Date post: | 20-May-2015 |
Category: |
Business |
Upload: | indonesia-infrastructure-initiative |
View: | 359 times |
Download: | 0 times |
Port Development Scenarios
13 May 2014 Formulation and Development of Port Development Scenarios
2
The six workshops will cover
o Demand forecasting techniques.
o Operations analysis and capacity assessment.
o Formulation and assessment of development scenarios.
o Financial and economic analysis
o (especially pricing)
o Environmental assessment and impact analysis.
o Social cost benefit and value for money analysis.
3
Agenda day 1
13 May 2014 Formulating and Assessment of Development Scenarios
09:00 – 09:15 Introduction by Pak Adolf
09:15 – 09:30 Introduction by Professor Sudjanadi
09:30 – 10:30 Segment 1: Port Master Planning Overview
10:30 – 11:00 Break
11:00 – 12:00 Segment 2: Development Scenario Considerations (Part I)
12:00 – 13:00 Lunch
13:00 – 13:30 Segment 3: Development Scenarios Considerations (Part II)
13:30 – 14:30 Segment 4: Assessing Development Scenarios through International Case Studies
14:30 – 15:00 Break
15:00 – 16:00 Segment 5: Application to the Makassar Pilot Port Project
16:00 – 17:00 Discussion
17:00 Finish
Port Development Scenarios
Segment 1: Port Master Planning Overview
13 May 2014 Formulation and Development of Port Development Scenarios
Port Development Scenarios
Segment 1: Port Master Planning
Master Planning Approach
13 May 2014 Formulation and Development of Port Development Scenarios
6
What is a Port Master Plan?
• Port Master Planning – usually 20-30yr horizon but often revisited and should:
• Look into the future
• Discuss how a port should develop to meet demand
• Show integration with transport networks
• Address environmental constraints
• Ensure compatibility with adjacent land use
• Present a proposed Development Scenario
• The Development Scenario should: • Be flexible to incorporate change
• Make best use of existing port assets
• Allow for effective phased development to match demand
• Include port zoning to cover both land and water areas, often by trade type
• Allow for future proofing of critical parameters:
• Berth depths
• Land areas
• Land connections
• Port zoning
7
The Port Master Planning Process
8
Port Master Planning – General Principles
1. Look to optimise existing terminal
2. Identify bottlenecks
• Operating procedures
• Equipment
• Physical constraints (berth and yard)
• Trade consolidation
3. Confirm the need for new container terminal
9
The role of trade/demand forecasting
• One of the most important inputs to a port plan
• Prefaced by a market study
• Estimate the type and amount of cargo that will need to be handled
• Objectives of a demand forecast: • Provide a basis for physical port plans
• Support economic and financial assessments
• Coupled with a vessel fleet analysis to establish design vessel fleet spectra to determine:
• Water depths
• Navigation and turning areas
• Berth type and length
• Reliability of estimates decreases as forecast horizon increases
Port Development Scenarios
Segment 1: Port Master Planning Overview
The Challenges facing existing ports
13 May 2014 Formulation and Development of Port Development Scenarios
11
Challenges facing existing ports
• Increases in cargo volumes
• Changes in cargo types
• Changes in vessel fleet
• Inland connections constrained
• Changing physical conditions
12
Challenges facing existing ports: Increases in cargo volumes
World Merchandise trade volume by major product group (indexed with 1950 = 100)
(Source: World Trade Organisation)
13
Challenges facing existing ports: Changes in cargo type
(Source: World Trade Organisation)
• Significant historic increase in container tonnage
14
Challenges facing existing ports: Changes in cargo type
(Source: World Trade Organisation)
• Cargo volumes have increased – beyond port capacity
• Significant historic increase in container tonnage
• Increased container penetration
• Trade and container type imbalance increasing need to move containers
• Increase in transhipment operations
15
Challenges facing existing ports: Changes in vessel fleet
• Last 10 years: 68% growth in vessel numbers, 165% growth in total TEU capacity
• End of June 2013: 5023 ships, total 16.6m TEU
• <25% account for >50% of capacity
• Average vessel size 3,300TEU
Vessels scrapped as a proportion of total yearly fleet (source: Lloyds List Intelligence)
TEU proportion of total fleet (source: Lloyds List Intelligence)
16
Challenges facing existing ports: Changes in vessel fleet
Container ships are getting bigger
Clifford Maersk (8,000 TEU) docked at Tanjung Pelepas (Photo: AECOM)
17
Challenges facing existing ports: Changes in vessel fleet
Container ships are getting beamier
Image: Maersk Mc-Kinney Moller (18,270TEU, 399m LOA) Courtesy Howard Wren Consulting
18
Video: The Worlds Largest Container Ship
19
Challenges facing existing ports: Changes in vessel fleet
• Approaches: • Determine margins in channel geometry and turning areas
through simulation • Consider need for tidally restricted access or other navigation
constraints
• Aged Berth structures • Deepen berth box – if structure permits • Offset berthing line
• Crane Loads and gauge • Review capacity and gauge of existing rail • Consider new crane rails • Crane height
• Apron and yard • Apron not wide enough to accommodate unloading rates
needed from larger vessels • Yard not able to grow at the same rate as throughput
20
Challenges facing existing ports: Changes in vessel fleet
Image: Low height ship to shore cranes arriving at Port Botany (image: Hutchison Port Holdings)
21
Challenges facing existing ports: Inland Connections
• Land side infrastructure often constrained – backs onto cities
• Existing transport connections may need significant expense to increase capacity – often not the responsibility of the port owner/operator.
• Rail effective for containers, but typically dedicated consists. Gradient dependant.
22
Challenges facing existing ports: Inland Connections $7.2bn Khalifa Port – UAE: Containers relocated to enable growth
23
Challenges facing existing ports: Environmental Conditions
Assessment of sea level rise, storminess, subsidence, population growth and urbanisation
1 Nicholls, R. J. 2008, Ranking Port Cities wit high Exposure and Vulnerability to Climate Change Extremes: Exposure Estimates. OECD Environment Working Papers, No.1
2005:
Population exposure (2.2M)
2070:
Asset value exposure (US$321bn)
24
Challenges facing existing ports: Ocean water levels are rising
• Risen 120m in the last 21,000 years
• Global rise of 0.17m during the 20th century
• Water body continues to expand
• Water exchange between oceans, glaciers etc continues
• Tectonic movements, ground water extraction
Sea Level Trends 1993-2003 (Cazenave and Narem 2004)
25
Challenges facing existing ports: Are storms getting more severe?
• Considerable debate over whether storms are changing
• Lack of real data and only recent models
• Large historic variations
• No significant change in tropical storm numbers 1970-2004, except Atlantic1
• Observed changes in storms could be attributable to natural variation
• Observations suggest changes in Hs over time that are latitude dependent2
• Storm surge has been shown to be effected, but driven by local conditions
Reproduced from : Nobuhito Mori, T, Y. (2010), Projection of Extreme Wave climate Change under Global Warming, Hydrological Research letters, 4, 15-19
1 Knutson, T , (2010), Tropical Cyclones and Climate Change, Nature Geoscience 2 Nobuhito Mori, T, Y. (2010), Projection of Extreme Wave climate Change under Global Warming, Hydrological Research letters, 4, 15-19
26
Challenges facing existing ports: What could the impacts be?
• Increased downtime due to flooding and inundation of terminal areas, buildings and infrastructure
• Increased wave and storm surge activity
• Surface water drainage capacity
• Structural damage and durability (when combined temperature changes)
Waves batter a merchant vessel stranded along the coast during a heavy storm in Valparaiso
City, Chile, 121 km (75 miles) northwest of Santiago on July 6, 2010. (REUTERS/Eliseo
Fernandez)
27
Challenges facing existing ports: And when combined with other changes?
Reproduced from Kong, D, Setunge, S, Molyneaux, T, Zhang, G & Law D, 2013, Structural Resilience of core port infrastructure in a changing climate. Work Package 3 of Enhancing the resilience to seaports to a changing climate report series, National Climate Change Adaptation Facility, Gold Coast, Australia
• Combined changes in temperature & salinity may reduce service life
• Higher levels of maintenance intervention required
Port Development Scenarios
Segment 2: Development Scenario Considerations
13 May 2014 Formulation and Development of Port Development Scenarios
Port Development Scenarios
Segment 2: Development Scenario Considerations
Functional Requirements of a new port
13 May 2014 Formulation and Development of Port Development Scenarios
30
Development Scenarios – Finding a new site
• Deep sheltered water
• Good conditions for vessel manoeuvring
• Environmental conditions that maximise berth availability and minimise downtime (wind, wave)
• Availability (or ability to form) yard area
• Good transport links
• Good ground conditions
• Suitable existing land use and zoning
• Available labour force
• Must allow the port to evolve
31
Development Scenario Considerations: Accomodating trade type (1)
Trade Requirements
Containers • Continuous linear quay • Range of vessels sizes from feeders (50TEU) to ULCS
(>12,500TEU) • Manoeuvrable – usually have bow thrusters • Quick turnaround times needed <24hrs • Usually use ship-to-shore cranes • Quayside needs to efficiently move and stack/retrieve large
numbers of containers
General Cargo
• Always handled at the quayside • Vessels typically 700dwt to 15,000dwt • Variety of off loading equipment needed depending on
cargo. Usually quayside crane and forklift. Can be ships gear.
Solid bulks • Handled at jetty or quayside, but loading/unloading system that can reach each hold
• Range in size from Handy Max to Very Large Bulk Carriers (over 180,000dwt). Largest (500,000dwt) draw 25m
• Loaded through loaders, unloaded through grabs or vacuum • Stored/retrieved from stockpiles with conveyor
32
Development Scenario Considerations: Accomodating trade type (2) Trade Requirements
Oils • Handled at jetties • Cargos piped to onshore storage facilities – can be remote • Commodity grades and viscosities variable – dedicated
pipelines or cleansing system. Can require heated pipes
Gas • Handled at jetties – similar to oils • LNG and LPG handled as liquids through pressurisation or
cooling • Hazardous materials requiring careful design and handling
Chemicals • Usually handled at jetties • Typically limited draft • Required large array of pipelines to handle multiple products • Vessel usually loaded via flexible hose rather than loading
arm
Passengers • Quayside with good landside connections to move passengers through quickly
Ferries and Ro-Ro
• Vessels vary significantly • Requires rapid unloading and storage (on/off terminal) of
vehicles
33
Development Scenario Considerations: Other considerations
Tugs, pilots and line boats
• Most major ports have compulsory pilotage
• Pilot boarding outside of port entrance or approach channel
• Tugs usually come along side and make fast outside of any breakwaters
• Line boats may be needed, more likely on jetties
• Safe mooring needs to be provided for tugs, line boats and pilots.
34
Development Scenario Considerations: Design Vessel
• Vessel forecast identified design vessel for each trade type
• Design vessel usually the largest likely, but not necessarily. Could be the least manoeuvrable
• Informs the design of dredged depths and berth length
• Design to give safe navigation and berthing for all likely vessels
• Unlikely that each container berth will need to accommodate the design vessel simultaneously – design vessel often a rare visitor
• Design for a realistic vessel spectra
35
Development Scenario Considerations: Design Vessel
Makassar Worked Example: Design Vessel
Trade: Container
Historic arrivals: typically 7,000 – 8,000 dwt (700-1000 TEU)
The aging fleet means that these are likely to be replaced with steadily increasingly
sized vessels.
Likely that at the end of the design life, Panamax sized vessels could be calling at
Makassar. Example design vessel CMA-CGM Georgia:
LOA: 294m
Beam: 32.2m
Draft: 13.5m
Capacity 5,085 TEU
Likely to be calling toward the end of the design life.
Berth structures to be designed to accommodate.
Dredging could be phased over time.
Port Development Scenarios
Segment 2: Development Scenario Considerations
Establishing Baseline Conditions
13 May 2014 Formulation and Development of Port Development Scenarios
37
Development Scenario Considerations: Establishing physical baseline conditions
• Topographic and Bathymetric
• Metocean
• Wind
• Waves
• Currents
• Tides
• Coastal
• Geotechnical
• Environmental
38
Development Scenario Considerations: Establishing physical baseline conditions
• Topographic and Bathymetric
• Determine dredge and reclamation volumes
• Inputs to hydrodynamic models
• Can use charts if current- fairsheets if possible
• Sidescan
• Should overlap
39
Development Scenario Considerations: Establishing physical baseline conditions
• Important to understand relationship between sea and land datums at the site:
• Land Datum: Constant level plane
• Sea Datum (CD): Not constant
dependant on tidal range
• Difference between datums site specific
• Should be confirmed for each site
Land Datum
40
Development Scenario Considerations: Establishing physical baseline conditions
• Metocean
• Wind and waves – crane downtime, vessel downtime, berth alignment, cope levels, structural design, mooring loads, breakwaters
• Tides and Water levels – surges, dredging and reclamation levels
• Currents – berthing and mooring, tug requirements, sedimentation
• All need long sample times to cover cycles
• Wind for wave hindcasting needs high resolution sampling at regular intervals over a long period
• Good to collect all data at the same time
41
Development Scenario Considerations: Establishing physical baseline conditions
• Geotechnical Investigation
• Confirm dredging viability and cost
• Establish suitable reclamation material
• Input to structural design
• Combination of geophysics supplemented with ground truthing tests
• Boreholes
• CPTs
42
Development Scenario Considerations: Establishing physical baseline conditions
• Coastal
• Understand Littoral transport
• Assess accretion/erosion
• Assess Sedimentation
• Evaluate impacts to Water quality
43
Development Scenario Considerations: Discussion
• How long should port infrastructure be designed to last?
• How severe a storm should a port be designed for?
44
Development Scenario Considerations: Design life and extreme events
Port Development Scenarios
Segment 2: Development Scenario Considerations
Basic Layouts
13 May 2014 Formulation and Development of Port Development Scenarios
46
Port Master Planning – Basic Layouts
• What’s the difference between a port and a harbour?
47
Development Scenario Considerations: Basic Coastal Harbour Layouts
• Objective:
• Simple is best
• Keep options open – consider a wide range
• Provide sheltered water with substantial land areas
• Consider size of back-up area needed – 500m/m for modern container port
48
• Develop a natural harbour
• Create a new harbour
Development Scenario Considerations: Basic Coastal Harbour Layouts
49
Development Scenario Considerations: Create a new harbour – Puerto Caucedo, Dominican Republic
50
Development Scenario Considerations: Develop and natural harbour – Port Botany, Australia
51
• Cut a channel
Development Scenario Considerations: Basic Coastal Harbour Layouts
52
Development Scenario Considerations: Cut channel – El Sokhna Port, Egypt
53
• Use an existing island
• Create and island
Development Scenario Considerations: Basic Coastal Harbour Layouts
54
Development Scenario Considerations: Island creation – Fisherman’s Island, Australia
55
• Old ports – low handling rates
• New ports – high handling rates
Development Scenario Considerations: Basic Harbour Configurations
56
Development Scenario Considerations: Old style port - Jakarta
57
Video: Jebel Ali Port Terminal 3
Port Development Scenarios
Segment 3: Development Scenarios – Port Approaches and Sizing
13 May 2014 Formulation and Development of Port Development Scenarios
59
Video: the importance of getting it right
Port Development Scenarios
Segment 3: Development Scenarios – Port Approaches and Sizing
Approaches, channels and basins
13 May 2014 Formulation and Development of Port Development Scenarios
61
Development Scenario Considerations: Establishing Navigational Areas - Channels
Definitions:
• Approach channel – links the berths of a port to the open sea
• ‘outer’ channel – exposed
• ‘inner’ channel – sheltered
• Channel and fairway – a feature of a waterway that has enough width and depth to allow vessels to transit. Buoyed
PIANC 121::2014
62
Development Scenario Considerations: Establishing Navigational Areas - Channels
• Objectives
• Minimise transit time to the port
• Minimise access restrictions
• Channel dimensions a function of:
• Size of vessel
• Manoeuvrability of vessels
• Winds
• Currents
• Choice of one-way or two-way is a economic one:
• Dredging costs (both capital and maintenance)
• Volume of traffic and likely demurrage costs
• The transit time and VTMS system
• Pilotage and tug availability
63
Development Scenario Considerations: Establishing Navigational Areas - Channels
• Rule of thumb:
• One-way container channel: 3.6 - 6 x beam
(>5 x beam for oil and gas)
• Two-way channel: 6.2 - 9 x beam
64
Development Scenario Considerations: Establishing Navigational Areas - Channels
• Manoeuvring lane typically: 1.3 to 2.0 x Beam
• Sensitive to lateral wind areas: tankers in ballast, cruise and container
• Cross currents can cause yaw: 0.5 x Beam
• Caution with proximity to banks and other vessels – can cause suction
• 2-way channel clearance >30m or largest B
• Widen channel at bends >10o to at least 4 x Beam, can be more. Depth dependant
• Minimum curve radius >10 x greatest LOA
• Should not be designed for ‘hard over’ rudder
• Should avoid vessel heading for quay during approach
65
Development Scenario Considerations: Establishing Navigational Areas - Depths • Depth sufficient for safe manoeuvring at lowest water level
allow for: • Maximum loaded draft of the design vessel • Water Level: • Tide • Surge – note can be positive or negative • Climate change – more later • Atmospheric pressure • Vessel motion (roll, pitch, yaw and heave) • Vessel trim during loading • Squat • Seabed characteristics • Salinity • Siltation • Measurement errors
• Need not be the same as the berth box
66
Development Scenario Considerations: Establishing Navigational Areas - Depths
Minimum gross UKC Rules of Thumb:
Open Sea, High Speed ships, exposed to strong swells:
30% of max draft.
Exposed channels, exposed to swell: 25% of max draft.
Exposed manoeuvring and berthing area: 20% of max draft.
Protected manoeuvring and berthing area: 10-15% of max draft.
67
Development Scenario Considerations: Establishing Navigational Areas - Depths
Consider tidal restricted access:
From PIANC report 121:2014
68
Development Scenario Considerations: Establishing Navigational Areas - Depths
Tidal restricted access - The Port of Newcastle:
69
Development Scenario Considerations: Establishing Navigational Areas – Swinging
• Usually in the basin, adjacent or as part of the channel
• Usual to make the turn during entry (i.e. under ballast)
• Typically on berth bow to sea
• Diameter will depend on:
• Vessel manoeuvrability
• Tug assistance
• Local conditions
• Rules of Thumb: Minimum for design 2 x LOA
Vessel with Bow Thrusters
With tug assistance Diameter as x of LOA
4 – 5
2.5
1.5
70
Development Scenario Considerations: Establishing Navigational Areas – Channel
Makassar Worked Example: Approach Channel Development
Design Vessel:
LOA: 294m
Beam: 32.2m
Draft: 13.5m
Design Depth:
Assume 85% load factor, so design draft = 0.85 x 13.5 = 11.5m
Outside the reef assume 20% UKC = 11.5 x 1.2 = 13.8m
Inside the manoeuvring area 10% UKC = 11.5 x 1.1 = 12.6m
Adopt = 12.5m
Design Width:
Check narrowest point: 150m, depth 15m
150m = 4.7 x beam = OK
Turning Area:
2.5 x LOA = 735m
No constraints.
71
Development Scenario Considerations: Confirming Navigation Design
• Can be useful to confirming navigation through simulation as design progresses.
• Fast-time simulation cost effective
• Real-time simulation
• Part Mission – good for option development
• Full Mission – should be use to confirm final design and train pilots
72
Development Scenario Considerations: Example Fast-time simulation
30kn wind from NW
2.1kn current from SE
Arrival: ‘comfortable’
Departure: ‘challenging’
73
Development Scenario Considerations: Example Full-Mission Simulation
Port Development Scenarios
Segment 3: Development Scenarios – Port Approaches and Sizing
Basin and Berth box
13 May 2014 Formulation and Development of Port Development Scenarios
75
Development Scenario Considerations: Basin and Berth Box
• The area adjacent to the berth
• Vessel will complete final berthing manoeuvres and sit along side throughout tidal cycle:
• Needs to accommodate vessel manoeuvring:
• Minimum width ≥ 1.25 x Vessel Beam
• Minimum length≥ 1.25 x Vessel Length
• Depth need to accommodate vessel draft at all tides and loading states
76
Development Scenario Considerations: Selection of berth length
• Governed by ability to berth and un-berth design vessel
• Clearance typically multiple of largest vessel length: 0.1L for sheltered, 0.2L if exposed.
• Rough guide 30m for daylight berthing, 50m for night berthing
• Base total length on vessel size distribution
• Note – does not apply to jetty berths which are vessel length specific
77
Development Scenario Considerations: Selection of berth length
• Time vessels spent queuing will be determined by berth availability
• Typically aim for waiting to service time ratios of:
Bulk: <0.3
General Cargo: <0.2
Containers: <0.1
• For containers:
• Assume continuous wharf length
• Initial estimate: Rule of Thumb: 1,000-1,400 TEU/m of quay
• Confirm acceptable waiting to service time ratio
78
Development Scenario Considerations: Determining Berth length
Makassar Worked Example: Total Berth Length
Trade forecast: 3M TEU per annum in 2036.
Rough Estimate:
Assume 1,200 TEU/m of quay = 2,500m of quay length required.
Port Development Scenarios
Segment 3: Development Scenarios – Port Approaches and Sizing
Terminal and Yard Sizing
13 May 2014 Formulation and Development of Port Development Scenarios
80
Development Scenario Considerations: Establishing Yard Dimensions
Typic
ally
about
500m
81
Development Scenario Considerations: Establishing Yard Dimensions - Apron
Typically about 50m
83
Development Scenario Considerations: Establishing Yard Dimensions - Yard
• Demand based calculation based on (see earlier workshop):
• No of containers
• Dwell time
• Storage density
• Import, export, transhipment,
• Development Scenario based on benchmark: 40-50,000 TEU/ha/yr
84
Development Scenario Considerations: Determining Terminal Dimension
Makassar Worked Example: Total Terminal Area
Trade forecast: 3M TEU per annum.
Rough Estimate:
Assume 40,000 TEU/ha/yr = 75 ha of yard area required.
Given quay length of 2,500m (see above) = 300 net yard depth
500m total terminal depth – 50m apron – 130m for back of port = 320m. OK
50
m
13
0m
3
20
m
50
0m
Port Development Scenarios
Segment 4: Development Scenarios – Berth Availability and Engineering
13 May 2014 Formulation and Development of Port Development Scenarios
Port Development Scenarios
Segment 4: Development Scenarios – Berth Availability and Engineering
Calmness and efficiency at berth
13 May 2014 Formulation and Development of Port Development Scenarios
87
Development Scenario Considerations: Berth Availability and Calmness
• Vessel movement at berth can affect efficiency
• 3 translational movement: surge, sway, heave
• 3 rotational: roll, pitch, yaw
88
Development Scenario Considerations: Berth Availability and Calmness
• How far can a vessel move before loading/unloading is affected?
• Which direction of motion is likely to be worst for container loading/unloading?
• How many days per year should the berth be available?
89
Development Scenario Considerations: Berth Availability and Calmness
• Caused by:
• Passing vessels
• Tides
• Wind
• Waves
• Local waves – fetch, duration limited. 5-10s.
• Swell waves – propagated from distant storms. 8-20s.
• Long Waves – low frequency/surfbeat/infragravity. Solitary or with wave group. 30s - >minutes
90
Development Scenario Considerations: Berth Availability and Calmness – vertical motions
• Heave, roll, pitch:
• 15s natural oscillation
• swell waves
• PIANC Rpt 2012:115 recommends orientating berths into waves
91
Development Scenario Considerations: Berth Availability and Calmness – horizontal motions
• Surge, sway, yaw
• 40-80s natural oscillation
• long periods waves
• Most critical whilst at berth
92
Development Scenario Considerations: Berth Availability and Calmness
• Acceptable movement depends on vessel type and size:
• PIANC 1995:
93
Development Scenario Considerations: Berth Availability and Calmness
Acceptable vessel motions- current guidance (PIANC Rpt 2012-115):
PIANC 2012-115:
94
Development Scenario Considerations: Berth Availability and Calmness
Smaller Container vessels, PIANC 2012-115 recommends:
95
Development Scenario Considerations: Berth Availability and Calmness
Assess by:
• Numerical modelling of wave agitation at the berth
• Mooring analysis
• Physical modelling
Design out if necessary by:
• Selection of berth orientation – usually within 30o of prevailing wind direction
• Consider sheltering the berths – either with reclamation or breakwaters – most effective for local and swell waves
• Consider risk of long wave activity
96
Development Scenario Considerations: Berth Availability and Calmness
Case Example: Port Kembla
Port Kembla has a history of wave agitation in the outer harbour Photo taken during a storm in 1950 (modified from Figure 3 of Fitzpatrick and Sinclair, 1954)
97
Development Scenario Considerations: Berth Availability and Calmness
– Numerical seiching modelling of masterplan
– Clear long wave seiching axis
– Revised master plan eliminated seiching
– Modifications made to tug harbour
98
Development Scenario Considerations: Berth Availability and Calmness
Image courtesy New South Wales Ports (formerly Port Kembla Port Corporation)
Port Development Scenarios
Segment 4: Development Scenarios – Berth Availability and Engineering
Dredging, reclamation and berth structures
13 May 2014 Formulation and Development of Port Development Scenarios
100
Development Scenario Considerations: Dredging and reclamation
• Objective to minimise both or achieve balance
• Minimise dredging in hard materials
• Maximise opportunity to re-use
• Looking for good engineering fill
• Soft ground can usually be improved
101
Development Scenario Considerations: Grab dredger
Jan de Nul Postnik Yakovlev 40m3
102
Development Scenario Considerations: Trailing suction hopper dredger for maintenance dredging
Jan de Nul Manzillo II 4,000m3
103
Development Scenario Considerations: Cutter suction hopper dredger for dredging in stiff clays and soft
rocks
104
Development Scenario Considerations: Bucket Dredgers for fine work
105
Sweep Barge for maintenance dredging
106
Development Scenario Considerations: Ground improvement
• Siagon Premier Container Terminal
• 950m long wharf, 40ha yard
• Deep soft soils
108
Development Scenario Considerations:
• What’s the difference between a berth and a wharf?
109
Development Scenario Considerations: Selection of Berth Structure
• Gravity Walls
• Blockwork
• Caisson
• Cellular sheet piled
• Sheet Walls
• Tied Sheet pile wall
• Combi-wall
• Open structure
• Suspended deck
• Jetty
110
Development Scenario Considerations: Selection of Berth Structure – Gravity Walls
• Doha Port, Qatar (March 2014)
111
Development Scenario Considerations: Selection of Berth Structure – Gravity Walls
• Blockwork
• Caisson
• Cellular sheet piled Advantages: Issues
Robust and durable Tie rear crane beam
Minimal maintenance High mass, high seismic loads
Block work can be built underwater
Require good founding strata
Good where the final depth and dredged depth are the same
Sensitive to differential settlement
Block work needs large casting yard
Caissons need depth to float in
Can hinder vessel through increased reflection
112
Development Scenario Considerations: Selection of Berth Structure – Anchored bulkhead
• Port Kembla, Australia – Berth 103
• Tied circular pile bulkhead wall
113
Development Scenario Considerations: Selection of Berth Structure – Sheet Walls
• Tied Sheet pile wall
• Combi-wall
Advantages: Issues
Reduced weight of wall Lower tie can be difficult to install
Flexible, can accommodate changes in earth pressures
Front crane loads carried on piles – deep penetration needed in soft ground
Tubular piles in combi walls make it less vulnerable to variable ground conditions
Corrosion of steel piles
Can hinder vessels through increased reflection
114
Development Scenario Considerations: Selection of Berth Structure – Open Piled
Berth 6, Manilla, 2013
115
Development Scenario Considerations: Selection of Berth Structure – Open Piled
• Open piled
Advantages: Issues
Tubular piles in combi walls make it less vulnerable to variable ground conditions
Slender structure, sensitive to overloading
Fixed rail gauge
Widely used
Reduces wave reflection
116
Development Scenario Considerations: Selection of Berth Structure – Jetty
• Not suitable for container trades
• LNG Woodside, WA
• Used composite steel/concrete piles in 30m spans
Port Development Scenarios
Segment 4: Development Scenarios – Berth Availability and Engineering
Utilities and shore connections
13 May 2014 Formulation and Development of Port Development Scenarios
119
Development Scenario Considerations: Utilities
• Power:
• During construction and operation
• Usually from local grid
• Emergency power supply – port responsibility
• Power demand can be large – container cranes and reefers
• Substations likely
• Water:
• During construction and operation
• Usually from public network
• If remote may need de-salination plant
120
Development Scenario Considerations: Utilities
• Fire Fighting
• During construction and operation
• Depends on trade types and port size
• May need own supply
• Bulk liquids and LNG need special consideration
• Liquid and solid waste
• During construction and operation
• Usually public network
• If not, space will need to be allocated
• Communications
• Phones lines, IT etc usual
121
Development Scenario Considerations: Transport connections • Road traffic to/from the port
• Lanes provision and capacity • Distance to road network • Parking space for short, intermediate and long stay • Availability and quality of truck services • Customs and security regulation
• Rail traffic to/from the port • The number, length and capacity of rail • Railway gauge compatibility • Technical standards (electrification, signalling system,
radio systems) • Distance to rail network • Marshalling yards • Customs and security regulation (potential jams,
container checks)
122
Development Scenario Considerations: Transport connections
• Inland waterways traffic to/from the port
• Vessel sizes
• Tidal influence and lock operations
• Availability of services (bunkering, linesmen, pilot services)
• Availability and quality of handling services
• Pipelines and conveyors
• Distance between port and source or storage
• Intermediate storage capacities on both sides
• Terrain structure
• Safety and security regulation
• Noise and emissions
Port Development Scenarios
Segment 5: Development Scenario and Assessment – Case Studies
13 May 2014 Formulation and Development of Port Development Scenarios
Port Development Scenarios
Segment 5: Development Scenario and Assessment – Case Studies
Part 1: International Example
13 May 2014 Formulation and Development of Port Development Scenarios
Port Development Scenarios
Segment 5: Development Scenario and Assessment
Part 2: The Port of Makassar
13 May 2014 Formulation and Development of Port Development Scenarios
126
Segment 5: Application to Makassar Port
• In this segment we will apply some of these considerations to the development of the options considered for the pilot port project at Makassar
127
Development Scenarios: Makassar Port
Development Objectives:
• 1.2M TEU for Phase 1 with scope to grow
• Panamax design vessel
Baseline data:
• Bathymetric
• Geotechnical
• Wind
128
Development Scenarios: Makassar Port Scope to develop existing terminals
129
Development Scenarios: Makassar Port Scope to develop existing terminals
• Hatta:
• 850m caisson wharf
• 150m extension
• Design water depth 12m (2012 survey shows 10.8m)
• Yard width 150-240m
• Yard area: 11.4 hectares
• Quay Cranes: 7
• 2012 handled 548,000 TEU
• Design terminal capacity: 700,000 TEU
• Soekarno
• 1360m wharf
• 9m depth
130
Development Scenarios: Makassar Port Scope to develop existing terminals
Hatta:
• Caisson not readily deepened
• Inefficient container storage
• Yard area constrains planning
• Yard depth primary constraint
• Ultimate capacity could be 800,000TEU
• Efficient capacity limit about 550,000TEU – today’s throughput
• Road network congested
Soekarno:
• Not deep enough for containers
• Suited to handling bulks
Need for new container terminal confirmed
131
Development Scenarios: Makassar Port Location of new site
132
Development Scenarios: Makassar Port Baseline data
133
Development Scenarios: Makassar Port Baseline data
134
Development Scenarios: Makassar Port Baseline data
135
Development Scenarios: Makassar Port Baseline data
136
Development Scenarios: Makassar Port Baseline data
Point Depth (m) Soil Description SPT Value (N)
BH - 1
0.00 – 4.90 Very Soft silt ; black 0 - 14
4.95 – 6.00 Silty clay ; black 14 – 59
6.00 – 6.75 Sand - clamshell 59
6.75 – 20.00 Clay stone ; greyish black 60
BH - 2
0.00 – 5.10 Very soft mud silt ; grey - black
0 – 11
5.10 – 6.20 Silty clay ; black 11 – 14
6.20 – 7.00 Sand coarse – clamshell 14 – 37
7.00 – 20.00 Clay stone ; greyish black 37 – 60
BH -3
0.00 – 4.90 Very soft silt ; grey - black 0 – 6.25
4.90 – 5.90 Silty clay ; black 6.25 – 7.5
5.90 – 7.00 Sandy clay – clamshell ; black 7.5 – 33.75
7.00 – 20.00 Clay stone ; grey - black 33.75 – 58.75
137
Development Scenarios: Makassar Port Baseline data
Point Depth (m) Soil Description SPT Value (N)
BH - 4
0.00 – 3.90 Soft silt ; black 0 – 8.75
3.90 – 4.90 Silty clay ; black 8.75 – 31.25
4.90 – 5.70 Silty clay ; grey 31.25 – 48.75
5.70 – 6.30 Sand coarse – clamshell ; black 48.75 – 58.75
6.30 – 20.00 Clay stone ; black 60
BH – 5
0.00 – 6.00 Silt ; black 0 – 10
6.00 – 7.00 Silty clay ; black 10 – 57.5
7.70 – 8.40 Sand coarse – clamshell ; black 57.5
8.40 – 20.00 Clay stone ; greyish black 60
BH - 6
0.00 – 6.00 Very soft silt – clamshell ; black 0
6.00 – 7.70 Silty clay ; black 58.75
7.70 – 8.40 Sand coarse ; grey 58.75
8.40 – 20.00 Clay stone ; black 60
138
Development Scenarios: Makassar Port Baseline data
• Metocean
• Wind data obtained
• Review of wave climate
• Anecdotal
• hindcasted
139
Development Scenarios: Makassar Port Baseline data
• Traffic review issues:
• Local road network narrow and congested
• Parking/waiting area for trucks
• Narrow bridge crossing Tallo river
• Toll plaza entry points
• Improvements to the road network are planned which should open up this area to development
140
Development Scenarios: Makassar Port Development Scenario – key objectives
• Suitable for private sector participation
• Able to cater for long term growth
• Minimising environmental impacts.
• Minimising risks associated with re-zoning and approvals
• Safe marine access
• Maximising terminal efficiency
• Efficient land access and transport
• Economical staging of major civil works such as dredging, reclamation and breakwaters.
• Cost
141
Development Scenarios: Makassar Port Development Scenario – local connections
142
Development Scenarios: Makassar Port Development Scenario – Sizing
• Channel width >110m
• 600m turning basins
• 1,000m quay Phase 1
• 500m yard depth
• 12.5mCD dredge depth
143
Development Scenarios: Makassar Port Stage 1 Options
144
Development Scenarios: Makassar Port Stage 2 Option Refinement
• Option 1
145
Development Scenarios: Makassar Port Stage 2 Option Refinement
• Option 2
146
Development Scenarios: Makassar Port Stage 2 Option Refinement
• Option 3
147
Development Scenarios: Makassar Port Stage 2 Option – Relative Assessment Option
Private sector ready
Growth Potential
Safe marine access
Berth availability
Terminal Efficiency
Dredging and reclamation Compliance with spatial plan Costs
148
Development Scenarios: Makassar Port Stage 2 Option – Preferred Option
• Insignificant cost difference
• Increased growth potential
149
Development Scenarios: Makassar Port Stage 2 Option – Development Phasing
150
Video: Khalifa Port – Abu Dhabi
151
Thank you.