Devien of CGontziner Wherves by Ex. Dr. Ho Kwong MengDESIGN OF CONTAINER WHARVES by Er. Dr. Ho Kwong Meng 41 INTRODUCTION in Singapore, PSA Corporation Limited operates four container terminals, ie Tanjong Pagar Terminal (TPT), Keppel Terminal (KT), Brani Terminal (BT), Pasir Panjang Terminal (PPT) and two multi-purpose terminals (MPT), ie. Pasir Panjang Wharves and Sembawang Wharves. Figure 1: Keppel Terminal (KT) (left), Brani Terminal (BT) (right) & Tanjong Pagar Terminal (TPT) (far end). Figure 2: Phase 4 of Pasir Panjang Terminal. The wharf apron was. constructed of concrete caisson quay wall on the reclaimed land with soil improvement In addition to Singapore, PSA runs 24 other ports in 13 foreign countries including Japan, Korea, China, Vietnam, Thailand, Brunei, india, Pakistan, Italy, Portugal, Belgium, Netherlands & Panama.2 DESIGN CONCEPTS OF MODERN CONTAINER TERMINALS. The main berths of TPT were originally designed for handling of 13-row 3 Generation Panamax container ships and then upgraded by re-installing new quay cranes to handle 17-row Post-panamax container ships. Berths of TPT are constructed of Open-piled wharf deck. The five main berths of BT, which were constructed in early 1990s, were designed for the operations of 4" and 5"- Generations container ships. These main berths were equipped with quay cranes to handle 17-row Post-panamax container ships. There are also four feeder berths at BT. Some of the BT's main berths are upgraded recently by re-installing new quay cranes to handle 18-row container ships. Berths of BT are constructed of opened piled wharf deck. KT was converted from general cargo berths to container berths in 1980s to handle mainly the feeder ships and some 3°, 4" and 5"-Generations container ships. Currently, three berths of KT are being strengthened to handle 22-row container ships. Some of berths at KT are constructed of concrete blockwork quay wall and some constructed of open-piled wharf deck. PPT Phase 1 was designed for 6"-Generation container ships equipped with quay cranes to handle 18-tow Post-panamax container ships. PPT Phase 2 was designed for the operations of 6" and 7"-Generations container ships. These berths are equipped with quay cranes to handle 22-row Super Post-panamax container ships. Berths at PPT Phases 1 are constructed of caisson quay wall. Berths at PPT Phase 2 are constructed of caisson quay wall and open-piled wharf deck. 2.1 Proposed Criteria for Modern Container Hub Port * Modem main transhipment port / hub port should be designed to cater for 22- row container ships, i.e. Emma Meersk with LOA equal to 398m, draft equal to 15.5m CD, beam equal to 56.4m and 123,200 dwt. Figure 3: Emma Meersk — This 22- row container ship which is the world biggest container ship to-date The front and rear crane rail beams should be designed to cater for the wheel loads from the heaviest quay cranes to be installed in the near future. Forexample, 1,300kN per wheel (including impact) at 1.22m centres for 22-row quay cranes. 45kN/m? super-imposed live load for the wharf apron between the front and rear quay rails, hatch cover area and thoroughfare areas behind rear crane beam. Minimum requirement is 30kN/m? for normal container berths. Quay crane transfer beams/paths may be provided at wharf apron for unloading of heavy quay cranes with self-weight of about 2,000 tons or more. Part of the wharf deck should be designed for operations of 150-tons to 300- ton mobile cranes for emergency operations. The wharf apron should also be designed for stacking of laden containers 2- high to 3-high as temporary stacking area for re-arrangement of containers on board of the container ships. For container hub port, the wharf deck, crane rails, bollards, fenders and electrical trenches should be designed to cater for all the types of vessels, ie. from tugboats to 7"-Generation 22-row container ships. CROSS SECTION OF CONTAINER BERTH AND STACKING YARO Figure 4: Cross-section of Modern Container Wharf Figure 5: Super Post-panamax Quay Cranes at PPT Berths P23, P24 & P25, These quay cranes can lift two 40"- 0" (atest contract) or 20'-0" containers Simultaneously. Proposed Criteria for Modern Container Stacking Yard To provide 3,000 ground slots per berths in order cater for the storage of containers unloaded from 22-row super Post-panamax container ships.* For normal stacking height of 1 over 5-high using rubber tyred gantries (RTGs), about 500mm thick Grade 40 concrete rigid pavement is required. For rigid concrete pavement, the soft ground should normally be treated. * Constant thickness of pavement provides flexibility for re-marking of container ground slots in future in order to cater for changing requirements of the containers including the odd size 45'-0" containers, reefer containers and dangerous containers. + Based on the statistics of Singapore, the percentage of reefer containers is about 3% of total containers handled. Dangerous container is about 1%. Figure 6: Modern Container Stacking Yard should provide about 3,000 container ground lots per berth, Pavement should be strong enough to cater for the stacking of containers with various lengths, empty, laden, normal, reefer, and dangerous cargoes to 4-high or 5-high. 2.2.4 Container Stacking systems a. Rubber Tyred Gantry (RTG): Used by PSA's Singapore Container Terminals. It is believed that RTG is the most economical container stacking system in Singapore in term of power consumption per TEU. Figure 7: RTG Stacking System at PPT’s Phase 2Over-Head Bridge Crane System (OHBC). Suitable for fully automated container terminal ‘Ovorhoad Bridge Grane (OHBC) at PPT Phase t Figure 8: OHBC at PPT’s Phase 1 Rail Mounted Gentry System (RMG): Suitable for automated container terminal. Figure 9: RMG at PPT’s Phase 1 Straddle Cartier System: Density of container stacking is lower than RTG, RMG and OHBC. The system is used in PSA's Antwerp Port, Belgium, On the other hand, quay crane throughput will be higher than others. Figure 10: Straddle Carrier at Antwerp Port, Belgium, PSA's Overseas Container Terminal Proposed Widths and Depths of Navigational Basins and Channels The width and depth of the seabed of navigational basins and navigational channel must be "dredgeable" at reasonable cost to cater for future needs, During the port planning stage, hydraulic model studies, either mathematical or physical, would be carried out to check the wave heights, current speeds and directions at various locations in the navigational channels and basins around the proposed new harbour, Proposed wharf face alignment may be adjusted in order to achieve the most favourable hydraulic conditions Simultaneously, detailed ship simulation studies may be carried out using the ship simulator to confirm the suitability of the width, depth and configuration of the proposed navigational channel, navigational basin and ship tuming circle.Figure 11: Current Flow Pattern Shown in a Mathematical Hydraulic Model. Current speed at South-East Comer of PPT is arranging from 0.5m to 1.0m per second. Figure 12: Wave Heights at PPT and Jurong Island. The wave height at PPT is about 0.5m and at the wave height at southem part of Jurong Island is above 1.2m24 Other Technical Considerations for Modern Container Hub Ports The preferred site for development of the modem container hub ports: + For container hub port, the navigational channel and navigational basin are normally wider, i.e. up to 900m and deeper, i.e. up to -18m CD in future. DIN 150A Rail is normally used as front and rear crane rails. 150-ton "Staghorn” or "Bean" bollards at about 12m centres are used. 1,450mm or 1,600mm diameter "Cell" fenders at 10m centres are used 30m or wider gauge quay cranes are provided in order to accommodate more chassis waiting lanes below quay cranes. Wider hatch cover areas and thoroughfare are required. The stacking slot requirement depends upon the throughput, stacking height, dwell time etc. The stacking heights of containers vary from 4 to 9-high which are controlled by the lateral wind force and the weights of the containers. * Deck level varies from +5.0m CD (Chart Datum) to +7.0m CD which depend upon the tidal range and wave high. ‘+ There is sufficient space to cater for future expansion Figure 13: The biggest Container Ship berthed at PPTPROTECTION FOR SHORELINES OF SINGAPORE Wave Heights and Proposed Sizes of Rip-Rap Rock-bunds at Singapore Southern stands (Using Hudson's Formula) Site Location of | Design | Slope of | Armourng | Suggested Shore Wave | Rock-bund | Unit Thickness of Height tb(kg) | Ammouring Unit fim) Inch (m) Sultan Shoat Sasw | 6018) | tind 7,150 36 (0.914) Z (522) Others 40( 219) [Tina Sit 24 (0610) ea | (eee (a2) ee eee Raffies Light Sasw Si) | Tin2 | 680 27 (0.686) House _ (908) Others [| 3.000914) | Tinie | 287 21 (0.583) (430) Pulau Sebarok Sw (1280) | tind 550 24 (0.810) (250) Others | 300.914) | Tin tH 287 24 (0.583) (3) | Sisters isiand Sasw | 4714250) | tind ‘550 24 (0.610) (250) ‘Others | 300.914) | Tint 287 24 (0.583) (130) | Pulau Hani sasw | 300914) | tin1% 287 24 (0.533) (130) Others | 200.810) 85 18 (0.457) (39) 4 2.3x(2.65~1) x3 as Figure 14: Rock-bund Embankment at PPT3.3Rock-Bund Embankment / Breakwater Design Using Hudson’s Formula (Shore Protection Manual, Page 7-169 Volume I!) Following work by Iribarren (1938, 1950), comprehensive investiga- tions were made by Hudson (1953, 1959, 1961 a, and 1961 b) at the U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station (WES), and a formula was developed to determine the stability of armor units on rubble structures, ‘The stability formula, based on the results of oxtensive small-scale model testing and sone prelisinary verification by large-scale model testing is wy, HP Ve OG iP etd (7-108) where W = woight in pounds of an individual araor uit in the primary cover layer, (When the cover layer is two quarry stones in thickness, the stones conprising the prinary cover layer con range fron about 0.75 W to 1.25 W with about 75 percent of the individual stones weighing more than W, Tho maximum weight of individual stones depends on the size or shape of the unit, The unit should not be of such a size as to extend an appreciable distance above the average level of the slope.) Wp = unit weight (saturated surface dry) of armor unit, Lbs. /fe?, H = design wave height at the structure site in feet. (See Section 7.372.), Sp = specific gravity of armor unit, relative to the water at the structure, (Sp ¥ ¥p/¥y)+ My * unit woight of water, frosh water = 62.4 Ibs./#t?, sea water = 64.0 Ibs. /£t2, © = angle of structure slope measured from horizontal in degrees, and = stability coefficient that varies primarily with the shape of the armor units, roughness of the armor unit surface, sharpness of edges and degree of interlocking obtained in placement. (See Table 7-6.) 85 6340 : Part 1: 1984 Large stone or concrete block armeuring Alternative Multilayer graces Prodtics fibre mesh [stone er gravel filter or brustvoad mattress) Crushed ona graced stone Figure 78. Slog protection by ook or conrete semourieg backed by ite ayerTable 7-6. Suggested Ky Values for Use in Determining Armor Unit Weight Hudson Formula in Si Units (Cart A. Thoresen): ‘The design of the erosion protection due to wave act [No Damage Criteria and Minor Overeopping ‘Armor Unite | Placement [| Structuce Trunk ‘Structure Head Ky § Kp ‘Slope Breaking | Nonbreaking | Dresking | Nowbeoaking | cord ‘Quarrystone ‘Smooth rounded | 2 |) random 2a 24 47 19 |15:03.0 Smooth sounded | >3 |} random 28 32 21 23 1 Rough angulse |i |) randomt || f 29 + 23 u 28 32 is Rough angular || 2 || random 35 40 25 23 20 20 23 3.0, Rough angular |] >3 |) random 33 43 37 42 i Rough angular 2 |f spect t || 48 33 38 45 I ‘Tetrapod 35 66 is aad 2. |] random 72 83 ss 6a 20 Quadsiped 40 4a 30 aS 30 ng ‘Taber 2 |] random 9.0 104 73 as 20 70. 77. 30 Delos 2 |andom | 220¢) 250% | aso ies 20€ 335 15.0 30 Modified Cube 2 | eandom ee 7a = 50 i Hoxapod 2 | random 82 95 50 2.0 1 ‘Taber 1 | enitorm |} 120 15.0 718 os. i} Quareystone (iy Graded angular | — |} random 22 28 nis the number of uniee comprising the thickness of the armor layer, The uso of single layer of quareystone armor units subject to breaking waves ie not recommended, and only under spacial conditions for nonbreaking waves. When its used, the stone should be Carefully placed. 4 Special placement with long axis of stone placed pespendicular to structoto face § Applicable to slopes ranging from 1 on 1.8 to 1 om 5. Il Untit more information is avallable on the variation of Kp value with slope, the uie of Ky, should bbe limited to clopes ranging feom 1 on 1.5 to 1 on 3. Some armor units teatod on a structure head indicate a Xp,slope dependence Dats only availble for Lon 2 elope, E Slopes steoper than 1 on 2 not recommended atthe present thm, n of the front of the stonefilling, can be based on the Hudson formula: 10 Ys" Hes? Ww = 7a Hae’ _ Kp CE -1) cova W = Individual block weight in kN Haes = Design wave height = Hy to 1.4 H, "Wg." = Specific gravity of block tinit of quarrystone = 26 kN/m? ‘yw = Specific gravity of sea water = 10.26 «N/m? @” = Slope angle of the cover layer Kp = Shapeand stability coefficient which varies primarily with the shape of the block unit. For quarrystone and nonbreaking wave: berth front = 3.2 berthend) = 2.34 STRUCTURAL SYSTEMS FOR CONTAINER WHARVES The common structural systems for container wharves are the open-piled concrete wharf deck system, the floating concrete caisson quay wall system and the concrete blockwork quay wall system. Choice should be based on factors such as capital cost, buildability, maintenance cost, construction speed, performance and environmental impact. The subsoil condition, wave height, current speed and direction, tidal range, site and surrounding environment, availability of the wharf construction materials, equipment and labour force are also to be considered when selecting the container wharf structural system. According to BS 6349, minimum Grade 40 concrete with minimum cement content of 400 kg/m? shall be used for maritime structures. From the geotechnical point of view, concrete blockwork and floating caisson are more suitable for site with bedrock close to the proposed quay wall founding level. For soft seabed materials, open-piled wharf deck system may be more suitable. Owing to the higher setting up cost for the caisson casting yard, the caisson system is normally more suitable for large scale projects. For smaller projects, the open-piled deck and blockwork systems may be more suitable. On the other hand, maintenance cost for open-piled wharf deck system is normally higher than the concrete caisson quay wall and concrete blockwork quay wall. Among the above three systems, the floating caisson quay wall system can be considered as most “buildable”, followed by blockwork system and then the open-piled wharf deck systems. Many other wharf structural systems have been successfully constructed in other countries by other port developers. However, they will not be discussed in this Seminar Note. BS 6349: Part 1: 1984 BS 6349 : Part 1 : 1984 Table 21. Gredesof concrete 16, Design fe of structures The deign ite ofa ructure is aken tobe is intended title and wil depend on th purpos fr whic t - tegied: Teche te deine meter be ante Tehancuicte [rnc Aided in ration to ach pole since Cage xcomstarcasandoprntnal pectes an oe he Nea? Srocure retundat oi ped sibel meostuction : ‘befdire the end of its hysical life. "However, the following a 200. Plain Internal use only ‘als beeps ium recent x0 |200 Reinores_| rotted from (oauoy vl 6 ye Get expe (b} open jetties: 45 years; tomecine even Sy Srootee PURPrE eee ee ree 40 400 Reinforced | Directly exposed (Gh ry dete 46 yoo fe Lopredecen (esto potetlon works and breahutes: 80 yers preseezed | en sry! (1 eo protection works: 100 yrs so | 900 Runforeed | Concetesibet £8110 Prrention of enforeamet corrosion, Cover in ut ee marine stuctre should ot bles than 50, Coe 11 to reinforcement rofers tothe minimum dstaneo from the surface of any sto enforcement Tinks, tendons or shesth to the surface of the coricrte. The thickness of binding ‘wire snot included but ends of binding wire shoul be ‘utned away from the cover zone and int the body of the member (se also 58.1, +The cacti arent teeter ar wert uta 2B ys Conrtepoed under wae snl tb ned er ‘Gratien eterban 25 Wo. 1 A mina erst crten of 40 kal? oye ust or Cpreon inte erlaubt intale 48 of 190 art! 1072 xe! or corre sed Unc wee S841,44 Open-Piled Concrete Wharf Deck System Open-piled concrete wharf deck comprises a deck supported on concrete or steel bearing piles. According to BS 6349, the design life for open-piled jetties / wharves is 45 years. In Singapore, cylindrical prestressed concrete spun piles are normally used for open-piled wharf deck because of the lower capital and maintenance costs. The prestressed concrete spun piles provide high vertical load bearing capacities and relatively higher (than steel) corrosion resistance. On the other hand, steel pipe piles are easier to handle, to pitch and to drive. They are more suitable for dolphin piles and marine piles in difficult grounds. Pre-boring is needed for piles, either concrete or steel, to be driven into bedrock. After installation of piles, in-situ concrete pile caps will be cast. When the concrote of pile caps hardened, precast prestressed beams are placed using derrick cranes or tower cranes. Subsequently, precast prestressed rectangular deck planks are placed on the Beams. Top reinforcements for the beams and deck planks are laid before pouring of the in-situ concrete. A composite precast prestressed concrete wharf deck is then formed which is more robust then a non-composite precast structure. Normally, the concrete for the superstructures of wharf deck is minimum Grade 40. Conerete for spun piles is normally Grade 60. Concrete cube strength at 28 days of 78.5 Nimm’ has been used for the Grade 60 spun piles. Outer diameters of spun piles for the wharves vary from 900mm to 1,200mm and the working load of a 1,200mm diameter spun pile can be up to 5,000 KN each. Grade 40 in-situ concrete was used for the front and rear crane beams. To reduce future maintenance work, concrete surfaces exposed to seawater below the wharf deck are coated with epoxy painted, etc. The protection material will act as the first line of defence to cut off chloride ingress which is detrimental to the reinforcing stee! bars in concrete. A sloping rip-rap seawall with filter layer is constructed below the suspended deck to protect the slope. Current speed and direction, wave height, ship movements, i.e. propeller-induced scouring force and side-thruster induced jetting force, are to be considered when designing this sloping seawall, For the open-piled deck system, normally only the decks below the quay cranes are suspended. Areas behind the rear crane rail, .e. the hatch cover stacking atea, thoroughfare and container stacking yard areas are more economical to be reclaimed. Figure 15. Oper-piled Wharf Deck 12Figure 16: Installation of Raking Piles Gerwick’s Practice and FIP Symposium General Report Both Gerwick’s practice!* and his FIP Sym- sium General Report® contain the same treat- ment on ullfmate Toad and design load of con- centrically loaded Jong columns. For such piles ‘where buckling may oceur, the pile capacity may be computed by Euler's formula: EBL Ne= 7 o where Nee I the critiesl buckling load moment of inertia of the gross section of pile concrete effective length of pile (using L for pin- connected at both ends; for piles con- sidered fully fixed at one end and hinged at the other, take L as 07 of the Jength between hinge and assumed point of fixity; for piles fully fixed at both ends, take L as 0.9 of the length between points of fixity) 1 = the radius of gyration of the gross see- ton modulus of elasticity 380/09? for short-term loading’ E080) Jif for long-term sustained loading L 13 Figure 17: Prestressed Concrete Deck Beams ih which tw = weight of concrete in pounds per cubic fot varying from 90 to 158 Ib per ew ft (1442 to 2483 kg/m), and C. = creep coefficient taken a8 25 A safety factor of? is generally considered su ficient for the buckling toed. This factor should be applied to Ne, to get the design Toad Gerwiok suggests that design loads be based on the shart column vale of 0.25. Ac at L/r = 60, that a straight line function be used between je 80 and L/r = 120, and shat at th later value a safety factor of 2 be used for iq. (9). For L/r value grester then 120, hé further recommends. that the pile be investigated. for clastic stability, taking into account the effoct of creep ond deflection Piles controlled by compression should also be checked against the interaction formals: i | yha EtkS 0) fe = compressive stress duc to direct load fy = compressive stress due to bending mo- ment allowable compressive stress due to di- rect load allowable compressive stress due to bend. ing moment Fy4.2 Concrete Caisson Quay Wall System Concrete caissons function as a retaining structure to retain the reclamation fill behind the quay wall. It also functions as @ structure to support the dead and live loads from the wharf deck including quay cranes. Fascia beams and front crane rail beams are constructed on the caissons. According to BS 6349, the design life for caisson quay is 60 years. For concrete caisson quay wall, the factors of safety on deep slip, overturning, sliding, bearing capacity, etc, should be checked according to BS6349, Maritime Structures and BS8004, Foundations. The factors of safety given in BS 6349: Part 2 are as follows: * deep slip: minimum should be within the range 1.25 to 1.5 for normal loading and not less than 1,2 for extreme loading * overturning: should not be less than 1.5 and the maximum edge pressure should not exceed the allowable by more than 25% sliding: should be at least 1.75 bearing failure: should not less than 2.5 and the maximum pressure under the wali should not exceed the allowable bearing pressure in the underlying material as shown in Table 1 of BS8004. The soft material must be completely replaced or treated to prevent settlement. Three available methods to improve the soft materials below the caissons are: a) Sandkey method b) Sand Compaction Piles method and c) Deep Cement Mixing method. ‘Sand Compaction Pile system, a proprietary method of a Japanese contractor, was used for the construction of Pasir Panjang Phase | Wharf. Sandkey, the most common compaction method, was adopted in the construction of Pasir Panjang Phase ll Wharf. Grade 45 concrete with minimum cement of 400 kg/m* was specified in the Contract Documents for PPT. The exposed conerete surfaces were coated with epoxy paint or the low viscosity colourless neutral liquid -Isobutyttriethoxysilane. The caisson units, for Pasir Panjang Phase | Wharf, were precast on a floating dock, and for Phase Il they were precast on land and launched using the slipway and a launching vessel. After launching, the box shaped concrete caissons will then be towed to the site for laying. During laying, the caissons will be ballasted with water or sand to sink them into position as shown in Figure 3. Dimensions and weight of a typical caisson for the above Projects are: Width 2 16,00m Length 218 to 20m Depth 117 to 18m Walls and base slabs: 300 to 750mm. 14A Berta tht ign ~ “nth x xt 1 bere \caacd Stratuen ey Figure 18: Details of Caisson Quay Wall at Pasir Panjang Terminal (PPT) Figure 19: Laying of Caisson Quay Wall at Pasir Panjang Terminal (PPT). This wharf structural system is more environmental friendly, i.e. less construction noise. 154.3. Concrete Blockwork Quay Wall The existing gravity quay walls at Keppel Terminal in Singapore were constructed in the years around 1907 using precast concrete blockwork walls. To date, after more than 90 years of services, they are still in good condition. Recently, these quay walls were converted from conventional cargo berths to container feeder berths by constructing the front crane beams directly onto the blockworks and constructing the rear crane beams supported on new concrete piles behind the quay walls. These old quay walls are founded on hard strata. The dredged levels of seabed vary from about -10.0m to -12.0m Chart Datum. ales ae TYPICAL SECTION THROUGH QUAY WALL Figure 20: Concrete Blockwork Quay Wall According to BS6349, the design life of Concrete Blockwork quay wall is 60 years. The 2-berth container terminal in Aden, Yemen of which PSA was formerly one the JV Partners was constructed using concrete blockworks. This scheme was economical because hard strata are avail bed | Installation of Concrete Blockwork at Aden Container Terminai, Yemen4.4 Comparison of Open-piled Deck, Caisson Quay Wall and Blockwork Quay Wall Systems Open-piled wharf deck construction may involve the casting of piles, precast beams and deck planks, construction of sandkey, pre-boring of seabed, installation of piles, construction of rip-rap seawall, casting of pile caps, laying of precast beams and deck planks and construction of other in-situ concrete structural components etc. Caisson quay wall construction may involve the dredging of seabed, soil improvement, placing of rock mattress, laying of caissons and construction of wharf deck on the caissons. Conerate blockwork construction may involve the dredging of seabed, laying of rock mattress, casting of concrete blocks, laying of concrete blocks and casting of in-situ concrete capping beams on concrete blockworks. For the last two systems, rear crane beams with piles or footings should be constructed to support the rear quay crane legs. Many factors affect the choice of wharf structural systems for container wharf aprons: () Open-piled deck is one of the most commonly used and economical systems. It can be constructed on the soft seabed strata or on hard strata with pre-boring. (i) Conerete floating caisson system is more suitable for the large scale projects and for sites with good soil at the proposed seabed level. if the seabed is soft, seabed treatment should be done before the laying of caissons. On the other hand, if the bedrock layer is too shaliow, it will be costly to dredge the bedrock for founding of caissons. Dredging of rock strata for the navigational basin and channel will be also extremely costiy. (ii) Concrete block quay wall has similar advantages and constraints as caisson quay wall. The cost for setting up a casting yard for blockwork is cheaper than that for caissons. However, laying concrete blocks is more labour intensive than laying of caissons. Table 1: Comparison of Wharf Structural Systems Open-piled Caisson | _Blockwork 1. Sub-sois More suitable for soft and | More suitable for hard and | Same as caisson medium dense sub-sois. | medium dense sub-soils Forhard sub-soils, pre- | at founding level. For soft boring or bored piles have | sub-soils, seabed soil to be carried out treatment is needed. 2. Size of Project | Suitable for all sizes of | More economical for large | More economical for wharf projects, ie. from | wharf projecis, unless the | small and medium small to large, caisson casting facilities | size wharf projects. o are readily avaitable 3. Speed of Site | Site construclion time may | Fast when the caissons __| Fast when the Construction | be longer than the other | are available. ‘concrete blocks are two systems. available. “4 Construction | Pile installation is noisy | Less noisy ‘Same as caisson Noise _| except for bored piles. = 5. Maintenance | Higher than the other two | Lower maintenance cost _| Same as caisson Cost systems because of the = ___| under-deck maintenance. 6 Design Life 45 years 60 years BO years, 1?5 DESIGN OF CONTAINER WHARVES: 5.1 Container Ships Panamax container ships can be stacked up to a maximum of 13 containers abreast ‘on deck with about 3,000 to 4,000 TEUs (maximum 32.3 m wide and able to pass through the locks of Panama Canal). Presently, Super Post-Panamax container ships can be stacked up to 22 containers abreast with about 12,000 TEUs. Figure 22: 4" Generation (16-row) APL’s Container Ship of NOL, Singapore 5.2 Containers: The container itself has been standardised by the International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO) in Geneva to 20" or 40’ length (6.06 m or 12.19 m), with outside width and height of 8'-0" (2.44 m). The empty weight of a 20'0" container ranges from 19 kN to 22 KN; a maximum permitted laden weight of a 20-0" container is 240 KN. The empty weight of a 40'-0" container ranges from 28 kN to 36 kN; the maximum permitted laden weight is 305 KN. There are developments towards non-standard containers with larger dimensions and heavier maximum loads : 300 kN for a 20-0" container and 360 KN for a 40'-0" container. Some shipping lines are using 45'-0" and 48'-0" containers and there are already many containers of 9'-6" height. 185.3 Quay Cranes Two types of quay cranes are being used in Singapore: * Panamax Cranes: to cater for the Panamax Ships, i.e. to handle 13-row containers on ship deck. Super Post-Panamax Cranes: to cater for the Super Post-Panamax Ships, i.e. 16- row, 17-row, 18-row, 22-row & 24-row (future) containers on ship deck 54 Fenders Several types of fenders are commonly used: * The 1,400mm outside diameter cylindrical rubber fenders placed horizontally and supported by steel chains were installed at the container berths constructed in the 1970s. « For main container berths, 1,450 or 1,600 'CS', “Cone” or ‘Cell’ rubber fenders with long steel frontal frames were used. These fenders are designed for big container ships as well as for low freeboard container barges and ships for at all tidal conditions are installed at ail the later main berths and some of the feeder berths. Figure 23: 1,450mm Diameter Fenders Installed at PPT 19sae | 1} | oo NEL 20.40} g N 5 = 0.20 + : PSS ; 5 tase sm ste Water csplacenent in 1090 tonne Figure 1. Design berthing velocity as funetion of navigation conditions and size of vessel (Brolsma et al, 1977) 4.7 Berthing energies 4.7.1 General Details of the assessment of the total enengy of the roving vessel and its associated hydrodynamic mass are given in clause 41 of BS 6349 : Part 1: 1984, ‘This value may need to be modified to assess the amount of energy E (in KN-m) to be absorbed by the fender system by addition of factors Cp, Cp and c, siving the following equation: B= 0.5CyMp (V B)*GeCsCe where Gu My % is the hydrodynamic mass coefficlent; is the displacement of the ship (in 1); is the veloety ofthe vessel normal to the berth (in ms) fs the eccentricity coefficient; fs the softness coefficient; is the berth configuration coefficient, Ce eS 2) Good herthing, shektered. ) Difficult berthing, sheltered. ©) Basy berthing, exposed. €) Good berthing, exposed. ‘) Navigation conditions difficult, exposed. Caleulaton of Bething Energy Fa ai = a | ial Fak ona eT [eagh vee pepdiniend | typ | 822] "m fee fe = emt fi ee iene [an (cine laa] ee Eos ecies [| 00] herr tearzncon Fr FL te Soave [stein 3 na) Fmtcgarcina [9 arcs lesion er ference [tors cet e | o feternoome [S| (eahsg Vea | ta] aie ers 2 Be stn ttre ismsgbig [| ae 20 Table No 4.2.5 “ype of Berth impact Vessel Factor for Abnorm Impact Applied to Berthing Energy (Cub) Tonker and Bulk Largest Cargo Smallest 15 Container Largest 18 Smallest 20 General Cargo Ls Ro-Ro and Feces 20 or higher Tugs, Work Bouts etc 205.5 Bollards The following bollards are being used in PSA's container terminals: * 100 tons 'staghorn' bollards: For vessels with displacement tonnage up to 100,000 tonnes. * 150 tons 'staghom' bollards: For vessels with displacement tonnage more than 100,000 tonnes and up to 200,000 tonnes. 5.5.1 Size of Spacing of Bollards (Port Design, by Carl A. Thoresen) ‘The bollard load P and approximate spacing between bollards shall be: Ships of Bollard Appr. Bollard Bollard load displace load P, spacing load from © along the ments in kN inm the berthkN berth, KNper tons up to priinm lin. mberth berth 2,000 100 15 10 5,000 200 15 10 10,000 300 20 15 20,000 500 25 20 30,000 600 30 20 50,000 800 35 20, 100,000 1000 40 25 200,000 1500 50 30 5.6 Crane Rails For Super Post-Panamax quay cranes, Rail A150 to DIN536 with minimum tensile strength of 880 N/mm®, is usually used. For Panamax quay cranes, Rails A100 or A120 to DINS36 with minimum tensile strength of 880 N/mm? are used. 2 Dimenslone and designation 23 Designation Aa} i comctony SP | fat |* ea | Tomeceyeriee oa Faure Typ Aran Dedgatin ott vtam caer ype 4 caeing wth stander, wi a Res wt Af 19 en 08 ond ‘Crane rail DIN 536 ~ A100 ~ 630 21rage 2 Om 626 Part 22. Dimensions and tolerances 1224 Cran rales be ofthe sizes andbe subeet tothe iit deviations and geomet tolerances speciiedin tle 1.Any ‘ues for which no tolerance Is epeattd eal be rogtdad as approximate vlves “Tobie : Dimensions init deviations and geometia! tolerances (cf, subeause 22) cep eT Teelalaley & [m[m]*pals|nys | aoe | | 200 Gefen eaisn | | =] =r [ae foo | 00) 9) af sa | a 85 | 66] 208 wel a fzsp2a| 0 | o6] = laealas | s [oo] s| sl 6[ 5] oces vol 30 fo fe [10] 75] = fe oo | @ [ool 6] 8{ | 5 a 78] 75] 209 90) 45 j2z [isa] 11] @5| 21 jsests | 8 soo] 6] 6] 6] 6 ive [70a] ar Jano] 28 [100] co faa [res] v2! 96] ass fess|eo [10/00] | e| 9] © [azo [rz0) a1 [220] 20} 72 [a0 [20 | v4 [108] 212 [s55|675] 0 [eon] 6 6 ‘havo [iso] 2» [e220] 23 | - [eo lors, - | 1 [+50] #1 [eesfeo | 10 [eon) vo is 7 Geamowines #22 and 224?) Consbonaiee 229 end 224%) Si Erlanaony notes 1222 Tha tolerance on the oymmetey ofthe head tale estabshod fr to paral surfaces aa stance of fem each ter the eetorence plane being that tthe Cen of te Head, which ls equal tb 122: Te al seat sha not be convex. the baseplate Being subject 0 Me tolerance on ssness fe, spesfiad in abi 1 Ko are Tolerance c 5.7 ‘Superimposed Live Loads for Wharf Aprons of Container Wharf The following superimposed live loads are considered in the design of container wharf structures: * Double Stacked Trailers (DST) — 4 to § nos. rear axles and 135 to 200kN per axle. «Type HB Loading ~ 2 front axles and 2 rear axles and 450 kN per axle. © Uniformly Distributed Load (UDL) of 30 to 45 kNim# © Wheel loads of the quay cranes ~ 1,300kN @ 1.22m centres for 22-row Quay Crane. * Fender Reaction Forces. © Bollard Forces ~ 1,500kN each © Accidental Load ~ 10,000kN without collapse, * Wind Forces — from container ships. Current Force. © Propeller and Bow / Side Thruster Forces . Other loads such as loading and unloading of quay cranes, heavy AGY, forklifts, mobile cranes, straddle carriers, ship ro-ro ramps etc, must be checked, if applicable 226 CASE STUDY 1 - TANJONG PAGAR TERMINAL — OPEN-PILED. All the container berths at Tanjong Pagar Terminal constructed in 1970s and 1980s are constructed of open-piled wharf decks due to the presence of thick layer of marine clay on site. The first two rows of piles for the fascia beams and front crane rail beams are 33° diameter concrete spun piles with 140 tons working load and the remaining are 27” diameter spun piles with 110 tons working load. Depths alongside the main berths vary from -12.4m CD to-14.8m CD. i Figure 25: Installation of Raking Spun Piles for Berths T2 & T3 of TPT 23wot aot Figure 26: Berths T2 & T3 Under Construction in Early 1980s. Open-Pile Wharf Deck Structural System is adopted 7 CASE STUDY 2 - MAIN BERTHS OF KEPPEL TERMINAL ~ OPEN-PILED In KT, there are five main berths and nine feeder berths. The first two main container berths of KT were constructed in mid-1980s. The two main berths including the wharf apron and part of the stacking yard are constructed of open-piled wharf decks. Design Depth was -12.4m CD. Type A concrete spun piles with 840mm outer diameter and 140mm wall thickness and 2,700 kN (about 270 tons) working load were installed to support the fascia beams and front crane rail beams. Type B concrete spun piles with 840mm outer diameter and 125mm wall thickness and 1,750 kN (about 270 tons) working load were installed for the other areas of the wharf deck including part of the container stacking yard. Construction works are in progress to upgrade Berths K12, K13 & K14 to cater for 22-tow container by re- constructing the front and rear crane beams. The closely spaced spun piles below the front crane beam are also acting as retaining wall to retain the seabed material for deepening of berths to -16m CD in the near future. Figure 27: Spinning of 840mm Diameter Spun Pile. Spinning Speeds: 5 Minutes @140 rpm and 25 minutes @ 316 rpm 24Figure 30: Spun Piles to Shipyard 25cy ‘ Figure 32: KT's Berths K13 & 14 under Construction in 1983 268 CASE STUDY 3 - BRANI TERMINAL - OPEN-PILED WHARF DECK The total length of the wharf face for Phase | and Phase II is 2,628m. The dredging depths for the 5 main berths and 4 feeder berths were -15.0m CD and -12.0m CD respectively. The works are completed in mid-1990s. © Dredging : Dredging was carried out round-the-clock from Oct 89 to Mar 90 using a trailer cutter suction dredger and the spoils were dumped at designated dumping ground at Pulau Semakau. Six split-bottom self-propelled hopper barges, with 1,000 m” capacity each, were deployed for dumping of the spoils. The dredger was also used to dig the sand key trench below the wharf apron. The approximate volume of material dredged was 1.71 million m*. © Soil Improvement: For the reclaimed area behind the wharf apron, the soil was treated by preloading with 10m to 16m high of sand surcharge, Geo-drains at 1.3m grids were also used to accelerate the consolidation of the under laid soft marine clay. © Production of Prestressed Precast Concrete Spun Piles: * Forming of Steel Cages The 1,000mm outer diameter piles were manufactured in a mass production set-up and the cage forming machine automatically spot welded the 6mm diameter spiral reinforcement to the longitudinal prestressing bars. The Grade 60 concrete was batched and mixed automatically in a 60m? concrete batching plant. The conerete was discharged into the bottom half of the mould by a feeding system. After concrete placing had been completed, the top half of the steel mould would be assembled. ‘© Prestressing : Prestressing would then be carried out by a tensioning device to the required elongation and tensioning force. © Spinning : After stressing, the mould was transported to the spinning bed for spinning. There were four spinning speeds varying from low to high. Duration for each spinning times ranged from 3 to 8 minutes. The total spinning time was around 20 minutes. © Steam Curing : The piles would be transported to the steam chamber for steam curing one hour after concreting, The piles would be steam cured at 70°C for a minimum period of 3 to 5 hours. © Demoulding and Transferring : The piles would be demoulded if the concrete cubes, which were also steam cured together with the piles, have obtained strengths higher than the allowable transfer strength of 30 N/mm®, Transferring of prestress took place immediately upon demoulding. The piles would be air cured before being installed 27© Pre-boring : Where hard stratum was encountered, pre-boring was necessary in order to achieve the required pile penetration. The auger-drilling machine was fixed to the leader of the piling frame. On the average, 12 to 15 locations were pre-bored in a day. * Driving of Spun Piles Concrete spun piles were driven by a piling barge with a 18-ton steam hammer. On the average 12 piles were driven in a day and 70 piles a week. + Shore Protection : Shore protection was carried out after piling. The sand was trimmed using a crane with a grab mounted on a pontoon. An electronic measure and control system was used for the automatic positioning of the grab relative to the pontoon. * Deck Construction : The sequence of deck construction was: Install pile clamps to piles, Install stay bracing, cut-off piles at the desired levels, construct pile caps, install precast prestressed concrete beams and planks, cast concrete topping, pave the concrete blocks on wharf deck, install rubber fenders, bollards, crane rails, water mains, trench covers. 28Summary of BT Project: + 5 Main Berths (1,606m long & 15m deep), 3 Feeder Berths & Container stacking yards Sand Fill: 3.630,000 m*, Soil Treatment: 220,000 m?, Vertical Drain: 1,961,000m, Precast Spun Piles: 119,000m, Reinforcement Concrete: 272,000m,9 CASE STUDY 4 - PASIR PANJANG TERMINAL — CAISSON QUAYWALL Situated at the Pasir Panjang / West Coast area, this terminal will be built in three phases over the next few decades. Development commenced in 1993. Phase | costing over S$2 billion, involves the reclamation of 127 hectares off the West Coast Park area. Reclamation of the second phase consisting of 197 hectares started in December 1995 for a total terminal area of 222 hectares. Several sites were studied and Pasir Panjang was selected as the site for the New Container Terminal because of the following advantages: * It has a naturally deep-water seafront sufficient to cater for fourth generation container ships with minimal dredging; * tis sheltered from the monsoons by the surrounding islands; ‘* It is centrally located and the surrounding infrastructures are well developed and well served by major roads; * There ate deep channels leading to the terminal and vessels can access the berths at all states of the tide; and * There is sufficient space to cater for future expansion. 9.1 Construction of PPT Phase | Prefabricated concrete caissons were adopted for the wharf construction. The caisson quay wall method, which was used for the first time for wharf construction in PSA, was preferred to the conventional piling method due to the following reasons: ¢ The construction period could be shortened from 60 to 52 months. * Caissons permit greater flexibility for deck modification to accommodate future port handling and transportation technologies. * There will be less impact on the surrounding environment during construction as there will be minimal piling noise and dust pollution. * The cost of caisson method was competitive as the sub-soil condition favoured the use of caissons. The size of each caisson was 29.9m long, 16m wide and 19.15m deep. The caissons are either founded on rock if the bed-rock is at shallow depth, or on Sand Compaction Piles (SCPs) if the bed-rock is deep and overlain with soft sedimentary soll. SCPs are dense sand columns installed into the sedimentary soll to strengthen the sub-soil. Each SCP was 2m in diameter and spaced 2.1m apart. The sand in the column was densified by Sand Compaction Barge using the method similar to vibroflotation. The SCPs displace some of the sedimentary soil and form a stiff composite foundation with the remaining in-situ soil to support the caissons and wharf loading. Settlement of the caissons was accelerated by pre-loading all the caissons to the full weight of the caissons, with full vertical and lateral loads.Figure 38: Sand Compaction Barge To improve the soft cohesive sub-soil existing at the Phase | site, soil improvement works were carried out to accelerate the consolidation, The soil improvement method used was pre-fabricated vertical drains and imposition of pre-loading. The 100mm width vertical drains were pushed into the ground through the soft cohesive soil, The vertical drains were spaced from 1.1m to 1.7m apart depending on the soft soil thickness, soil characteristics and pre-loading duration. Accelerated consolidation of the soft cohesive soil to 100% at the working loading condition was achieved-by pre- loading, The contract for the Phase | reclamation and berth construction was awarded in 1993 Construction works had been completed. About 129 hectares of land had been reclaimed along the foreshore off the West Coast of Singapore and eight container berths totalling 2,730 m have been constructed under the Phase | development. Fabrication of the Phase | caissons was carried out on a 29,000-tonne 230m x 50m floating dock with five caissons fabricated in each cycle of 31 days, The caissons were then floated to position, sunk onto prepared foundation and filled with sand to form the retaining structure for the reclamation and to support the wharf deck structure. Before the wharf deck structure was constructed, preloading of the caisson was carried out to eliminate possible settlement. The wharf structure consists of in-situ fascia beams and service trenches at the front and rigid concrete pavement between the two crane rails. The gauge of crane rails is 30.48m with the front crane rail supported by the caisson and the rear crane rail supported on driven piles. The design depth alongside the wharf is 16m CD. 31A 5 A a E fi ae fi Figure 41: PPT Phase | under construction. Neatly all the terminal areas were reclaimed from the sea. Therefore, all the negative environmental effects had been reduced to the minimum. 329.2 Construction of PPT Phase Il The contract for the construction of Phase {I Pasir Panjang Terminal was awarded on 7 October 1995 and completed in 2000. This contract consists of the reclamation of 197 hectares of sea space around Pulau Retan Laut, soil improvement, installation of 740m of caisson quay walls with wharf decks, installation of 1,940m of concrete caisson walls without wharf decks. These caisson walls will be used to support the future wharf decks, as the when the needed.Figure 44: Sand-Filling of Caisson Cells ‘Figure 45: Back-Filling Behind Caissons Using Dredger A large section of the Phase II berths are located in natural deep water with seabed elevation varying from -20m CD to -25m CD. The choice of gravity caissons as quay walls was considered economical as hard soil layer was found near the seabed, thus, avoiding the need for expensive soil treatment. Seabed soils with low undrained shear strength could be removed by forming a trench and back-filled with sand and compacted. This construction method is sometimes known as the sandkey method. Like any other structures, the caisson foundation was designed to satisfy two independent design criteria, viz, (i) the foundation must have adequate safety factor against bearing and sliding failures, and (ji) the settlement during the life time of the structure must be within the tolerable limits of the structure and equipment, in particular, the quay cranes. The caisson foundation analysis and design were carried ‘out using both conventional and finite element methods. 34The loading conditions are as foliows: . Dead load of caisson, infil and deck (deck level is +5 m CD and seabed in front of caissons is ~16 m CD) Water pressure due to tidal lag of 1.5 m Earth pressure Quay crane wheel loads - 980 kN (per wheel) at 1.22 m centres and 19 wheels per caisson Bollard pull - 150 tonnes per bollard and 3 bollards per caisson Live load on and behind caissons - wharf apron: 43 kN/m? for the wharf apron and 96 kKN/m? for yard Soil improvement load for yard was 180 kN/m? Two types of caissons with different heights were considered. The shallower caisson of 19.15m high satisfied the minimum draft requirement and were found on rubble mould built up from the seabed. The deeper caisson of 22,15m reduced the thickness of rubble mould and a larger width was required. Cost analysis was carried out and it was found that a shallower caisson with thicker rock base was more economical. oe ae Figure 49: Deep Compaction Using Vibroflotation 35SOIL IMPROVEMENT WORKS AT THIRD. TERMIN, USING GEODRAIN METHOD Figure 50: Soil improvement Using Geo-Drain Method Lessons leamt from the PPT construction are as follows: + Setting up a casting yard for casting of caissons is costly and, therefore, it is only justified for large projects, unless caisson casting facilities are already available. + Loads on the caisson quay wall are normally higher and more flexible. + Maintenance of caisson quay wall is easier and cheaper than open piled wharf decks. * As for the PPT Projects, lateral movement of caissons should be thoroughly checked before the commencement of the construction works wharf apron on top. Figure 52: Installation of Piles for Rear Caissons Crane Beam 36Figure 53: PPT Phase I! Reclamation Near Completion in December 1999, The reclamation cost was about $$392 million and completed in 2000. 9.3 Construction of PPT Phase Il - Berths P7, P8, P9 P10 and Others ‘Owing to the fast increasing of container throughput in recent years, PSA has speeded up the container berth construction at the earlier PPT Phased Il reclaimed land, Five of additional super post-panamax container berths have been completed recently and the other four are under construction and will be completed in 2009. Furthermore, construction of another 3 container berths are scheduled to be commended in 2008 and completed in 2010. Therefore, by 2010, PSA will have 23 Super PostPanamax container berths at PPT. These berths will be equipped with twin-lift (earlier berths are for 20'-0 container and later berths are for 40-0" containers) super post-panamax quay cranes for 22-row container ships. The annual container throughput will be about 23 millions at PPT alone if one milion per berth is assumed. In addition, three car cartier berths will also be constructed at PPT Phase Il and construction work is scheduled to commence in 2007. In additional to PSA, Maritime and Port Authority (MPA) is now reclaiming the lands for PPT Phase Hil & Phase IV, in front of the present PSA’s PPW. After the reclamation, MPA will sell the reclaimed lands to PSA or other port operators for wharf construction and operations. 37Figure 54: PPT Berths P7, P8, P9 & P10 under Construction. As shown on the right hand side, open-piled deck is adopted for the wharf apron. 12 CONSTRUCTION COSTS Table 2: Comparison of Construction Costs of Container Terminals: Cost (1986) per | % Comparison Country Project Berth(S$ million) | with Singapore 1_[Hong Kong _| Terminal 6 55.36 423.16 2_| Singapore _| Earlier Container Berths 44.95 0 3 [Malaysia | Re-construction of Kuantan | 41.15 008 Port 4 | South Korea | Container Terminal (Project [22.00 “51.06 No.2 - Composite Pier) at Busan Port 5 | China Southern Wharf for East Pier | 47.70 “6062 Project (Phase |) at Tianjin This earlier study shows that the construction costs of container wharves in Singapore is generally higher than the costs in Malaysia, South Korea and China but is lower than Hong Kong. However, the results of this is purely academic because many variable factors affecting tender prices can not be quantified accurately; among these are financing, economic conditions of the country, work load of the contractors, risk factors and level of competition among the contractors. 3813° CONCLUSIONS The designs of the container wharves, container stacking yards, container gates, CFSs and the navigational basins and channels should be “fiexible" in order to cater for rapid changing needs of the container ships and the rapid growth of container throughput. Many factors affect the choice of structural systems for container wharves. Capital construction cost for open-piled deck is normally cheaper than other structural systems. It can be constructed on the soft as well as hard ground. On the other hand, higher underdeck maintenance and repair cost is expected. Conerete floating caisson quay wall system is suitable for large container terminal project and for sites with hard ground at founding level. If the seabed is soff, it may be costly to treat the deep layer of soft clay below the caissons. On the other hand, if the bedrock layer is too shallow, it may be costly to dredge the hard rock to the required founding level for caissons. Maintenance cost for caisson quay wall is usually lower than open-piled wharf deck due to less exposed surfaces for maintenance. Conorete block quay wall has similar advantages and constraints as caisson quay wall. Construction cost may be lower than caisson quay wall, but construction will be more labour intensive and require longer time for construction, ie. less “buildable”. The design life for open-piled concrete wharf deck may be only 45 years whereas the design life for concrete floating caisson quay wall and concrete blockwork quay wall is 60 years, This should be considered when evaluating the financial benefits for various wharf structural systems for construction of container wharves. It has been proven that the compressive strength and elastic modulus of the marine conerete piles will be reduced even within the design life of the wharf structures. Therefore, these factors should be considered in the structural design stage. Due to buckling effect of marine piles, i.e. longer unsupported pile length will reduce the pile capacities. Therefore, piles alongside wharf face should be checked thoroughly before allowing deepening of berths. For marine concrete cylindrical hollow spun piles, minimum cement content shall be minimum 400 kg/m? (PSA had specified 450 kg/m? for some projects). Characteristic strength of concrete shall be 60N/mm* at 28 days (concrete strength of 78.5 Nimm? at 28 days had been used). To further increase the corrosion assistance of the marine concrete piles, superplasticizer should be added to the concrete mix. In addition, the outer surface of the marine piles should be coated with epoxy paint or other approved coating. For container wharf construction in Singapore and other countries in South East 39Asia, precast prestressed concrete spun piles are cheaper than the steel pipe piles of the same load carrying capacities in term of capital cost and maintenance cost. ‘Owing to the long column buckling effect, the capacities of hollow precast prestressed marine spun piles are higher than the solid precast prestressed concrete marine square piles of the same cross sections. On the other hand, precast prestressed concrete square piles may be cheaper if used as land piles. IF the bedrock is at the level close to proposed seabed alongside berths, pile capacity may be dominated by end bearing, i.e. 87% end bearing and 13% side friction as for a tested pile in BT. On the other hand, if the bedrock is very deep below the seabed level, pile capacity may be dominated by side friction If the bedrock is at the level close to the proposed dredged depth, minimum pre-boring depth onto the hard strata from the dredging level for the first rows of marine piles is 8 metres. Minimum pre-boring depth for other rows is 6 metres. In addition to geotechnical requirements, these requirements ate to cater for further deepening of seabed alongside berths in future either intentionally or over-dredged unintentionally. These provisions may also cater for the unforeseen erosion of seabed alongside wharf. Figure 55: Artist's Impression of Pasir Panjang Terminal Phase | & Il after Completion Ho Kwong Meng BSc (Hons), MSc(ICM), PhD(Loughborough U), PEng(S), CEng, FIES, MiStructE, MICE, CMILT & DipBA(NUS). 40REFERENCES: 1 Ho Kwong Meng. "Planning, Design And Construction of Modern Container Terminals", Proceedings of International Conference on "Coastal Infrastructure Development - Chatlenges in the 21" Century", organised by The Kong Hong Institution of Engineers. 22-24 November 2004, in Hong Kong. 2 Ho Kwong Meng. “Development of Container Terminals", Proceedings of Intemational Conference on "Port and Maritime R&D and Technology" organised by MPA. 10-12 September 2003, in Singapore. 3 Ho Kwong Meng & A.D.F. Price. "Evaluation of Seaport Projects", Proceedings of Tripartite Conference on "Major Building and Infrastructural Construction Project” organised by IES. 25 & 26 March 2004, in Singapore. 4 Ho Kwong Meng, Wong Kai Yeng & Law Kok Hwa. “Planning, Design and Construction of PSA's Container Terminals", The Structural Engineers, UK, Vol. 78 No.2 18 Jan, 2000, 5 Ho Kwong Meng, Law Kok Hwa, & Philip Ng Fook Wah. "PSA'S Container Wharves". Journal of the Institution of Engineers, Singapore. Vol. 34, No. 8 December 1994. 6 BS 6349: Part 1: 1984, Part 2: 1988, Part 4 : 1985, Maritime Structures, British Standards Institution. 7 SS CP4: 2003, Foundations. 12. 8 BS 8004: 1986, Foundations, British Standard Institution. 9 JAPANESE INDUSTRIAL STANDARD, Pretensioned Spun Concrete Piles, JIS A 5445 1979, Translated and Published by, Japanese Standards Association. 10 Alonozo DeF Quinn, Design & Construction of Ports & Marine Structures, Second Edition. 11 Dr. K.C.G Ong, Mr. C.T.E. Lim and Prof. P. Paramasivam, “Conditions of Piles Extracted from Wharf T8, M9 and M10", March 1996. 12 UNCTAD, 1977. Appraisal of Port Investments, United Nations, Genova. 13 UNCTAD, 1985. Port Development - A Handbook for Planner in Development countries, United Nations, New York, pp.20-21. 14 UNCTAD, 1993. Strategic Planning for Port Authorities, United Nations, Geneva, pp.1-80. 15 UNCTAD, 1996, Comparative Experiences with Privatisation, Policy insights and Lessons Learned, United Nations, Geneva, pp.1-15. 16 DIN 536, Part 1, September 1991, Crane Rails, DIN Deutsches Institut fur Normung e.V., Berlin. 17 Per Bruun, 1989. Port Engineering, Fourth Edition, Gulf Publishing Company. 18 Carl A. Thoresen, Port Design, Guidelines and Recommendations, Tapir Publishers, The Norwegian Institution of Technology. 19 Recommendations of the Committee for Waterfront Structures Harbours and Waterways, EAU 2004, EAU 8" Edition. 20 PIANC, Guidelines for the Design of Fenders Systems: 2002. 21 OCDI (The Overseas Coastal Area Development Institute of Japan), 1991. Technical Standard for Port and Harbour Facilities in Japan, 22 Gregory P. Tsinker, 1997. Handbook of Port and Harbor Engineering. Chapman & Hall. 23 Gregory P. Tsinker, 1997. Marine Structures Engineering. Chapman & Hall. 4LAPPENDIX A: SUBMISSION FOR APPROVAL UNDER SECTION 3 OF THE FORESHORES ACT (CAP 113) Section 3 of the Foreshores Act states that "(1) No person shall erect or build any ‘seawall or river wall or construct any revetment along the bank or any port, river or channel or erect any permanent building or structure within 15 meters of the foreshore or any such bank, except in accordance with plans and specifications approved by the "Urban Redevelopment Authority”. 1 URA administers only Section 3 of the Foreshores Act. 2. The Urban Redevelopment Authority would convey a decision within one month from the date of submission. If no intimation of disapproval is given by the Urban Redevelopment Authority within that time it shall be assumed that the plans and specifications have been approved. 3. Any person who acts in contravention of this section shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction not exceeding $4,000. 4, Any building or construction built or erected in contravention of this section may be removed by order of the Minister, and the cost of its removal shall be recoverable as a Government debt from the person building or erecting it. 5. This section shall not apply to any property held by the Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore Act, 1996 - No 7/96 or any other statutory body as the Minister may, by notification in the Gazette, appoint. “Foreshore” is defined as the portion of land between the mean high water mark of the spring tide and the mean low water mark of the spring tide in the case of a beach, and between the top and bottom of the seawall. The submission for formal approval should be lodged for any retention / proposal of temporary and permanent structure such as rip-raps, rock bunds, retaining walls, timber / reinforced concrete jetties and slipways, carparks, drains, bollards, promenades, pavilion, reclamation works, eto that is intended to be built or erected or for retention within 15 metres from the foreshore line. The documents are to be submitted to: Development Control Division Urban Redevelopment Authority 1st storey, The URA Centre 45 Maxwell Road Singapore 069118 42Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore (MP. COMET APPLICATIONS - GENERAL GUIDELINES FOR FORESHORE AND MARINE DEVELOPMENT The following project proposals must be submitted to the Committee for Marine Projects (COMET) of the Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore (MPA) for consideration: 1. Construction, installation, extension, additions and alterations of wharves, jetties, piers, slipways, dry docks, graving docks, ramps, fixed platform, bunds, shore protection, retaining walls, breakwaters and outfall/intake structures Installation of floating pontoons, floating docks, floating restaurants and accommodation barge. Marine recreational facilities. Fish farms. Residential and other facilities/structures affecting the foreshore areas Reclamation works. Submarine pipelines and cables. Dredging and dumping works. Marine Soil Investigation. Demolition of foreshore/marine structures. Dumping of dredged materials at sea dumping grounds a2 2@Nonre Ae 4344 TIOE GAUGE rey EE AS Siem Ee Me Scouse pean satel el Soe sis as ‘inh OOF gba |p som se SE EEL ie Sung azartaat ool getting tm, sin bae SWE TRACED FROM sunver secrion BReTho, UEsasb- ese PLAN ILLUSTRATING VARIOUS LEVEL DATA RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN IN SINGAPORE