Levuka Wharf Condition and Repair Options Rev B 23112015

Report
Levuka Wharf - Condition Assessment and

Repair Options
Prepared for Fiji Ports Corporation Ltd
Prepared by Erasito Beca Consultants Ltd
November 2015
Levuka Wharf - Condition Assessment and Repair Options
Executive Summary
Introduction
Levuka Wharf located in Levuka on Ovalau Island, Fiji is in a poor state of repair suffering from widespread
concrete deterioration. Erasito Beca Consultants Ltd (Erasito Beca) were commissioned by Fiji Ports
Corporation Ltd (FPCL) to undertake a visual inspection, condition assessment and review repair options for
the wharf.
The wharf is currently being infrequently used by small fishing vessels, a local tanker, occasional cruise
ships and similar craft.
The wharf has an L-shape layout and comprises a 50m long by 13m wide access bridge to a 190m long by
12m wide berthing section. The access bridge and approximately the first 75m of the berthing section were
replaced in the 1970s (“the replaced portion”). The remaining part of the wharf was constructed circa 1920s
(“the original portion”).
Inspection and Condition Assessment

The visual and diving inspections were undertaken in September 2015. The condition assessment identified
that both the original and replaced wharf portions are on average in poor condition, including numerous
elements that effectively failed due to almost complete loss of section (concrete and reinforcing steel). As is
typical with such structures, the piles below the low tide mark were found to be in good condition. The upper
extent of the piles and the underside of the wharf deck (including framing beams and bracing), which are
exposed to repeated cycles of wetting/drying, are in poor condition and there are numerous elements that
are at risk of failure under minor loads. There are areas where the reinforcement has corroded entirely
compromising the wharf’s strength.
The widespread concrete deterioration is of a significant safety concern and we recommend that the below
actions are implemented immediately (for more details refer Section 6, Immediate Recommendations):
 The original portion should be closed to all vehicles and pedestrians. This is because 40% of the deck
underside was identified as failed/ no longer functional with almost complete loss of reinforcing steel.
 The replaced portion could possibly be accessed by light vehicles (3 tonne max), however localised areas
will need to be fully closed due to complete loss of reinforcing steel (refer Figure 2, Section 6).
Repair Options
Original Portion
The most effective repair option is likely to be full replacement as the majority of the elements are in a
condition that is deemed to be beyond economical repair (40% of the deck underside was identified as failed/
no longer functional with almost complete loss of reinforcing steel). Alternatively, the original portion could be
abandoned or demolished if it is no longer required.
2
We estimate the replacement cost to be in the order of $10M ($6-9,000/m ).
Replaced Portion
With respect to the replaced portion, a number of repair options can be considered including:
 Option 1 – Limited conventional concrete repairs.

 Option 2 – Extensive repairs including (limited) replacement of some elements.
 Option 3 – Partial or full deck replacement (including crosshead and edge beams).
 Option 4 – New wharf on the same or different alignment.
Key details of individual repairs options are presented in the table below.
Time to First
Whole Life Major Extent of Structural
Option / Item Initial Cost
Cost Maintenance Maintenance Performance
[years]
Option 1 – Limited
conventional $1.5-2M Very High 5 Very High Limited
repairs
Partially meets the
Option 2 –
$5M High 10 – 15 High current
Extensive repairs
requirements
Option 3 – 10 - 15
Medium Partially meets the
Full/partial deck $8M Medium substructure current
replacement 50 deck requirements
Option 4 – New
Meets the current
wharf on same or $8.0-12M Low 50 - 100 Very Low
requirements
different alignment
Numerous aspects such as the future use of the wharf, required service life, and available funding are critical
to deciding which option is most suitable including determining the extent of the wharf to be repaired. FPCL
may want to undertake a study to understand these aspects (Erasito Beca would be pleased to assist with
this).
To further progress this repair option study we would recommend that FPCL:
 Determine future wharf usage requirements.

 Then select the wharf/renewal option that delivers the required usage and/or corresponds to short and
long term funding availability.
The above executive summary is a précis of the investigation and assessment undertaken. Therefore further
explanation and/ or clarification including limitations of the assessment can be found in the main body of the
report.
Contents
1 Introduction 1
2 Site Description 2
3 Assumptions & Limitations 3
4 Methodology 4
5 Condition Assessment 5
5.1 Original Portion 5
5.2 Replaced Portion 7
5.3 Underwater Inspection of Piles 9
6 Immediate Recommendations 10
7 Repair Options 11
7.3 Decision Matrix 13
8 Discussion 14
Appendices
Appendix A
Drawings
Appendix B
Photos
Appendix C
Underwater Condition Assessment Photos
1 Introduction
Erasito Beca Consultants Ltd (Erasito Beca) were commissioned by Fiji Ports Corporation Ltd (FPCL) to
undertake a condition assessment of and review options for repairs for Levuka Wharf located in Levuka on
Ovalau Island, Fiji. This work was carried out in accordance with the agreement for the provision of
consulting services Levuka Wharf Structural Assessment, July 2015.
The intent is to ascertain the current condition of the wharf and recommend remedial options that could be
implemented as necessary for the wharf to remain functional subject to funding availability and the future use
of the wharf. The findings of the condition assessment are summarised below and in the enclosed
appendices.
Beca // 23 November 2015

6101020 // NZ1-11288058-35 2.4 // page 1
2 Site Description
Levuka Wharf is situated on the island of Ovalau on the south side of Levuka Town, earlier the capital of Fiji.
The wharf is the main sea transportation hub for the island, thus is essential for its economy. It provides a
berthing facility for fishing vessels discharging their fish catch to a cannery managed by the Pacific Fishing
Company Ltd (PAFCO) directly south of the wharf as well as other vessel access including ferries, tankers,
and occasional cruise ships. Being one of the primary access point to the island, the wharf is likely also a
critical transportation structure for responses to natural disaster events.
The wharf has an L-shape layout and comprises a 50m long by 13m wide access bridge to a 190m long by
12m wide berthing section (refer to Figure 1 below). The access bridge and the first approximately 75m of
the berthing section were replaced in the 1970s and opened in 1980 (“the replaced portion”). The remaining
part of the wharf was constructed circa 1920s (possibly as early as 1896, (“the original portion”).
The original structure comprises a conventional beam-and-slab deck braced directly under the deck and
supported on concrete piles. The replaced portion is formed by precast, prestressed beams with an insitu
mesh reinforced concrete topping supported on driven concrete piles and crosshead beams.
Figure 1: Aerial Photograph of Levuka Wharf (Courtesy of Google Maps)

6101020 // NZ1-11288058-35 2.4 // page 2
3 Assumptions & Limitations

Due to the nature of the structure and the site, the condition assessment of Levuka Wharf was based on the
following assumptions and limitations:
 In advance of our site inspection, Erasito Beca requested that FPCL clean the barnacles off a sample of
the piles and cross braces from both the structures to allow for a more comprehensive and accurate
assessment of the current condition. However, upon arrival to site there was no evidence that this had
been done. The condition of such elements is therefore a best estimate.
 Access to the original portion was limited due to the nature of the structure (lattice frame) therefore, the
condition of one face of some of the elements had to be assumed.
 Due to the relatively high nature of this assessment in accordance with the agreement for the provision of
the services, a representative sample of the elements of the replaced and original wharves were
assessed in detail from the underside.
 Experience indicates that on closer inspection of wharf elements during repair work (i.e. from stable
scaffolding and after cleaning), the elements are often found to be in a worse condition than assessed
from a distance and the extent of repair/deterioration tends to increase.
 Some elements had been repaired previously, in some cases the repairs had started to deteriorate
showing the true condition of the element. In other cases, the repair appeared to be in a good condition
when this may not have been the case.
 A small wharf on the northern edge of the replaced portion (~1m below) was not assessed as part of this
condition assessment as it was not part of the commission. However, this small wharf appeared to be
supported off the replaced portion and appeared to be in a similar condition to the replaced portion (i.e.
very poor and deteriorating).

6101020 // NZ1-11288058-35 2.4 // page 3
4 Methodology
st
A visual inspection for the purposes of the condition assessment was undertaken over a two day period (1
nd
September, 2015 to 2 September, 2015) and included an underwater diving visual inspection of the piles.
The first day was to assess the replaced portion from the top and from the underside using a small boat. On
the second day, the original portion was assessed from the top and from the underside as well. The
assessments undertaken from a boat were always done at low tide to allow access under the wharf and so
that more of the elements can be readily assessed. An underwater water condition assessment of the piles
was also undertaken.
The below sea level parts of the piles were inspected by snorkelling and SCUBA diving. Initially, all of the
piles were inspected by snorkelling at the surface – with reasonable visibility to a depth of about 4m – to
assess the extent of deterioration and determine an appropriate regime for a more detailed inspection of
selected piles. Following the snorkelling inspection, the diving inspection was undertaken. On the second
day, Erasito Beca carried out a bathymetrical survey of the seabed surrounding the wharf and surveyed the
wharf. The surveys are an additional service which was carried out on the initiative of Erasito Beca staff. For
outputs of these surveys, refer Appendix C.
The dimensions of some of the structural members were confirmed or noted on site. In some cases, these
are only estimates as the element was covered in barnacles or there was limited access (i.e. to the
underside of the deck during low tide). The dimensions of the elements of the original portion can be found in
Appendix A (note, the original drawings of the replaced portion are also available).
A condition rating system was developed and used for the purposes of this condition assessment and is
described below in Table 1.
Table 1 - Condition Rating System
Rating Condition Description
A (Good) No visible damage or deterioration considering the age of the structure or minor
No repairs required, some damage with some minor cracking visible. Possible corrosion stains on some
recommended concrete surfaces. Minor spalling (mainly due to wear and tear) with no reinforcement
visible.
B (Average) Moderate spalling (10-30% of surface), reinforcement exposed, with limited corrosion
Minor/moderate repairs required up to 10% loss of steel reinforcement area. Large cracks identified.
C (Poor) Extensive spalling (30-60% of surface, reinforcement exposed and actively corroding.
Significant repairs required Up to 50% loss of steel reinforcement area. Localised bars fully corroded.
D (Failed/no longer functional) Element effectively failed. Almost complete loss of section (concrete and steel). No
Replacement required longer functional.
Note: the above rating system was tailored considering the age and general condition of the Levuka Wharf
structure.
Due to the nature of the original wharf structure (lattice frame) the underside was assessed by walking on the
lower horizontal framing members. Therefore, the underside was assessed only from the landward side
along Grid B (refer to drawings in Appendix A) as the transverse and longitudinal cross bracing obstructed
further assessment. For some elements, only one face could be assessed and the condition of the other face
was assumed to be similar to the first.

6101020 // NZ1-11288058-35 2.4 // page 4
5 Condition Assessment
5.1 Original Portion

In line with the methodology described in Section 4 above, a condition assessment of the original portion
st nd
was undertaken on the basis of the visual inspection undertaken on 1 and 2 September 2015. The
assessment was undertaken in stages beginning with a general on-ground assessment, followed by a
general on-water assessment, then a detailed on-water assessment and detailed on-ground assessment.
A drawing detailing the findings of the assessment can be found in Appendix A. A selection of photos
generally showing each level of deterioration described in Table 1 for the majority of the structural elements
can be found in Appendix B.
In general, the condition of the original portion can be summarised as follows:
 The structure that is submerged and in the lower tidal zone is in good condition (A).
 The structure in the mid-to-high tidal zone is in average condition (B).
 The structure above the high tide mark (spray/splash zone), i.e. deck, beams and bracing is in poor or
failed condition (C/D). We note that the significant deterioration observed is systematic and widespread
rather than localised when compared to the replaced portion.
The findings of the condition assessment for the original portion are summarised in detail in Table 2 (next
page).

6101020 // NZ1-11288058-35 2.4 // page 5
Table 2 - Original Portion Condition Assessment Summary
Elements Comments Rating
Piles/Columns Generally in a good condition with only minor to moderate cracking A/B – ~90%
and corrosion stains observed. However, there were some areas C – ~5%
where the piles were in a poor condition (if not failed) and no longer
functional (specifically at the intersection with the lower D – ~5%
transverse/longitudinal horizontal beams, approximately 10 piles
total).
Lower transverse Generally in a good condition with no major deterioration identified. A – ~95%
and longitudinal There were a handful of localised areas that were in a poor C – ~5%
horizontal beams condition at the intersection with the piles/columns.
Note: B rating could not be given due to barnacles.
Longitudinal cross Generally in average condition, with some spalling and corrosion of B – ~60%
bracing (odd grids reinforcement typically at the top intersection with the piles/columns. C – ~30
only, 3 grids) However, a number of members on the seaward side have failed
and are no longer functional (complete loss of concrete and steel D – ~10%
reinforcement cross sections).
Horizontal cross Generally in a good condition. Some are in average condition with A – ~90%
bracing (between some large cracks/spalling and corrosion staining. It appears that B – ~10%
all grids, 4 total none were in a poor condition or failed/no longer functional.
per bay)
Upper transverse Generally in a poor condition or no longer functional. Extensive A – ~20%
and longitudinal severe spalling observed and severe to complete loss of B – ~20%
horizontal beams reinforcement cross sectional area in many locations. A number of
repaired areas were identified, some of which appear to still be C – ~30%
sound while the rest are failing and deteriorating again. However, D – ~30%
there is no pattern to the deterioration as some members appeared
to be in an average and even good condition.
Deck underside Generally in a poor condition or no longer functional. In many areas A – ~5%
the bottom cover has completely spalled off exposing the B – ~10%
reinforcement which in most locations has fully corroded. Numerous
patch repairs were identified though these are likely to be just C – ~40%
concealing the true extent of the deterioration. However, a few D – ~40%
areas, typically on the landward side, appeared to be in a
good/average condition.
Deck from above Considering the age of the structure, the deck appeared to be in a A – ~95%
good condition from above. Approximately, the full length of the B – ~5%
seaward edge was in an average condition due to berthing vessels
with minor but extensive spalling with some reinforcement exposed. C/D – <1%
There was one area of complete failure of the deck (at an apparent Note – these ratings are
movement joint near the centre of the structure); this highlights the misleading, refer to “deck
true condition of the deck as there was no reinforcement in that area underside” for true condition
(likely fully corroded).

6101020 // NZ1-11288058-35 2.4 // page 6
5.2 Replaced Portion

In line with the methodology described in Section 4 above, a condition assessment of the replaced portion
st nd
was undertaken on the basis of the visual inspection undertaken on 1 and 2 September 2015. The
assessment was undertaken in stages beginning with a general on-ground assessment, followed by a
general on-water assessment, then a detailed on-water assessment and detailed on-ground assessment.
A drawing detailing the findings of the assessment can be found in Appendix A. A selection of photos
generally showing each level of deterioration described in Table 1 for the majority of the structural elements
can be found in Appendix B.
In general, the condition of the replaced wharf can be summarised as follows:
 The structure that is permanently submerged is in a good condition (A)

 The structure that is in the tidal zone, i.e. the piles and pile caps are in an average or poor condition (B)
 The structure above the high tide mark (spray/splash zone), i.e. the crosshead beams and precast deck
units were typically in an average or poor condition (B/C) but isolated elements and isolated areas were
found to be in a failed/ no longer functional condition (D).
The findings of the condition assessment for the replaced portion are summarised in detail in Table 3 (next
page).

6101020 // NZ1-11288058-35 2.4 // page 7
Table 3 - Replaced Portion Condition Assessment Summary
Element Comments Rating
Piles/Columns Generally in good condition, only minor deterioration, cracking A – >50%

(some large), and corrosion stains observed. B – remaining
Pile caps Condition varied from good, to average, to poor. Generally, the pile A – >50%
caps that are in poor condition were closer to the seaward side and B/C –remaining
the pile caps that are in good condition were closer to the landward
side. Some minor to large cracking was observed with concrete
spalling and reinforcement corrosion.
Crossheads and Deterioration is random and varies significantly from good to A/B – ~50%
longitudinal edge failed/no longer functional. There also appears to be no strict pattern C/D – ~50%
beams to the level of deterioration. Some areas are no longer functional
while adjacent areas are good/average. Observed severe
deterioration with extensive spalling and complete corrosion of
numerous reinforcement bars. Minor to large cracking observed
elsewhere. Approximately 3-4 of the seaward edge beams have
failed due to impact damage from berthing vessels.
Precast deck Generally in average condition. These areas are generally fine or A – ~5%
units only minor localised spalling present. However, there are full B – ~75%
sections with severe deterioration including extensive spalling and
corrosion of reinforcement and in some instances, there is complete C/D – ~20%
loss of prestressing strands. There are also localised areas almost
always at the crosshead support that are in poor condition (possibly
due to water ponding on the crosshead beam from spray/splash).
Note – these elements are poorly detailed by today’s standards. The
U-shape provides a much greater area for chloride ingress
compared to a flat slab.
Insitu deck Generally in good condition with small areas in average condition A – 95%
due to minor spalling exposing mesh reinforcement. Spalling is likely B – 5%
due to the lack of top cover estimated to be approximately 20mm
only. C/D – <1% of seaward side
due to impact damage from
berthing vessels.
Note – these ratings are
misleading, refer to “precast
deck units” for the true
condition

6101020 // NZ1-11288058-35 2.4 // page 8
5.3 Underwater Inspection of Piles

In line with the methodology described in Section 4 above, a condition assessment of the piles below sea
st nd
level was undertaken on the basis of the visual inspection undertaken on 1 and 2 September 2015.
Photos from the underwater inspection can be found in Appendix C.
As shown in Figures 1 and 2 of Appendix C, in the intertidal zone, most of the piles are encrusted in
barnacles but below this, marine growth is relatively light with algae to a thickness of about 3mm, occasional
clams and hard coral are present. The amount of marine growth on the piles reduces towards the seabed.
From this initial inspection, it was apparent that generally none of the piles had reinforcement corrosion
and/or concrete spalling issues.
Accordingly, the subsequent SCUBA diving inspection comprised:
 A pass through the entire structure at a level lower than snorkelling to check for obvious signs of
reinforcement corrosion and/or concrete spalling (Figures 3 and 4, Appendix C). None was found
 Photographs and close up inspection of random selected piles (Figures 5 and 6, Appendix C)
 Removal of a section of marine growth from a pile to demonstrate sound concrete (Figures 7 and 8,
Appendix C)
Other features observed included:
 Cracks at the base of some of the piles at the seaward side of the replaced wharf (Figures 9 and 10,
Appendix C). This is thought to be a result of a vessel hitting the wharf deck.
 Construction joints in some of the piles (Figure 11, Appendix C). No deterioration was observed at these
joints. Occasional sleeves were also seen.
 A large sacrificial anode (Figures 12 and 13, Appendix C) near the landward end of the replaced portion,
probably zinc and connected to a cathodic protection system was found. The anode is totally encrusted in
marine growth, so it is probably ineffective.
 Debris, comprising original structure rubble (below the replaced wharf), tire fenders and general rubbish
from vessels (Figures 14 and 15, Appendix C).
 A broken pile is located at the seaward side of the original portion (Figure 16, Appendix C), refer to
drawings in Appendix A also.

6101020 // NZ1-11288058-35 2.4 // page 9
6 Immediate Recommendations
While undertaking the condition assessment, Erasito Beca noted a number of significant safety concerns and
structural vulnerabilities as noted below:

Spalling and reinforcement corrosion of the underside of the original portion deck are significantly reducing
its capacity to support localised point loads. We recommend that the original portion is immediately closed to
all vehicles and pedestrians. Small vessels may berth at the original portion but cannot load or offload goods.
If for FPCL operational purposes, full closure of the wharf is deemed to be impractical, limited access could
be provided to FPCL staff who are adequately briefed on the condition of the wharf and aware of associated
risks (pedestrian access only). Should the wharf need to be used we would recommend quarterly (or similar
frequency) inspections are undertaken to identify areas that deteriorated beyond even pedestrian use.

As the load carrying capacity is unknown and the condition of the replaced portion is very poor at localised
areas, we would recommend that only small passenger vehicles (3 tonne max) are allowed onto the replaced
portion. Some significantly deteriorated areas need to be closed completely following a full detailed
inspection of the wharf (Figure 2). We would be pleased to undertake a more detailed structural assessment
to determine more accurately the current load carrying capacity of the wharf.
We recommend that the above access restrictions are implemented immediately.
In addition, spalling of the underside of the wharf deck (mainly the original portion, but the replaced portion
as well) and impact damage to the seaward edge of the replaced wharf creates a hazard for anyone in the
sea below the wharf. Some of the spalling pieces are quite large, therefore they pose a health and safety risk
as they could potentially fall onto people below the wharf. We would recommend that adequate signage is
erected to inform users of the wharf of these hazards and risks.
Figure 2: Replaced Portion crosshead beam in a very poor condition/effectively failed

6101020 // NZ1-11288058-35 2.4 // page 10
7 Repair Options
It is clear from the condition assessment that both the replaced and original sections of the wharf are in a
poor state of repair. Repair options for both the replaced and original portion have been presented
separately below. Please note that if no repairs are undertaken at present, the condition of the wharf will
continue to deteriorate and the rate of deterioration will be of an escalating nature.

With respect to the original portion, the most effective repair option is likely to be full replacement, because
its deck is clearly beyond economical repair. The substructure, i.e. the piles and braces/beams underneath
the deck could possibly be salvaged. However this is not recommended because the repairs would be very
extensive with more than 50% of elements directly below the deck essentially fully replaced. Moreover,
despite the effort and expense taken to salvage the substructure structure it is expected that another set of
substantial repairs would be required in 10-15 years. This is the typical life to first major maintenance for a
repaired and originally significantly deteriorated maritime structure.
Alternatively, the original portion could be abandoned or demolished if it is no longer required.
Assuming that a like for like replacement is adopted, we estimate the cost to be in the order of $10M. This is
2 2
based on a total area of 1200m and a rate of $6-9,000/m .

With respect to the replaced portion, a number of repair options can be considered as its condition is better
than that of the original portion. A “do nothing” option was not considered due to the inherent health and
safety risks that it poses. The options include:
 Option 1 – Limited conventional concrete repairs

 Option 2 – Extensive repairs including replacement of some elements
 Option 3 – Partial or full deck replacement (including crosshead and edge beams)
 Option 4 – New wharf on the same or different alignment
7.2.1 Option 1 – Limited Conventional Concrete Repairs

The intent of this option is to undertake practical repairs within a set limited budget of say $1.5-2M to ensure
the wharf remains operational in the near future. The repairs would involve breaking out the area to sound
concrete, cleaning the existing reinforcement and/or, replacing the reinforcement if the full cross section has
corroded, coating the reinforcement with paint (if necessary) to further improve durability and repairing with a
repair mortar or similar.
The repairs will focus on the areas that are the most straightforward to repair and/or would yield the most
benefit (i.e. would result in a large area that provides adequate serviceability). Option 1 would provide limited
improvement to the durability of the wharf.
The first major maintenance will be required in approximately 5 years and would be expected to require
similar expenditure as the initial repairs ($1.5-2M). The structural performance of the wharf will slightly
improve.

6101020 // NZ1-11288058-35 2.4 // page 11
7.2.2 Option 2 – Extensive Repairs Including Replacement of Some Elements

This option is similar to Option 1 but includes replacement of some elements. The elements that would be
replaced are any that have effectively failed or are significantly deteriorated (i.e. full loss of cross sectional
area of reinforcement including extensive spalling of the element) or impractical to effectively repair (i.e. pre-
stressed beams). What remains of the element would be removed and starter bars drilled into the existing
structure. The main reinforcement of the element that is being replaced is then installed and the element is
poured in situ using concrete or similar.
Again, this option could focus on certain areas that can be connected together to form a safe and structurally
adequate access route for users. The option would provide improved durability as some elements are
replaced rather than retaining the deteriorating materials.
The first major maintenance will be required in approximately 10 - 15 years as some elements will not be
repaired and will continue to deteriorate. The structural performance of the wharf will improve, especially for
dead and traffic loads on the wharf itself (not lateral loads).
The expected cost for this option is in the order of $5M.
7.2.3 Option 3 – Partial or Full Deck Replacement (Including Crosshead and Edge Beams)
This option will include aspects of Options 1 and 2 where necessary but will focus on a partial or full
replacement of the precast deck units and the crosshead and edge beams that are in the worst condition.
Different methods of repair could be adopted especially for the deck as the original could be retained and
used as formwork to pour a new reinforced concrete deck on top including some starter bars drilled into the
existing structure (note – the existing deck will continue deteriorating and spalling posing a health and safety
risk). Alternatively, the deck units could be removed and replaced completely (temporary supports etc. will be
required). The crosshead and edge beams would be replaced in a similar manner to Option 2.
As with Options 1 and 2, the remedial works could focus on certain areas only that would be of more benefit
to FPCL. The durability and structural performance would be significantly improved with this option
particularly for the new deck.
The first major maintenance of the piles and other parts of substructure will required at approximately 10 - 15
years. The new deck would be designed to require no or minimal maintenance over its design life of likely 50
years.
2 2
Assuming a rate of $5-6,000/m for the repairs and full area of the replaced portion (~1450m ), the expected
cost for this option is in the order of $8M.
7.2.4 Option 4 – New wharf on the same or different alignment

For Option 4, the replaced portion could be demolished and a new wharf built. The same alignment could be
used but this will require demolition of the existing portion therefore, it would likely be out of service during
the construction period. Alternatively, a new alignment to the north of the existing wharf could be adopted.
This would mean that the existing wharf would remain operational albeit to a limited extent due to its current
condition. A new alignment will likely require consents and other agreements (which may not be easily
granted) as Levuka Town has acquired UNESCO World Heritage Status. The new wharf would be designed
to suit FPCL’s current and future requirements and likely also considering requirements of other
stakeholders.
The durability, future maintenance and structural performance would be improved to today’s standards and
the structure would have a design life of 100 years. Therefore, the whole of life cost would be less than

6101020 // NZ1-11288058-35 2.4 // page 12
Options 1-3. The cost for this option would vary depending on the current and future requirements for FPCL.
2
Assuming a rate of $6-9,000/m to construct a new wharf of equivalent size to the replaced portion, it would
2
be in the order of $12M. However, if a smaller wharf with an area of 1000m (e.g. 50x7 access bridge plus a
15x40 berthing section) is adequate, construction of a new wharf of this size would be in the order of $8M.
7.3 Decision Matrix

To assist in identifying a suitable option for the repair and or construction of a new wharf to address the
deterioration of the replaced portion, a practical decision matrix has been developed and presented below in
Table 4.
The matrix does not give ranking for individual options, because at this stage there are many unknowns that
will need to be holistically considered including future operational requirements, availability of funding,
heritage aspects, etc. prior to the decision matrix being further developed.
Table 4 - Decision Matrix for the Replaced Portion Repair/Replacement Options
Time to First
Whole Life Major Extent of Structural
Option / Item Initial Cost
Cost Maintenance Maintenance Performance
[years]
Option 1 – Limited
conventional $1.5-2M Very High 5 Very High Limited
repairs
Partially meets
Option 2 –
$5M High 10 – 15 High the current
Extensive repairs
requirements
Option 3 – 10 - 15
Medium Partially meets
Full/partial deck $8M Medium substructure the current
replacement 50 deck requirements
Option 4 – New
Meets the current
wharf on same or $8.0-12M Low 50 - 100 Very Low
requirements
different alignment

6101020 // NZ1-11288058-35 2.4 // page 13
8 Discussion
As stated previously, the future use of the wharf, required service life and available funding is critical to
deciding which option is most suitable including determining the extent of the wharf to be repaired. It is
recommended that FPCL undertake a study to understand the current and future use of the wharf (Erasito
Beca would be pleased to assist with this). This study should consider the requirements of various
stakeholders such as FRA and shipping operators.
Currently, it appears that PAFCO fishing vessels use the wharf to unload their catch on rare occasions.
PAFCO also berth vessels at the wharf during downtime and turnaround time. Typically, 2-3 small passenger
cruise ships berth at the wharf per year however, to date, it appears that none have visited Levuka in 2015.
The wharf is frequently used by small private boats and yachts for mooring purposes, however, typically the
small lower wharf to the north is used as it allows for easier embarking and disembarking. These activities
are limited and infrequent suggesting that the wharf receives little use at present and it may be appropriate to
just repair a small section of the wharf to suit usage and demolish the rest of the wharf.
To further progress this repair option study we would recommend that FPCL:
 Determine future wharf usage requirements.

 Then select the wharf/renewal option that delivers the required usage and/or corresponds to short and
long term funding availability.

6101020 // NZ1-11288058-35 2.4 // page 14
Appendix A
Drawings

6101020 // NZ1-11288058-35 2.4 // page 15
Drawing Plotted: 28 Sep 2015 12:06 p.m.
Nacilau Pt
Waya
Viti Levu
Nananu-i-cake
Ve Drala Reef
Namara
Kuata Vatia Vatia Lailai
Togowere
Makodraga
Tavua
Makogai
Navadra Rabulu Nasau
Kadomo Sorokoba
Nacilau Pt
Vomo Nailaga
Ba Vatukoula
Namarai
Nayavutoka
Nadarivatu
Yanuya Tokoriki
Monu Vitogo Navai Victoria Naigani
e
ng
Tavua Lautoka Batimadrai Point
Dawasamu
Ra
Toge Cape Horn
s
Matamanoa
an
Tai Navala Lewa Rukuruku
Tailevu
Mamanuca
Ev
Koroyanitu
Mana Kadavu
Vuda Pt
Viseisei Munt Lawaki Ovalau
Lomolomo Ba Levuka
Rairaim u
Navini Nadrau
Qalito Nasaga
Group Nadele
Platea
Lodoni Tokou
Vaturu
atuku
Denarau Namaka Nanoko Monasau
Ro Island Bukuya
Ro Nausori
Re Selea
ef NADI Namulomulo Tailevu Ucunivanua
Nausori Nadrau Plateau
Korovou
Korovuto Highlands Korolevu
Koroba Keiyasi Monavatu Naimasimasi
Viria
Naralyawa
Momi
Tuvu Baulevu Bau
Vunamoa Kasavu Lasakau
Draubuta
Tau Kaba Pt
Wainawaqa Sawani Cautata Dromuna
Narewa Nausori
Namosi
Nasirotu
Tuvutau
Nuku Tamavua Lokia Nasilai
Tilialevu
Namuamua Rewa
Kalokolevu
Nabukelevu Nasilai
Sigatoka SUVA
Cuvu Reef
Laselase Suva Pt
Mau
Vatukarasa Pacific
Harbour Navua
Korolevu Korovisilou
Galoa Naitontoni
Tamavua
Waisomo
Yanuca Beqa
Dakuibeqa
Document No. LOCALITY SET 5.DWG

Drawing Originator: Original Design Approved For Client: Project: Title: Client Drawing No. Rev.
Scale (A1) Construction*
Drawn
Dsg Verifier
Reduced Drawing No. Rev.
Scale (A3) Dwg Check Date
No. Revision By Chk Appd Date * Refer to Revision 1 for Original Signature
DO NOT SCALE IF IN DOUBT ASK.

Document No. LEVUKA SET 16 UP 190MM 1.DWG

Drawn
Dsg Verifier


Drawn
Dsg Verifier

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51
D
8
C
7
B
6
A
5
4
3
2
1
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51
9
D
8
C
7
B
6
A
5
4
3
2
1

Drawn
Dsg Verifier


Drawn
Dsg Verifier

Appendix B
Photos

6101020 // NZ1-11288058-35 2.4 // page 16
Replaced Portion– Pile/Column – Condition A Replaced Portion– Pile cap – Condition A
Replaced Portion– Pile cap – Condition B Replaced Portion– Pile cap – Condition C
Replaced Portion– Crosshead – Condition A Replaced Portion– Crosshead – Condition B

6101020 // NZ1-11288058-35 2.4 // page 17
Replaced Portion– Crosshead – Replaced Portion– Edge beam – Impact Damage –

Condition C (becoming D) Condition D
Replaced Portion– Edge beam – Impact Damage – Replaced Portion– precast deck units –
Condition D Condition A
Replaced Portion– precast deck units – Condition B Replaced Portion– precast deck units – Condition C

6101020 // NZ1-11288058-35 2.4 // page 18
Replaced Portion– Precast deck units – Condition D Replaced Portion– Insitu deck – Condition A (B Patches)
Original Portion– Column – Condition A Original Portion– Column – Condition B
Original Portion– Pile to beam joint – Condition D Original Portion – Lower Trans. & Long. beam – Condition
A

6101020 // NZ1-11288058-35 2.4 // page 19
Original Portion– Lower Trans. & Long. beam – Condition Original Portion– Longitudinal bracing – Condition C
C/D
Original Portion– Longitudinal bracing – Condition D Original Portion– Horizontal bracing – Condition B
Original Portion– Upper Trans. & Long. beam – Condition Original Portion– Upper Trans. & Long. beam – Condition
A B

6101020 // NZ1-11288058-35 2.4 // page 20
Original Portion– Upper Trans. & Long. beam – Condition Original Portion– Deck underside – Condition A
D
Original Portion– Deck underside – Condition C Original Portion– Deck underside – Condition D
Original Portion– Top of Deck – Condition A (large crack Original Portion– Typical damaged/missing kerb/upstand
along centre) on landward side

6101020 // NZ1-11288058-35 2.4 // page 21
Appendix C
Underwater Condition
Assessment Photos

6101020 // NZ1-11288058-35 2.4 // page 22
Figure 1 – Comparison of marine growth – Barnacles in Figure 2 – Comparison of marine growth – Algae, small
the intertidal zone coral and clams below low tide level
Figure 3 – General view of below water section of the piles Figure 4 – General view of below water section of the piles

6101020 // NZ1-11288058-35 2.4 // page 23
Figure 5 – Typical pile upper section Figure 6 – Typical pile base section
Figure 7 – Removal of section of marine growth to Figure 8 – Removal of section of marine growth to
demonstrate sound concrete demonstrate sound concrete
Figure 9 – Cracks at the base of some piles Figure 10 – Cracks at the base of some piles

6101020 // NZ1-11288058-35 2.4 // page 24
Figure 11 – Pile Construction Joint Figure 12 – Cathodic protection and anode
Figure 13 – Cathodic protection and anode Figure 14 – Debris
Figure 15 – Debris Figure 16 – Broken pile on seaward side of original wharf

6101020 // NZ1-11288058-35 2.4 // page 25

Levuka Wharf Condition and Repair Options Rev B 23112015

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Levuka Wharf Condition and Repair Options Rev B 23112015

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Report

Levuka Wharf - Condition Assessment and

Prepared for Fiji Ports Corporation Ltd

Prepared by Erasito Beca Consultants Ltd

Inspection and Condition Assessment

 Option 1 – Limited conventional concrete repairs.

 Determine future wharf usage requirements.

Beca // 23 November 2015

Figure 1: Aerial Photograph of Levuka Wharf (Courtesy of Google Maps)

Beca // 23 November 2015

3 Assumptions & Limitations

Beca // 23 November 2015

Table 1 - Condition Rating System

Rating Condition Description

Beca // 23 November 2015

5.1 Original Portion

In general, the condition of the original portion can be summarised as follows:

Beca // 23 November 2015

Table 2 - Original Portion Condition Assessment Summary

Elements Comments Rating

Beca // 23 November 2015

5.2 Replaced Portion

In general, the condition of the replaced wharf can be summarised as follows:

 The structure that is permanently submerged is in a good condition (A)

Beca // 23 November 2015

Table 3 - Replaced Portion Condition Assessment Summary

Element Comments Rating

Piles/Columns Generally in good condition, only minor deterioration, cracking A – >50%

Beca // 23 November 2015

5.3 Underwater Inspection of Piles

Accordingly, the subsequent SCUBA diving inspection comprised:

Other features observed included:

Beca // 23 November 2015

6.1 Original Portion

6.2 Replaced Portion

We recommend that the above access restrictions are implemented immediately.

Figure 2: Replaced Portion crosshead beam in a very poor condition/effectively failed

Beca // 23 November 2015

7.1 Original Portion

Alternatively, the original portion could be abandoned or demolished if it is no longer required.

7.2 Replaced Portion

 Option 1 – Limited conventional concrete repairs

7.2.1 Option 1 – Limited Conventional Concrete Repairs

Beca // 23 November 2015

7.2.2 Option 2 – Extensive Repairs Including Replacement of Some Elements

The expected cost for this option is in the order of $5M.

7.2.4 Option 4 – New wharf on the same or different alignment

Beca // 23 November 2015

7.3 Decision Matrix

Table 4 - Decision Matrix for the Replaced Portion Repair/Replacement Options

Beca // 23 November 2015

 Determine future wharf usage requirements.

Beca // 23 November 2015

Beca // 23 November 2015

Document No. LOCALITY SET 5.DWG

DO NOT SCALE IF IN DOUBT ASK.

Document No. LEVUKA SET 16 UP 190MM 1.DWG

DO NOT SCALE IF IN DOUBT ASK.

Document No. LEVUKA SET 16 UP 190MM 1.DWG

DO NOT SCALE IF IN DOUBT ASK.

Document No. LEVUKA SET 16 UP 190MM 1.DWG

DO NOT SCALE IF IN DOUBT ASK.

Document No. LEVUKA SET 16 UP 190MM 1.DWG

DO NOT SCALE IF IN DOUBT ASK.