528 p4

Vision Industrial Park
Namibia

Pre-Feasibility Study
Bulk Terminal

Appendix D - Structural Report

Prepared for
GECKO HOLDINGS

Prepared by
WML Coast (Pty) Ltd

VISION INDUSTRIAL PARK Pre-feasibility Study on Bulk Terminal

APPENDIX D - STRUCTURAL REPORT 22 J uly 2011
WML Coast 2
Vision Industrial Park

Namibia
Pre-feasibility Study
Bulk Terminal
Appendix D - Structural Report
Contents
1 Introduction ................................................................................... 3
2 Design Concept ............................................................................. 3
3 Design Pararmeters ...................................................................... 4
3.1 Design Methods and Standards ..................................................................... 4
3.2 Design Loads .................................................................................................... 5
3.2.1 Design Vessel ............................................................................................................ 5
3.2.2 Live Loads .................................................................................................................. 5
3.2.3 Dead Load .................................................................................................................. 5
3.2.4 Berthing Loads .......................................................................................................... 5
3.2.5 Mooring/Bollard Loads ............................................................................................... 6
3.2.7 Other Loads ................................................................................................................. 6
4 Piling Aspects ................................................................................ 7
4.1 Piling at Swakopmund Location ..................................................................... 7
4.1.1 Open Piled Access Causeway Piling ........................................................................ 7
4.1.2 Quay Structure Piles .................................................................................................. 7
4.1.3 Mooring Dolphin Piles ................................................................................................ 8
4.2 Piling Walvis Bay Location .......................................................................... 11
5 Concrete Deck Structure ............................................................ 14
6 Crack Control ............................................................................... 15

WML Coast 3

1 Introduction

This report has been compiled to describe the preliminary design process for the various
structural aspects of the bulk terminal options at Swakopmund and Walvis Bay. It should be
noted that design is limited to development of concept structural options and sizing of
structural elements towards cost estimation.
This report is an Appendix to the main report Vision Industrial Park Pre-feasibility
Study on Bulk Terminal Final Report dated 22 J uly 2011 which should be read in
conjunction with this report.
2 Design Concept

The proposed protective structures and bulk terminal concepts can all be divided into
different sections sharing the similar characteristics, namely: open piled access causeway,
armoured rock access causeway, armoured rock breakwater, quay structure for bulk
terminal, quay bridge structures and mooring dolphins.
This report will look at the design process followed in determining material quantities for all
parts of the proposed structural concepts, except for the armoured rock access causeway
and breakwater (which are dealt with in the breakwater design report).
The two locations considered for the bulk terminal (the Port of Walvis Bay and
Swakopmund) vary greatly with regards to the exposure conditions and sea floor. Walvis
Bay offers protection from severe wave action and the sea floor consist of sand. The location
in Swakopmund is totally exposed and the sea bed consists of rock.
Various different configurations were considered in order to allow the client to choose an
optimum configuration of the structures as well as the best location for the project.
The desired location for the project is along the coast at Swakopmund at a location between
Mile 6 and Mile 17. In this location the land onshore is potentially available for development
directly along the shore. It is also favoured due to its close proximity to the mines (where the
products from the industrial park are required). The two biggest drawbacks of building in this
location are the rocky sea floor and the exposed conditions. This negates the possibility of
dredging and necessitates the building of very long access structure in order to reach the
required depth necessary for the design vessels to be able to berth safely. Construction time
at this location is also greatly increased when compared to the location at Walvis Bay, due to
the difficulty of socketing piles into bed rock.
The exposed nature of the structure at Swakopmund has led to the design concept of
seperating the mooring structures from the quay structure. This is to protect the quay
structure in case approach velocities are exceeded.

WML Coast 4
Mooring dolphins with fenders are provided underneath the quay structure at intervals of
36m. Any damage caused by high energy impacts during berthing will thus only affect the
mooring dolphins and not the quay super structure.
The alternate location is in the Port of Walvis Bay. Here there is significant protection from
oceanic conditions as well as a sandy sea bed. This results in a smaller, cheaper structure
that will take less time to construct than the options at Swakopmund. The disadvantage of
building the structure here is that the land for development is behind the dunes, i.e. far from
shore. Therefore extra costs will be incurred in order to secure space for the development.
Another consideration is that this location is further away from the mines, this leads to an
increase in haulage distance and hence increases the cost of importing/exporting materials
at the terminal.
Furthermore, the layout of the quay structure differs significantly between the proposals for
Swakopmund and Walvis Bay. At Swakopmund berthing and mooring can only take place on
one side of the quay structure. This is neccessary due to the fact that the quay structure
needs to be in close proximity to the breakwater in order to be sufficiently protected. Another
reason is that dredging is not possible due to the rock formations on the sea floor, thus to
provide berthing/mooring facilities for larger vessels it is neccessary to extend the quay
further into the sea.At Walvis Bay berthing is possible on both sides of the quay structure
due to the protected nature of the location and the possibility of dredging to cater for vessels
of a larger size.
3 Design Pararmeters

3.1 Design Methods and Standards

The design codes used are listed below:
Design of Steel Piling: SANS 10162-1: 2005 (The structural use of steel, Part 1:
Limit-state design of hot-rolled steelwork).
Design of Reinforced Concrete (including stressing tendons): SABS 0100-1 (The
structural use of concrete, Part 1: Design)
Determination berthing loads: PIANC 2002 (Guidelines for the Design of Fender
Systems: 2002 Marcom Report of WG330)
Determination of Live Loads: Technical Manual for Highways 7
Load Combinations: SANS 10160 (Basis of structural design and actions for
buildings and industrial structures).
Due to the fact that the design process was preliminary only, many detail calculations were
omitted due to being insignificant in respect to the material quantities they represent. In other
cases certain assumptions were made by the design engineer in order to simplify the
design/costing process. What follows is a look at the procedures followed to determine
necessary material quantities for each option.

WML Coast 5

3.2 Design Loads

3.2.1 Design Vessel

The design vessel for the final stage of the project was used as the standard for all
calculations. This vessel has a mass of 80,000t. Due to the exposed nature of the structure a
relatively high approach speed of 0, 2m.s
-1
was assumed.

3.2.2 Live Loads

The access structure as well as the quay structure was assumed to be subjected to a
uniformly distributed load of 30kPa. This was determined through the adaptation of the
criteria set forth in the Technical Manual for Highways 7. This load was further multiplied by
a factor of 1.6 to get the ultimate limit state (ULS) design loads.
Initially the quay crane was included as its own load case, but it became apparent that the
assumed live load was always going to be the critical loading case when compared to the
specified crane. A separate load case for the crane was therefore discontinued.

3.2.3 Dead Load

Due to the fact that initial design was preliminary only and to be used for costing purposes it
was assumed that it is sufficient to consider the dead load as an evenly distributed load
across the deck. The value of this load was determined to be 18kPa by taking the total
weight of concrete in the deck and dividing it by the surface area. This value was multiplied
by a factor of 1.2 to get the ULS design loads.

3.2.4 Berthing Loads

Berthing loads were determines in accordance with PIANC 2002.
The energy required to be dissipated by the fenders was determined as follows.
E
N
= u.S - H- I
B
2
- C
M
- C
L
- C
C
- C
S

Where:
H = HossocsignIcsscl

WML Coast 6
I
B
= ApproocbSpccJ ocsignIcsscl
C
M
= AJJcJHossCocicicnt (= 1.8 occorJingtoIoscoCosto)
C
L
= EcccntricityCocicicnt (conscr:oti:clyossumcJto = u.667)
C
S
= SotncssCocicicnt (conscr:oti:clyossumcJto = 1)
C
C
= BcrtbConigurotionCocicicnt (conscr:oti:clyossumcJto = 1)
Therefore:
E
N
= u.S - 8uuuu - u.2
2
- 1.8 - u.667 - 1 - 1
= 192u k[
Using a safety factor of 1.5 as suggested by the Trelleborg (Safe Berthing and Mooring)
product catalogue, the design energy that needs to be dissipated comes to 2880kJ .
Assuming that two fenders will be placed next to each other and that energy will be uniformly
dissipated between the two fenders, we obtain design energy of 1440kJ per fender.
Using this value and the Trelleborg Marine Fender Catalogue, a SCN 1600 fender was
chosen. Therefore the required force that needs to be resisted by the berthing structure (the
quay structure in the case of Walvis Bay, and the berthing dolphin in the case of
Swakopmund) is 1855kN per fender (from the Energy-Reaction force diagrams supplied by
Trelleborg Marine) or a total of 3710kN per dolphin/contact point. Applying a live load safety
factor of 1.5, the final design force comes to 5565kN.

3.2.5 Mooring/Bollard Loads

In the design of the quay structure for Walvis Bay (Option 4) it was necessary to apply
berthing and mooring loads simultaneously, due to the fact the mooring takes place on both
sides of the structure. Thus, one ship could be moored while another berths on the other
side. It was assumed that mooring would be facilitated by four mooring lines each carrying a
load of 1000kN.
For the dolphin design, in the case of the Swakopmund locations, Berthing and mooring
loads were applied alternately. The reasoning behind this was that a ship cannot berth and
be moored to the same dolphin at the same time.

3.2.7 Other Loads

Due to the open nature of the trestle structure, the limited time available for the design of the
structures and the magnitude of the other design forces it was decided to ignore the effect of

WML Coast 7
wind, wave and current loads as well as temperature. Provision was made for
expansion/contraction joints at the discretion of the engineer.
4 Piling Aspects

4.1 Piling at Swakopmund Location

The fact that it is necessary to socket the piles into bedrock at this location makes it
impractical to use steel piles. The use of concrete piles cast in a steel tubing allows for
greater connectivity between the socketed base and the pile. The forces required to be
resisted by the piles was determined with the help of a finite element model. The final
reinforced pile design was done with the reinforced concrete design modules in the Prokon
design package and the structural effect of the steel pile casing was ignored (it effectively
acts as corrosion protection for the reinforced concrete core).

4.1.1 Open Piled Access Causeway Piling
The access trestle piling was designed with a distributed transverse load equal to 10% of the
deck live load. This force was further multiplied by a safety factor of 1.6 to give a total lateral
force of 96kN/m.

4.1.2 Quay Structure Piles

The loading combination used to design this quay structure is shown in figure 1 below. No
berthing loads were applied as mooring dolphins are provided at regular intervals and a high
energy collision with the quay structure is unlikely. Instead the structure was designed to
take all the live/dead loads described under loading conditions as well as a lateral force of
120kN/m. This force is equal to 10% of the deck live load and has been multiplied by a
safety fact of 1.6. It assumed to be sufficient to simulate wind and current loads as well as
any lateral loads caused by movement on top of the deck.

WML Coast 8

Figure 1: Critical Loading Case for Quay Structure at Swakopmund

The critical piles loads were identified and all quay structure piles were designed according
to these loads. The procedure followed is described at the end of the section on piles.

4.1.3 Mooring Dolphin Piles

Due to the positioning of the mooring dolphins underneath the quay structure, they are not
subjected to any loads except the berthing impact load and mooring loads. The forces in the
piles were determined through the use of the finite element model that was loaded either
with the berthing or the mooring loads. The two different load cases are shown in figures 2
and 3.


WML Coast 9

Figure 2: Load Case 1 for Mooring Dolphin Design


WML Coast 10

Figure 3: Load Case 2 for Mooring Dolphin Design

From these models the maximum forces required to be resisted by the piles was determined
for each load case, and the critical load case for each pile was identified. The reinforced
concrete design modules of Prokon were then used to determine the required reinforcing in
each pile. The procedure used to determine the required reinforcing in a circular concrete
pile is described below.
The forces required to be resisted by the back piles in the ULS are as follows:
P(Axiolorcc) = -28S9kN
H
x,top
= S2ukN
H
x,bot
= S2SkN
H
,top
= SkN

WML Coast 11
H
,bot
= SSkN
The pile was assumed to be fully fixed at the socket and connected monolithically connected
to the pile capping beam. Thus the column has end conditions of type one on both ends and
the effective length factor is equal to 0.75. The column is also assumed to be braced in both
X and Y directions.
This data is input into the circular concrete column design module in the Prokon analysis
software. The design process followed by the module is as follows:
(1) The column design charts are constructed.
(2) The design axis and design ultimate moment is determined.
(3) The steel required for the design axial force and moment is read from the relevant
design chart.
(4) The area steel perpendicular to the design axis is read from the relevant design chart.

For this pile:
A
s,cq
= 1u797mm
2

A
s,po
= 12S66mm
2
(1u -4u bors)
The shear reinforcing required is nominal and equates to R10 bars spaced at 300mm.
All other reinforced piles (including quay and access trestle piles in Swakopmund) were
designed according to the same methods.

4.2 Piling at Walvis Bay Location

The protection offered by the Port of Walvis Bay makes approach and berthing velocities
easier to controland predict, and thus the risk of damage to the structure is much lower than
in the exposed areas at Swakopmund. This negates the need for mooring dolphins as the
fenders can be attached to the quay structure. Raker piles are used in the quay structure to
counter the lateral berthing forces (see drawing 100610/433).
The sandy nature of the sea floor in the Port of Walvis Bay makes driving piles to depths
possible. In order to reduce construction time the piles for the proposed structure in this
location were designed as hollow circular sections. The required pile size was determined
using a finite element model (shown below) and applying the berthing loads, mooring loads,
live deck loads and dead loads in different combinations until a critical state was reached.
The critical combination is shown below in figure 4. It consists of the berthing force of one
vessel, a vessel moored with four lines, each carrying a load of 1000kN, and a full live and
dead load.

WML Coast 12

Figure 4: Critical Loading Case for Quay Structure at Walvis Bay

The pile size was chosen through trial and error with the help of the Prokon design
calculations. The interaction requirements that need to be met are expressed by the
following formulas as found in SANS 10162-1:2005.

a) Cross Sectional Strength

C
u
C
+
H
ux
H
x
+
H
u
H
1

b) Overall Member Strength

C
u
C
+
u
x1
H
ux
H
x
+
u
1
H
u
H
1

c) Lateral Torsional Buckling Strength

C
u
C
+
u
x1
H
ux
H
x
+
u
1
H
u
H
1


WML Coast 13
Where:
C
u
= uISAxiolorccintbcmcmbcrbcingconsiJcrcJ
H
ux
= ultimotcmomcntorounJtbcX - oxisotbcclcmcnt
H
u
= ultimotcmomcntorounJtbc - oxisotbcclcmcnt
u
1
= FoctoroccountingorscconJorJcrccctsJuctoJcormotionoclcmcnt
u
x1
= FoctoroccountingorscconJorJcrccctsJuctoJcormotionoclcmcnt
C
= Axiolrcsistonccomcmbcr(JicrcntossumptionsopplyinJctcrminingtbc:olucoro), b) onJc)
H
x
= HomcntrcststonccoclcmcntoboutX -oxis
H = Homcntrcststonccoclcmcntobout - oxis

When using a 1500x19mm steel pipe, and making use of the Prokon Design calculations
module, the interaction diagrams for the critical piles are as follows:
a)
11uuu
24uuu
+
217u
864u
+
49
864u
= u.7S

b)
11uuu
2uuuu
+
971
864u
+
2S
864u
= u.67

c)
11uuu
21uuu
+
217u
864u
+
2S
864u
= u.78

Therefore we can deduce that 1500x19mm piles will be sufficient.
The rigidity of the deck/pile capping beams cause forces to be relatively evenly distributed
between the piles, this coupled with the fact that the berthing impact could happen at various
points along the structure lead to a design specification of 1500x19mm piles throughout. It is
necessary to treat these piles with a form of corrosion protection before installation in order

WML Coast 14
to ensure the longevity of the structure. Cathodic protection has been provided for in the
quantity calculations to allow for corrosion protection.
The same piles were specified for the access structure without further calculations. It was
assumed that, due to the decreasing lengths of the piles and the loading conditions at this
location, the actual pile sizes derived from a detailed design of the situation would not differ
enough to create a significant change in the cost of the overall structure.
5 Concrete Deck Structure

The suspended deck was designed to consist of 18m precast concrete beams. These
beams span the gap between portals and tie in to the pile capping beams. There are two
different types of beams that form the deck of the structure: small T-beams and crane rail
beams (refer to attached drawings for cross sections of each particular option). The small T-
beams are used to form the entire deck of the access structure and a large part of the quay
structure deck. Two (four in the case of Walvis Bay) crane rail beams are provided per span
on the quay structure. Sections of the respective quay structures are shown in figures 5 & 6
below:

Figure 5:
Section
of proposed quay structure for Swakopmund


WML Coast 15

Figure 6: Section of proposed quay structure for Wal vis Bay
It is envisaged that the pile capping beams be constructed as precast trough units to be filled
on-site with an in-situ cast. This will make the handling and placing of these beams easier as
well as allowing space for steel from the precast deck beams to tie into the beam and create
a rigid deck once the final in-situ casts have set.
6 Crack Control

Due to the exposed nature of the structure it is neccessary to limit crack control in order to
protect the steel reinforcement. The standard design limitation on crack controlin reinforced
concrete is 0.3mm.This is often adjusted in marine environments and limited to 0.15mm for
the ultimate limit state and 0.1mm for the serviceability limit state in order to offer greater
corosion protection for the reinforcing steel.
Due to the conservative approach taken in determining the design live loads, it becomes
impractical to limit the cracks to 0.15mm. The deck structure was therefore designed to allow
cracking up to 0.2mm under full live load (30kPa). It is highly unlikely that the structures will
ever be loaded in such a way that this load is acheived. This coupled with the fact that the
loads are mainly made up of moving vehichles makes it very unlikely that a crack width of
0.15mm willbe exceeded for any siginificant period of time.

WML Coast 16
In order to control crack width the reinforcing for ULS was determined as if crack width was
not a limitation. Calculations were then performed to determine the maximum bending
moment experienced before the crack width exceeds the allowable size. Prestressing
tendons were designed to counter the maximum moment to which the beam is subjected
and bring the resultant moment experienced under ULS to within an acceptable range.
Provision has been made for hogging steel in order to resist the moment created by the
tendons in case no live load is present.
An example of the spreadsheet used to determine crack widths and critical moments is
shown below. The precedure followed is detailed in Annexure A of SABS 0100-1, Edition
2.2.

Properties EquivalentConcreteProperties CrackWidth
d(tocentreof
reinforcement) 2374.00 Area 100533.3333 hx 1703.524
covertoreinforcing 126 Chosendepth 252 a' 2500.000
b 1000 EqConcreteb 398.9417989 x 796.476
h 2500
Sameasbar
diameter 40 bt 1000.000
As 15080 EqConcreteb 2513.333333 h 2500.000
Es 200 E1 0.000730
Ec 30 Ets 0.000203
RebarDiameter 40 Em 0.000527
Neutralaxisdepth
(Ec/2) 796.4764842 acr 131.894
ae 13.33333333 cmin 106.000
q 0.006352148
x/d 0.335499783 w 0.202323
x 796.4764842
Eeff 15
Straincalcs
Mmax 4300
Ic/bd^3 0.04998607
Ic 6.68792E+11
Es 0.000676179
Strain(E1) 0.000730187

Compiled by Coenraad Coetzer
WML Coast (Pty) Ltd

528 p4

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

528 p4

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Vision Industrial Park

Vision Industrial Park

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi