Port Botany Expansion â€“ Quay Wall Design and Construction

All are welcome to what will be a most interesting talk.

Note: Attendance may be credited towards Engineers Australia Continuing Professional Development (CPD)

Venue: Function Room, Ground Floor 8 Thomas Street, Chatswood

Inquiries: Alan Betts, Maritime Panel Chair (or his assistant Heli Lähteelä) Phone: 8925 5544

E-mail: [email protected]

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

All welcome. Food and drinks served at 5:30 pm Abstract: The A$500M Sydney Ports Corporation Third Container Terminal at Port Botany required: dredging of more than 10 million m3 of material, more than 60 Ha of reclamation and the construction of over 2 km of quay wall to accommodate Post Panamax container terminal vessels and tug berths. This project was delivered as part of a Design and Construct Project joint venture between Baulderstone Hornibrook & Jan De Nul and a design consortium comprising: Hyder Consulting, Scott Wilson and Golder Associates which involved designers in local, national and international locations. This joint presentation from the three main contributors of the design consortium will discuss the significant engineering challenges involved in this project and the details of the final engineering design adopted. The presentation will cover the full spectrum of civil and structural design, maritime and geotechnical engineering.

NSW Maritime Panel presents

Port Botany Expansion – Quay Wall Design and Construction

by Alan Betts (URS/Scott Wilson)

Sam Harris (Hyder) Jamie McIlquham (Golder Associates)

All are welcome to what will be a most interesting talk.

Note: Attendance may be credited towards Engineers Australia Continuing Professional Development (CPD)

Venue: Function Room, Ground Floor 8 Thomas Street, Chatswood

Inquiries: Alan Betts, Maritime Panel Chair (or his assistant Heli Lähteelä) Phone: 8925 5544

E-mail: [email protected]

The presenters:

Sam Harris: Maritime Manager – Hyder Consulting Ltd Jamie McIlquham: Senior Geotechnical Engineer – Golder Associates, Alan Betts: Australian Maritime Manager – URS/Scott Wilson

Sam has experience in the project management, investigation, planning, design and construction supervision of port and maritime infrastructure projects in Australia, UK, Nigeria, Ireland, Mauritius, Kuwait, Libya and UAE. Sam’s role on this project has been as the Marine Design Manager for the D&C consortium. Contact: [email protected] Jamie has 12 years of experience working on geotechnical projects in Australia, the UK and Gibraltar. During the Port Botany Expansion project he was in charge of several design packages including the dredging and reclamation works and geotechnical design of caisson structures. During construction he led the geotechnical team and provided ongoing geotechnical advice and supervision. Contact: [email protected] Alan has more than 30 years of experience in the planning, design, construction and maintenance of port and harbour works, in Australia, NZ and other overseas locations. Alan undertook local preliminary engineering design and peer review of many of the design elements for this project. Contact: [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]



Geotechnical Design of Quay Structures for the Port Botany Expansion (PBE)

Jamie McIlquham - Senior Geotechnical Engineer -

Golder Associates

�Introduction

�Geotechnical Model

�Design Requirements

�Design Solution

Introduction

Design Solution

April 19, 2011 2

�63ha Reclamation

�2km of New Berth Structures

�New Navigation Channels and Basins

�Bridges, Breakwaters, Future Rail Corridor,

Summary of PBE Project

Bridges, Breakwaters, Future Rail Corridor, Revetments

April 19, 2011 3

Site Location

April 19, 2011 4

Geotechnical Model

April 19, 2011 5

�Quaternary sediments up to 80m thick over Hawkesbury

Sandstone

�Four basic soil units:

� Unit 1 – recent estuarine deposits, loose

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

layers

Geotechnical Model

layers

� Unit 3 – mainly organic clay, very stiff to hard, fissured

� Unit 4 – clay, very stiff to hard, some fissuring and less

organic content than Unit 3

�Soils are highly discontinuous laterally.

April 19, 2011 6

Geotechnical Model

April 19, 2011 7

Section showing Dredging and Reclamation

Section showing Counterfort and Reclamation

RL+4mCD

Unit 2 Sand

Upper Reclamation Fill

Lower Reclamation Fill

Unit 2 Sand

Front Crane Rail Rear Crane Rail

RL-17.5mCD

Counterfort

Structure

1m Scour Protection

Cope Beam

RL-10mCD

35m

Counterfort

Backfill

April 19, 2011 9

Unit 3 Clay

Unit 4 Clay

Unit 3 Clay

Unit 6 Sandstone Bedrock

Trench Backfill

0.8m Thick Basal Trench

Rock

Base of Trench at RL-30mCD

1m Thick Foundation

Pad

Note: 0m Chart Datum = – 0.925m Australian Height Datum

Construction Sequence

Existing Seabed

Stage 1: Before Dredging Commences

April 19, 2011 10

Existing Seabed

Unit 2 Sand

Unit 3/4 Clay

Unit 1 Sand


Stage 2: Trench Foundation Dredged to RL-30mCD

April 19, 2011 11

Unit 2 Sand

Unit 3/4 Clay


Stage 3: Trench Foundation Overfilled with Sand to RL-13.5mCD

April 19, 2011 12

Unit 2 Sand

Unit 3/4 Clay


Stage 4: Trench Foundation Vibrocompacted and Stripped

April 19, 2011 13

Unit 2 Sand

Unit 3/4 Clay


Stage 5: Counterfort Unit Placed

April 19, 2011 14

Unit 2 Sand

Unit 3/4 Clay


Stage 6: Reclamation overfilled to RL+3.5mCD

April 19, 2011 15

Unit 2 Sand

Unit 3/4 Clay


Stage 7: Counterfort Backfill Vibrocompacted

April 19, 2011 16

Unit 2 Sand

Unit 3/4 Clay


Stage 8: 300kN/m Kentledge Applied for 3 Days

April 19, 2011 17

Unit 2 Sand

Unit 3/4 Clay


Stage 9: 90kPa Preload (above RL+2.5mCD) Applied for 1 Month

April 19, 2011 18

Unit 2 Sand

Unit 3/4 Clay


Stage 10: Install Rear Crane Beam Piles

April 19, 2011 19

Unit 2 Sand

Unit 3/4 Clay


Stage 11: Install Front and Rear Crane Beams

April 19, 2011 20

Unit 2 Sand

Unit 3/4 Clay


Stage 12: Backfill to RL+4mCD and Install Scour Protection

April 19, 2011 21

Unit 2 Sand

Unit 3/4 Clay

�PSTR - design requirements

�Stability Criteria

�Serviceability Criteria

�Loading Information (Only for PBE)

Design Requirements

�Loading Information (Only for PBE)

April 19, 2011 22

Design Solution - Trench Foundations

� Removal of fissured clay required to RL-30mCD over

1680m out of 1850m of main berth length (Approx 0.8Mm3 )

� Strength and stiffness of backfill controlled by stability and

movement criteria for PBE berth structures

� Target backfill stiffness: Secant Modulus (Es’) ≥ 100MPa

at a reference confining pressure of 100kPa; and

°at a reference confining pressure of 100kPa; and

� Target strength: friction angle (Φ’) of 37°� Stiffness generally dictated amount of compaction

� Trench size was then optimised to provide the required

stability performance, taking into account dredging

tolerances

April 19, 2011 23

�2D PLAXIS

�SLOPE/w

�Spreadsheets - Sliding, Overturning & Bearing Capacity

Design Solution – Analysis Methods

�Collaborate (Match Geotechnical & Structural Models)

�Communication (Internal & External)

April 19, 2011 24

�Stability criteria were:

�Sliding & Overturning – FoS > 2.00

�Bearing Capacity – FoS > 3.00

�Global Stability – FoS > 1.40 / 1.50

Design Requirements - Stability

Global Stability – FoS > 1.40 / 1.50

�Seismic (Sliding & Overturning / Global) –FoS > 1.10

April 19, 2011 25

Stability Assessment

April 19, 2011 26

�Serviceability criteria were most critical:

�Vertical settlement <40mm at 20 years

�Horizontal movement <40mm at 20 years

�Crane gauge 30mm at 20 years (Initially

Design Requirements - Serviceability

Crane gauge 30mm at 20 years (Initiallytighter)

April 19, 2011 27

�Backanalysis of EBD counterforts to select deformation parameters

�Laboratory testing, design of EBD and statistical assessment were also considered

Sensitivity analyses completed to check

Design Solution - Serviceability

�Sensitivity analyses completed to check potential impacts

April 19, 2011 28

�PLAXIS used to assess movement and earthpressures acting on the structures

�Staged construction in model


April 19, 2011 29


April 19, 2011 30

� Pressures derived from PLAXIS analyses

� Geotechnical models calibrated against structural models in

iterative process

� Counterforts

� Ka at shallow depth

� K in trapped wedge at base

Lateral Soil Pressures on Wall Structures

� K0 in trapped wedge at base

� Blockwork caissons tend towards full depth K0 profile

April 19, 2011 31

�Seismic Bearing Capacity

�Vibrocompaction next to structures

Design Solution

April 19, 2011 32

Seismic Bearing Capacity

April 19, 2011 33

�Conventional Limit Equilibrium seismic bearing capacitysupplemented with displacement based criteria

�Assessed using dynamic PLAXIS analysis

�Similar movement mechanism to port caisson units afterKobe Earthquake

Seismic Bearing Capacity

� Local yielding at toe and heel

� Minimal settlement

� Seaward translation

� Analysis results can be compared to performance requirements

April 19, 2011 34

Seismic Design

April 19, 2011 35

� Need to control earth pressure to limit serviceability design

for concrete durability

� Need to balance compaction required for backfill strength

and stiffness against earth pressures

� Conceptual Soil Stress Path for PBE wall backfill:

� K on first filling, possible arching

Effect of VC on Wall Structures

� K0 on first filling, possible arching

� Increased horizontal earth pressures due to VC, no arching

� Relief during/after compaction to Ka as the structure moves

� K0 remains in trapped wedge

� Design VC probe offset based on published data effects

� Site trials necessary to assess impact of VC

April 19, 2011 36

Effect of VC on Wall Structures

April 19, 2011 37

� Field trials using V48

VC Rig

� Eccentric force 230-

470kN @ 60Hz

� Trials completed

behind

Effect of VC on Wall Structures - Trials

behind

� Sheet pile wall

� Caisson structure

� Counterforts

April 19, 2011 38


April 19, 2011 39

Counterfort Compaction Trial

April 19, 2011 40

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

� Full Energy

�40 Secs compaction per 1m lift; or

�400 Amps drawn by motor

� Reduced Energy


� Reduced Energy

�20 Secs compaction per 1m lift; or

�300 Amps drawn by motor

April 19, 2011 41

Revised Compaction Criteria

April 19, 2011 42

� Final profile closely matches predicted PLAXIS

profile for wished into place fill

� Earth pressures were consistent with wall

movements

� Peak transient pressure high during VC (1-1.5 x K0)

Effect of VC on Wall Structures – Trial Results

� Peak transient pressure high during VC (1-1.5 x K0)

but <structural limit

� Earth pressures reduce within about 10 minutes

after VC to Ka (shallow) to K0 (deep) earth

pressure profile

April 19, 2011 43

Managed Earth Pressure Risk by:

� Considering alternative compaction equipment

� Adopting reduced energy VC points within 2.5m of wall

� Revising compaction criteria behind structure

Effect of VC on Wall Structures – Trial Results

� Verification of assumptions with earth pressure cells and survey

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

April 19, 2011 44

Dredging – Hydrographic survey – Mar 2009

Information provided by PB (Project Verifier)

Dredging – Hydrographic survey – Dec 2009


Dredging – Hydrographic survey – Mar 2010


Dredging – Hydrographic survey – Aug 2010


Jamie McIlquhamSenior Geotechnical EngineerGolder Associates124 Pacific HighwaySt LeonardsNSW 2065 Australia

Thank You

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

E-Mail: [email protected]: www.golder.com

April 19, 2011 49

Port Botany Container Terminal Expansion – Quay Wall D&C

Date: Monday 18th April 2011Presented By: Sam Harris

Presentation Overview

• Project Summary • Project Team• Key Client Performance Criteria• Confidence in Concrete• Design Approach

• Chloride Diffusion Modeling• Concrete Mix Design • Concrete Quality Control• Limit States Design Approach

• Counterforts• Landward Crane Beam• Other Aspects

Project Summary

• $1B development (including 3rd terminal operator investment)

• 1855m long by -16.5m CD deep container quay• 199 counterfort units

• 4 segmental block caissons

• 157m long by -7m CD deep tug berth• 17 counterfort units

• Total 90,000m3 concrete

• Total 15,000t steel

• >11M m3 dredged material

• 63Ha terminal reclamation (8.4M m3)

• Foreshore enhancement and road/service works

• Navigation aids

• Terminal development by future operator (rails, pavements, buildings, internal terminal services etc)

Port Botany Expansion

before September 2008

Port Botany Expansion

in December 2010

Comparison PBE site before and almost complete

Project Team

Technical Advisers to SPC

Lead Design Consultant

Maritime Design Sub-Consultant

Geotechnical Design Sub-Consultant

D&C Contractor

Client

3rd Terminal Operator

Project Verifier

Key Client Performance Criteria

• 100 year design life• Confidence in durability with minimal maintenance• Tight lateral and vertical movement and rail gauge limits • Post-Panamax vessels

• 8000TEU & 106,000DWT

• 347m LOA

• 46m beam

• 14.5m loaded draft

• Design crane loads• 120t operating wheel loads

• 8 wheel bogie set

• 1900t crane dead load

• 120t bollards• 40kPa between rails/ 60kPa in yard stacking surcharge

Counterfort Structure

Confidence in Concrete

• Reinforced concrete = cost effective

• High level of assurance in achieving durability requirements

• Mouldability

• Plant available economically

• Precast modular construction

• Fabrication/batching on site

• Use of recycled materials

• Local concrete products

• Construction skills relatively

straightforward and local

• Quality control relatively simple

• Lends to gravity type structure

• Confidence in performance only if a well managed and informed

design process is followed

Exposure Classifications

Design Approach

Chloride Diffusion Modelling

• Differing approaches to durability in various Australian Standards

• Chloride Diffusion Model (Luping and Gulikers) is key to 100 year design life:

• The model considers:• Chloride concentration threshold at the

reinforcement for the initiation of corrosion

• Cover

• Surface chloride concentration

• Rate of chloride diffusion

• Time to onset of corrosion

Design Approach

Concrete Mix Design

• Zone 1 mix: Continuously submersed or buried• Medium level chloride diffusion coefficient

(D= 5.2 x 10-12 m/s)

• Medium level drying shrinkage (600x10-6)

• 50MPa

• 52%SL, 25% Fly Ash, 23% Blast Furnace Slag

• 600kg/m3 cementitious content

• 0.38 w/c ratio

• Zone 2/3 mix: Tidal splash zone• Lower level chloride diffusion coefficient

(D=3.4 x 10-12 m/s )

• Lower level drying shrinkage (500x10-6)

• Zone 1 mix used for Zone 4 (low risk)

Design Approach

Concrete Cover

•

•

Design Approach

Concrete Quality Control

• Boral on site batching plant

• On site precast yard

• Concrete mix approval process

• Quality Assurance processes

• Independent surveillance

• Steel formwork used – seaward face poured face down on vibrated formwork

• 28 days wax based curing compound before placement in water

Assurance Through Design Detailing

• Seaward face = compression face

• Joint between wall and base component in compression

Design Approach

Limit State Design Approach – Appropriate Loads & Combinations

• Key Design Loads:• Construction Loads

• Ciria C660 Early Age Thermal

• Lateral earth pressure

• Lateral berthing and mooring loads

• Vertical and lateral crane loads

• Seismic

• Combinations:• Construction Loads

• Quasi-Permanent/Sustained Loads

• Transient Load Combinations

• Ultimate Load Combinations

Design Approach

SLS Load Combinations

Design Approach

Calibration of Soil/Structure Interaction

Plaxis 2D FEASoil/Structure Model

Strand7 3D FEAStructural Model

Strand7 and PlaxisDeflections Consistent

Apply Lateral Soil Loads in Structural Design

YES?

NO?

OUT:

Soil Pressure

Deflections

OUT:

Deflections

Design Approach

Serviceability Limit State

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

Flexural/Tensile Crack Width Assessment & Mapping0.3mm Max for Zones 1 and 4

0.2mm Max for Zones 2 and 3

Limiting Bar Stress AS3600 limits for Zones 1 and 4 (280MPa Typ)

AS4997 limits for Zones 2 and 3 (150-180MPA Typ)

• Transient Load CombinationsDL + Permanent Soil Loads + Op Crane Load + Op Sustained Surcharge Load + Mooring/Berthing

400MPa Limiting Bar Stress – Remain in elastic range

Ultimate Limit State

Counterfort Details & Construction

• Details:• Unit Weight = 640t• Concrete/Unit = 245m3 • Steel/Unit = 52t• 20m tall • 9m wide• 15m base length• 2 buttresses• 216no

• Trench Foundation to -30m CD

• Vibrocompacted reclamation fill

• Vertical grout bag & temporary flexible

seals between units

3D PDFWall to base

joint detail Sea Side

Flexible Membrane

XS3D-COPEBEAM-ARRANGEMENT-NS.pdf

XS3D-COPEBEAM-ARRANGEMENT-NS.pdf


Counterfort Precast Facility

Ringer Crane

Reo Prefab on Outer Ring

4 Base Forms

4 Wall Forms

5 Assembly Beds

Sheds cover

base and

wall forms


Counterfort Storage/Transport

...and Placement

Structure Details & Construction

Landward Crane Beam

• Accommodates crane rail, stowage pins, buffer stops and crane delivery – designed as piled raft

• EW=520m & NS=1300m continuous

• 900mm dia CFA piles

• 4.5m pile spacing - staggered

• 14m pile length

• 1.5m x 2m landward crane beam

Typically 84 N32

Longitudinal bars

12 N28 verticals

(16 starters) and

N16-200 helix

(reinforced top 9m)

Continuous Beam Design

Why Design Beams Continuously?1) Improved load distribution

2) The expansion joint arrangements are complex

3) Rigid foundation results in a near continuous condition

Tension Inducing Factors 1) Shrinkage

2) Thermal contraction (time series &

steady state thermal analysis)

3) Construction sequence (stitch location/timing)

Drawing on Past Experience:Hyder design of Dubai Festival City

Building had a 650m long x 200m wide basement constructed without expansion and contraction joints and supported by piles. Basement required to be water tight.

Foreshore Enhancement Works

• Penrhyn Estuary reprofiling & improvement works

• Landscaping

• Revetments and breakwaters

• Boat ramp

(incl. navaids, wash down and fish cleaning)

• Mill stream lookout

• Footpaths

• Amenities building

• Car parks

Road and Utility Works

• Terminal access bridge

• Pedestrian bridge

• Foreshore road works

• Service supply works:• Electrical

• Lighting

• Water

• Sewer

• Comms

• Stormwater

Acknowledgements

Thanks to:

• Sydney Ports Corporation

• Baulderstone & Jan de Nul

• Golder – Geotechnical Design Sub-Consultant

• Scott Wilson – Maritime Design Sub-Consultant

Thank You

Sam Harris

Deputy Director – Ports & Maritime Australasia

Hyder Consulting Pty Ltd

Level 5, 141 Walker Street

North Sydney NSW 2060 Australia

Mobile: 0429 535 283

Direct: +61 (0) 2 8907 3966

Fax: +61 (0) 2 8907 9001

Email: [email protected]

Web: www.hyderconsulting.com


www.hyderconsulting.com

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

Presented by: Alan BettsDate: 18/4/2011

For: NSW Maritime Panel


The presentation covers structures other than the counterfort retaining wall units and the landward crane beam and geotechnical considerations (covered by others), including:

• Blockwork Structures• Brotherson Dock Transition • Cope Beam• Fenders/ Bollards/ ladders• Navigation Piles• Main Berth Scour Protection


• 4 main blockwork structures:• North West and South West Corner Blocks• Brotherson Dock Transition Block • Brotherson Dock Infill block

• Component maximum weight 630 tonnes• Same concrete mix and cover as for counterforts• Similar foundation as for counterforts• Sand backfill, vibro compacted, kentledge and sand surcharge as for

counterforts. • Horizontal and vertical grouted seals + horizontal butyl seals between

elements• Grouted vertical bars tying units together on seaward faces


• Design loads similar to counterforts• Analysis undertaken using:

• Microstran and Finite Element Analysis - using Strand 7• SlopeW used to assess global stability• Plaxis used to assess soil pressures and wall

movements


• BDT, SW corner and NW corner caissons:• Segmental structures: 4 cells, 4 high, shear keys in internal and external walls

• BDT Infill Block work Structure:• Segmental structures: 2 cells, 7 high, shear keys in internal and external walls

• Partial reinforcement cage prefabrication • Peri formwork system• Each block constructed in 2 pours• Transported and placed with shear leg barge• Diver assisted grout bag joint seals• External wall thicknes: 400mm• Internal wall thickness: 500mm• Base thickness: 500mm


Need to modify existing structure to accommodate the new quay crane rail loads and the transition beam. Involving: • Removal of existing wharf bollards/ fenders/ part cope beam• Jet grout of south west cell for ground improvement• Part block work demolition works• Construction of transition beam

landing pad and anchorage • Reinstatement of cope beam • Installation of transition cope

beam• Reinstatement of bollards/

fenders/ crane rail/ crane buffer


• Blockwork structures required to make transition between the existing and new structure, including:

• Modification to existing BDT caisson, including ground improvement within cell

• New 4 cell

• 15m long transition beam:• 900mmx800mmx105mm elastomeric base bearing – 4no.• 170mmx350mmx80mm elastomeric buffer bearings – 6no.

• Deadman anchors on BDT blockwork structures to control differential movement limits/crane continuity


• Construction sequence:• Dredge and place bedding• Place larger BDT caisson structure • Fill up to 0.5m below base of infill blocks• Place base infill block on temp supports and concrete beneath• Finish placing infill blocks• Place adjacent counterfort units• Infill blocks, backfill and vibrocompact• Surcharge and kentledge loading• Install deadman anchor system• Grout vertical grout bags and seaward face horizontal seals• Install vertical anchor bars and grout up• EBD caisson improvement works• Cope beam construction and fill to final levels• Transition cope beam construction and installation


• Anchors required for stability of new BDT block & infill block• Located 5m landward of landward crane beam • Concrete anchor: Total length 17m, consists of precast sections

approx. 6m long x 2.5m high x 0.6m thick. • Tie rods McAlloy bars:• Particular provisions for corrosion protection and tie rod settlement • - 50mm dia. Approximately 33m length, sections joined with couplers,

Densopol 60 covering, plus annular concrete duct, all placed at base of 300mm dia settlement duct.

• Level of tie rods; approx mean sea level• Tie rods for transition block go through blockwork rear wall


Typical deadman anchor details

Typical detail through caisson wall


• Deadman anchors

Anchor within caisson

Details at Deadman anchor


• Transition Beam provides for articulation of foundations (1 in 1000 grade limit for crane rail)

• Beam weight approx. 350 tonnes, 14 m long, supports front container crane rail

• Four main support bearings laminated rubber elastomeric, two at each end

• Six side bearings, three at each end• Bearings consist of rubber and

stainless steel plates. • Design allows for main bearing

replacement using flat jacks and manhole access at land side


Plan on beam Plan on side bearings


• Total length over 2km: 650m – EW berth, 1300m -NS berth,-150m tug berth (no joints other than construction)

• Consists of combination of precast and cast in-situ concrete elements• Precast elements comprise the front face of the beam.• 120 tonne bollards @ 24m spacing • Cell fenders @12m spacing (Shibata CSS 1450H) with frontal frames• Crane rail and cable slots • Stowage pin rebates at 30m centres• Blockouts for crane end stop buffers• Type F Gatic covers for service pits • Designated quay crane delivery and maintenance areas• Cope level of +3.65mCD for EW berth and +4.0mCD on NS berths• Service pits; Shore Power Supply Pit (SPSP), Crane Cable Pit (CCP), Water Pit (WP)

Cope Beam Section Size Depth WidthNS Berth 1.5m 3.2mEW Berth 1.5m 3.41mTug Berth 1.5m 2m


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

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

Typically 117 N32 Longitudinal bars

Counterfort Starter Bars

Precast Starter Bars

• Counterforts and trench foundation rely on cope beam to distribute loading


Vertical Loads: • Crane loading• Vertical bollard loading• Vertical fender loading• Differential settlement• Crane delivery and maintenance• Vehicle loads (e.g. reachstacker)

• Horizontal Loads: • Bollard loads• Fender loads• Crane loading• Post cope beam construction soil loads• Seismic loading• Differential movements

• Shrinkage • Thermal loading• Load combinations


Design Analysis

• Microstran/SAP 2000/Strand 7 used for the cope beam design• Design for coincident design actions from worst case combinations


Precast formwork on front faceTypical Section

Additional precast formwork for crane cable service pit


NW Corner SW Corner

Cope beam needed to be significantly widened at the corners and Brotherson Dock Transition to tie all units together and for seismic stability constraints


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


Summer Winter60 Days 14 Days 60 Days 14 Days

Typical Section Jacking CCP Stitch Typical

Section Jacking CCP Stitch Typical Section Jacking CCP Stitch Typical

Section Jacking CCP Stitch

EW

Top 41 42 38 51 44 45 38 51 36 36 34 42 37 37 34 42Bottom 38 42 35 48 41 46 35 48 34 36 32 42 35 36 32 42Landward 16 16 19 23 20 20 25 23 16 16 17 16 16 16 19 16Seaward 16 16 22 25 22 22 26 25 16 16 17 17 16 16 19 17TOTAL 111 116 114 147 127 133 124 147 102 104 100 117 104 105 104 117

NS

Top 40 40 36 52 43 45 41 52 35 35 33 44 36 36 33 44Bottom 35 40 31 46 37 47 38 46 33 33 31 40 34 34 31 40Landward 16 16 20 22 19 19 22 22 16 16 16 16 16 16 17 16Seaward 17 17 22 25 21 21 24 25 16 16 16 17 16 16 17 17TOTAL 108 113 109 145 120 132 125 145 100 100 96 117 102 102 98 117

• Length of each pour: ~33m• Length of stitch pour: 3m• Stitches generally occur above counterfort joints.• Reinforcement varied according to summer or winter

temperature and duration between pours

All bars are N32


Element Location Height (m)

Depth (m)

Thickness (m)

ApproximateSteel Reinforcement/ Concrete Volume (kg/m3)

Cope BeamNS Typical 1.5 3.2 195.5

Stitch 1.5 3.2 244.2

EW Typical 1.5 3.41 204.2Stitch 1.5 3.41 248.6

Landward Crane Beam NS Beam 2 1.5 302.6

Pile 0.9 354.4Cope Beam Precast Unit NS Fender Block 192.8

SPSP 261.8

Counterfort NSBase 8.92 14.368 0.3 318.7Wall 17.64 8.92 0.35 169.7Buttress 18.8 10.313 0.35 174.5

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


Number of Pits NS Berth EW BerthCrane Cable Pit (CCP) 12 5Shore Power Supply Pit (SPSP) 23 9Water Pit (WP) 12 4

Precast Units with Pits Length VolumePCB-NSD Crane cable pit 8.18m 16.1m3

PCB-NSE Shore power supply pit 9.16m 11.6m3

PCB-NSF Fender block with water pit 7.39m 15.8m3

PCB-EWE Shore power supply pit 9.16m 9.0m3

PCB-EWF Fender block with water pit 7.39m 12.5m3

Pit Type Number Depth Width LengthShore Power Supply Pit 32 1.1m 1.2m 4mCrane Cable Pit 17 2.2m 1.65m 6mWater Pit 16 1.1m 1.2m 3m

Crane Cable Pit for EW berth is located on the landward side of the cope beam.All other pits for NS and EW berth are located on the seaward side of the cope beam.


• Crane rail not installed (stevedore to supply)• Blockouts (40mm dia. x 260mm long)

provided for 24mm dia. crane rail bolts• Stainless Steel (grade 316) Edge Protection

for concrete at crane cable slots


• Construction following all quay wall and earthworks processes• Limited work above/next to water• Shelf between counterfort corbels provides part of the base formwork• Precast front elements comprise the seaward form

Temporary Precast Support


• Cope beam precast standardised to facilitate mass production• North South berths – 6 types & 140 units• East West berth – 5 types & 51 units

• Reinforcement connectivity provided with cast in-situ cope beam


• 168 rubber fenders (Shibata CS 1450 circle type) with frontal frames, 2.3m wide x 3.5m high.

• Aluminium anodes at low level on frames• Galvanised chains• Stainless steel u-bolts for fender restraint/

support chains in concrete cope beam• Ultra high molecular weight polyethylene facing

panels on frontal frames – varying sizes, 40mm thick

• Fenders at 12m spacing but closer at ends


Installed Fenders NS Berth.


• Cast Steel Bollards• Finite Element Analysis design and

load tested• Hollow, concrete filled,& painted• Stainless steel (316 grade) bollard

bolts• Special cap and epoxy mastic

filling around nuts• Bollards generally installed at 24m

centres with provision for future installation with recesses and bolt blockouts.


• 3 off • Piles 965mm OD and 16-20mm wall

thickness• Typical embedment depth: 15.5-18.5m• Nominated vessel impact: 50% energy

of 5 tonne vessel travelling at 3m/s.• Corrosion protection:

• Denso Seashield 100 system extend to - 0.5 m

• 2 Aluminium anodes at lower level (-0.5 m to -1.7 m)

• Aluminium superstructure platform (isolated from steel)

• Aluminium ladder with hardwood fenders.


Scour Armour Rock

TypeMass

Mmin (kg) M50 (kg) Mmax (kg)S1 150 300 600S2 28 76 159


• Basalt rock, 2.65 t/m³• Stringent specification to

avoid degradation• Two main rock grading

sizes, largest adjacent to quay

• Extends 15m from quay wall• Thickness varies from 0.6m

to 1.0 m• Placed on geotextile fabric,

Geomac 500E• Fabric placed with purpose-

built frame to avoid diver placement


Frame used to place geotextile


Thanks to:

• Sydney Ports Corporation• BHJDN• Hyder Consulting – Lead Designer• Golder Associates – Geotechnical Design Sub-Consultant


Acknowledgements: Presentation compiled by: • Kenan Aldemir – Maritime Engineer – Sydney • Heli Lähteelä – Project Administrator – Sydney • Reviewed by Alan Betts • Questions and inquiries to Alan Betts: Contact details:

• Email: [email protected]• Telephone +612: 8925 5545

Port Botany Expansion â€“ Quay Wall Design and Construction

Documents

Transcript of Port Botany Expansion â€“ Quay Wall Design and Construction