DU12060 - SNOC – LPG Jetty Refurbishment at Hamriyah Terminal

Review of Document Submissions by Royal Haskoning DHV

SNOC – LPG Jetty Restoration at Hamriyah Terminal

REVIEW OF DOCUMENTS BY ROYAL HASKONINGDHV

Submitter
Document Submitter: Mubarak Marine L.L.C.
Project Name/Title: SNOC – LPG Jetty Restoration at Hamriyah Terminal
Contract reference:

Reviewer
Review/Comment Submitter: Royal HaskoningDHV
Royal HaskoningDHV Reviewer: Dasharath Chavan
Document Review Number: DRS-007

Reviewed Document(s)
Document topic: Design Report - Walkway Support Structure (CP4)
Received date from Submitter: 24-Sep-18
Review date: 2-Oct-18
Review revision: 0

Page 1 of 4
DU12060 - SNOC – LPG Jetty Refurbishment at Hamriyah Terminal
Review of Document Submissions by Royal Haskoning DHV

Review revision: Rev. 00 Rev. 01 Rev. 02 Rev. 03

No. Document no. Document title Doc. Rev. Review date Review code Doc. Rev. Review date Review code Doc. Rev. Review date Review code Doc. Rev. Review date Review code
MC-2018-006-DOC-DP-001-R-0.0 Design Report for Walkway Support System for Provision of EPC Services for LPG Jetty Restoration At
1 Hamriyah Terminal 0 02 October 2018 3

LEGEND:
Code 1: ‘Consent’ as submitted without comments/notation; work may proceed.
Code 2: ‘Consent’ subject to implementation of RHDHV comments/notation; Re-submission to incorporate RHDHV comments/notation; work can proceed only with the agreement of the EMPLOYER.
Code 3: ‘No Consent’ and being subject to full re-submission in response to RHDHV's comments/notation; work cannot proceed.
Code 4: ‘For information’.

Page 2 of 4
DU12060 - SNOC – LPG Jetty Refurbishment at Hamriyah Terminal
SN. Reference
1 General
Section 1.1 - Project description and
2 2
design development
3 Section 1.2 - Purpose of Report
4 Section 1.3 Reference document
5 Section 3.2 - Proposed system details
However please explain with reference to the information given in as built drawing (Catwalk
6 Section 3.2 - Proposed system details key plan and section- 59-4003-010) and seabed level observed during the pile extraction
stage, the adopted average seabed level to -10.5m MSL is safe to use.
7 General
8 Section 4.1 Introduction
Section 4.2 Dead load and live load,
9 3
Appendix D
Section 4.3 Wind load, Appendix D-
10
Calculation of Loads
Review of Document Submissions by Royal Haskoning DHV
RHDHV Comments Mubarak Marine Response RHDHV Comments Mubarak Marine Response RHDHV Comments Open
Code Code Code
Rev 00 Rev00 Rev 01 Rev01 Rev02 /Closed
As agreed during the progress meeting-04, dated 30/10/18, currently review has been
carried out only on pile structural calculations. However initial observations on geotechnical 4 Noted
capacity calculation for Contractor's consideration.
It is mentioned that "ByrneLooby has been appointed by SNOC…..".
To be modified
The sentence is incorrect. Please correct the sentence.
Please add - "Geotechnical pile capacity (axial and lateral) assessment" 2 Will be added
- Please note that concept design report by RHDHV has been provided for reference
purposes.
- Please add the "Section II -Company Requirements (MADU1260R003D01) in the list. Will be added
- The design requirement shall be referred to the Section II - Company Requirements
(MADU1260R003D01). Will be added
2
- Ref No 6 - Nearshore Soil Investigation Report, July 1984. RHDHV is not aware about this
report, Please it is requested to send the copy of this report to RHDHV. Will be shared with you
- please check the dates of the document listed and update accordingly.
OK
- Please explain how the design forces from the pile cap are transferred to the steel tubular
pile? Please provide the design details of the connection between pile cap and steel tubular
pile.
Force tranfer will be through the pile plug.
3 Design of plug to be added in the revised
report
- We agree with the proposed average seabed level to -10.5m MSL.
4 Will be added
It is not clear from the report that how the analysis has been performed for the CP4 structure
which comprises two vertical piles.
Please add a section describing the structural analysis and design methodology of a CP4 In the present report, analysis is performed
structure taking into account deck stiffness, pile stiffness and soil (fixity level or springs) for a singular pile.
3
Please clarify in the report what stiffness (steel pile or concrete pile plug) stiffness has been Strucutral analysis of the complete
considered in the structural analysis. structure is performed in STRAP and will
be provided in the revised report
It is mentioned that "different loads acting….in accordance with relevant standards/industry
practices". Please note that with reference to Section II Company Requirements, the design
shall be in accordance with latest revision of Eurocode. Please check and update the 3 Noted
paragraph text.
- Resulting vertical load of 125kN acting on each pile, it appears that there is error in
calculations. Please check and update the calculations.
- Weight of other supporting members is assumed to 25% of main pipe weight. Each
structural element size is known, weight of the walkway can be calculated accurately.
Will be verified
- Please provide separate design loads for dead and live in the Section 4.2.
In the present report, analysis is performed
- It is not clear why only 19kN load is applied for the structural analysis, please clarify. The for a singular pile.
structural analysis of the proposed CP4 structure shall be performed taking into account the
pile stiffness and concrete deck stiffness. We understand separate lateral load on pile Strucutral analysis of the complete
considered for lateral capacity check. But for structural capacity verification stiffness of each structure is performed in STRAP and will
structural element shall be considered. Lateral loads will introduce axial forces in piles which be provided in the revised report
in portal frame system.
- Please provide calculated wind load on walkways, pile cap and piles separately in this Provided in page 40
section and point of application on CP4.
- In pdf page 40/43, also please provide the detail wind load calculation. Values on basic Will be provided
velocity pressure, peak velocity pressure, windage area (length and width), force coefficients
(if applicable) for each structural elements shall be mentioned.
3
- In pdf page 40/43, table 1.1- please confirm that wind load calculated on each structural
member of walkway is for the one walkway span (31.5m length). It is for complete length of walkway
- It is mentioned that one third of the walkway wind load is be acting at CP4. Please clarify.
Minimum 50% wind load from each walkway span (MD-3 to CP4 and MD-4 to CP4) shall be
applied. Hence 100% wind load calculated for one walkway span length to be applied for To be modified
structural analysis of the CP4 structure.
Page 3 of 4
DU12060 - SNOC – LPG Jetty Refurbishment at Hamriyah Terminal
Review of Document Submissions by Royal Haskoning DHV

- We note that impact of the wave load on the pile is expected to be negligible, however we
have following observations on the wave load calculation:

Please mention following in Section 4.4,

- Marine growth considered in the calculation
- Water level considered in the calculation
- Water density

- Why wave load is applied at MSL?

- pdf page 41/43, it appears that wave loads are considered only for 2m water depth, please
clarify. A schematic wave load on piles is shown below for your reference:

Will be added.

11 Section 4.4 Wave load, Appendix D 1

Point of application to be re-checked

Similar comments given for the Section 4.4 Wave load are also applicable for current load.
12 Section 4.5 Current load, Appendix 1 Same as above

It is not clear why seismic load is applied at seabed level? Please check and clarify.
Seismic loads are calcuated as base shear
13 Section 4.6 Seismic load 3 force. Hebace applied at base of the pile
extending above bedlevel
- We understand that Eurocode reference tables for the partial factor are provided in Section
6. However please provide the load combination table (permanent loads, leading variable,
14 General accompanying variable and partial factors) used for different load cases. 2

pile geotechnical capacity under tension is missing. Please provide the tension capacity of
pile.
Section 5, Pile vertical capacity
15 3 To be added
calculation

- Please provide the material properties for the concrete, especially concrete grade,
concrete density, modulus of elasticity adopted in the design.

- We understand that piles are checked for bending moment resistance. Please note that
axial forces in pile may be introduced due to lateral load. Please check and confirm.

- What is second order bending moment is considered in the calculation?

- Please provide the calculation for the buckling and combined axial/ bending moment check
in accordance with BS EN 1993-1-1:2005.

- Please note that CP4 structure is sway frame, we recommend to consider effective length
factor of 2.0 for the buckling check in structural capacity verification. For ease of reference
please refer extracted sketch from Eurocode below on length effective factor , where H =
length of pile from soffit to fixity level.

16 Section 7.2 Structural check 3

We note that limit deflection criteria is defined as 58mm. Please provide the basis to use
58mm limiting deflection. Please note RHDHV concept design was provided for information
purpose only. Contractor shall develop the design basis and his design in line with Section II
17 Section 7.3 Serviceability check Company Requirements. 2 Noted

Please note that originally piles were in rake system. The new proposed CP4 structure pile
orientation is different than shown in as built drawing. Has the impact on the walkway ,
especially connection to the dolphin deck, due to deformation of new CP4 piles been
checked?
18 General 3 Not in our scope
Please check and confirm the structural capacity of the connection of walkway to the dolphin
deck at both ends is sufficient.

Page 4 of 4