevations are required; the top of wall cap
elevation, the dredge line elevation at the face of the wall and the sheet pile / king pile
tip elevation.
For the top of the wall cap elevation, the elevations shown in the HPA (Halcrow)
April 2006 “Underwater Inspection and Baseline Survey Assessment of Port Everglades
– Berths 1 through 33” were used.
For the sheet pile or king pile tip elevations, data shown on Port Everglades
Drawing 92S 3912 (dated 10/12/92) was used. When tip elevations varied along a wall
segment the length weighted average was used.
For the dredge line elevation, soundings taken by the HPA/Halcrow engineer-
dive team during their “Underwater Inspection and Assessment” performed in 2006,
2007 and 2009 were used. In 2006, soundings were taken every 100 feet. While in
2007 and 2009, soundings were taken approximately every 500 feet. The data from all 3
assessments was used to provide the maximum number of samples to estimate an
average dredge line along the entire length of wall segment.
Once the average length of embedment and average length of upstand were
calculated, the approximate embedment ratio was calculated by dividing the
embedment by the upstand.
3-3
After the embedment ratios were calculated, the data was reviewed for outlier
data points. Two outlier types were identified for the embedment ratio data; wall
segments with toe walls and wall segments not servicing active berths.
Several of the wall segments have had toe walls installed. The Halcrow October
2009 “Underwater Inspection and Assessment of Port Everglades – Berths 1 through
33” Report identifies the end stations for toe walls observed. Based upon this
information, the length of visible toe walls in front of each wall segment was reviewed.
For any wall segment with a visible toe wall running along 60% or more of the wall
length, the toe wall was assumed to provide adequate support to generate an effective
embedment ratio larger than the embedment ratio calculated based upon the tip
elevation shown on Port Everglades Drawing 92S 3912. Therefore, these 7 wall
segments were considered outliers and assumed to have a rating near the median of
the non-outlier wall segments.
When the calculated embedment ratios were reviewed, there were 2 wall
segments with embedment ratios significantly greater than the other 47 wall segments.
The wall along the FLP Canal and the wall along the Dania Cut Off Canal had
embedment ratios of 1.713 and 2.074, respectively. The embedment ratios of the 40
non-outlier wall segments were between 0.157 and 0.655 with a mean of 0.338. These
wall segments are along canals near the ends of active berths. It was therefore
assumed that these walls were constructed using sheet pile lengths similar to that of the
nearby berths for ease of construction; although these wall segments had average
water depths approximately 30 feet shallower than the adjacent berth wall segments.
The FPL and Dania Cut Off Canal segments were given the highest embedment ratio
ratings but were not used to determine the ratings for the other 40 non-outlier wall
segments.
Ber
thA
ppro
xim
ate
Leng
th
of E
xist
ing
SS
PY
ear
of
Con
stru
ctio
nA
ppro
xim
ate
Top
of C
ap E
LA
ppro
xim
ate
Ave
rage
Mud
line
EL
App
roxi
mat
eT
ip E
LA
ppro
x. A
vera
ge
Em
bed
App
rox.
Ave
rage
U
psta
ndLe
ngth
oW
alls
240
ft19
609.
0 ft
MLW
-11.
6 ft
MLW
-25.
1 ft
MLW
13.5
ft20
.6 ft
0.65
520
0 ft
1960
9.0
ft M
LW-1
7.4
ft M
LW-3
1.5
ft M
LW14
.1 ft
26.4
ft0.
534
100
ft19
609.
0 ft
MLW
-26.
0 ft
MLW
-31.
5 ft
MLW
5.5
ft35
.0 ft
0.15
710
0 ft
1956
9.0
ft M
LW-3
6.0
ft M
LW-4
9.0
ft M
LW13
.0 ft
45.0
ft0.
289
535
ft19
569.
0 ft
MLW
-34.
7 ft
MLW
-49.
0 ft
MLW
14.3
ft43
.7 ft
0.32
853
5 ft
1956
9.0
ft M
LW-3
7.1
ft M
LW-4
9.0
ft M
LW11
.9 ft
46.1
ft0.
257
on)
435
ft19
569.
0 ft
MLW
-33.
5 ft
MLW
-49.
0 ft
MLW
15.5
ft42
.5 ft
0.36
5on
)10
0 ft
1940
9.0
ft M
LW-3
8.0
ft M
LW-4
0.0
ft M
LW2.
0 ft
47.0
ft0.
043
*63
on)
700
ft19
767.
7 ft
MLW
-46.
5 ft
MLW
-67.
0 ft
MLW
20.5
ft54
.2 ft
0.37
7on
)20
0 ft
1978
7.7
ft M
LW-4
7.5
ft M
LW-6
1.0
ft M
LW13
.5 ft
55.2
ft0.
245
1329
0 ft
1978
7.7
ft M
LW-4
8.4
ft M
LW-6
1.0
ft M
LW12
.6 ft
56.1
ft0.
224
900
ft19
787.
7 ft
MLW
-43.
2 ft
MLW
-71.
0 ft
MLW
27.8
ft50
.9 ft
0.54
738
0 ft
1965
7.7
ft M
LW-3
9.6
ft M
LW-5
3.0
ft M
LW13
.4 ft
47.3
ft0.
284
*5 0
600
ft19
657.
7 ft
MLW
-40.
3 ft
MLW
-53.
0 ft
MLW
12.7
ft48
.0 ft
0.26
460
0 ft
1965
7.7
ft M
LW-4
2.9
ft M
LW-5
3.0
ft M
LW10
.1 ft
50.6
ft0.
200
305
ft19
657.
7 ft
MLW
-42.
8 ft
MLW
-53.
0 ft
MLW
10.2
ft50
.5 ft
0.20
260
0 ft
1965
7.7
ft M
LW-4
3.9
ft M
LW-5
3.0
ft M
LW9.
1 ft
51.6
ft0.
177
600
ft19
657.
7 ft
MLW
-44.
6 ft
MLW
-53.
0 ft
MLW
8.4
ft52
.3 ft
0.16
250
0 ft
1965
9.0
ft M
LW-3
6.8
ft M
LW-5
3.0
ft M
LW16
.3 ft
45.8
ft0.
355
615
ft19
849.
0 ft
MLW
-39.
8 ft
MLW
-71.
0 ft
MLW
31.2
ft48
.8 ft
0.63
961
5 ft
1984
9.0
ft M
LW-4
1.6
ft M
LW-7
1.0
ft M
LW29
.4 ft
50.6
ft0.
581
300
ft19
579.
0 ft
MLW
-36.
4 ft
MLW
-49.
0 ft
MLW
12.6
ft45
.4 ft
0.27
760
0 ft
1957
9.0
ft M
LW-3
9.3
ft M
LW-4
9.0
ft M
LW9.
7 ft
48.3
ft0.
201
*60
060
0 ft
1960
9.0
ft M
LW-3
9.8
ft M
LW-4
9.0
ft M
LW9.
3 ft
48.8
ft0.
190
*51
455
0 ft
1960
9.0
ft M
LW-3
8.6
ft M
LW-4
9.0
ft M
LW10
.4 ft
47.6
ft0.
220
ion)
325
ft19
609.
0 ft
MLW
-40.
1 ft
MLW
-49.
0 ft
MLW
8.9
ft49
.1 ft
0.18
035
ion)
225
ft19
649.
0 ft
MLW
-40.
4 ft
MLW
-53.
0 ft
MLW
12.6
ft49
.4 ft
0.25
555
0 ft
1964
9.0
ft M
LW-4
0.1
ft M
LW-5
3.0
ft M
LW12
.9 ft
49.1
ft0.
262
ion)
260
ft19
649.
0 ft
MLW
-36.
7 ft
MLW
-53.
0 ft
MLW
16.3
ft45
.7 ft
0.35
7io
n)39
0 ft
1966
9.0
ft M
LW-3
6.5
ft M
LW-5
3.0
ft M
LW16
.5 ft
45.5
ft0.
363
650
ft19
669.
0 ft
MLW
-39.
9 ft
MLW
-53.
0 ft
MLW
13.1
ft48
.9 ft
0.26
766
5 ft
1966
9.0
ft M
LW-4
0.4
ft M
LW-5
3.0
ft M
LW12
.6 ft
49.4
ft0.
255
660
ft19
669.
0 ft
MLW
-40.
9 ft
MLW
-53.
0 ft
MLW
12.1
ft49
.9 ft
0.24
324
0 ft
1966
9.0
ft M
LW-3
5.3
ft M
LW-5
3.0
ft M
LW17
.7 ft
44.3
ft0.
398
*20
0io
n)15
0 ft
1966
9.0
ft M
LW-3
6.3
ft M
LW-5
3.0
ft M
LW16
.7 ft
45.3
ft0.
368
*15
0io
n)57
0 ft
1967
9.0
ft M
LW-3
9.9
ft M
LW-4
9.0
ft M
LW9.
1 ft
48.9
ft0.
187
*50
665
0 ft
1967
9.0
ft M
LW-3
8.6
ft M
LW-5
0.1
ft M
LW11
.5 ft
47.6
ft0.
242
325
670
ft19
679.
0 ft
MLW
-44.
1 ft
MLW
-60.
0 ft
MLW
15.9
ft53
.1 ft
0.30
067
0 ft
1967
9.0
ft M
LW-4
0.6
ft M
LW-6
0.0
ft M
LW19
.4 ft
49.6
ft0.
392
1,45
0 ft
1967
9.0
ft M
LW-3
0.1
ft M
LW-4
6.2
ft M
LW16
.2 ft
39.1
ft0.
414
ion)
100
ft19
679.
0 ft
MLW
-36.
0 ft
MLW
-62.
0 ft
MLW
26.0
ft45
.0 ft
0.57
8io
n)72
0 ft
1983
9.0
ft M
LW-4
3.8
ft M
LW-7
2.0
ft M
LW28
.2 ft
52.8
ft0.
534
210
ft19
839.
0 ft
MLW
-11.
8 ft
MLW
-47.
5 ft
MLW
35.7
ft20
.8 ft
1.71
398
5 ft
1992
11.0
ft M
LW-4
2.9
ft M
LW-6
9.8
ft M
LW26
.9 ft
53.9
ft0.
499
1,00
0 ft
1992
11.0
ft M
LW-4
5.8
ft M
LW-7
7.0
ft M
LW31
.2 ft
56.8
ft0.
549
1,00
0 ft
1992
11.0
ft M
LW-4
5.0
ft M
LW-7
3.1
ft M
LW28
.1 ft
56.0
ft0.
502
800
ft19
9211
.0 ft
MLW
-46.
1 ft
MLW
-72.
0 ft
MLW
25.9
ft57
.1 ft
0.45
333
C51
0 ft
1992
11.0
ft M
LW-4
4.3
ft M
LW-7
2.0
ft M
LW27
.7 ft
55.3
ft0.
500
480
ft19
9211
.0 ft
MLW
-16.
0 ft
MLW
-72.
0 ft
MLW
56.0
ft27
.0 ft
2.07
4
App
rox.
Em
bed
Rat
io
3-5
3.2 STEEL SECTION LOSS RATINGS
Since section losses due to corrosion may vary from location to location on the
face of steel sheet pile walls, sampled thickness measurements and section losses
were used for 2 ratings. During the 2006, 2007 and 2009 “Underwater Inspections and
Assessments” performed by the HPA/Halcrow engineer-dive teams, field measurements
of the remaining steel thickness were taken. These thickness measurements were
taken using an underwater, ultrasonic thickness (UT) gauge.
At each thickness measurement station, the typical procedure included 27 UT
measurements. The procedure included 9 measurements taken near the top of the
exposed sheet pile (just below the concrete cap), 9 measurements taken near mid-
depth, and 9 measurements taken near the dredge line.
During the 2006 “Underwater Inspection and Assessment”, UT measurements
were performed at 270 station locations along the bulkheads or approximately every
100 feet. During the 2007 and 2009 “Underwater Inspections and Assessments”,
measurements were performed at 57 station locations or approximately every 500 feet.
This produced a total of 9,946 individual thickness measurements.
For each thickness measurement station location, the most likely steel sheet pile
manufacturer and sheet pile section was selected based upon Port Everglades
Drawing 92S 3912 (dated 10/12/92). For each sheet pile section, research was
performed to identify the original sheet pile flange and web catalog listed thicknesses.
Using these catalog thicknesses, the approximate section loss for each thickness
measurement was calculated.
The thickness losses were expressed as a percentage of the most likely catalog
thicknesses. These thickness loss percentages were then averaged for the upper
measurements, mid-depth measurements, near dredge line measurements and the all
depth measurements for each wall segment. In addition, for each wall segment, the
maximum percentage section loss was noted. The average section loss was selected
to represent the overall condition of the waterside face of the steel sheet pile walls. The
average section loss gives an indication of the reduction in flexural bending capacity
due to section loss. In contrast, the maximum recorded section loss indicates how
close the wall is to developing holes that could allow for fill loss behind the wall. Fill loss
3-6
behind the wall can lead to settlement and undermining of the pavement behind the
wall.
Once the average and maximum section losses for each wall segment were
generated, they were reviewed for outliers. The only outlier identified for the section
loss ratings was the 100 linear foot portion of Berth 3 listed as constructed in 1940. In
this segment of wall, only 3 thickness measurements from near the dredge line were
located with an average loss of 18.7%. Due to this small sample size, this segment was
assumed to have no thickness loss data. Due to the age of this segment, it was
assumed that this small segment would have the worst section loss and was assigned
an average section loss and maximum section loss rating of 1. The remaining 48 wall
segments were assigned section loss ratings using linear interpolation with the largest
loss assumed to have a rating of 2 and the smallest loss assumed to be rated at 49.
thE
xist
ing
SS
PC
onst
ruct
ion
Sec
tion
Los
sS
ectio
n Lo
ssU
pper
Los
sM
iddl
e Lo
ssB
otto
m L
oss
240
ft19
6030
.5%
55.6
%28
.8%
No
Dat
a32
.1%
200
ft19
6032
.2%
52.2
%28
.6%
38.1
%29
.3%
100
ft19
6035
.0%
52.2
%33
.9%
37.5
%33
.6%
100
ft19
5624
.0%
46.1
%29
.9%
23.6
%18
.4%
535
ft19
5621
.9%
49.2
%26
.6%
22.7
%16
.4%
535
ft19
5618
.8%
37.0
%22
.9%
20.5
%13
.1%
435
ft19
5620
.1%
46.1
%21
.1%
22.8
%16
.3%
100
ft19
40N
o D
ata
No
Dat
aN
o D
ata
No
Dat
a18
.7%
700
ft19
766.
8%37
.2%
11.3
%6.
6%2.
4%20
0 ft
1978
0.7%
10.4
%1.
4%0.
4%0.
3%29
0 ft
1978
0.5%
5.1%
0.7%
0.3%
0.4%
900
ft19
781.
6%13
.1%
2.3%
1.6%
0.8%
380
ft19
6519
.9%
60.0
%28
.6%
20.6
%11
.3%
600
ft19
6519
.9%
46.7
%25
.7%
22.8
%11
.3%
600
ft19
6519
.6%
45.3
%22
.1%
25.3
%10
.4%
305
ft19
6522
.5%
50.7
%27
.3%
27.0
%13
.2%
600
ft19
6520
.1%
65.3
%26
.1%
25.5
%8.
9%60
0 ft
1965
16.6
%56
.4%
19.4
%22
.0%
8.2%
500
ft19
6520
.4%
50.7
%25
.3%
24.7
%11
.1%
615
ft19
841.
2%11
.8%
2.3%
0.4%
0.8%
615
ft19
844.
5%51
.9%
6.3%
4.2%
2.9%
300
ft19
5715
.3%
66.6
%21
.3%
15.3
%7.
8%60
0 ft
1957
18.6
%46
.1%
19.5
%21
.9%
14.3
%60
0 ft
1960
18.2
%46
.1%
19.6
%20
.2%
14.8
%55
0 ft
1960
12.7
%37
.0%
16.4
%13
.1%
8.9%
325
ft19
609.
8%36
.0%
11.7
%10
.4%
7.2%
225
ft19
6413
.0%
32.2
%13
.3%
16.6
%9.
0%55
0 ft
1964
17.5
%49
.2%
20.5
%21
.2%
10.7
%26
0 ft
1964
16.5
%49
.2%
20.5
%19
.8%
9.4%
390
ft19
6617
.6%
42.9
%20
.8%
19.9
%12
.0%
650
ft19
6620
.8%
55.5
%25
.6%
27.1
%9.
9%66
5 ft
1966
19.4
%48
.0%
23.1
%22
.5%
12.6
%66
0 ft
1966
17.1
%41
.6%
20.1
%21
.5%
9.6%
240
ft19
6619
.5%
38.3
%25
.5%
19.6
%13
.4%
150
ft19
6616
.1%
32.7
%19
.1%
19.8
%9.
4%57
0 ft
1967
16.3
%42
.9%
16.4
%19
.1%
13.2
%65
0 ft
1967
12.6
%51
.8%
15.0
%13
.7%
9.2%
670
ft19
671.
6%74
.6%
4.6%
0.3%
0.0%
670
ft19
672.
1%55
.6%
3.5%
2.6%
0.2%
1,45
0 ft
1967
10.0
%69
.5%
11.2
%12
.0%
6.8%
100
ft19
675.
9%26
.9%
4.5%
8.8%
4.4%
720
ft19
8312
.4%
43.9
%14
.6%
12.3
%10
.2%
210
ft19
837.
7%13
.6%
8.0%
No
Dat
a7.
1%98
5 ft
1992
4.5%
26.4
%4.
7%4.
4%4.
4%1,
000
ft19
9211
.3%
49.2
%12
.5%
13.3
%8.
2%1,
000
ft19
9210
.5%
46.7
%10
.9%
12.6
%7.
9%80
0 ft
1992
11.3
%70
.8%
12.9
%12
.5%
8.5%
510
ft19
9213
.5%
45.4
%12
.4%
13.6
%14
.3%
480
ft19
9215
.3%
46.7
%17
.3%
13.6
%14
.9%
3-8
3.3 AGE RATING
In addition to the sheet pile wall, the bulkhead system depends upon its
anchorage system to function and remain stable. The anchorage system includes steel
tie rods, steel soil anchors, steel walers, concrete deadman anchors and steel sheet pile
anchor walls. The anchorage system provides the resistance for movement of the top
of the wall due to the soil pressure behind the wall.
Since the anchorage system is embedded in concrete and buried underground,
the anchorage system is not accessible for visual inspections and measurements.
Therefore, the age of the wall is used for an approximation of the condition of the
anchorage system and other elements not exposed to view. All else being equal, an
older anchorage system would be expected to be closer to its functional life than a
newer one.
All year of construction data was taken from Port Everglades Drawing 92S 3912
(dated 10/12/92).
The only wall segment assumed as an outlier was the 100 linear foot portion of
Berth 3 listed as constructed in 1940. Due to the small length of this segment, it seems
likely that at some point since 1940, this segment has received significant work but this
work was overlooked during the assembly of Port Everglades Drawing 92S 3912.
All other wall segments were rated using linear interpolation with 1956 assigned
a rating of 2 and 1992 assigned a rating of 48.8. The maximum rating of 48.8 was used
instead of the normal 49.0 to avoid rounding issues in the linear interpolation. With the
maximum rating of 48.8, each year of wall age reduces the rating by exactly 1.3.
3-9
Table 3-3 Summary of Age Rating Data
Year Wall Segment Approximate Length of Existing Wall Segment
Total Length of Wall for Each Year Age Rating
1940 Portion of Berth 3 100 LF 100 LF 1.0
Berth 1A 100 LF Berth 1 535 LF Berth 2 535 LF
1956
Portion of Berth 3 435 LF
1,605 LF 2.0
Berth 13A 300 LF 1957
Berth 14 600 LF 900 LF 3.3
Berth 1D 240 LF
Berth 1C 200 LF
Berth 1B 100 LF
Berth 15 600 LF
Berth 16 550 LF
1960
Portion of Berth 17 325 LF
2,015 LF 7.2
Portion of Berth 17 225 LF
Berth 18 550 LF 1964
Portion of Berth 19 260 LF
1,035 LF 12.4
Berth 6 380 LF
Berth 7 600 LF
Berth 8 600 LF
Berth 8A 305 LF
Berth 9 600 LF
Berth 10 600 LF
1965
Berth 11 500 LF
3,585 LF 13.7
Portion of Berth 19 390 LF
Berth 20 650 LF
Berth 21 665 LF
Berth 22 660 LF
Berth 23 240 LF
1966
Portion of Berth 24 150 LF
2,755 LF 15.0
Portion of Berth 24 570 LF
Berth 25 650 LF
Berth 26 670 LF
Berth 27 670 LF
Berth 28 Walls 1,450 LF
1967
Portion of Berth 29 100 LF
4,110 LF 16.3
1 All data taken from Port Everglades Drawing No. 92S 3912 (dated 10/12/92). 2 Wall Segments with Year of Construction after 1970 shown on Table 3-3.
3-10
Table 3-4 Summary of Age Rating Data (Continued)
Year Wall Segment Approximate Length of Existing Wall Segment
Total Length of Wall for Each Year Age Rating
1976 Portion of Berth 4 700 LF 700 LF 28.0
Portion of Berth 4 200 LF
Berth 4A 290 LF 1978
Berth 5 900 LF
1,390 LF 30.6
Portion of Berth 29 720 LF 1983
FPL Canal 210 LF 930 LF 37.1
Berth 12 615 LF 1984
Berth 13 615 LF 1,230 LF 38.4
Berth 30 985 LF
Berth 31 1,000 LF
Berth 32 1,000 LF
Berth 33 800 LF
Berths 33A to 33C 510 LF
1992
Dania Cut Off Canal 480 LF
4,775 LF 48.8
1 All data taken from Port Everglades Drawing No. 92S 3912 (dated 10/12/92). 2 Wall Segments with Year of Construction prior to 1970 shown on Table 3-2.
3-11
3.4 COMBINED RATINGS
To rank all of the wall segments for a recommended order of importance, the
individual ratings for embedment ratio, average section loss, maximum section loss and
age needed to be combined into a single rating.
It is expected that age, average section loss and maximum section loss would
exhibit relatively high levels of correlation. For instance, Figure 3-1 shows the average
section loss relative to a wall segment’s year of construction. The general trend of this
graph is that an older wall has more section loss than a younger wall segment.
Due to the correlation between age and the sampled section losses, a weighted
average was used to select an overall rating. The weights for the overall ranking were
selected such that the total effect of the wall’s age (25%), average section loss (15%)
and maximum section loss (10%) comprised half of the overall rating; while the
embedment ratio comprised the other half of the rating (50%).
If, instead of the weighted average, the arithmetic mean of the four ratings were
used, the overall rating would be skewed toward the correlation between age and
section losses. Calculating the arithmetic mean is equivalent to a weighted average
with each of the four ratings having a 25% weighting. As shown in Figure 3-1, an older
wall tends to have greater section loss than a younger wall due to more time for
corrosion to develop. Therefore, with an arithmetic mean, the corrosion related ratings
(age, average section loss and maximum section loss) would account for 75% of the
total rating and the embedment ratio would account for only 25% of the rating.
Therefore, the 25%-15%-10%-50% weighting was selected to ensure that the potential
for toe failure was weighted equally with the effects of corrosion.
The age rating was weighted heavier than the average or maximum section loss
because the age accounts for corrosion of all components of the wall and anchorage
system. The average and maximum section losses are measurements on only the
waterside face of the walls.
56 g300LF)-1957Berth14(600LF)-1957
19581959
Berths16and17(875LF)-1960Berth15(600LF)-1960
Berths1Ato1D(560LF)-1960196119621963
Berth19(260LF)-1964
Berths17and18(775LF)-1964
Berths9and10(1,200LF)-1965
Berths7and8(1,200LF)-1065
Berth6(130LF/Existing380LF)-1965
Berth11(75LF/Existing500LF)-1965
Berth8A(260LF/Existing300LF)-1965Berth24(155LF)-1966
Berths21and22(1,325LF)-1966Berth23(240LF)-1966
Berths19and20(1,050LF)-1966
Berths26and27(1,350LF)-1967Berth29(100LF)-1967
Berth28(560LF/Existing1,450LF)-1967
Berths24and25(1,215LF)-196719681969197019711972197319741975
Berth4(700LF)-19761977
Berth4A(475LF/Existing300LF)-1978Berth4(200LF)-1978Berth5(900LF)-1978
1979198019811982
FPLCanal(210LF)1983Berth29(780LF)-1983
Berths12&13(650LF)-1985
erth12-FutureBargeSlip(600LF)-198419851986
3-13
However, age does not tell the complete picture of corrosion effects. The
cathodic protection systems and the typical variability of corrosion rates, means that the
faces of some wall segments have experienced more corrosion than others. By
including the average section loss the variability of corrosion and the potential for
flexural overstress of the walls is included. Similarly, the maximum section loss best
accounts for the risk of holes leading to fill loss from behind the wall.
Since for each of the individual ratings 1 was considered the worst condition, the
weighted average is such that the lower the rating the sooner the wall segment should
be remediated.
Once the weighted average for all wall segments was established, wall segments
were grouped based upon geography and wall geometry. For example, Berths 1, 2 and
3 were grouped since these three berths provide a linear 1,600 feet of berthing space.
These groups were then reviewed to select the longest wall segments; these longer
segments were considered more critical to the need for remediation.
The berths at the east and west end of the Northport Slips 1, 2 & 3 (Berths 4A, 6,
8A, 11 and 13A) were grouped with one of the adjacent berths along the slips. For
instance, Berth 8A was grouped with Berth 8 and Berth 11 was grouped with Berth 12.
These groupings of wall segments at the ends of the slips were made to avoid
suggesting that major remediation be performed on a berth at the end of slip, which may
require significant geometric realignment according to the Master/Vision Plan, before
remediation was performed on the adjacent slip wall segments. This grouping of wall
segments allowed for an indirect inclusion of wall importance in the overall ratings.
Although the Southport Berths (Berths 30 to the Dania Cut Off Canal) were not
required to be included in this work, the data for these berths was available. Therefore,
these berths are included at the end of the ratings for completeness and comparison
purposes.
4-1
4. PROPOSED REPLACEMENT SCHEDULES
4.1 RECOMMENDED SCHEDULE WITHOUT MASTER/VISION PLAN
Once the weighted average for the grouped wall segments was finished, the
grouped wall segments were ordered such that those wall segments more in need of
remediation were listed first. Possible years for the start of wall replacement
construction were assigned to each group of wall segments based on a beginning
construction year of 2013.
These years of proposed replacement were selected based upon the weighted
rating of the segments, while also spreading apart the replacement of berths handling
petroleum products (Berths 5, 7-8, 9-10 and 12-13).
In an attempt to account for the need for design, unavoidable delays and periodic
review of the wall order during the replacement schedule, the replacement schedule
includes years where no construction is scheduled to commence. These scheduled
years with no construction stretched the 19 years of construction commencing out over
29 years (including the Southport Berths).
To give the best chance that the berths not scheduled until later in the order are
able to remain functional, it is recommended that cathodic protection be installed. To
minimize the chances that cathodic protection is installed on wall segments followed
closely by the wall being replaced, it is recommended that starting in 2012, all walls
scheduled for replacement in 2021 or later have cathodic protection installed.
Although this replacement schedule is considered realistic and addresses the
bulkhead replacement order based upon a weighted average rating, this proposed
replacement schedule is not without risk. The weighted average rating is based upon
the existing conditions of the wall segments using observations since 2006. This data
covers such a limited time frame that the different rates of deterioration between wall
segments was not reviewed or accounted for. In addition, this schedule assumes that
the average walls in Northport and Midport can, with cathodic protection, attain a length
weighted average age of 56 years before starting replacement construction (drops to 53
years when the Southport Berths are included). In addition, four of the wall segments,
totaling 1,380 linear feet of berthing (100 LF portion of Berth 3, 600 LF portion of Berth
4-2
14 & 15, all 300 LF of Berth 13A and all 380 LF of Berth 6), are expected to be 65 years
or older at the time of replacement construction commencing. To account impact of
different rates, the replacement order should be reviewed no less than every 5 years
and anytime wall movement or significant fill loss is observed.
Yea
rA
geB
erth
SS
PE
xist
ing
SS
PC
onst
ruct
ion
Em
bed
Wal
lS
ectio
n Lo
ssS
ectio
n Lo
ssR
atin
gR
atin
gLo
ss R
atin
gLo
sN
O N
EW
CO
NS
TR
UC
TIO
N T
O S
TA
RT
INS
TA
LL C
P48
Ber
th 9
600
ft19
659.
1 ft
0.17
720
.1%
65.3
%2.
813
.722
.348
Ber
th 1
060
0 ft
1965
8.4
ft0.
162
16.6
%56
.4%
1.4
13.7
27.1
NO
NE
W C
ON
ST
RU
CT
ION
TO
ST
AR
T59
Ber
th 1
535
ft19
5614
.3 ft
0.32
821
.9%
49.2
%16
.82.
019
.859
Ber
th 2
535
ft19
5611
.9 ft
0.25
718
.8%
37.0
%10
.22.
024
.159
Ber
th 3
(po
rtio
n)43
5 ft
1956
15.5
ft0.
365
20.1
%46
.1%
20.2
2.0
22.3
75B
erth
3 (
port
ion)
100
ft19
402.
0 ft
0.04
3*
63.0
%N
o D
ata
No
Dat
a18
.01.
01.
056
Ber
th 1
655
0 ft
1960
10.4
ft0.
220
12.7
%37
.0%
6.8
7.2
32.4
56B
erth
17
(por
tion)
325
ft19
608.
9 ft
0.18
010
.8%
9.8%
36.0
%3.
17.
236
.352
Ber
th 1
7 (p
ortio
n)22
5 ft
1964
12.6
ft0.
255
13.0
%32
.2%
10.1
12.4
32.0
52B
erth
18
550
ft19
6412
.9 ft
0.26
217
.5%
49.2
%10
.712
.425
.851
Ber
th 2
166
5 ft
1966
12.6
ft0.
255
19.4
%48
.0%
10.0
15.0
23.3
51B
erth
22
660
ft19
6612
.1 ft
0.24
317
.1%
41.6
%9.
015
.026
.4N
O N
EW
CO
NS
TR
UC
TIO
N T
O S
TA
RT
54B
erth
760
0 ft
1965
12.7
ft0.
264
19.9
%46
.7%
10.9
13.7
22.6
54B
erth
860
0 ft
1965
10.1
ft0.
200
19.6
%45
.3%
5.0
13.7
23.0
54B
erth
8A
475
ft30
5 ft
1965
10.2
ft0.
202
22.5
%50
.7%
5.2
13.7
19.0
NO
NE
W C
ON
ST
RU
CT
ION
TO
ST
AR
T64
Ber
th 1
460
0 ft
1957
9.7
ft0.
201
*10
0.0%
18.6
%46
.1%
18.0
3.3
24.3
61B
erth
15
600
ft19
609.
3 ft
0.19
0*
85.7
%18
.2%
46.1
%18
.07.
224
.958
Ber
th 1
9 (p
ortio
n)26
0 ft
1964
16.3
ft0.
357
16.5
%49
.2%
19.4
12.4
27.2
56B
erth
19
(por
tion)
390
ft19
6616
.5 ft
0.36
317
.6%
42.9
%20
.015
.025
.756
Ber
th 2
065
0 ft
1966
13.1
ft0.
267
20.8
%55
.5%
11.1
15.0
21.3
57B
erth
23
240
ft19
6617
.7 ft
0.39
8*
83.3
%19
.5%
38.3
%18
.015
.023
.157
Ber
th 2
4 (p
ortio
n)15
0 ft
1966
16.7
ft0.
368
*10
0.0%
16.1
%32
.7%
18.0
15.0
27.7
56B
erth
24
(por
tion)
570
ft19
679.
1 ft
0.18
7*
88.8
%16
.3%
42.9
%18
.016
.327
.556
Ber
th 2
565
0 ft
1967
11.5
ft0.
242
50.0
%12
.6%
51.8
%8.
916
.332
.5N
O N
EW
CO
NS
TR
UC
TIO
N T
O S
TA
RT
47B
erth
4E
255
ft70
ft19
7812
.6 ft
0.22
40.
5%5.
1%7.
230
.649
.047
Ber
th 5
900
ft19
7827
.8 ft
0.54
71.
6%13
.1%
37.0
30.6
47.5
60B
erth
613
0 ft
380
ft19
6513
.4 ft
0.28
4*
38.5
%19
.9%
60.0
%18
.013
.722
.6N
O N
EW
CO
NS
TR
UC
TIO
N T
O S
TA
RT
67B
erth
1D
240
ft19
6013
.5 ft
0.65
530
.5%
55.6
%47
.07.
28.
167
Ber
th 1
C20
0 ft
1960
14.1
ft0.
534
32.2
%52
.2%
35.8
7.2
5.8
67B
erth
1B
100
ft19
605.
5 ft
0.15
735
.0%
52.2
%1.
07.
22.
071
Ber
th 1
A10
0 ft
1956
13.0
ft0.
289
24.0
%46
.1%
13.2
2.0
17.0
61B
erth
26
670
ft19
6715
.9 ft
0.30
01.
6%74
.6%
14.2
16.3
47.5
61B
erth
27
670
ft19
6719
.4 ft
0.39
22.
1%55
.6%
22.7
16.3
46.8
53B
erth
4 (
port
ion)
700
ft19
7620
.5 ft
0.37
76.
8%37
.2%
21.3
28.0
40.4
51B
erth
4 (
port
ion)
200
ft19
7813
.5 ft
0.24
56.
5%0.
7%10
.4%
9.1
30.6
48.7
N/A
Ber
th 4
B35
5 ft
NE
WN
EW
NE
WN
EW
NE
WN
EW
NE
WN
EW
51B
erth
4C
220
ft19
7812
.6 ft
0.22
40.
5%5.
1%7.
230
.649
.0N
/AB
erth
4D
355
ftN
EW
NE
WN
EW
NE
WN
EW
NE
WN
EW
NE
W63
Ber
th 2
81,
450
ft19
6716
.2 ft
0.41
410
.0%
69.5
%24
.716
.336
.1N
O N
EW
CO
NS
TR
UC
TIO
N T
O S
TA
RT
67B
erth
11
75 ft
500
ft19
6516
.3 ft
0.35
520
.4%
50.7
%19
.313
.721
.948
Ber
th 1
261
5 ft
1984
31.2
ft0.
639
1.2%
11.8
%45
.638
.448
.0N
/AB
erth
12A
170
ftN
EW
NE
WN
EW
NE
WN
EW
NE
WN
EW
NE
W48
Ber
th 1
361
5 ft
1984
29.4
ft0.
581
4.5%
51.9
%40
.238
.443
.675
Ber
th 1
3A44
0 ft
300
ft19
5712
.6 ft
0.27
715
.3%
66.6
%12
.13.
328
.8N
O N
EW
CO
NS
TR
UC
TIO
N T
O S
TA
RT
42B
erth
33
800
ft19
9225
.9 ft
0.45
311
.3%
70.8
%28
.448
.834
.368
Ber
th 2
9 (p
ortio
n)10
0 ft
1967
26.0
ft0.
578
5.9%
26.9
%39
.916
.341
.652
Ber
th 2
9 (p
ortio
n)72
0 ft
1983
28.2
ft0.
534
12.4
%43
.9%
35.8
37.1
32.8
52F
PL
Can
al21
0 ft
1983
35.7
ft1.
713
7.7%
13.6
%48
.037
.139
.244
Ber
ths
33A
to 3
3C35
0 ft
510
ft19
9227
.7 ft
0.50
013
.5%
45.4
%32
.748
.831
.344
Dan
ia C
anal
300
ft48
0 ft
1992
56.0
ft2.
074
15.3
%46
.7%
49.0
48.8
28.8
NO
NE
W C
ON
ST
RU
CT
ION
TO
ST
AR
T46
Ber
th 3
11,
000
ft19
9231
.2 ft
0.54
911
.3%
49.2
%37
.248
.834
.346
Ber
th 3
21,
000
ft19
9228
.1 ft
0.50
210
.5%
46.7
%32
.948
.835
.447
Ber
th 3
098
5 ft
1992
26.9
ft0.
499
4.5%
26.4
%32
.648
.843
.6
No
tes:
1) F
or a
ll ra
tings
, a h
ighe
r ra
ting
valu
e re
pres
ents
bet
ter
curr
ent c
ondi
tions
.
Em
bed
Rat
io
4-4
4.2 RECOMMENDED SCHEDULE WITH MASTER/VISION PLAN
Once a proposed replacement order without the effects due to the Master/Vision
Plan Schedule was developed, the next step was to modify this proposed order to
account for the schedule of work shown on the drafts of the 5-Year Master Plan, 10-
Year Vision Plan and 20-Year Vision Plan, received by Halcrow on July 23, 2010. The
extension of Berth 4 to accommodate proposed future cruise vessels was moved from
2029 up to 2013, while the replacement of the existing Berth 4 remained in 2029. In
addition, by making some minor changes to off years and berth segment orders, the
remaining wall segments are all scheduled for within 2 years of the replacement year
listed in Table 4-1.
Since the order is quite similar to that shown in Table 4-1, a number of the
previous comments apply. Cathodic protection is still recommended to be installed
starting 2012 on wall segments scheduled for replacement in 2021 or later. The order
will still need to be reviewed no less than every 5 years and anytime wall movement or
significant fill loss is observed. The average length weighted age for the Northport and
Midport Berths remains about the same at 54 years (52 years when Southport Berths
are included) and the same four wall segments are being expected to be 65 years or
older at the time of replacement construction commencing (100 LF portion of Berth 3,
600 LF portion of Berths 14 & 15, Berth 13A and Berth 6).
NO
NE
W C
ON
ST
RU
CT
ION
TO
ST
AR
TIN
ST
ALL
CP
N/A
Ber
th 4
B35
5 ft
2010
-201
4Le
ngth
en B
erth
4N
EW
NE
WN
EW
NE
WN
EW
NE
WN
EW
35B
erth
4C
220
ft20
10-2
014
Leng
then
Ber
th 4
1978
0.22
40.
5%5.
1%7.
230
.649
.0N
/AB
erth
4D
355
ft20
10-2
014
Leng
then
Ber
th 4
NE
WN
EW
NE
WN
EW
NE
WN
EW
NE
W49
Ber
th 9
600
ft20
10-2
014
Ber
ths
9 &
10
1965
0.17
720
.1%
65.3
%2.
813
.722
.349
Ber
th 1
060
0 ft
2010
-201
4B
erth
s 9
& 1
019
650.
162
16.6
%56
.4%
1.4
13.7
27.1
NO
NE
W C
ON
ST
RU
CT
ION
TO
ST
AR
TN
O N
EW
CO
NS
TR
UC
TIO
N T
O S
TA
RT
61B
erth
153
5 ft
2015
-201
9B
erth
s 1,
2 &
319
560.
328
21.9
%49
.2%
16.8
2.0
19. 8
61B
erth
253
5 ft
2015
-201
9B
erth
s 1,
2 &
319
560.
257
18.8
%37
.0%
10.2
2.0
24.1
61B
erth
3 (
port
ion)
435
ft20
15-2
019
Ber
ths
1, 2
& 3
1956
0.36
520
.1%
46.1
%20
.22.
022
.377
Ber
th 3
(po
rtio
n)10
0 ft
2015
-201
9B
erth
s 1,
2 &
319
400.
043
*63
.0%
No
Dat
aN
o D
ata
18.0
1.0
1.0
58B
erth
16
550
ft20
15-2
019
Ber
ths
16, 1
7 &
18
1960
0.22
012
.7%
37.0
%6.
87.
232
.458
Ber
th 1
7 (p
ortio
n)32
5 ft
2015
-201
9B
erth
s 16
, 17
& 1
819
600.
180
10.8
%9.
8%36
.0%
3.1
7.2
36.3
54B
erth
17
(por
tion)
225
ft20
15-2
019
Ber
ths
16, 1
7 &
18
1964
0.25
513
.0%
32.2
%10
.112
.432
.054
Ber
th 1
855
0 ft
2015
-201
9B
erth
s 16
, 17
& 1
819
640.
262
17.5
%49
.2%
10.7
12.4
25.8
53B
erth
21
665
ft20
20-2
029
Ber
ths
21 &
22
1966
0.25
519
.4%
48.0
%10
.015
.023
.353
Ber
th 2
266
0 ft
2020
-202
9B
erth
s 21
& 2
219
660.
243
17.1
%41
.6%
9.0
15.0
26.4
NO
NE
W C
ON
ST
RU
CT
ION
TO
ST
AR
T56
Ber
th 7
600
ft20
20-2
029
Slip
1 R
ealig
nmen
t19
650.
264
19.9
%46
.7%
10.9
13.7
22.6
56B
erth
860
0 ft
2020
-202
9S
lip 1
Rea
lignm
ent
1965
0.20
019
.6%
45.3
%5.
013
.723
.056
Ber
th 8
A47
5 ft
305
ft20
20-2
029
Slip
1 R
ealig
nmen
t19
650.
202
22.5
%50
.7%
5.2
13.7
19.0
NO
NE
W C
ON
ST
RU
CT
ION
TO
ST
AR
T66
Ber
th 1
460
0 ft
2020
-202
9S
lip 3
Rea
lignm
ent
1957
0.20
1*
100.
0%18
.6%
46.1
%18
.03.
324
.363
Ber
th 1
560
0 ft
2020
-202
9S
lip 3
Rea
lignm
ent
1960
0.19
0*
85.7
%18
.2%
46.1
%18
.07.
224
.960
Ber
th 1
9 (p
ortio
n)26
0 ft
2020
-202
9B
erth
s 19
& 2
019
640.
357
16.5
%49
.2%
19.4
12.4
27.2
58B
erth
19
(por
tion)
390
ft20
20-2
029
Ber
ths
19 &
20
1966
0.36
317
.6%
42.9
%20
.015
.025
.758
Ber
th 2
065
0 ft
2020
-202
9B
erth
s 19
& 2
019
660.
267
20.8
%55
.5%
11.1
15.0
21.3
59B
erth
23
240
ft20
20-2
029
Ber
ths
23, 2
4 &
25
1966
0.39
8*
83.3
%19
.5%
38.3
%18
.015
.023
.159
Ber
th 2
4 (p
ortio
n)15
0 ft
2020
-202
9B
erth
s 23
, 24
& 2
519
660.
368
*10
0.0%
16.1
%32
.7%
18.0
15.0
27.7
58B
erth
24
(por
tion)
570
ft20
20-2
029
Ber
ths
23, 2
4 &
25
1967
0.18
7*
88.8
%16
.3%
42.9
%18
.016
.327
.558
Ber
th 2
565
0 ft
2020
-202
9B
erth
s 23
, 24
& 2
519
670.
242
50.0
%12
.6%
51.8
%8.
916
.332
.5N
O N
EW
CO
NS
TR
UC
TIO
N T
O S
TA
RT
49B
erth
4E
255
ft70
ft20
20-2
029
Slip
2 R
ealig
nmen
t19
780.
224
0.5%
5.1%
7.2
30.6
49. 0
49B
erth
590
0 ft
2020
-202
9S
lip 2
Rea
lignm
ent
1978
0.54
71.
6%13
.1%
37.0
30.6
47.5
62B
erth
613
0 ft
380
ft20
20-2
029
Slip
2 R
ealig
nmen
t19
650.
284
*38
.5%
19.9
%60
.0%
18.0
13.7
22.6
NO
NE
W C
ON
ST
RU
CT
ION
TO
ST
AR
T69
Ber
th 1
D24
0 ft
1960
0.65
530
.5%
55.6
%47
.07.
28.
169
Ber
th 1
C20
0 ft
1960
0.53
432
.2%
52.2
%35
.87.
25.
869
Ber
th 1
B10
0 ft
1960
0.15
735
.0%
52.2
%1.
07.
22.
073
Ber
th 1
A10
0 ft
1956
0.28
924
.0%
46.1
%13
.22.
017
.053
Ber
th 4
(po
rtio
n)70
0 ft
2020
-202
9S
lip 2
Rea
lignm
ent
1976
0.37
76.
8%37
.2%
21.3
28.0
40.4
51B
erth
4 (
port
ion)
200
ft20
20-2
029
Slip
2 R
ealig
nmen
t19
780.
245
6.5%
0.7%
10.4
%9.
130
.648
.763
Ber
th 2
667
0 ft
1967
0.30
01.
6%74
.6%
14.2
16.3
47.5
63B
erth
27
670
ft19
670.
392
2.1%
55.6
%22
.716
.346
.8N
O N
EW
CO
NS
TR
UC
TIO
N T
O S
TA
RT
65B
erth
28
1,45
0 ft
1967
0.41
410
.0%
69.5
%24
.716
.336
.141
Ber
th 3
380
0 ft
1992
0.45
311
.3%
70.8
%28
.448
.834
.369
Ber
th 1
175
ft50
0 ft
2020
-202
9S
lip 3
Rea
lignm
ent
1965
0.35
520
.4%
50.7
%19
.313
.721
.950
Ber
th 1
261
5 ft
2020
-202
9S
lip 3
Rea
lignm
ent
1984
0.63
91.
2%11
.8%
45.6
38.4
48.0
N/A
Ber
th 1
2A17
0 ft
2020
-202
9S
lip 3
Rea
lignm
ent
NE
WN
EW
NE
WN
EW
NE
WN
EW
NE
W50
Ber
th 1
361
5 ft
2020
-202
9S
lip 3
Rea
lignm
ent
1984
0.58
14.
5%51
.9%
40.2
38.4
43.6
77B
erth
13A
440
ft30
0 ft
2020
-202
9S
lip 3
Rea
lignm
ent
1957
0.27
715
.3%
66.6
%12
.13.
328
.8N
O N
EW
CO
NS
TR
UC
TIO
N T
O S
TA
RT
69B
erth
29
(por
tion)
100
ft19
670.
578
5.9%
26.9
%39
.916
.341
. 653
Ber
th 2
9 (p
ortio
n)72
0 ft
1983
0.53
412
.4%
43.9
%35
.837
.132
.853
FP
L C
anal
210
ft19
831.
713
7.7%
13.6
%48
.037
.139
.245
Ber
ths
33A
to 3
3C35
0 ft
510
ft20
20-2
029
Sou
thpo
rt B
ulkh
ead
Ext
.19
920.
500
13.5
%45
.4%
32.7
48.8
31.3
45D
ania
Can
al30
0 ft
480
ft20
20-2
029
Sou
thpo
rt B
ulkh
ead
Ext
.19
922.
074
15.3
%46
.7%
49.0
48.8
28.8
NO
NE
W C
ON
ST
RU
CT
ION
TO
ST
AR
T47
Ber
th 3
11,
000
ft19
920.
549
11.3
%49
.2%
37.2
48.8
34. 3
47B
erth
32
1,00
0 ft
1992
0.50
210
.5%
46.7
%32
.948
.835
.448
Ber
th 3
098
5 ft
1992
0.49
94.
5%26
.4%
32.6
48.8
43.6
No
tes:
1) F
or a
ll ra
tings
, a h
ighe
r ra
ting
valu
e re
pres
ents
bet
ter
curr
ent c
ondi
tions
.
5-1
5. CATHODIC PROTECTION
5.1 EVALUATION OF EXISTING IMPRESSED CURRENT EQUIPMENT
On April 5th, 2010 one of Halcrow’s electrical engineers experienced in the
cathodic protection design made a site visit to review the condition of existing impressed
current equipment at Berths 4, 5, 12, 13, 16, 17, 18 and 29. The original goal of this site
visit was to visually gauge the condition of the equipment and gather information to
prepare for a testing of the equipment on a future site visit, with the ultimate goal of
assessing the possibility of rehabilitating the existing equipment. However, the April
2010 visual assessment provided enough information to ascertain that the condition of
the existing equipment was not suitable for rehabilitation. The following is a brief
summary of the conditions observed during the site visit. A memo with more details,
including a berth by berth description and photographs, is included as Appendix C of
this report.
In review of the existing conditions, it was apparent that major portions of the
existing cathodic protection systems had not been active for a considerable time.
Rectifier and switch enclosures were partially, if not severely, corroded and in some
cases were even used for debris and food disposal. Several junction boxes were bolted
shut preventing inspection; however, the level of corrosion on the boxes themselves
suggested that the condition of the junction boxes would not be significantly better than
the rectifiers. In addition to the high levels of corrosion, some of the equipment was
found to be damaged. While some of the conduit and equipment were found to be in
good condition, the overall condition of the existing cathodic protection system was
deemed to be insufficient for rehabilitation.
5.2 LIFE CYCLE COSTS OF CATHODIC PROTECTION SYSTEMS
The protection of new and existing steel structures immersed in water can be
accomplished with either a sacrificial anode or an impressed current cathodic protection
system.
In a sacrificial anode cathodic protection system, the steel is protected by
installing a metal more susceptible to corrosion (anodic) than steel. Once installed the
electro-chemical reaction that causes steel to corrode will instead cause the sacrificial
anode to corrode, thus protecting the steel. Thus, in a sacrificial anode system, the
5-2
protection is dependant upon the size of the anode and the difference in galvanic
potential between the anode and the protected structure.
Alternatively, a similar process can be achieved by installing smaller anodes and
conducting a small current through the structure. The current in the structure causes
the steel to become more resistant to corrosion (or cathodic).
Either system can be used to protect sheet pile bulkhead systems, the major
difference between the systems is the use of the electrical current. The sacrificial
anode system generally requires larger and heavier anodes. However, once installed,
sacrificial anodes require only minimal maintenance. The anodes should be periodically
inspected to identify damage or irregular anode loss but, until the anodes require
replacement, no other maintenance cost is required. An impressed current system
requires paying for the electricity, additional testing to modify the protection levels over
time and repairs to the rectifiers or other equipment.
To provide an equitable comparison, life cycle costs for both systems at every
berth in Port Everglades were generated. These life cycle costs were generated for
approximate designs at each berth. A description of the assumptions used for the
approximate designs is included as Appendix D. Included in the life cycle costs were
the cost for installation of the cathodic protection systems; electricity costs for the
impressed current systems; estimations of regular maintenance costs (assumed
performed by a vendor under contract to the Port); above and below water inspections
every 3 years (assumed performed by a vendor under contract to the Port) and the
replacement of all anodes after 25 years. For the estimation of the life cycle costs, all
systems were assumed installed in 2012 and the costs were run out for a 50 year life
cycle. To account for inflation and the cost of money, the Construction Cost Index was
taken as 3.7% per Engineer News Record Historical Data; the Consumer Price Index
was taken as 3.0% per Engineer News Record Historical Data and the Discount Rate
was taken as 5.0% based upon Current South Florida Municipal Bonds.
The summary of the results for the 50 Year Life Cycle Costs in Discounted
Dollars are included in this report as Appendix E; the results in Real 2010 Dollar Terms
are included in Appendix F; and the results in Nominal Dollar Terms are included in
Appendix G. In addition to the summaries, Appendix E also includes the predicted
annual costs in discounted dollars for both systems and each berth segment (although
5-3
not included, annual cost break downs in either real dollar or nominal dollar terms can
be produced upon request).
For installation of cathodic protection on the existing sheet pile walls of Port
Everglades, the life cycle costs generated for this report clearly suggest that sacrificial
anode systems are the superior choice. Although the anodes required in a sacrificial
anode system are considerably larger, this cost is more than made up for by the costs
associated with cutting and repairing the upper deck surface to allow for the installation
of the conduit and wiring required to connect the rectifiers, anodes and sheets. During
the operation of both systems an underwater dive inspection every three years is
included in the life cycle costs. In addition, the impressed current system also includes
the cost for electricity, monthly load readings and an annual above-water equipment
inspection.
Since the impressed current system is expected to be more expensive to install
and operate, Halcrow recommends the use of sacrificial anode cathodic protection for
the existing walls of Port Everglades.
6-1
6. PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COSTS FOR PLANNING
The following construction costs are provided for planning purposes only.
These costs are based upon approximate designs using assumed design
parameters. The requirements of a final design may vary and produce considerably
different construction costs. For instance, work performed on longer lengths of
bulkhead or combined together may produce lower cost per linear foot of berth as the
fixed costs are spread over a larger area. Similarly, restrictions on schedule or access
to the site would be expected to increase the costs per linear foot.
Finally, the costs listed below are based upon 2010 labor, equipment and
material costs. Due to variability of each of these factors, no effort to predict changes
for work performed in future years has been made for these probable construction costs
for planning purposes.
Therefore Halcrow recommends that during planning, an appropriate contingency
factor be selected by the Port and added to these planning costs.
6.1 PLANNING COSTS FOR SACRIFICIAL ANODES
Based upon the approximate sacrificial anode cathodic protection designs and
installation costs performed for the Life Cycle Cost comparison (described in Section
5.2 of this report); Halcrow estimates that the probable 2010 cost for installation of
sacrificial anodes on the existing bulkheads at Port Everglades would be approximately
$450 per linear foot of berth length. This cost includes the aluminum anodes,
underwater welding, installation of a test station at each berth and performing the initial
testing of the system.
In addition, the costs of the design can vary widely depending upon the specific
installation location. For instance, the various sheet pile sections and berth depths
throughout the Port produce different surface areas requiring protection (in this estimate
the costs varied from $350 per linear foot to $510 per linear foot due to the changes in
surface area requiring protection).
6-2
6.2 PLANNING COSTS FOR IMPRESSED CURRENT
During Halcrow’s Life Cycle Cost comparison (described in Section 5.2 of this
report), it was determined for the existing walls of Port Everglades sacrificial anode
cathodic protection was preferable to impressed current. Installation of impressed
current systems were found to be more expensive due to the extensive behind and
through the wall work required installing conduit for the electrical connections between
the rectifiers, the sheet piles and the anodes. In addition, the annual operating costs
due to electricity, increased testing and maintenance were higher than for sacrifical
anodes as well. Therefore, the planning costs for installation of impressed current
systems are provided for completeness only.
Based upon the approximate impressed cathodic protection designs and
installation costs performed for the Life Cycle Cost comparison, Halcrow estimates that
the probable 2010 cost for installation of impressed current on the existing bulkheads at
Port Everglades would be approximately $675 per linear foot of berth length. This cost
includes the installation of rectifiers along the berth, creating electrical continuity
between steel sheet pile sections with underwater welding, installation of the anodes,
installation of conduits and wiring to connect the rectifiers to the system, installation of
test stations along each berth and performing the initial testing of the system.
In addition, the costs of the design can vary widely depending upon the specific
installation location. For instance, the various sheet pile sections and berth depths
throughout the Port produce different surface areas requiring protection (in this estimate
the costs varied from $315 per linear foot to $925 per linear foot due to the changes in
surface area requiring protection).
6.3 PLANNING COSTS FOR REPLACEMENT WALL CONSTRUCTION
To produce planning costs for the installation of a replacement wall installed in
front of the existing bulkhead wall, several recent Opinions of Probable Costs (OPC) for
replacement steel pipe-sheet pile combination bulkheads were reviewed. These OPC’s
were generated by Halcrow cost estimators familiar with marine construction. The
designs and installation conditions for the bulkheads included in the OPC’s are similar
to those expected at Port Everglades.
6-3
Based upon these recent Opinions of Probable Costs for replacement steel pipe-
sheet pile combination bulkheads, Halcrow recommends a cost of approximately
$12,000 per linear foot of bulkhead be used for the replacement of steel sheet pile
bulkheads. This cost includes the cost for removal and storing of existing fenders,
installation of a pipe-sheet pile combination wall seaward of the existing wall, installation
of new soil or rock anchors to tie back the wall, installation of a concrete cap on the new
wall, filling the void between the new and existing wall with suitable fill and reinstalling
the existing fenders.
Please note that this planning cost is only for the bulkhead wall. The portions of
Berths 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 33 and the Turning Notch where existing land is to be
excavated in front of the wall, the costs for excavation, remediation and disposal of this
soil is not included.
6.4 PLANNING COSTS FOR TOE WALL CONSTRUCTION
The 2007 “Port Everglades Toewall Improvements & Bulkhead Analysis” Report
by Lakdas/Yohalem Engineering included a cost for installation of a toe wall. However,
this 2007 report also noted:
“… the toe wall does not provide any additional resistance to failure modes other than
toe failure; while the installation of a new steel sheet pile bulkhead should increase
resistance to multiple failure mechanisms. Since the new SSP wall would provide an
increased resistance to multiple failure mechanisms, installation of new sheet pile would
be expected to provide a longer design life than toe wall repairs. This longer design life
is expected to make up for the price difference over the life of the work.”
Halcrow recommends installation of a replacement sheet pile wall over the installation of
a toe wall. However, for consistency, a planning cost for installation of toe wall is
included.
6-4
To produce planning costs for the installation of a toe wall installed in front of the
existing bulkhead wall, a recent Opinion of Probable Costs (OPC) for toe wall was
reviewed. This OPC was generated by a Halcrow cost estimator to provide an alternate
option to one of the OPC’s used for the replacement wall costs. Halcrow recommends
a cost of approximately $5,000 per linear foot of bulkhead be used for the installation of
a toe wall. This cost includes the cost for removing the existing fenders to allow for the
wall installation, installation of a sheet pile toe wall seaward of the existing wall, filling
the void between the existing wall and the toe wall with tremie concrete and reinstalling
the existing fenders.
7-1
7. CONCLUSION
Halcrow recommends that Port Everglades implement the Recommended
Schedule including Master/Vision Plan shown in Table 4-5. This schedule includes the
installation of replacement steel sheet pile bulkhead walls with new wall anchorage
systems throughout Port Everglades by 2041. To reduce the rate of ongoing corrosion
on those walls that are scheduled for later replacement, Halcrow also recommends that
sacrificial anode cathodic protection systems be installed and maintained on all existing
wall segments scheduled for replacement in 2021 or later. Installation of cathodic
protection should start no later than 2012.
This replacement order has been developed based upon the current conditions
of the walls and coordination with projects included in the current draft versions of Port
Everglades Master / Vision Plans. This replacement order should be reviewed no less
than every 5 years to address changes in the wall conditions and/or the latest Master /
Vision Plans.
To monitor any ongoing changes in the conditions of the walls, Port Everglades
should continue performing regular above and below water inspections of the walls
throughout the Port. Halcrow recommends that detailed underwater inspections be
performed no less than every two years. These detailed inspections should meet or
exceed the requirements of a Level II Routine Inspection, as described in ASCE’s
Underwater Investigations: Standard Practice Manual (2001). These detailed
inspections shall include a visual “swim-by” of all bulkheads in the Port and the cleaning
of marine growth and steel sheet pile thickness measurements at regular intervals along
the bulkhead walls. To better monitor the condition of the walls, it is recommended that
the interval between thickness measurement stations be 100 feet (similar to the 2006
inspection).
In addition, benchmarks on the cap or cap wall of each berth should be
established for monitoring possible movement of the top of the wall. Plane surveys of
these benchmarks should be performed no less than twice a year and compared to
previous surveys. Movement of the top of the wall will be evident by changes in the
plane surveys.
A-1
APPENDIX A 2007 Port Everglades “Toewall Improvements &
Bulkhead Analysis” Report: Volume Iby Lakdas/Yohalem Engineering
Lakdas/Yohalem Engineering, Inc. Toewall Improvements & Bulkhead Analysis Draft Report – September 17, 2007
Page 1 of 26
TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents ..................................................................................................................1
List of Figures ...................................................................................................................1 List of Tables ....................................................................................................................2
Port Everglades .....................................................................................................................3 Scope of Work ......................................................................................................................5 Steel Sheet Pile Bulkheads ....................................................................................................6 Existing Bulkhead Performance...........................................................................................10
Deep-Seated Soil Failure .................................................................................................11 Wale System Failure........................................................................................................11 Anchor Passive Failure ....................................................................................................12 Flexural Failure of Sheet Piling .......................................................................................13 Tie Rod Failure ...............................................................................................................14 Rotational Failure Do To Inadequate Penetration (Toe Failure) .......................................15
Remediation and Cost Comparisons ....................................................................................18 Auger Cast Pile Toe Wall ................................................................................................19 New Steel Sheet Pile Bulkhead........................................................................................20
Recommendations ...............................................................................................................21 References...........................................................................................................................26
List of Figures Figure 1. Layout of Port Everglades .....................................................................................4 Figure 2. Example of a Z-type SSP.......................................................................................6 Figure 3. Example of an H-Z combi-wall..............................................................................6 Figure 4. Relationship between Age and Average Section Loss ............................................9 Figure 5. Deep-seated soil failure .......................................................................................11 Figure 6. Wale system failure .............................................................................................11 Figure 7. Anchor passive failure .........................................................................................12 Figure 8. Flexural failure of piling ......................................................................................13 Figure 9. Tie rod failure......................................................................................................14 Figure 10. Rotational failure due to inadequate penetration..................................................15
Lakdas/Yohalem Engineering, Inc. Toewall Improvements & Bulkhead Analysis Draft Report – September 17, 2007
Page 2 of 26
List of Tables Table 1. Northport Bulkhead Summary ................................................................................7 Table 2. Midport & Southport Bulkhead Summary...............................................................8 Table 3. Northport Embedment Computer Analysis Summary............................................16 Table 4. Midport and Southport Embedment Computer Analysis Summary........................17 Table 5. Conceptual Rehabilitation Options Comparison ....................................................18 Table 6. Conceptual Costs for Auger Cast Pile Toe Wall Installation..................................19 Table 7. Conceptual Costs for Installation of New Bulkhead, in front of Existing ...............20 Table 8. Proposed Steel Sheet Pile (SSP) Replacement Order.............................................22 Table 9. Northport Pile Tip and Dredge Elevation Summary ..............................................24 Table 10. Midport & Southport Pile Tip and Dredge Elevation Summary...........................25
Lakdas/Yohalem Engineering, Inc. Toewall Improvements & Bulkhead Analysis Draft Report – September 17, 2007
Page 3 of 26
PORT EVERGLADES Port Everglades is a major economic engine, providing more than 15,000 direct jobs
and generating $2.79 billion in business activity (Port Everglades Department, 2007, p. 6). Port Everglades ranks among the top 15 U.S. cruise and container ports with 534 cruise departures in 2006, #2 rank; 1,144,500 cruise passengers departed in 2006, #3 rank; 634,230 TEU’s of total container foreign trade in 2006, #12 rank; and 4,916,000 metric tones of containerized foreign trade (MARAD, 2007). In addition, the Port handled more than 123,479,901 barrels of petroleum products, 379,535 tons of breakbulk materials and 2,954,310 tons of dry bulk materials in 2006 (Port Everglades Department, 2007, p. 38).
The Port’s 25,222 linear feet of berthing space accommodated 5,510 total ship calls in 2006, (Port Everglades Department, 2007, p. 38 & 45). Currently, Port Everglades are grouped by geography into one of the designations; Northport, Midport and Southport. However, the limits of these designations are not precise and may vary from report to report. Therefore, in this report, the definitions of these zones are based upon those give in the HPA’s 2006 “Underwater Inspection and Baseline Survey Assessment of Port Everglades Berths 1 through 33” report:
• “Northport encompasses Berth 1 through 13 (including Berths 1A through 1D, 4A, 8A, and 13A) and supports various dry bulk, liquid bulk, and cruise ship operations.” (HPA, 2006)
• “Midport encompasses Berths 14 through 29 (including the Florida Power & Light (FP&L) cooling canal bulkhead adjacent to Berth 29) and supports dry bulk, breakbulk, ro/ro, and cruise ship operations.” (HPA, 2006)
• “Southport encompasses Berths 30 through 33 (including Berths 33A through 33C) and supports containerized cargo ships and ro/ro operations.” (HPA, 2006)
Fig
ure
1. L
a
Lakdas/Yohalem Engineering, Inc. Toewall Improvements & Bulkhead Analysis Draft Report – September 17, 2007
Page 5 of 26
SCOPE OF WORK Lakdas/Yohalem Engineering (LYE) has been tasked with performing a complete
analysis of the bulkheads at Port Everglades. As part of this work LYE, and its subconsultants, performed the following:
• Lakdas/Yohalem Engineering (LYE) reviewed previous drawings, reports and other information provided by Port Everglades staff; these reviews included, but were not limited to:
o Construction and As-Built Drawings for various Berths.
o Port Everglades Authority Drawing No. 92S 3912 – “Steel Sheet Piling and Bulkhead Data”
o “Bulkhead Structural and Cathodic Protection Study” by Bermello-Ajamil & Partners, Inc.; July 1997.
o “Southport Bulkhead Corrosion Study: Southport Berths 30, 31, 32, 33, Midport Berth 25 – Final Report” by Craven Thompson & Associates and Han-Padron Associates, Consulting Engineers; December 1999.
o “Underwater Inspection and Baseline Survey Assessment of Port Everglades Berths 1 through 33” by HPA; April 2006.
o Hydrographic Survey soundings performed between 3/24/2004 and 7/02/2007.
• Tierra, Inc. performed the geotechnical investigation. For more information on the Geotechnical Engineering Services performed by Tierra, see Volume II.
• LYE performed a top side structural survey. For more information on the Structural Survey of Docks performed by LYE, see Volume II.
• Southern Cathodic Protection Company (SCPC) performed condition surveys of the existing cathodic protection systems at Port Everglades. For more information on the Cathodic Protection Systems On-Site Condition Surveys performed by SCPC, see Volume II.
• LYE performed a series of engineering analyses of some of the SSP at the port. These analyses included reviews of existing condition, selected results included in Volume III-A, and after proposed COE future dredging, selected results included in Volume III-B.
• River Consulting, LLC provided consultation on analysis and technical writing.
Lakdas/Yohalem Engineering, Inc. Toewall Improvements & Bulkhead Analysis Draft Report – September 17, 2007
Page 6 of 26
STEEL SHEET PILE BULKHEADS The Port Everglades 25,222 linear feet of
berthing facilities (Port Everglades Department, 2007, p. 45) includes approximately 24,400 linear feet of steel sheet pile (SSP) bulkhead (Port Everglades Authority, 1992).
These bulkheads can be broken into broad categories: Z-type SSP and H-Z combi-walls. The Z-type SSP walls are composed exclusively of rolled steel, sheet pile sections (see Figure 2). While the H-Z combination walls, or combi-walls, are composed of pairs of Z-type SSP sections between rolled steel H-pile shapes (see Figure 3). The inclusion of the H shaped, king piles increases the stiffness of a wall when compared to a wall of only the Z-type shapes.
Like all metals exposed to saltwater and air, SSP sections tend to corrode due to rust oxidation. To delay the onset of corrosion, sheet pile sections are typically coated with an epoxy or other resilient material before installation. In addition, some of the Berths at Port Everglades were equipped with impressed current or sacrificial anode cathodic protection systems. However, over time all systems will eventually succumb to corrosion.
Southern Cathodic Protection’s review of the existing cathodic protection concludes that most of the cathodic protection systems have “reached… useful design life” (see Volume II for complete reports). Therefore any currently observed section loss will continue to increase, if left in the current condition. The typical recommendation from Southern Cathodic Protection is to abandon the impressed current systems and evaluate the viability of installing sacrificial aluminum anodes.
Tables 1 and 2 summarize the length, age, wall type and average section loss listed in HPA’s Underwater Inspection Report (2006). As can be seen in Figure 4, the corrosion section loss of the bulkheads in Northport and Southport typically increase with age and approximately 63% of the bulkhead linear footage was installed prior to 1968 (62% of Northport and 91% of Midport).
Figure 2. Example of a Z-type SSP (after Arcelor RPS)
Figure 3. Example of an H-Z combi-wall (after Arcelor RPS)
Lakdas/Yohalem Engineering, Inc. Toewall Improvements & Bulkhead Analysis Draft Report – September 17, 2007
Page 7 of 26
Table 1. Northport Bulkhead Summary Berths & Slips Approximate
Length 1
(ft)
Year of
Typical Construction 2
Typical Wall Type 3
Average of Section Losses Listed in 2006 HPA Report 4
Northport Berths
Berths 1A-1D 640 ft 1960 Z-type SSP 43%
Berths 1-3 1,600 ft 1956 Z-type SSP 35%
Berths 4, 4A & 5 (Slip 2)
2,100 ft 1976 H-Z Combi-wall 10%
Berth 6 378 ft 1956 Z-type SSP 37%
Berths 7, 8, 8A, 9 & 10 (Slip 1)
2,706 ft 1965 Z-type SSP 35%
Berth 11 497 ft 1965 Z-type SSP 39%
Berths 12, 13 & 13A (Slip 3)
1.531 ft 1984 H-Z Combi-wall 16%
Notes: 1. Lengths taken from Drawing 92S 3912 (Port Everglades Authority, 1992), unless otherwise noted.
2. “Typical Year of Construction” is the year the majority of the currently visible SSP installed; from Drawing 92S 3912, unless otherwise noted.
3. “Typical Wall Type” is the description of the majority of the currently visible SSP installed; Drawing 92S 3912, unless otherwise noted.
4. “Average of Section Loss Listed in 2006 HPA Report” is the average of the readings listed in HPA 2006 Report’s Detailed Inspection Findings Section. These readings appear to be the maximum reading from 9 thickness measurements taken at a given station. Therefore these values my not be representative of the entire wall.
Lakdas/Yohalem Engineering, Inc. Toewall Improvements & Bulkhead Analysis Draft Report – September 17, 2007
Page 8 of 26
Table 2. Midport & Southport Bulkhead Summary Berths & Slips Approximate
Length 1
(ft)
Year of
Typical Construction 2
Typical Wall Type 3
Average of Section Losses Listed in 2006 HPA Report 4
Midport Berths
Berths 14-15 (Slip 3)
1,201 ft 1960 Z-type SSP 30%
Berths 16-18 1,648 ft 1960 Z-type SSP 23%
Berths 19-20 1,300 ft 1966 Z-type SSP 33%
Berths 21-22 1,325 ft 1966 Z-type SSP 33%
Berth 23 240 ft 1966 Z-type SSP 34%
Berths 24-25 1,608 ft 1967 Z-type SSP 26%
Berths 26-27 668 ft 1967 Z-type SSP 24%
Berth 28 1,448 ft 1967 Z-type SSP 20%
Berth 29 789 ft 1983 H-Z Combi-wall 22%
FP&L Canal 107 ft 1983 Z-type SSP 7%
Southport Berths
Berth 30 1,003 ft 1992 H-Z Combi-wall 14%
Berths 31-32 2,000 ft 1992 H-Z Combi-wall 27%
Berth 33 798 ft 1992 H-Z Combi-wall 25%
Berths 33A-33C 5 800 ft 1992 H-Z Combi-wall 28%
Notes: 1. Lengths taken from Drawing 92S 3912 (Port Everglades Authority, 1992), unless otherwise noted.
2. “Typical Year of Construction” is the year the majority of the currently visible SSP installed; from Drawing 92S 3912, unless otherwise noted.
3. “Typical Wall Type” is the description of the majority of the currently visible SSP installed; Drawing 92S 3912, unless otherwise noted.
4. “Average of Section Loss Listed in 2006 HPA Report” is the average of the readings listed in HPA 2006 Report’s Detailed Inspection Findings Section. These readings appear to be the maximum reading from 9 thickness measurements taken at a given station. Therefore these values my not be representative of the entire wall.
5. Length, year and typical type for Berths 33A-33C taken from HPA 2006 Report.
Lakdas/Yohalem Engineering, Inc. Toewall Improvements & Bulkhead Analysis Draft Report – September 17, 2007
Page 9 of 26
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
Berth
6 (1
956)
Berth
s 1-3
(195
6)
Berth
s 1A-1
D (196
0)
Slip 3
: Ber
ths 14
-15
(196
0)
Berth
s 16-
18 (1
960)
Berth
11 (1
965)
Slip 1
: Ber
ths 7
, 8, 8
A, 9 &
10
(196
5)
Berth
23 (1
966)
Berth
s 19-
20 (1
966)
Berth
s 21-
22 (1
966)
Berth
s 24-
25 (1
967)
Berth
s 26-
27 (1
967)
Berth
28 (1
967)
Slip 2:
Ber
ths 4
, 4A &
5 (1
976)
Berth
29 (1
983)
FP&L Can
al (1
983)
Slip 3
: Ber
ths 12
, 13
& 13A
(198
4)
Berth
s 33A
-33C
(199
2)
Berth
s 31-
32 (1
992)
Berth
33 (1
992)
Berth
30 (1
992)
Ave
rag
e S
ecti
on
Lo
sses
in 2
006
HP
A R
epor
t
Figure 4. Relationship between Age and Average Section Loss
Lakdas/Yohalem Engineering, Inc. Toewall Improvements & Bulkhead Analysis Draft Report – September 17, 2007
Page 10 of 26
EXISTING BULKHEAD PERFORMANCE Based upon reviewing the HPA’s “Underwater Inspection and Baseline Survey”
report (2006), existing drawings provided by Port Everglades and the sheet pile wall computer analysis performed by LYE; generalizations on the performance of the bulkheads can be made. These generalizations are based upon the current conditions of the bulkheads and do not account for any future improvements, deteriorations or other changes.
Anchored sheet pile walls have multiple potential structural failure mechanisms. For completeness, the failure mechanisms reviewed herein will be based upon the U.S. Army Corps of Engineer’s Design of Sheet Pile Walls (1994, p. 5-1 to 5-12). The “Modes of Failure” for anchored sheet pile walls presented by the Army Corps of Engineers are:
• Deep-seated soil failure
• Wale system failure
• Anchor passive failure
• Flexural failure of sheet piling
• Tie rod failure
• Rotational failure due to inadequate penetration (commonly called a toe failure)
Each mechanism will be rated based upon the general perceived probability of occurrence throughout the port over the short term. A five point scale will be used to represent various levels of the perceived probability of occurrence:
• Minimal concern
• Minor concern
• Moderate concern
• Significant concern
• Severe concern
These ratings are for generalizations of all sections of bulkhead throughout the port. Isolated incidences of increased corrosion, damage, and/or loading conditions are expected to occur and may lead to localized issues. Localized issues are to be expected in any system.
Lakdas/Yohalem Engineering, Inc. Toewall Improvements & Bulkhead Analysis Draft Report – September 17, 2007
Page 11 of 26
Deep-Seated Soil Failure A deep-seated soil failure is a large scale
movement of the soil mass on both sides of the sheet pile wall. As noted by the Army Corps of Engineers is “independent of the structural characteristics of the wall” and is due entirely to the resistance of the soil mass to shearing.
The geotechnical investigations of this area, both those preformed for this investigation and previously, describe the deeper geologic strata as sand, cemented sand, sandstone and limestone. All of these soil layers exhibit relatively high resistance to shearing. Therefore even without performing detailed soil stability analyses, the probability of a deep-seated soil failure occurring under the Port Everglades bulkheads is of minimal concern.
This conclusion is further strengthened by the wide spread use of sheet pile bulkheads throughout the deep water ports of Florida, without a large scale deep-seated soil failure.
Wale System Failure A wale system failure is a separation of the wall
from the tie rod. This type of failure mechanism is a function of the loading conditions and connection detailing.
A review of the typical section shown in HPA’s report and selected construction or “As-Built” drawings provided by the Port Everglades staff show that the typical wale system is encased in the concrete cap wall. Therefore for this mechanism to develop the steel connections between the tie rods, the wale and/or the sheet pile would need to be stressed to the point of yield. As these connections begin to deform the stress would be transferred to the surrounding concrete through bearing and bond transfer.
In most instances, the forces required for a wale system failure would exceed those required to produce other failure modes. Therefore, a wale system failure is estimated to be of only minimal concern.
Figure 5. Deep-seated soil failure (after U.S. Army Corps of Engineers)
Figure 6. Wale system failure (after U.S. Army Corps of Engineers)
Lakdas/Yohalem Engineering, Inc. Toewall Improvements & Bulkhead Analysis Draft Report – September 17, 2007
Page 12 of 26
Anchor Passive Failure Anchor passive failure is the movement of the
anchorage system. This type of failure mechanism is a function of soil strength, geometry and loading conditions.
During anchor passive failure, the tie back force required for wall stability is greater that the resistance provided by the soil in front of the anchor system. In new construction, this type of failure is typically due to inadequate sizing and/or geometry of the anchorage system. While in existing construction, this type of failure is typically due to an increased surcharge or lateral load.
During the analysis of the Port Everglades bulkheads, LYE estimated the soil passive capacity for a representative anchor system using classical soil mechanics methods. Then this capacity was compared the required anchor force determined during the sheet pile wall analyses. The estimated passive capacity was less than the required anchor force for a number of the wall systems reviewed.
However, if anchor passive failure was developing noticeable movement of the sheet pile would be expected, but this was not observed in the field. The HPA underwater inspection did not note any instances of the sheet pile wall tilting out. Nor did the LYE topside “Structural Survey of Docks” note distress that was consistent with the movement of the sheet pile wall.
Although the estimated passive capacity in the LYE analysis suggested this failure mechanism may be of concern, since no visible signs of wall movement were noted; the potential for anchor passive failure is estimated to be a minor concern.
Figure 7. Anchor passive failure (after U.S. Army Corps of Engineers)
Lakdas/Yohalem Engineering, Inc. Toewall Improvements & Bulkhead Analysis Draft Report – September 17, 2007
Page 13 of 26
Flexural Failure of Sheet Piling Flexural failure of the sheet piling occurs when
the stress in the steel sheet pile section is high enough to develop a plastic hinge. This type of failure mechanism is a function of the loading conditions, steel sheet pile properties and deterioration.
During flexural failure of the sheet piling, the stress in the sheet pile is such that at one location the entire cross section has reached the yield stress of the steel. At this point displacement of the wall will increase without a corresponding increase in loading. This condition is referred to a plastic hinge because the response of the wall behaves similarly to a beam with a hinge. Depending upon the embedment, this hinge may lead to instability of the wall. In existing construction, the stress in the sheet pile may be increased through either increased loading and/or section loss due to corrosion of the sheet pile.
The HPA underwater inspection included spot checks of steel sheet pile thickness measurements using an ultrasonic thickness gauge. As would be expected from sheet piles exposed to seawater for long durations, a significant number of the measurements listed in the HPA report would be classified as a state of “advanced” corrosion based upon the HPA defined damage grades (between 30-50% section loss).
However, if high flexural stresses were developing in the sheet pile noticeable movement of the sheet pile below mid water depth would be expected, but this was not observed in the field. The HPA underwater inspection did not note any instances of the sheet pile displacements.
Although “advanced” stages of sheet pile corrosion was observed by HPA in the diving inspection, no visible signs of wall displacement below the waterline were noted. Therefore, the potential for flexural failure of the sheet piling is estimated to be a minor concern.
Figure 8. Flexural failure of piling (after U.S. Army Corps of Engineers)
Lakdas/Yohalem Engineering, Inc. Toewall Improvements & Bulkhead Analysis Draft Report – September 17, 2007
Page 14 of 26
Tie Rod Failure Tie rod failure is the yielding and/or fracture of
the steel tie rods connecting the sheet pile wall and the anchor. This type of failure mechanism is a function of the loading conditions, steel rod properties and deterioration.
During tie rod failure, the anchor force required to support wall equilibrium exceeds the capacity of the tie rods. In existing construction this type of failure is typically do to corrosion decreasing the tie rod section area and/or new loadings increasing the stress on the tie rods.
If forces in the tie rods exceeded the yield stress of the tie rod steel noticeable movement of the sheet pile would be expected, but this was not observed in the field. The HPA underwater inspection did not note any instances of the sheet pile wall tilting out. Nor did the LYE topside “Structural Survey of Docks” note distress that was consistent with the movement of the sheet pile wall.
In addition the topside “Structural Survey of Docks”, LYE excavated and visually reviewed a limited number of tie rods. The review of tie rods was limited to a small sample since visual review of tie rods requires excavation at several locations behind the wall; a potential for significant impact on operations. The tie rods visually reviewed did not exhibit signs of significant section loss due to corrosion. However, the age of the bulkheads in Port Everglades (56.5% of the visible sheet pile wall was installed between 1960 and 1968 with an addition 10.2% installed prior to 1960) there is a distinct possibility of tie rod corrosion.
Due to the possibility of unseen corrosion but with no obvious signs of wall movement, the potential for tie rod failure is estimated to be of moderate concern.
Figure 9. Tie rod failure (after U.S. Army Corps of Engineers)
Lakdas/Yohalem Engineering, Inc. Toewall Improvements & Bulkhead Analysis Draft Report – September 17, 2007
Page 15 of 26
Rotational Failure Do To Inadequate Penetration (Toe Failure) Rotational failure due to inadequate penetration is
a large scale movement of the lower portion of the wall; commonly referred to as a toe failure. This type of failure mechanism is a function of the loading conditions, soil strength, and sheet pile embedment.
During a toe failure, the soil mass in front of the wall does not provide enough lateral resistance to resist the load applied due to the soil and surcharge loadings behind the wall. In existing construction, this type of failure is typically due to the reduction in SSP embedment from scour or subsequent dredging.
LYE performed a series of computer analyses to evaluate the resistance to toe failure. To best replicate the existing conditions: soil parameters were based upon the Tierra’s geotechnical investigation findings; SSP geometry was based upon reviews of drawings; and the dredge elevation was estimated based upon hydrographic survey soundings. Based upon this information the software, SupportIT (Version 2.13), calculates estimated pressure, moment and shear forces along the length of the SSP using classical design procedures.
The analyses representing the current conditions of the walls are included in Volume III-A and summaries of the results are provided in Tables 3 and 4. Included in these tables are the “factors of safety against rotation” calculated by SupportIT. The minimum factor of safety recommended for design is 2.0 (GTSoft, 2006, p. 48). In addition since the software does not calculate factors of safety less than 1.0 (shown as “FOS undefined”); a ratio between the analysis embedment and the minimum calculated embedment is shown allow for differentiation of those cases.
The SupportIT analyses suggest that rotational failure due to inadequate penetration may be a concern for the existing bulkheads at Port Everglades. Of the 28 analyses shown in Tables 3 and 4, 12 cases produced factors of safety less than 1.0 and an additional 8 cases were between 1.0 and 2.0.
Typically when sheet pile embedments near the point of toe failure the observation of visible movement near the dredge line would be expected; however, no signs of wall movement were noted in the HPA “Underwater Inspection and Baseline Survey” (2006).
The low factors of safety calculated in the computer analysis and the lack of early signs of wall movement, suggest that the bulkheads are currently stable but with less capacity to account for future conditions that current design criteria require. Due to this lack of reserve capacity, the potential for rotational (toe) failure is estimated to be of moderate concern.
Figure 10. Rotational failure due to inadequate penetration (after U.S. Army Corps of Engineers)
Lakdas/Yohalem Engineering, Inc. Toewall Improvements & Bulkhead Analysis Draft Report – September 17, 2007
Page 16 of 26
Table 3. Northport Embedment Computer Analysis Summary Berth Analysis
Analysis Dredge
Elevation (ft MLW)
Analysis Tip
Elevation (ft MLW)
Software Calculated Factor of
Safety
Minimum Tip
Elevation (ft MLW)1
Analysis Embedment / Minimum Embedment Ratio 1
Northport Berths
Berths 1-3 -38.5 ft -49.0 ft undefined -54.5 ft 10.5 ft / 16.0 ft = 0.66
Berth 4 -45.0 ft -67.0 ft 3.66 -------- -------- N/A
Berth 5 -45.0 ft -71.0 ft 5.47 -------- -------- N/A
Berth 6-7 -40.0 ft -53.0 ft undefined -60.0 ft 13.0 ft / 20.0 ft = 0.65
Berth 8 -40.0 ft -53.0 ft 1.22 -------- -------- N/A
Berth 9 -44.0 ft -53.0 ft undefined -61.5 ft 9.0 ft / 17.5 ft = 0.51
Berth 10 -44.0 ft -53.0 ft undefined -72.5 ft 9.0 ft / 19.5 ft = 0.46
Berth 11 -36.0 ft -53.0 ft 1.77 -------- -------- N/A
Berth 12-13 -42.0 ft -71.0 ft 6.32 -------- -------- N/A
Notes: 1. Minimum embedment ratio only calculated for cases where the software calculated Factor of Safety
was undefined. This ratio is used to allow for a rational comparison of the embedments in these cases.
Lakdas/Yohalem Engineering, Inc. Toewall Improvements & Bulkhead Analysis Draft Report – September 17, 2007
Page 17 of 26
Table 4. Midport and Southport Embedment Computer Analysis Summary Berth Analysis
Analysis Dredge
Elevation (ft MLW)
Analysis Tip
Elevation (ft MLW)
Software Calculated Factor of
Safety
Minimum Tip
Elevation (ft MLW)1
Analysis Embedment / Minimum Embedment Ratio 1
Midport Berths
Berth 14-15 -42.0 ft -53.0 ft undefined -61.0 ft 11.0 ft / 19.0 ft = 0.58
Berth 16 -42.0 ft -53.0 ft undefined -57.5 ft 11.0 ft / 15.5 ft = 0.71
Berth 17 -42.0 ft -53.0 ft undefined -57.5 ft 11.0 ft / 15.5 ft = 0.71
Berth 18 -40.0 ft -53.0 ft 1.63 -------- -------- N/A
Berth 19 -40.0 ft -53.0 ft 1.06 -------- -------- N/A
Berth 20 -40.0 ft -53.0 ft 1.45 -------- -------- N/A
Berth 21 -40.0 ft -53.0 ft undefined -58.0 ft 13.0 ft / 18.0 ft = 0.72
Berth 22 -45.0 ft -53.0 ft undefined -62.5 ft 8.0 ft / 17.5 ft = 0.46
Berth 23 -40.0 ft -53.0 ft 1.13 -------- -------- N/A
Berth 24 -40.0 ft -51.0 ft undefined -69.0 ft 11.0 ft / 18.0 ft = 0.61
Berth 25 -42.0 ft -51.0 ft undefined -70.0 ft 9.0 ft / 19.0 ft = 0.47
Berth 26 -44.0 ft -58.0 ft undefined -65.0 ft 14.0 ft / 21.0 ft = 0.67
Berth 27 -44.0 ft -62.0 ft 1.22 -------- -------- N/A
Berth 28 -43.0 ft -62.0 ft 2.28 -------- -------- N/A
Berth 29 -46.0 ft -62.0 ft 1.00 -------- -------- N/A
Southport Berths
Berth 30 -45.0 ft -72.0 ft 6.68 -------- -------- N/A
Berth 31 -46.0 ft -72.0 ft 3.90 -------- -------- N/A
Berth 32 -46.0 ft -72.0 ft 3.22 -------- -------- N/A
Berth 33 -46.0 ft -72.0 ft 3.73 -------- -------- N/A
Notes: 1. Minimum embedment ratio only calculated for cases where the software calculated Factor of Safety
was undefined. This ratio is used to allow for a rational comparison of the embedments in these cases.
Lakdas/Yohalem Engineering, Inc. Toewall Improvements & Bulkhead Analysis Draft Report – September 17, 2007
Page 18 of 26
REMEDIATION AND COST COMPARISONS Over the short term the failure mechanism discussed in the previous section are of
minimal to moderate concern. However, if no remedial measures are taken these concerns will only increase. For instance, the steel sheet piles (SSP) will continue to corrode; increasing the potential for flexural failure of the SSP. While deepening of the berths near the wall, through dredging and/or scour, increases the potential for toe failure, tie rod failure and anchor passive failure. Therefore, some form of remediation is recommended.
The various options for rehabilitation works focus on improving resistance to one or more of the previously discussed structural failure mechanisms. For instance cathodic protection improves resistance to flexural failure of the sheet piling by reducing the rate of section loss due to corrosion; while installation of a toe wall provides additional resistance to toe failure due to toe failure by increasing the effective penetration of the wall.
Table 5. Conceptual Rehabilitation Options Comparison Rehabilitation Option Advantages Disadvantages
Cathodic Protection of Steel Sheet Piles
• Expected to slow future wall section losses due to corrosion
• Expected to delay flexural failure of sheet piling
• When installed on existing walls requires less disruption of operations than other repair options
• Does not repair any damage previously done by corrosion
• Provides little to no additional protection against anchor passive failure, tie rod failure or toe failure without additional remediation
• Can increase corrosion rates of tie rods and connected items
New Tie Rods and Anchorage System
• Provides replacement or additional support for existing tie rods and anchorage system
• Expected to resist wale system failure, anchor passive failure and tie rod failure
• May require extensive excavation behind existing wall for installation
• Provides no additional protection against flexural failure of sheet piling or toe failure without additional remediation
Toe Wall • Increases effective penetration of existing wall
• Expected to resist toe failure at current berth depth
• Can be designed to resist toe failure at future berth depths
• Provides little or no additional protection against wale system failure, anchor passive failure, flexural failure of sheet piling or tie rod failure without additional remediation
• In conjunction with berth deepening may increase the risk of anchor passive failure, flexural failure of sheet piling or tie rod failure
Replacement Wall • Covers existing corroded wall with a new SSP
• Expected to resist flexural failure of sheet piling and toe failure at current berth depths
• Can be designed to resist flexural failure and toe failure at future berth depths
• Provides no additional protection against wale system failure, anchor passive failure or tie rod failure without additional remediation
Lakdas/Yohalem Engineering, Inc. Toewall Improvements & Bulkhead Analysis Draft Report – September 17, 2007
Page 19 of 26
The advantages and disadvantages of several rehabilitation options are discussed in Table 5. When multiple rehabilitation options are installed several potential failure mechanisms can be addressed; for instance installation of a toe wall to reduce the risk of toe failure with new tie rods and anchorages to reduce the risks of tie rod and anchor passive failure.
Although there are a number of combinations of rehabilitation options that can be used on the Port’s steel sheet pile walls, the conceptual costs of 2 options were developed for planning purposes by LYE. These 2 options are installation of am auger cast pile toe wall and installation of new SSP wall (including tie rods and cathodic protection). The selection of these two options allows for a brief comparison of the costs to continue to maintain the current wall compared to replacement with a new system.
Auger Cast Pile Toe Wall To develop the cost of a new toe wall installation, LYE made assumptions about the
design and function of the toe wall. Although other construction techniques are possible (SSP toe walls for instance), the use of auger cast piles for toe wall support was assumed. Additionally, it was assumed that the toe wall would extend only 5 feet above the auger cast piles. The actual costs will vary based upon the design parameters, construction requirements and current market construction costs for each toe wall repair. For this conceptual estimate, the installation was assumed to be composed of:
• Installation of 24” diameter underwater, auger cast piles. The auger piles were assumed 4 feet on center, 3 feet away from the existing wall and extending from the current bottom elevation down 35 feet.
• Reinforcing the auger cast piles with W10 structural steel sections, extending a minimum of 5 feet.
• Casting a reinforced concrete beam (approximately 3 feet x 5 feet) between each W10, using tremie construction techniques.
Table 6. Conceptual Costs for Auger Cast Pile Toe Wall Installation
Auger Cast Piles $2,500 per foot of wall
Steel Columns $1,000 per foot of wall
Concrete Reinforcing $1,000 per foot of wall
Tremie placed Concrete $875 per foot of wall
TOE WALL ESTIMATED COST $5,375 per foot of wall
Properly designed and installed toe walls would be expected to decrease the risk of tie rod failure and toe failure. However, this repair would not address the increasing risk of flexural failure. The existing sheet piles would still be exposed to further corrosion from the top of the toe wall upward. In addition, the flexural forces in the existing sheets may increase, depending upon any future increases in berth depth.
Lakdas/Yohalem Engineering, Inc. Toewall Improvements & Bulkhead Analysis Draft Report – September 17, 2007
Page 20 of 26
New Steel Sheet Pile Bulkhead The installation of new steel sheet pile bulkheads could reduce the risk of most of the
failure mechanisms discussed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (1994, p. 5-1 to 5.12). The installation the new sheet pile wall, designed using current factors of safety, would reduce the risk of flexural failure and toe failure. The installation of new tie rods and anchorages would reduce the risk of anchor passive failure, tie rod failure and wale system failure. The only mechanism that would not have a reduced risk would be deep seated failure; however, as previously noted, this risk is entirely dependant upon the soil strengths.
For estimating the conceptual costs of installation of new steel sheet pile bulkhead, LYE referenced the recent work performed at Terminal 27. For comparison purposes, the new SSP was assumed to be installed in water with a dredged and scoured depth of 44 feet. The actual costs will vary based upon the design parameters, construction requirements and current market construction costs for each toe wall repair. For this conceptual estimate, the installation was assumed to be composed of:
• Vibratory and/or impact drive new SSP, approximately 65 feet long, directly in front of the existing bulkhead.
• Install a new deadman and connect to the new SSP with tie rods at approximately 8 feet on center.
• Cast a new reinforced concrete cap on the top of the new SSP.
Table 7. Conceptual Costs for Installation of New Bulkhead, in front of Existing
Install SSP $5,500 per foot of wall
New Tie Rods $2,500 per foot of wall
New Deadman with connection $2,500 per foot of wall
New Concrete Cap $4,500 per foot of wall
New Cathodic Protection $500 per foot of wall
NEW SSP ESTIMATED COST $15,500 per foot of wall
The auger cast pile toe wall cost is estimated to be 65% less expensive than the installation of a new sheet pile bulkhead, see Tables 6 and 7. However, the auger cast pile toe wall does not provide any additional resistance to failure modes other than toe failure; while the installation of a new steel sheet pile bulkhead should increase resistance to most failure mechanisms. Since the new SSP wall would provide an increased resistance to multiple failure mechanisms, installation of new sheet pile would be expected to provide a longer design life than toe wall repairs. This longer design life is expected to make up for the price differential over the life of the work.
Lakdas/Yohalem Engineering, Inc. Toewall Improvements & Bulkhead Analysis Draft Report – September 17, 2007
Page 21 of 26
RECOMMENDATIONS Port Everglades has retained a consultant team, headed by DMJM Harris, to update
the Master Plan. The Port’s consultant team issued a draft of the Master Plan Update, Phase I on March 3, 2007. At this time the consultant team is revising the Master Plan Update to include feedback.
It is recommended that sheet pile bulkhead installed in front of the existing bulkheads be included in the Master Plan. Since “the service life of waterfront structures is expected today to be 40 to 50 years in general…” (Arbed, 1986, p. 60), new sheet pile is recommended for all sheet piles over 40 years of age.
Currently there is considerable flexibility in the order of replacement. The HPA Underwater Inspection made no recommendations for “immediate” or “safety” repairs (2006, p. 3-2). Therefore, any rational method to determine replacement order can be used; so long as the conditions are monitored and modifications to the order are made as conditions change.
A proposed replacement order is summarized in Table 8. The Berths are grouped based upon their location within the port and wall configuration. The proposed order was then established based upon reviewing the potential for toe failures and the current section steel loss listed in the HPA Underwater Inspection (2006). The potential for toe failures based upon the embedment ratios and factors of safety presented in Tables 3 and 4 for the current water depths. This proposed replacement order did not include any consideration for future berth deepening.
However, the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers are presently assessing a future channel dredging program for Port Everglades. The Corps have proposed to increase the approach channel to a design depth of 54 feet below Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW), increase the turning basin to a design depth of 49 feet below MLLW and increase the Intracoastal Waterway to 49 feet below MLLW (DMJM Harris, 2007). After this proposed dredging, the channel design depths begin to approach the pile tip elevations. The pile tip elevations and channel depths get even closer once an addition 1 foot of pre-maintenance dredging and additional 1 foot of allowable over dredge are included (see Tables 9 and 10).
Due to the potential for increases in the risk of toe failure due to the channel dredging, it is recommended that bulkhead be replaced before dredging occurs in the vicinity. For those berths far enough from the new channel dredging to prevent effective decreases in embedments; the order may be determined by operational requirements, the Master Plan or the proposed order shown in Table 8.
Lakdas/Yohalem Engineering, Inc. Toewall Improvements & Bulkhead Analysis Draft Report – September 17, 2007
Page 22 of 26
Table 8. Proposed Steel Sheet Pile (SSP) Replacement Order
Proposed SSP Replacement Order 1
Embedment Ratios and Factors of
Safety 2
Section Losses Listed in 2006 HPA Report 3
Years of Construction and
Lengths (ft) 4
1 Berths 7, 8, 8A,
9, 10 & 11 0.46, 0.51, 0.65,
1.22, 1.77
Average 35% Maximum 49% Minimum 23%
1954 = 1965 =
23 ft 3,180 ft 3,203 ft
2 Berths 24, 25, 26 & 27 0.47, 0.61, 0.67
1.22
Average 25% Maximum 79%
Minimum 6%
1966 = 1967 =
153 ft 2,552 ft 2,705 ft
3 Berths 14 & 15 0.58 Average 30%
Maximum 45% Minimum 20%
1957 = 1960 =
600 ft 601 ft
1,201 ft
4 Berths 19, 20,
21, 22 & 23 0.46, 0.72,
1.06, 1.13, 1.45
Average 33% Maximum 55%
Minimum 1%
1966 = 2002 =
2,603 ft 601 ft
2,628 ft
5 Berths 1A, 1B,
1C, 1D, 1,2, 3 & 6 0.65, 0.66
Average 37% Maximum 100%
Minimum 17%
1940 = 1956 = 1960 = 1965 =
100 ft 1,579 ft
561 ft 378 ft
2,618 ft
6 Berths 16, 17 & 18 0.71, 0.71,
1.63
Average 23% Maximum 35% Minimum 13%
1960 = 1964 =
877 ft 1,008 ft 1,885 ft
7 Berth 28 including
the FP&L Canal 1.00
Average 19% Maximum 41%
Minimum 4%
1967 = 1983 =
100 ft 865 ft 965 ft
8 Berths 28A,
28B, 28E & 28F 2.28
Average 20% Maximum 28%
Minimum 9% 1967 = 1,448 ft
9 Berths 30, 31, 32 & 33A 3.22, 3.73, 3.90, 6.68 Average 25%
Maximum 54% Minimum 4%
1992 = 3,801 ft
10 Berths 12, 13 & 13A 6.32 Average 16%
Maximum 67% Minimum 0%
1984 = ?? =
1,231 ft 300 ft
1,531 ft
11 Berths 4, 4A & 5 3.66, 5.47 Average 7%
Maximum 36% Minimum 0%
1976 = 1978 =
700 ft 1,400 ft 2,100 ft
Notes: 1. Order of replacement is based upon current potential for toe failure, current section loss and age.
Impact of future dredging is not included in this order. 2. Embedment ratios and factors of safety computed by SupportIT give an approximation of the
resistance to toe failure at the current berth water depths. See Tables 3 & 4. 3. Section losses are based upon the summarized values given in HPA 2006 Report and are not based
upon the complete set of field measurements. 4. Lengths and year of construction taken from Drawing 92S 3912 (Port Everglades Authority, 1992).
Lakdas/Yohalem Engineering, Inc. Toewall Improvements & Bulkhead Analysis Draft Report – September 17, 2007
Page 23 of 26
To monitor the performance of the older bulkheads, the Port should undertake an inspection program comprised of the following suggested minimum frequencies:
• Multiple survey benchmarks on the cap or cap wall of each bulkhead should be established. Then plane surveys of these benchmarks should be undertake no less than twice a year. These surveys should focus on monitoring lateral movement of the top of the bulkhead.
• Underwater visual “swim-by” inspections, achieving the Level I scope described in Underwater Investigations (ASCE, 2001), should be performed no less than one a year. These inspections should focus on noting wall movements below water and/or new signs of distress.
• Detailed underwater inspections, achieving the Level II scope described in Underwater Investigations (ASCE, 2001), should be performed no less than every other year. These inspections should monitor the section loss due to corrosion.
If signs of movement, overstressing or severe deterioration is observed, the order of wall replacement should be revised.
Steel sheet pile installed after the date of this report should have condition surveys performed generally in accordance with Underwater Investigations (ASCE, 2001). An initial inspection should be performed after completion and the next survey performed no more than 5 years latter; with subsequent frequency determined based upon Underwater Investigations (ASCE, 2001).
and
Dre
dge
Ele
vati
on S
umm
ary
App
roxi
mat
e L
engt
h 1 (
ft)
Yea
r of
C
onst
ruct
ion1
Shee
t Pile
Se
ctio
n1
Shee
t Pile
Tip
E
leva
tion
(ft M
LW
)1,2,
3 K
ing
Pile
Se
ctio
n1
Kin
g P
ile T
ip
Ele
vatio
n
(ft M
LW
)1,2,
3
Cur
rent
L
iste
d D
epth
(f
t ML
W)3
App
roxi
mat
e C
urre
nt
Em
bedm
ents
(f
t)
Cur
rent
20%
E
mbe
dmen
t R
ule
of T
hum
b
CO
E P
ropo
sed
Des
ign
Dep
th
[ove
r-dr
edge
]
(ft M
LL
W)4
Em
bedm
with
CO
ver-
d (ft
79 f
t 19
56
BZ
IVR
-4
9 ft
--
--
??
??
??
--
--
344
ft
1960
H
oesc
h II
-3
1.5
ft
--
--
??
??
??
--
--
217
ft
1960
H
oesc
h I
-24.
5 ft
--
--
??
??
??
--
--
1,50
0 ft
19
56
BZ
IVR
-4
9 ft
--
--
-3
1 ft
18
ft
Yes
-4
9 ft
[-5
1 ft
] -2
100
ft
1940
Z
P32
-4
0 ft
--
--
-3
1 ft
9
ft
Yes
-4
9 ft
[-5
1 ft
] -1
1
700
ft
1976
B
Z9.
5 -4
9.5
ft
HZ
80
-67
ft
-43
ft
6.5
ft /
24 f
t N
O /
Yes
--
--
200
ft
1978
Z
H9.
5 -5
1.5
ft
HZ
800
-71
ft
-43
ft
8.5
ft /
28 f
t Y
es /
Yes
--
--
300
ft
1978
Z
H9.
5 -4
9.5
ft
HZ
600
-61
ft
-43
ft
6.5
ft /
18 f
t N
O /
Yes
--
--
900
ft
1978
Z
H9.
5 -5
1.5
ft
HZ
800
-71
ft
-43
ft
8.5
ft /
28 f
t Y
es /
Yes
--
--
378
ft
1965
B
ZII
IB
-53
ft
--
--
-38
ft
15 f
t Y
es
-49
ft [
-51
ft]
2 f
2,70
6 ft
19
65
BZ
IIIB
-5
3 ft
--
--
-3
8 ft
15
ft
Yes
--
--
23 f
t 19
54
ZP
32
??
--
--
-38
ft
??
??
-49
ft [
-51
ft]
??
474
ft
1965
B
ZII
IB
??
--
--
-38
ft
??
??
-49
ft [
-51
ft]
??
1,23
1 ft
19
84
ZH
9.5
-51.
5 ft
H
Z80
0 -7
1 ft
-3
8 ft
13
.5 f
t / 3
3 ft
Y
es /
Yes
--
--
300
ft
??
BZ
IVR
??
--
--
-3
8 ft
??
??
--
--
92S
3912
(Po
rt E
verg
lade
s A
utho
rity
, 199
2), u
nles
s ot
herw
ise
note
d.
orig
inal
she
et p
iles
neg
lect
ing
any
toe
wal
l rep
airs
.
glad
es F
acili
ties
Gui
de &
Dir
ecto
ry 2
007-
2008
.
pon
eith
er M
ean
Low
Wat
er (
ML
W)
or M
ean
Low
er L
ow W
ater
(M
LL
W).
The
dif
fere
nce
betw
een
thes
e da
tum
s is
0.1
61 f
t, pe
r N
OA
A d
ata
for
the
tidal
ben
ch m
ark
“Por
t Eve
rgla
des,
Lak
e M
abel
Fe
for
this
rev
iew
.
mbe
dmen
t rul
es o
f th
umb
for
SSP
vary
fro
m 1
0% f
or s
tiff
cla
y to
75%
for
sub
mer
ged
sand
s (G
TSo
ft, 2
006)
.
in J
uly
12, 2
007
emai
l. D
epth
s li
sted
are
pro
pose
d A
rmy
Cor
ps o
f E
ngin
eers
(C
OE
) “P
roje
ct D
epth
” an
d “P
roje
ct D
epth
+ 1
ft p
re-m
aint
enan
ce d
redg
ing
+ 1
ft a
llow
able
ove
r dr
edge
”.
d on
Dra
win
g 92
S 39
12; l
engt
h an
d sh
eet p
ile s
ecti
on ta
ken
from
HPA
200
6 R
epor
t.
App
roxi
mat
e L
engt
h 1 (
ft)
Yea
r of
C
onst
ruct
ion1
Shee
t Pile
Se
ctio
n1
Shee
t Pile
Tip
E
leva
tion
(ft M
LW
)1,2,
3 K
ing
Pile
Se
ctio
n1
Kin
g P
ile T
ip
Ele
vatio
n
(ft M
LW
)1,2,
3
Cur
rent
L
iste
d D
epth
(f
t ML
W)3
App
roxi
mat
e C
urre
nt
Em
bedm
ents
(f
t)
Cur
rent
20%
E
mbe
dmen
t R
ule
of T
hum
b
CO
E P
ropo
sed
Des
ign
Dep
th
[ove
r-dr
edge
]
(ft M
LL
W)4
Em
bedm
with
CO
ver-
d (ft
600
ft
1957
B
ZIV
R
??
--
--
-3
8 ft
--
??
--
--
601
ft
1960
B
ZIV
R
-4
9 ft
--
--
-3
8 ft
11
ft
Yes
--
--
877
ft
1960
B
ZIV
R
-4
9 ft
--
--
-3
8 ft
11
ft
Yes
-4
4 ft
[-4
6 ft
] 3
f
1,00
8 ft
19
64
Hoe
sch
III
-5
3 ft
--
--
-3
8 ft
15
ft
Yes
-4
4 ft
[-4
6 ft
] 7
f
25 f
t 20
02
??
??
--
--
-38
ft
--
??
-44
ft [
-46
ft]
??
2,36
3 ft
19
66
BZ
IVN
-53
ft
--
--
-38
ft
15 f
t Y
es
-44
ft [
-46
ft]
7 f
240
ft
1966
B
ZIV
N
-5
3 ft
--
--
-3
8 ft
15
ft
Yes
--
--
153
ft
1966
B
ZIV
N
-5
3 ft
--
--
-4
0 ft
13
ft
Yes
-4
9 ft
[-5
1 ft
] 4
f
1,01
8 ft
19
67
BZ
IVN
-47
& -
51 f
t --
--
-4
0 ft
7
ft /
11 f
t N
O /
Yes
-4
9 ft
[-5
1 ft
] -4
ft /
100
ft
1967
B
ZIV
N
-5
5 to
-62
ft
--
--
-40
ft
15 f
t to
22 f
t Y
es
-49
ft [
-51
ft]
4 ft
to
1,43
4 ft
19
67
BZ
IVN
-58
& -
62 f
t --
--
-4
0 ft
18
ft /
22
ft
Yes
/Y
es
-49
ft [
-51
ft]
7 ft
/
784
ft
1967
B
ZIV
N
-5
1 to
-62
ft
--
--
-27
ft
24 f
t to
35 f
t Y
es
--
--
561
ft
1967
B
ZIR
A
-3
5 to
-51
ft
--
--
-27
ft
8 ft
to 2
4 ft
Y
es
--
--
103
ft
1967
B
ZIV
N
-5
3 to
-62
ft
--
--
-27
ft
26 f
t to
35 f
t Y
es
--
--
100
ft
1967
B
ZV
N
-62
ft
--
--
-40
ft
22 f
t Y
es
-49
ft [
-51
ft]
11
758
ft
1983
Z
H9.
5/13
-53
ft
HZ
775B
-72
ft
-44
ft7
13 f
t / 3
2 ft
Y
es /
Yes
-4
9 ft
[-5
1 ft
] 2
ft /
2
107
ft
1983
B
Z20
-3
1 to
-50
ft
--
--
??
--
??
--
--
60 f
t 19
92
BZ
16.4
-12
to -
49 f
t --
--
??
--
??
??
??
883
ft
1992
P
Z 6
10
-5
6.75
ft
PSP
802
-72
ft
-44
ft
12.7
5 ft
/ 28
ft
Yes
/ Y
es
-49
ft [
-51
ft]
5.75
ft
60 f
t 19
92
PZ
610
-56.
75 f
t P
SP 1
002
-77
ft
-44
ft
12.7
5 ft
/ 33
ft
Yes
/ Y
es
-49
ft [
-51
ft]
5.75
ft
1,22
6 ft
19
92
PZ
610
-56.
75 f
t P
SP 1
002
-7
7 ft
-4
4 ft
12
.75
ft /
33 f
t Y
es /
Yes
-4
9 ft
[-5
1 ft
] 5.
75 ft
774
ft
1992
P
Z 6
10
-5
6.75
ft
PSP
802
-72
ft
-44
ft
12.7
5 ft
/ 28
ft
Yes
/ Y
es
-49
ft [
-51
ft]
5.75
ft
798
ft
1992
P
Z 6
10
-5
6.75
ft
PSP
802
-72
ft
-44
ft
12.7
5 ft
/ 28
ft
Yes
/ Y
es
-49
ft [
-51
ft]
5.75
ft
92S
3912
(Po
rt E
verg
lade
s A
utho
rity
, 199
2), u
nles
s ot
herw
ise
note
d.
orig
inal
she
et p
iles
neg
lect
ing
any
toe
wal
l rep
airs
.
glad
es F
acili
ties
Gui
de &
Dir
ecto
ry 2
007-
2008
, unl
ess
othe
rwis
e no
ted.
pon
eith
er M
ean
Low
Wat
er (
ML
W)
or M
ean
Low
er L
ow W
ater
(M
LL
W).
The
dif
fere
nce
betw
een
thes
e da
tum
s is
0.1
61 f
t, pe
r N
OA
A d
ata
for
the
tidal
ben
ch m
ark
“Por
t Eve
rgla
des,
Lak
e M
abel
Fe
for
this
rev
iew
.
mbe
dmen
t rul
es o
f th
umb
for
SSP
vary
fro
m 1
0% f
or s
tiff
cla
y to
75%
for
sub
mer
ged
sand
s (G
TSo
ft, 2
006)
.
in J
uly
12, 2
007
emai
l. D
epth
s li
sted
are
pro
pose
d A
rmy
Cor
ps o
f E
ngin
eers
(C
OE
) “P
roje
ct D
epth
” an
d “P
roje
ct D
epth
+ 1
ft p
re-m
aint
enan
ce d
redg
ing
+ 1
ft a
llow
able
ove
r dr
edge
”.
iA
t23
2007
il
Lakdas/Yohalem Engineering, Inc. Toewall Improvements & Bulkhead Analysis Draft Report – September 17, 2007
Page 26 of 26
REFERENCES Arbed. (January 1986). Steel sheet piles. (American engineering units edition).
Arcelor RPS. (January 2005). Piling handbook. (8th Edition).
ASCE. (2001). Underwater investigations: Standard practice manual.
DMJM Harris. 2006 Port Everglades master plan update. <http://www.portevergladesmasterplanupdate.com/index_files/03-09-07_PEV_Presentation.pdf> (July 31, 2007)
HPA, Inc.(April 2006). Underwater inspection and baseline survey assessment of Port Everglades Berths 1 through 33.
GTSoft, Ltd. (2006). SupportIT: Sheet pile wall design software manual.
MARAD. Data and Statistics. U.S. Department of Transportation: Maritime Administration. <http://www.marad.dot.gov/MARAD_statistics/index.html> (July 31, 2007).
Port Everglades Authority. (1992). Steel sheet piling and bulkhead data. Drawing 92S 3912.
Port Everglades Department. (2007). Port Everglades facilities guide & directory 2007-2008. Miramar, FL: Seaports Publications Group, Commonwealth Business Media, Inc.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. (31 March 1994). Engineering and design: Design of sheet pile walls. Manual EM 1110-2-2504. Washington, DC.
B-1
APPENDIX B Draft Versions of Port Everglades
5, 10 and 20 Year Master / Vision Plansby AECOM (via email July 23, 2010)
C-1
APPENDIX C Memorandum on April 5, 2010 Site Visit to Review Existing Impressed Current Cathodic Protection
Halcrow, Inc 22 Cortlandt Street
New York, NY 10007
Tel (212) 608-3990 Fax (212) 566-5059
www.halcrow.com
Memo
To: Andy Curtis
From: Amol Paranjape
Date: 14 April 2010
Subject: Port Everglades Site Visit on 5 April 2010
Halcrow Inc. conducted a preliminary site inspection of the existing Impressed
Current systems for Berths 4, 5, 12, 13, 16, 17, 18 & 29 at Port Everglades. The
purpose for this inspection was to visually gauge the current state of the existing
impressed current system and make assessments for testing of that system in the
future. The inspection was carried out during the site visit conducted on April 5th, 2010
and was assisted by Port Everglades representative (Gary Bogumill P.L.S.).
Following are the observations from the visual inspection of the impressed current system at individual berths.
At the time of inspection all the existing rectifiers were found to be NOT IN OPERATION.
Berth 4:
The rectifier (Photos # 1, 3, 4) and the disconnect switch enclosures (Photos # 5) were partially corroded. The in-coming and out-going conduits at the rectifier were in good condition (Photos # 2).
The power source and the meter for this rectifier were not accessible as it was located in the restricted passenger terminal area.
Some of the junction boxes indicated on the design drawings could not be located on the berth. The covers of the existing junction boxes could not be lifted
Memo (cont.)
2
as the necessary equipment was not available during the visit, thus the condition of the cable and conduits inside them could not be determined.
Photo # 1 (Rectifier on Pier 4)
Photo # 2 (Rectifier & Disconnect Switch)
Memo (cont.)
3
Photo # 3 (Interior of the Rectifier)
Photo # 4 (Interior of the Rectifier)
Memo (cont.)
4
Photo # 5 (Disconnect switch for the Rectifier)
Berth 5:
The rectifier enclosure, disconnect switch and the conduits were found to be partially corroded (Photos # 6 & 9).Oil tank of rectifier R2 (South Side) was found to be empty (Photos # 7 & 8); the oil in the tank was drained out from the tank some time in the past and was never refilled.
Covers of the junction boxes located on the curb of Berth 5 were bolted making interiors inaccessible (Photo # 10). The conduits and cables inside these junction boxes can only be inspected by cutting the bolts and then removing covers.
Covers of the junction boxes located on the edge of the Roll On/Off Ramp were bolted and corroded, making interiors inaccessible (Photos # 11 & 12). The conduits and cables inside these junction boxes can only be inspected by cutting the bolts and then removing covers.
The two rectifiers R1 & R2 were fed from the overhead wires and the meter at the source was found to be damaged. (Photos # 13 & 14)
Exterior of the rectifier ‘R1’ (North Side) enclosure, disconnect switch and conduits were found to be partially corroded (Photos # 15, 16, 17 & 18).
Exterior of the rectifier R3 (Near Bldg No. 6) enclosure, disconnect switch and conduits were recently painted and looked in good condition (Photos # 19, 20 & 21). The glass cover of the ammeter and voltmeter box mounted on this rectifier
Memo (cont.)
5
has been covered in paint (Photo # 22) and the readings from these meters can only be taken after cleaning out the paint from the glass.
The power source and the meter for rectifier R3 could not be identified due to lack of nameplate/ tag marks.
Photo # 6 (Partially corroded Rectifier – R2 on Pier 5)
Memo (cont.)
6
Photo # 7 (Interior of the Rectifier – R2)
Photo # 8 (Empty Oil tank of the Rectifier – R2)
Memo (cont.)
7
Photo # 9 (Disconnect switch & Meters for the Rectifier – R2)
Memo (cont.)
8
Photo # 10 (Junction Boxes on curb of Pier 5)
Photo # 11 (Junction Boxes on the edge of Roll On/Off Ramp)
Memo (cont.)
9
Photo # 12 (Junction Boxes on the edge of Roll On/Off Ramp)
Photo # 13 (Meter at the power source located on Berth 5)
Memo (cont.)
10
Photo # 14 (Damaged meter on Berth 5)
Photo # 15 (Rectifier – R1 on Pier 5)
Memo (cont.)
11
Photo # 16 (Interior of the Rectifier – R1)
Memo (cont.)
12
Photo # 17 (Interior of the Rectifier – R1)
Memo (cont.)
13
Photo # 18 (Disconnect switch & Meters for the Rectifier – R1)
Photo # 19 (Rectifier – R3 near Bldg. No.6)
Memo (cont.)
14
Photo # 20 (Interior of the Rectifier – R3)
Photo # 21 (Interior of the Rectifier – R3)
Memo (cont.)
15
Photo # 22 (Disconnect switch & Meters for the Rectifier – R3)
Berth 12:
Interior of the Rectifier R1 could not be inspected due to an active wasp’s nest adjacent to it (Photo # 23).
The power source and the meter were not present at the location indicated on the drawings. The meter must have been removed during a later contract.
Covers of the junction boxes located on the curb of Berth 12 were bolted making interiors inaccessible. The conduits and cables inside these junction boxes can only be inspected by cutting the bolts and then removing covers.
Memo (cont.)
16
Photo # 23 (Rectifier – R1 at Berth 12)
Berth 13:
Exterior of the rectifier R2 (Photo # 24), disconnect switch and conduits (Photo # 26) were found to be partially corroded. The oil in the rectifier tank was observed to be below the Oil-level mark (Photo # 25).
Exterior of the rectifier R3 (Photo # 27), disconnect switch (Photo # 30) and conduits were found to be partially corroded. The wires at the top of the rectifier were damaged, indicating a possible damage inside the rectifier (Photo # 28). The oil in the rectifier tank was observed to be below the Oil-level mark (Photo # 29).
The meter at the power source looked in a good condition. The enclosures of two disconnect switches near the meter are completely corroded.
Covers of the junction boxes located on the curb of Berth 13 were bolted making interiors inaccessible. The conduits and cables inside these junction boxes can only be inspected by cutting the bolts and then removing covers.
The 3 junction boxes shown between the berth 13 & 14 on the design drawings could not be located in field (Photos # 31 & 32).
Memo (cont.)
17
Photo # 24 (Rectifier – R2 at Berth 13)
Photo # 25 (Interior of the Rectifier – R2)
Memo (cont.)
18
Photo # 26 (Disconnect switch & Meters for the Rectifier – R2)
Photo # 27 (Rectifier – R3 at Berth 13)
Memo (cont.)
19
Photo # 28 (Ruptured cables visible in Rectifier – R3)
Photo # 29 (Interior of the Rectifier – R3)
Memo (cont.)
20
Photo # 30 (Disconnect switch & Meters for the Rectifier – R3)
Photo # 31 (Junction Boxes on curb of Pier 13)
Memo (cont.)
21
Photo # 32 (Junction Boxes on curb of Pier 12)
Berth 16-17-18:
All of the 4 rectifiers that are shown on the drawings for Berths 16 to 18 were removed sometime in the past.
Some of the junction boxes on these berths could not be located as they have been covered in asphalt during the latest re-pavement of the berths (Photos # 33, 34 & 35).
Photo # 33 (Junction Boxes on Pier 16)
Memo (cont.)
22
Photo # 34 (Junction Boxes on Pier 17)
Photo # 35 (Junction Boxes on Pier 18)
Memo (cont.)
23
Berth 29:
Exterior of the rectifier R2 (Photo # 36), disconnect switch (Photo # 38) and conduits were found to be partially corroded. The oil in the rectifier tank was observed to be below the Oil-level mark (Photo # 37).
Rectifier R1 was removed sometime in the past and thus could not be located in site.
The power source and the meter were not present at the location indicated on the drawings. The meter must have been removed during a later contract.
Some of the junction boxes located on the curb of Berth 29 were buried in the pavement making the interiors inaccessible (Photo # 39).
Photo # 36 (Rectifier – R2 at Berth 29)
Memo (cont.)
24
Photo # 37 (Interior of the Rectifier – R2)
Memo (cont.)
25
Photo # 38 (Disconnect switch & Meters for the Rectifier – R2)
Memo (cont.)
26
Photo # 39 (Partially buried Junction Box located on the curb of Berth # 29)
Memo (cont.)
27
It is reported that all the anodes that were installed along the bulkhead piles as a part of the impressed current system have been completely consumed some time in the past.
If the existing impressed current system is to be put into service the following points need to be considered:
1. One of the rectifier manufacturing companies, “Good All” has been out of business for many years; subsequently it will be difficult to find a shop that will be ready and able to repair the rectifiers from that manufacturer.
2. Some of the rectifiers could have used “selenium” diodes, which have become obsolete making it difficult to find replacements if required. Even if replacements were found, the diodes may not be compatible with the existing transformer voltages.
3. Some of the existing rectifiers were found to have low oil. The empty tank would have most certainly caused water damage to the transformer placed in that tank. The remaining rectifiers would need to have the winding resistances tested for water damage as water collected in the tank over a long time period is prone to become salty at a marine location.
4. The meters, shunts, etc. would have to be removed and checked for the proper operation. Wiring and defective or broken meters would be replaced.
5. Protective devices, circuit breakers, fuses would all have to be removed and tested for calibration, conditions, etc. All other electrical devices, wiring, etc. would also need careful inspection and replacement if necessary.
6. One of the rectifiers looks to be damaged, with some ruptured cables seen at the top.
7. The cost of shipping the rectifiers to and from the servicing location could make the rehabilitation of these existing rectifiers unfeasible.
8. Finally and more importantly, once the rectifiers are repaired, it is questionable if they could be guaranteed to work for another 15-20 yrs.
Looking a the present state of the impressed current systems on site and taking into consideration the above mentioned points, Halcrow does not see any need to conduct a 2nd site visit for further testing of the existing equipment.
D-1
APPENDIX D Summary of Assumptions Used in Cathodic Protection Systems for Life Cycle Analysis
D-2
Summary of Assumptions Used in Cathodic Protection Systems for Life
Cycle Analysis
For the generation of the life cycle costs for both sacrificial anode and impressed
current cathodic protection systems, approximate designs of each system were
generated based upon a series of design assumptions.
For both systems the design total design life was assumed as 50 years. A 50
year design life is a common industry standard for the design of cathodic protection
systems. The industry may use the 50 year standard based upon the idea that the
equipment used for the impressed current system has an approximate design life of 50
years (when monitored and maintained). For this work, it was assumed that anodes for
both systems would require replacement approximately 25 years after installation.
For this analysis, it was assumed that the environmental conditions were the
same at each berth location throughout Northport and Midport (Berths 1 to 29). The
average water and soil resistivities were taken as 22 ohm-cm and 100 ohm-cm
throughout Port Everglades. The average current densities in the water and soil were
assumed to be 8 ma/sq.ft. and 2 ma/sq.ft. After reviewing available “Underwater
Inspection and Assessment” reports and photos of the existing sheet pile walls, the
coating efficiency was assumed to be zero for all berths reviewed. Finally, only the
sheet pile wall surface area on the waterside of the berths was considered in the
estimation of required cathodic protection systems.
For both systems, it was assumed that underwater inspections of the walls and
anodes would be performed every 3 years. Additionally, at this time measurements
would be taken and recorded using the test stations installed with each system.
D-3
SACRIFICIAL ANODE SYSTEMS
For the sacrificial anode systems, 280-pound aluminum anodes were selected
for use at all berths in this analysis. The number of anodes required for each berth was
determined so as to provide adequate protection for the piles with a design life of 25
years. These anodes would be installed in a particular arrangement so as to provide
bonding between two adjacent piles and eliminate the necessity of additional bonding
procedures (i.e. seam welds at the interlocks or welding bonding bars to the piles) to
ensure electrical continuity. To allow for monitoring of the wall’s electrical potential and
the current supplied by the anode, each berth would be equipped with a test station and
a test anode.
IMPRESSED CURRENT SYSTEMS
For the impressed current systems, the number of rectifiers for each berth was
selected based upon the berth length and the total current estimated to protect the
sheet pile wall. In general, this equated to one rectifier for every 550 feet of berth
length. Unless the current requirement for that section exceeded 400 amps, in which
case the rectifier spacing was decreased. A platinum coated titanium element anode
with a maximum current output of 15 amps for the 25 year design life was assumed for
this analysis. Impressed current cathodic protection systems require wiring connecting
the rectifier(s) to the individual anodes and the sheet pile structure. Electrical continuity
of the steel sheet piles was assumed achieved with 2 inch seam welds at each
interlock, performed during the system installation. Test stations to periodically
measure the current requirements were assumed at 200 foot intervals along the berth.
These test stations would be connected to the walls with lead lines.
Some of the berths in Port Everglades have in the past had operational
impressed current systems. After reviewing the infrastructure (conduits, junction boxes,
etc.) that remains at these locations, it was determined that all new systems should be
installed at these locations. Therefore, included in the cost of installing impressed
current systems at all berths is the cost for saw cutting and patching of the existing
pavement for the installation of ducts, conduits and junction boxes.
E-1
APPENDIX E Sacrificial Anode vs Impressed Current
Life Cycle Cost Summary and Yearly Breakdownin Discounted Dollar Terms
Port Everglades Cathodic Protection SystemsJob No. DRSCT2120
Port Everglades, Ft. Lauderdale, FL 28-May-10
Location
Sacrificial Anode System - Present Value
Impressed Current System - Present Value
Difference During 50 Year Life Cycle
PercentageDifference
Berth 1 533.00 ft 409,816 608,962 199,146 33%Berth 2 533.00 ft 409,816 608,962 199,146 33%Berth 3 534.00 ft 409,816 609,160 199,344 33%Berth 4 900.00 ft 810,309 852,163 41,854 5%Berth 4A 300.00 ft 252,109 307,892 55,783 18%Berth 5 900.00 ft 810,309 786,907 (23,402) -3%Berth 6 378.00 ft 345,488 497,764 152,276 31%Berth 7-8 1,200.00 ft 953,491 1,366,785 413,294 30%Berth 8A 306.00 ft 291,536 448,952 157,417 35%Berth 9 -10 1,200.00 ft 953,491 1,370,025 416,534 30%Berth 11 497.00 ft 432,642 600,090 167,448 28%Berth 12-13 1,231.00 ft 750,132 785,020 34,889 4%Berth 14-15 1,231.00 ft 1,015,744 1,431,401 415,658 29%Berth 16 549.00 ft 488,670 648,300 159,630 25%Berth 17 550.00 ft 490,745 597,231 106,486 18%Berth 18 549.00 ft 488,670 596,957 108,287 18%Berth 19 650.00 ft 567,256 813,384 246,128 30%Berth 20 650.00 ft 588,007 832,515 244,508 29%Berth 21 663.00 ft 577,899 864,129 286,231 33%Berth 22 662.00 ft 577,899 863,539 285,640 33%Berth 23 240.00 ft 250,034 397,260 147,226 37%Berth 24 720.00 ft 648,452 914,100 265,648 29%Berth 25 648.00 ft 590,349 847,803 257,454 30%Berth 26 668.00 ft 604,875 870,199 265,324 30%Berth 27 668.00 ft 604,875 870,199 265,324 30%Berth 28 490.00 ft 347,563 534,556 186,993 35%Berth 28A 556.00 ft 384,915 584,197 199,282 34%Berth 28B 402.00 ft 295,686 478,951 183,266 38%Berth 29 799.00 ft 683,728 687,093 3,365 0%
Notes:Life Cycle costs are based on Recommended Replacement Order Including Master Plan Effects.Life Cycle costs of Sacrificial Anode System are based on a 25 year life over 50 years.Life Cycle costs of Impressed Current System are based on a 50 year life with anode replacement at 25 years.Construction Cost Index is 3.7%: as per Engineer News Record Historical Data Consumer Price Index is 3.0%: as per Engineer News Record Historical Data Discount Rate is 5%: Based on Current South Florida Municipal Bonds
Life Cycle Cost SummaryDiscounted Dollar Terms
Berth Length
rific
ialS
yste
m
h2
-PV
-Im
pres
sed
Syst
em
Ber
th3
-PV
-Sac
rific
ialS
yste
m
Ber
th3
-PV
-Im
pres
sed
Syst
em
Ber
th4
-PV
-Sac
rific
ialS
yste
m
Ber
th4
-PV
-Im
pres
sed
Syst
em
Ber
th4A
-PV
-Sac
rific
ialS
yste
m
Ber
th4A
-PV
-Im
pres
sed
Syst
em
Ber
th5
-PV
-Sac
rific
ialS
yste
m
Ber
th5
-PV
-Im
pres
sed
Syst
em
Ber
th6
-PV
-Sac
rific
ialS
yste
m
Ber
th6
-PV
-Im
pres
sed
Syst
em
Ber
th7-
8-P
V-S
acri
ficia
lSys
tem
Ber
th7-
8-P
V-I
mpr
esse
dSy
stem
Ber
th8A
-PV
-Sac
rific
ialS
yste
m
Ber
th8A
-PV
-Im
pres
sed
Syst
em
Ber
th9
-10
-PV
-Sac
rific
ialS
yste
m
Ber
th9
-10
-PV
-Im
pres
sed
Syst
em
Ber
th11
-PV
-Sac
rific
ialS
yste
m
Ber
th11
-PV
-Im
pres
sed
Syst
em
Ber
th12
-13
-PV
-Sac
rific
ialS
yste
m
Ber
th12
-13
-PV
-Im
pres
sed
Syst
em
Ber
th14
-15
-PV
-Sac
rific
ialS
yste
m
Ber
th14
-15
-PV
-Im
pres
sed
S
Ber
th16
-PV B
409,
816
60
9,16
0
810,
309
85
2,16
3
252,
109
30
7,89
2
810,
309
78
6,90
7
345,
488
49
7,76
4
953,
491
1,
366,
785
29
1,53
6
448,
952
95
3,49
1
1,37
0,02
5
432,
642
60
0,09
0
750,
132
78
5,02
0
1,01
5,74
4
1,43
1,40
1
488,
670
64
8,30
0-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
21
3,12
2
345,
421
44
4,30
3
417,
156
12
2,08
7
122,
283
44
4,30
3
351,
113
17
5,98
9
283,
256
52
6,95
3
876,
656
144,
845
25
3,04
6
526,
953
87
6,65
6
22
6,29
8
346,
397
40
9,56
6
388,
216
56
2,88
8
90
2,12
3
25
8,63
9
352,
747
-
5,
057
-
8,
731
-
3,
592
-
8,
731
-
4,
453
-
10
,065
-
3,96
2
-
10,0
65
-
5,
266
-
8,
192
-
10,6
41
-
5,
783
-
4,
961
-
8,
565
-
3,
524
-
8,
565
-
4,
368
-
9,
873
-
3,
886
-
9,
873
-
5,16
5
-
8,03
6
-
10
,438
-
5,67
3
4,
604
9,47
0
4,
604
8,40
2
4,
604
3,45
6
4,
604
8,40
2
4,
604
4,28
5
4,
604
9,68
5
4,
604
3,81
2
4,
604
9,68
5
4,60
4
5,
067
4,60
4
7,
883
4,60
4
10
,239
4,
604
5,56
5
-
4,77
4
-
8,24
2
-
3,39
1
-
8,24
2
-
4,20
4
-
9,50
1
-
3,74
0
-
9,50
1
-
4,
970
-
7,
733
-
10,0
44
-
5,
459
-
4,
683
-
8,
085
-
3,
326
-
8,
085
-
4,
124
-
9,
320
-
3,
668
-
9,
320
-
4,87
6
-
7,58
6
-
9,
853
-
5,
355
4,34
6
8,
939
4,34
6
7,
931
4,34
6
3,
263
4,34
6
7,
931
4,34
6
4,
045
4,34
6
9,
142
4,34
6
3,
599
4,34
6
9,
142
4,
346
4,78
3
4,
346
7,44
1
4,
346
9,66
5
4,
346
9,59
9
-
4,50
6
-
7,78
0
-
3,20
1
-
7,78
0
-
3,96
8
-
8,96
8
-
3,53
0
-
8,96
8
-
4,
692
-
7,
300
-
13,7
44
-
5,
153
-
4,
420
-
7,
632
-
7,
321
-
11
,813
-
3,
892
-
8,
797
-
3,
463
-
8,
797
-
4,60
2
-
7,16
1
-
9,
301
-
5,
055
4,10
2
8,
438
4,10
2
11
,588
4,10
2
3,
080
4,10
2
7,
486
4,10
2
3,
818
4,10
2
8,
630
4,10
2
3,
397
4,10
2
8,
630
4,
102
4,51
5
4,
102
7,02
4
4,
102
9,12
3
4,
102
9,06
1
-
4,25
3
-
7,34
4
-
3,02
1
-
7,34
4
-
3,74
6
-
8,46
5
-
3,33
2
-
8,46
5
-
4,
429
-
6,
890
-
12,9
74
-
4,
864
-
4,
172
-
7,
204
-
6,
911
-
11
,151
-
3,
674
-
8,
304
-
3,
269
-
8,
304
-
4,34
4
-
6,75
9
-
8,
779
-
4,
771
3,87
2
7,
965
3,87
2
10
,939
3,87
2
2,
907
3,87
2
7,
067
3,87
2
3,
604
3,87
2
8,
146
3,87
2
3,
206
3,87
2
12
,018
3,
872
4,26
2
3,
872
6,63
0
3,
872
8,61
2
3,
872
8,55
3
-
4,01
5
-
6,93
2
-
2,85
2
-
6,93
2
-
3,53
6
-
7,99
1
-
3,14
5
-
7,99
1
-
4,
181
-
6,
504
-
12,2
46
-
4,
591
-
3,
938
-
6,
800
-
6,
524
-
10
,526
-
3,
468
-
11
,565
-
6,81
2
-
7,83
9
-
4,
101
-
6,
380
-
8,28
7
-
4,50
4
3,
655
7,51
9
3,
655
10,3
26
3,
655
2,74
4
3,
655
6,67
0
3,
655
3,40
2
3,
655
7,68
9
3,
655
3,02
7
3,
655
11,3
44
3,65
5
4,
023
3,65
5
6,
259
3,65
5
8,
129
3,65
5
8,
073
-
3,
790
-
6,
543
-
2,
692
-
6,
543
-
3,
337
-
7,
543
-
2,
969
-
7,
543
-
3,94
6
-
6,13
9
-
11
,560
-
4,33
4
-
3,71
8
-
6,41
9
-
6,15
8
-
9,93
6
-
6,79
1
-
10,9
16
-
6,
430
-
7,
399
-
7,38
8
-
9,54
0
-
7,
822
-
4,
251
3,45
0
7,
097
3,45
0
9,
747
3,45
0
2,
590
3,45
0
6,
296
3,45
0
3,
211
3,45
0
7,
258
3,45
0
2,
857
3,45
0
10
,708
3,
450
3,79
7
3,
450
5,90
8
3,
450
7,67
3
3,
450
7,62
1
-
3,57
7
-
6,17
7
-
2,54
1
-
6,17
7
-
3,15
0
-
7,12
0
-
2,80
3
-
7,12
0
-
3,
725
-
5,
795
-
10,9
12
-
4,
091
-
3,
509
-
6,
059
-
5,
813
-
9,
379
-
6,
410
-
10
,304
-
6,06
9
-
6,98
4
-
6,
974
-
9,
005
-
7,38
4
-
4,01
3
3,
257
6,69
9
3,
257
9,20
0
3,
257
2,44
5
3,
257
5,94
3
3,
257
3,03
1
3,
257
6,85
1
3,
257
2,69
7
3,
257
10,1
08
3,25
7
3,
584
3,25
7
5,
577
3,25
7
7,
243
3,25
7
7,
193
-
56
,005
-
12
0,95
4
-
32
,002
-
12
0,95
4
-
45
,734
-
14
1,58
0
-
38,8
27
-
141,
580
-
59
,434
-
11
0,72
7
-
155,
027
-
69
,647
-
3,
312
-
5,
719
-
5,
487
-
8,
853
-
6,
051
-
9,
727
-
5,
729
-
6,
593
-
6,58
3
-
8,50
0
-
6,
970
-
3,
788
3,07
4
6,
324
3,07
4
8,
684
3,07
4
2,
308
3,07
4
5,
610
3,07
4
2,
861
3,07
4
6,
467
3,07
4
2,
546
3,07
4
9,
541
3,
074
3,38
3
3,
074
5,26
4
3,
074
6,83
7
3,
074
6,79
0
14
9,13
5
3,18
8
31
8,44
8
5,50
3
82
,463
2,26
4
31
8,44
8
5,50
3
12
1,94
0
2,80
7
37
8,97
9
6,34
4
99
,131
2,49
7
37
8,97
9
6,34
4
158,
785
3,
319
293,
007
5,
164
405,
297
9,72
3
18
2,47
1
3,64
5
-
3,12
7
-
5,39
9
-
5,17
9
-
8,35
7
-
5,71
2
-
9,18
1
-
5,40
8
-
6,22
3
-
6,
214
-
8,
024
-
6,57
9
-
3,57
6
2,
902
5,96
9
2,
902
8,19
8
2,
902
2,17
9
2,
902
5,29
6
2,
902
2,70
1
2,
902
6,10
5
2,
902
2,40
3
2,
902
9,00
6
2,90
2
3,
194
2,90
2
4,
969
2,90
2
6,
454
2,90
2
6,
409
-
3,
009
-
5,
195
-
2,
137
-
5,
195
-
2,
650
-
5,
988
-
2,
357
-
5,
988
-
3,13
3
-
4,87
4
-
9,
177
-
3,
441
-
2,
951
-
5,
096
-
4,
889
-
7,
888
-
5,
391
-
8,
667
-
5,
105
-
5,
874
-
5,86
6
-
7,57
4
-
6,
210
-
3,
375
2,73
9
5,
634
2,73
9
7,
738
2,73
9
2,
056
2,73
9
4,
999
2,73
9
2,
550
2,73
9
5,
762
2,73
9
2,
268
2,73
9
8,
502
2,
739
3,01
5
2,
739
4,69
0
2,
739
6,09
2
2,
739
6,05
0
-
2,84
0
-
4,90
4
-
2,01
7
-
4,90
4
-
2,50
1
-
5,65
3
-
2,22
5
-
5,65
3
-
2,
957
-
4,
601
-
8,66
3
-
3,24
8
-
2,78
6
-
4,81
0
-
4,61
5
-
7,44
6
-
5,08
9
-
8,18
1
-
4,81
8
-
5,54
5
-
5,
537
-
7,
149
-
5,86
2
-
3,18
6
2,
586
5,31
9
2,
586
7,30
4
2,
586
1,94
1
2,
586
4,71
9
2,
586
2,40
7
2,
586
5,43
9
2,
586
2,14
1
2,
586
8,02
5
2,58
6
2,
846
2,58
6
4,
427
2,58
6
5,
750
2,58
6
5,
711
-
2,
681
-
4,
629
-
1,
904
-
4,
629
-
2,
361
-
5,
336
-
2,
100
-
5,
336
-
2,79
1
-
4,34
3
-
8,
177
-
3,
066
-
2,
630
-
4,
541
-
4,
356
-
7,
029
-
4,
804
-
7,
722
-
4,
548
-
5,
234
-
5,22
6
-
6,74
8
-
5,
534
-
3,
007
2,44
1
5,
020
2,44
1
6,
895
2,44
1
1,
832
2,44
1
4,
454
2,44
1
2,
272
2,44
1
5,
134
2,44
1
2,
021
2,44
1
7,
575
2,
441
2,68
6
2,
441
4,17
9
2,
441
5,42
8
2,
441
5,39
1
-
2,53
1
-
4,36
9
-
1,79
7
-
4,36
9
-
2,22
8
-
5,03
7
-
1,98
3
-
5,03
7
-
2,
635
-
4,
100
-
7,71
9
-
2,89
4
-
2,48
2
-
4,28
6
-
4,11
2
-
6,63
5
-
4,53
5
-
7,28
9
-
4,29
3
-
4,94
1
-
4,
933
-
6,
370
-
5,22
3
-
2,83
9
2,
304
4,73
9
2,
304
6,50
8
2,
304
1,73
0
2,
304
4,20
4
2,
304
2,14
4
2,
304
4,84
7
2,
304
1,90
8
2,
304
7,15
0
2,30
4
2,
536
2,30
4
3,
945
2,30
4
5,
124
2,30
4
5,
089
-
2,
389
-
4,
124
-
1,
697
-
4,
124
-
2,
104
-
4,
754
-
1,
871
-
4,
754
-
2,48
7
-
3,87
0
-
7,
286
-
2,
732
-
2,
343
-
4,
046
-
3,
881
-
6,
263
-
4,
280
-
6,
881
-
4,
053
-
4,
664
-
4,65
7
-
6,01
3
-
4,
930
-
2,
680
2,17
5
4,
473
2,17
5
6,
143
2,17
5
1,
633
2,17
5
3,
969
2,17
5
2,
024
2,17
5
4,
575
2,17
5
1,
801
2,17
5
6,
750
2,
175
2,39
3
2,
175
3,72
4
2,
175
4,83
7
2,
175
4,80
3
-
2,25
5
-
3,89
3
-
1,60
2
-
3,89
3
-
1,98
6
-
4,48
8
-
1,76
6
-
4,48
8
-
2,
348
-
3,
653
-
6,87
8
-
2,57
9
-
2,21
2
-
3,81
9
-
3,66
4
-
5,91
2
-
4,04
0
-
6,49
5
-
3,82
5
-
4,40
2
-
4,
396
-
5,
676
-
4,65
4
-
2,52
9
2,
053
4,22
3
2,
053
5,79
9
2,
053
1,54
1
2,
053
3,74
6
2,
053
1,91
1
2,
053
4,31
8
2,
053
1,70
0
2,
053
6,37
1
2,05
3
2,
259
2,05
3
3,
515
2,05
3
4,
565
2,05
3
4,
534
-
2,
128
-
3,
675
-
1,
512
-
3,
675
-
1,
874
-
4,
236
-
1,
667
-
4,
236
-
2,21
6
-
3,44
8
-
6,
492
-
2,
434
-
1,
947
-
3,
464
-
3,
317
-
5,
439
-
3,
673
-
5,
990
-
3,
470
-
4,
014
-
4,00
8
-
5,21
7
-
4,
252
-
2,
247
-
3,
847
-
5,
335
-
1,
316
-
3,
398
-
1,
665
-
3,
938
-
1,
466
-
5,
876
-
1,99
4
-
3,18
0
-
4,
171
-
4,
141
-
1,
873
-
3,
333
-
1,
291
-
3,
333
-
1,
633
-
3,
863
-
1,
438
-
3,
863
-
1,95
6
-
3,11
9
-
5,
992
-
2,
162
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
tem Sa
crifi
cial
Syst
em
rth
18-P
V-I
mpr
esse
dSy
stem
Ber
th19
-PV
-Sac
rific
ialS
yste
m
Ber
th19
-PV
-Im
pres
sed
Syst
em
Ber
th20
-PV
-Sac
rific
ialS
yste
m
Ber
th20
-PV
-Im
pres
sed
Syst
em
Ber
th21
-PV
-Sac
rific
ialS
yste
m
Ber
th21
-PV
-Im
pres
sed
Syst
em
Ber
th22
-PV
-Sac
rific
ialS
yste
m
Ber
th22
-PV
-Im
pres
sed
Syst
em
Ber
th23
-PV
-Sac
rific
ialS
yste
m
Ber
th23
-PV
-Im
pres
sed
Syst
em
Ber
th24
-PV
-Sac
rific
ialS
yste
m
Ber
th24
-PV
-Im
pres
sed
Syst
em
Ber
th25
-PV
-Sac
rific
ialS
yste
m
Ber
th25
-PV
-Im
pres
sed
Syst
em
Ber
th26
-PV
-Sac
rific
ialS
yste
m
Ber
th26
-PV
-Im
pres
sed
Syst
em
Ber
th27
-PV
-Sac
rific
ialS
yste
m
Ber
th27
-PV
-Im
pres
sed
Syst
em
Ber
th28
-PV
-Sac
rific
ialS
yste
m
Ber
th28
-PV
-Im
pres
sed
Syst
em
Ber
th28
A-P
V-S
acri
ficia
lSys
tem
Ber
th28
A-P
V-I
mpr
esse
dSy
stem
Ber
th28
B-P
V-S
ac
Ber
th2
567,
256
81
3,38
4
588,
007
83
2,51
5
577,
899
86
4,12
9
577,
899
86
3,53
9
250,
034
39
7,26
0
648,
452
87
3,71
8
590,
349
84
7,80
3
604,
875
87
0,19
9
604,
875
87
0,19
9
347,
563
53
4,55
6
384,
915
58
4,19
7
295,
686
47
8,95
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
292,
178
50
7,30
5
304,
157
51
6,98
6
310,
146
52
5,74
3
310,
146
52
5,38
0
120,
889
22
1,34
6
350,
872
56
1,79
7
317,
333
52
2,56
3
325,
718
53
3,09
5
325,
718
53
3,09
5
177,
187
31
3,24
1
198,
748
34
5,09
4
147,
241
27
9,15
9
-
6,
310
-
6,
502
-
6,
595
-
6,
588
-
3,
582
-
7,
240
-
6,
703
-
6,
852
-
6,
852
-
4,
470
-
4,
820
-
4,
004
-
6,
190
-
6,
379
-
6,
469
-
6,
462
-
3,
514
-
7,
102
-
6,
575
-
6,
721
-
6,
721
-
4,
385
-
4,
728
-
3,
927
4,60
4
6,
072
4,60
4
6,
257
4,60
4
6,
346
4,60
4
6,
339
4,60
4
3,
447
4,60
4
4,
604
4,60
4
6,
450
4,60
4
6,
593
4,60
4
6,
593
4,60
4
4,
301
4,60
4
4,
638
4,60
4
3,
853
-
5,
956
-
6,
138
-
10
,742
-
10
,735
-
3,
381
-
-
-
6,
327
-
6,
468
-
6,
468
-
4,
219
-
4,
550
-
3,
779
-
5,
843
-
6,
021
-
6,
107
-
6,
100
-
3,
317
-
-
-
6,
207
-
6,
345
-
6,
345
-
4,
139
-
4,
463
-
3,
707
4,34
6
5,
732
4,34
6
5,
906
4,34
6
5,
990
4,34
6
5,
984
4,34
6
3,
254
4,34
6
4,
346
4,34
6
6,
088
4,34
6
6,
224
4,34
6
6,
224
4,34
6
4,
060
4,34
6
4,
378
4,34
6
3,
637
-
5,
623
-
5,
794
-
10
,139
-
10
,133
-
3,
192
-
-
-
5,
972
-
6,
105
-
6,
105
-
3,
983
-
4,
295
-
3,
567
-
5,
515
-
5,
683
-
5,
764
-
5,
758
-
3,
131
-
-
-
5,
859
-
5,
989
-
5,
989
-
3,
907
-
4,
213
-
3,
499
4,10
2
5,
410
4,10
2
5,
575
4,10
2
5,
655
4,10
2
5,
649
4,10
2
3,
071
4,10
2
4,
102
4,10
2
5,
747
4,10
2
5,
875
4,10
2
5,
875
4,10
2
3,
833
4,10
2
4,
133
4,10
2
3,
433
-
5,
307
-
5,
469
-
9,
571
-
9,
565
-
3,
013
-
-
-
5,
638
-
5,
763
-
5,
763
-
3,
760
-
4,
054
-
3,
367
-
5,
206
-
5,
365
-
5,
441
-
5,
435
-
2,
955
-
-
-
5,
530
-
5,
653
-
5,
653
-
3,
688
-
3,
977
-
3,
303
3,87
2
5,
107
3,87
2
5,
263
3,87
2
5,
338
3,87
2
5,
332
3,87
2
2,
899
3,87
2
3,
872
3,87
2
5,
425
3,87
2
5,
546
3,87
2
5,
546
3,87
2
3,
618
3,87
2
3,
901
3,87
2
3,
240
-
5,
010
-
5,
162
-
9,
034
-
9,
029
-
2,
844
-
-
-
5,
322
-
9,
238
-
9,
238
-
7,
347
-
7,
625
-
6,
977
-
4,
914
-
5,
064
-
5,
136
-
5,
131
-
2,
790
-
-
-
5,
220
-
5,
336
-
5,
336
-
3,
481
-
3,
754
-
3,
118
3,65
5
4,
821
3,65
5
4,
968
3,65
5
5,
038
3,65
5
5,
033
3,65
5
2,
737
3,65
5
3,
655
3,65
5
5,
121
3,65
5
5,
235
3,65
5
5,
235
3,65
5
3,
415
3,65
5
3,
682
3,65
5
3,
059
-
8,
314
-
8,
459
-
8,
528
-
8,
523
-
6,
270
-
-
-
8,
609
-
8,
720
-
8,
720
-
6,
935
-
7,
198
-
6,
586
-
4,
639
-
4,
780
-
4,
848
-
4,
843
-
2,
633
-
-
-
4,
928
-
5,
037
-
5,
037
-
3,
286
-
3,
543
-
2,
943
3,45
0
4,
550
3,45
0
4,
689
3,45
0
4,
756
3,45
0
4,
751
3,45
0
2,
583
3,45
0
3,
450
3,45
0
4,
834
3,45
0
4,
941
3,45
0
4,
941
3,45
0
3,
223
3,45
0
3,
476
3,45
0
2,
887
-
7,
848
-
7,
984
-
8,
050
-
8,
045
-
5,
919
-
-
-
8,
126
-
8,
232
-
8,
232
-
6,
547
-
6,
794
-
6,
217
-
4,
379
-
4,
512
-
4,
576
-
4,
572
-
2,
486
-
-
-
4,
651
-
4,
755
-
4,
755
-
3,
102
-
3,
345
-
2,
778
3,25
7
4,
295
3,25
7
4,
426
3,25
7
4,
489
3,25
7
4,
484
3,25
7
2,
438
3,25
7
3,
257
3,25
7
4,
563
3,25
7
4,
664
3,25
7
4,
664
3,25
7
3,
043
3,25
7
3,
281
3,25
7
2,
725
-
79
,772
-
83
,190
-
86
,541
-
86
,536
-
35
,190
-
-
-
86
,613
-
90
,002
-
90
,002
-
48
,940
-
55
,752
-
42
,050
-
4,
133
-
4,
259
-
4,
320
-
4,
315
-
2,
346
-
-
-
4,
391
-
4,
488
-
4,
488
-
2,
928
-
3,
157
-
2,
622
3,07
4
4,
055
3,07
4
4,
178
3,07
4
4,
238
3,07
4
4,
233
3,07
4
2,
302
3,07
4
3,
074
3,07
4
4,
307
3,07
4
4,
403
3,07
4
4,
403
3,07
4
2,
872
3,07
4
3,
097
3,07
4
2,
572
207,
035
6,
993
215,
807
7,
114
220,
194
7,
173
220,
194
7,
168
81,5
86
5,
274
250,
021
25
0,02
1
225,
457
7,
241
231,
598
7,
334
231,
598
7,
334
122,
817
5,
833
138,
608
6,
054
100,
886
5,
539
-
3,
902
-
4,
020
-
4,
078
-
4,
073
-
2,
215
-
-
-
4,
144
-
4,
237
-
4,
237
-
2,
764
-
2,
980
-
2,
475
2,90
2
3,
827
2,90
2
3,
944
2,90
2
4,
000
2,90
2
3,
996
2,90
2
2,
173
2,90
2
2,
902
2,90
2
4,
065
2,90
2
4,
156
2,90
2
4,
156
2,90
2
2,
711
2,90
2
2,
923
2,90
2
2,
428
-
6,
601
-
6,
715
-
6,
770
-
6,
766
-
4,
978
-
-
-
6,
835
-
6,
923
-
6,
923
-
5,
506
-
5,
714
-
5,
229
-
3,
683
-
3,
795
-
3,
849
-
3,
845
-
2,
091
-
-
-
3,
912
-
3,
999
-
3,
999
-
2,
609
-
2,
813
-
2,
337
2,73
9
3,
613
2,73
9
3,
723
2,73
9
3,
776
2,73
9
3,
772
2,73
9
2,
051
2,73
9
2,
739
2,73
9
3,
838
2,73
9
3,
923
2,73
9
3,
923
2,73
9
2,
559
2,73
9
2,
759
2,73
9
2,
292
-
6,
231
-
6,
339
-
6,
391
-
6,
387
-
4,
699
-
-
-
6,
451
-
6,
535
-
6,
535
-
5,
197
-
5,
394
-
4,
935
-
3,
476
-
3,
582
-
3,
633
-
3,
629
-
1,
973
-
-
-
3,
693
-
3,
775
-
3,
775
-
2,
463
-
2,
655
-
2,
206
2,58
6
3,
410
2,58
6
3,
514
2,58
6
3,
564
2,58
6
3,
560
2,58
6
1,
936
2,58
6
2,
586
2,58
6
3,
622
2,58
6
3,
703
2,58
6
3,
703
2,58
6
2,
416
2,58
6
2,
605
2,58
6
2,
164
2,53
6
5,
882
2,53
6
5,
984
-
6,
033
-
6,
029
-
4,
435
-
-
-
6,
090
-
6,
169
-
6,
169
-
4,
906
-
5,
092
-
4,
659
2,48
8
3,
281
2,48
8
3,
381
-
3,
430
-
3,
426
-
1,
863
-
-
-
3,
486
-
3,
563
-
3,
563
-
2,
325
-
2,
506
-
2,
082
2,44
1
3,
219
2,44
1
3,
317
2,44
1
3,
364
2,44
1
3,
361
2,44
1
1,
827
2,44
1
2,
441
2,44
1
3,
419
2,44
1
3,
495
2,44
1
3,
495
2,44
1
2,
280
2,44
1
2,
459
2,44
1
2,
042
2,39
4
5,
552
2,39
4
5,
648
-
5,
694
-
5,
691
-
4,
187
-
-
-
5,
748
-
5,
823
-
5,
823
-
4,
631
-
4,
806
-
4,
398
2,34
9
3,
098
2,34
9
3,
192
-
3,
237
-
3,
234
-
1,
758
-
-
-
3,
290
-
3,
363
-
3,
363
-
2,
194
-
2,
366
-
1,
965
2,30
4
3,
039
2,30
4
3,
131
2,30
4
3,
176
2,30
4
3,
172
2,30
4
1,
725
2,30
4
2,
304
2,30
4
3,
228
2,30
4
3,
299
2,30
4
3,
299
2,30
4
2,
152
2,30
4
2,
321
2,30
4
1,
928
2,26
0
5,
241
2,26
0
5,
331
-
5,
375
-
5,
372
-
3,
952
-
-
-
5,
426
-
5,
497
-
5,
497
-
4,
371
-
4,
537
-
4,
151
2,21
7
2,
924
2,21
7
3,
013
-
3,
056
-
3,
053
-
1,
660
-
-
-
3,
106
-
3,
175
-
3,
175
-
2,
071
-
2,
233
-
1,
855
2,17
5
2,
868
2,17
5
2,
956
2,17
5
2,
998
2,17
5
2,
994
2,17
5
1,
628
2,17
5
2,
175
2,17
5
3,
047
2,17
5
3,
114
2,17
5
3,
114
2,17
5
2,
032
2,17
5
2,
191
2,17
5
1,
820
2,13
3
4,
947
2,13
3
5,
033
-
5,
074
-
5,
071
-
3,
730
-
-
-
5,
122
-
5,
188
-
5,
188
-
4,
126
-
4,
282
-
3,
918
2,09
3
2,
760
2,09
3
2,
844
-
2,
885
-
2,
881
-
1,
567
-
-
-
2,
932
-
2,
997
-
2,
997
-
1,
955
-
2,
108
-
1,
751
2,05
3
2,
707
2,05
3
2,
790
2,05
3
2,
830
2,05
3
2,
827
2,05
3
1,
537
2,05
3
2,
053
2,05
3
2,
876
2,05
3
2,
940
2,05
3
2,
940
2,05
3
1,
918
2,05
3
2,
068
2,05
3
1,
718
2,01
4
4,
669
2,01
4
4,
750
-
4,
789
-
4,
786
-
3,
521
-
-
-
4,
835
-
4,
898
-
4,
898
-
3,
895
-
4,
042
-
3,
699
-
2,
464
-
2,
544
-
2,
582
-
2,
579
-
1,
338
-
-
-
2,
626
-
2,
688
-
2,
688
-
1,
704
-
1,
849
-
1,
512
-
2,
417
-
2,
495
-
2,
533
-
2,
530
-
1,
312
-
-
-
2,
576
-
2,
637
-
2,
637
-
1,
672
-
1,
814
-
1,
483
-
4,
272
-
4,
348
-
4,
385
-
4,
382
-
3,
188
-
-
-
4,
428
-
4,
487
-
4,
487
-
3,
541
-
3,
680
-
3,
356
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
F-1
APPENDIX F Sacrificial Anode vs Impressed Current
Life Cycle Cost Summary in Real 2010 Dollar Terms
Port Everglades Cathodic Protection SystemsJob No. DRSCT2120
Port Everglades, Ft. Lauderdale, FL 28-May-10
Location
Sacrificial Anode System - Present Value
Impressed Current System - Present Value
Difference During 50 Year Life Cycle
PercentageDifference
Berth 1 533.00 ft 503,364 779,914 276,550 35%Berth 2 533.00 ft 503,364 779,914 276,550 35%Berth 3 534.00 ft 503,364 780,230 276,866 35%Berth 4 900.00 ft 977,391 1,133,573 156,181 14%Berth 4A 300.00 ft 316,701 428,720 112,020 26%Berth 5 900.00 ft 977,391 1,065,863 88,472 8%Berth 6 378.00 ft 427,225 644,147 216,922 34%Berth 7-8 1,200.00 ft 1,146,862 1,695,086 548,224 32%Berth 8A 306.00 ft 363,367 582,283 218,917 38%Berth 9 -10 1,200.00 ft 1,146,862 1,700,155 553,293 33%Berth 11 497.00 ft 530,381 771,937 241,556 31%Berth 12-13 1,231.00 ft 906,164 1,045,058 138,894 13%Berth 14-15 1,231.00 ft 1,220,545 1,781,955 561,410 32%Berth 16 549.00 ft 596,696 841,244 244,548 29%Berth 17 550.00 ft 599,152 789,022 189,870 24%Berth 18 549.00 ft 596,696 788,605 191,909 24%Berth 19 650.00 ft 711,084 1,022,302 311,218 30%Berth 20 650.00 ft 735,645 1,047,430 311,785 30%Berth 21 663.00 ft 702,308 1,086,709 384,400 35%Berth 22 662.00 ft 702,308 1,085,967 383,659 35%Berth 23 240.00 ft 314,245 519,638 205,393 40%Berth 24 720.00 ft 785,816 1,152,520 366,704 32%Berth 25 648.00 ft 717,045 1,068,773 351,729 33%Berth 26 668.00 ft 734,238 1,097,599 363,362 33%Berth 27 668.00 ft 734,238 1,097,599 363,362 33%Berth 28 490.00 ft 429,681 685,895 256,213 37%Berth 28A 556.00 ft 473,891 747,154 273,263 37%Berth 28B 402.00 ft 368,279 616,296 248,017 40%Berth 29 799.00 ft 827,569 928,036 100,466 11%
Notes:Life Cycle costs are based on Recommended Replacement Order Including Master Plan Effects.Life Cycle costs of Sacrificial Anode System are based on a 25 year life over 50 years.Life Cycle costs of Impressed Current System are based on a 50 year life with anode replacement at 25 years.Construction Cost Index is 3.7%: as per Engineer News Record Historical Data Consumer Price Index is 3.0%: as per Engineer News Record Historical Data Discount Rate is 5%: Based on Current South Florida Municipal Bonds
Life Cycle Costs SummaryReal 2010 Dollar Terms
Berth Length
G-1
APPENDIX G Sacrificial Anode vs Impressed Current
Life Cycle Cost Summary in Nominal Dollar Terms
Port Everglades Cathodic Protection SystemsJob No. DRSCT2120
Port Everglades, Ft. Lauderdale, FL 28-May-10
Location
Sacrificial Anode System - Present Value
Impressed Current System - Present Value
Difference During 50 Year Life Cycle
PercentageDifference
Berth 1 533.00 ft 968,020 1,378,942 410,923 30%Berth 2 533.00 ft 968,020 1,378,942 410,923 30%Berth 3 534.00 ft 968,020 1,379,698 411,679 30%Berth 4 900.00 ft 1,855,017 2,109,712 254,695 12%Berth 4A 300.00 ft 618,736 857,622 238,886 28%Berth 5 900.00 ft 1,855,017 2,031,476 176,459 9%Berth 6 378.00 ft 825,549 1,163,363 337,815 29%Berth 7-8 1,200.00 ft 2,172,130 2,827,848 655,718 23%Berth 8A 306.00 ft 706,057 1,055,213 349,156 33%Berth 9 -10 1,200.00 ft 2,172,130 2,840,510 668,380 24%Berth 11 497.00 ft 1,018,574 1,377,485 358,911 26%Berth 12-13 1,231.00 ft 1,721,738 1,950,456 228,718 12%Berth 14-15 1,231.00 ft 2,310,005 2,991,976 681,971 23%Berth 16 549.00 ft 1,142,662 1,515,555 372,893 25%Berth 17 550.00 ft 1,147,257 1,459,895 312,637 21%Berth 18 549.00 ft 1,142,662 1,458,949 316,287 22%Berth 19 650.00 ft 1,429,215 1,757,443 328,227 19%Berth 20 650.00 ft 1,475,174 1,802,885 327,711 18%Berth 21 663.00 ft 1,340,283 1,862,571 522,288 28%Berth 22 662.00 ft 1,340,283 1,861,276 520,993 28%Berth 23 240.00 ft 614,140 961,495 347,355 36%Berth 24 720.00 ft 1,496,541 1,987,339 490,798 25%Berth 25 648.00 ft 1,367,858 1,844,825 476,967 26%Berth 26 668.00 ft 1,400,029 1,893,674 493,645 26%Berth 27 668.00 ft 1,400,029 1,893,674 493,645 26%Berth 28 490.00 ft 830,145 1,224,696 394,552 32%Berth 28A 556.00 ft 912,870 1,324,988 412,118 31%Berth 28B 402.00 ft 715,249 1,107,296 392,047 35%Berth 29 799.00 ft 1,574,671 1,771,697 197,026 11%
Notes:Life Cycle costs are assumed to be installed at all locations in 2012 for comparison purposes onlyLife Cycle costs of Sacrificial Anode System are based on a 25 year life over 50 years.Life Cycle costs of Impressed Current System are based on a 50 year life with anode replacement at 25 years.Construction Cost Index is 3.7%: as per Engineer News Record Historical Data Consumer Price Index is 3.0%: as per Engineer News Record Historical Data Discount Rate is 5%: Based on Current South Florida Municipal Bonds
Life Cycle Cost SummaryNominal Dollar Terms
Berth Length