Project Name: Construction of New Fuel Oil Unloading Marine Terminal (Jetty)#2 at Ra ig!

"ower "lant #etter No ,ate $ %#F&'ite(')C(2**2*22+(R""JT2(#&+* $ *2 June 2+*-

ATT.

: Engr. Khaled Al Hawsawi "ro.ect Manager New Fuel Oil Terminal Jetty&2 ')C& Ra ig!
: Engr. Tarek Al Habashy Deputy Project Manager,

CC

New Fuel Oil Terminal Jetty&2 ')C& Ra ig!

Engr. Nasser Awamleh Offshore Civil Engineer,

New Fuel Oil Terminal Jetty&2 ')C& Ra ig!

Mr. Taher Qareshi ILF Design review team E-mail: tahirbq@hotmail.com Fax : +966 1 464 75 40

'u .ect

$ Transmittal JS/SEC/2

2 22!/"PPJT2/#$%&' ( #$%&)

Dear Gentlemen, After reviewing the Approach Trestle Drawings and the Calculation Note for Approach Trestle, Roadway we have following comments: General The Trestle is actually a bridge, in these comments it is called trestle and/or bridge Concrete grade and quality should be shown on every drawing. Steel grade and bar bending schedule are missing. The bridge has two spans with different slopes, 0% and 8%. For construction, this is not very clever. For the beam endings and bearings, the contractor faces 3 different details instead of one or two. These comments dont answer the question of the width of the road.

The bearings and fixations bring horizontal forces to the substructure. Are the piles calculated due to this forces? horizontal forces will appear from elastomeric bearings and from friction between steel plates due to shrinkage of the bridge (temperature changes, etc..). are these considered in the pile design?

in the calculation, the loads are distributed over the beams. this is onl possible, if there are transversal beams not only at the end of the structure, but also in the middle of the span. for 14 m, 2 transversal beams are suggested. otherwise change the design calculation.

Drawings: J2-CIV-JT2-265-001 The shoe layout plan shows a bearing system, that doesnt match the rest of the drawings. The plot plan shows expansion joints at the both ends of the bridge, the bearing are arranged with fixed points at the ends and horizontal moving bearings in the middle. This doesnt work. Attached to this comments is a proposal for a new arrangement.

J2-CIV-JT2-220-001 (1/2) show reference to bearing details on other drawings longitudinal slope 4% over all will be more practical the approach bridge east of TP-2 is not measured. No thickness of the slab is shown, no span (only var. is given) how will JS make the scaffolding and formwork, how the bar bending schedule? What about the thickness of the approach bridge slab? Shear forces? We have serious doubts, that the thickness is sufficient. The cocer of the cable/pipe channel should be waterproof. add a compressive waterstop beneath the cover slab and an elastic joint sealant like shown in a sketch on the drawing.

J2-CIV-JT2-220-002 (2/2) Detail 3: the waterstop detail is not a good solution. If water gets into the joint and to the bottom of the 50/50 gap, it cannot come out any more and will destroy the construction. A better detail see attached sketch on scanned drawing. longitudinal slope 4% over all will be more practical

/age 2 ( )

the approach bridge east of TP-2 is not measured. No thickness of the slab is shown, no span (only var. is given) how will JS make the scaffolding and formwork, how the bar bending schedule? What about the thickness of the approach bridge slab? Shear forces? We have serious doubts, that the thickness is sufficient.

J2-CIV-JT2-221-001 the longitudinal slope should be 4% constant over all for easier constuction The elastic joints are designed at both ends of the bridge, in the middle joint there is no elastic joint. This is a contradiction to the bearing layout, that shows fixed joints at the ends and expansion joints at the middle support. The system of the trestle are two one-span-beams. That effects two different displacements at the beams when loads are moving along the bridge. Due to the height of the beams the top point of the girder end will make horizontal displacement. Also the length changes due to temperature changes will cause a movement. This means a expansion joint his highly necessary also in axis TP-1 (system Thorma-Joint or similar). left of PD-1 there are no racks for cables and pipes shown in the deck plan. Are you sure? Detail-1 expansion joint, claims to be system Algaflex. The Detail is not correct - see attached page from the Algaflex homepage. the Detail-1 shows also a leveling cement mortar. this is 1. technically wrong, 2. not according to the vendors approved material. The vendors drawing shows Firboreinforced rioplastic mortar TIIGROUT 102 FR see attached sketch. If the soft joint construction is combined with the hard concrete pavement by a cement mortar, this mortar will brake wre soon. The embedding mortar must be flexible. Detail-2 for the expansion joint of the pipeway is designed as a steel plate construction. It is noted, that we are close to the sea. A normal steel construction will rust in a few years. The design lifetime for the structure is at least 40 years. so all steel parts should be stainless steel. The above mentioned detail has a welding, this is not shown at the detail. Show the welding and the thickness of the weld. Section E shows a drainage gap in the concrete curb. That means all the water from the trestle will flow into the red sea. With all the dust and the dirt from the road. This might be accepted in KSA, but is not a sign of proper engineering. Normally the waste waters are collected in a pipe and led to a oil-water separator (oil-strainer).

J2-CIV-JT2-222-001 (1/2) section B JS calls it a full continuity insitu joint. It is actually called a movement or expansion joint. How can a joint be flexible, if the anchor bars 50mm diameter are embedded in non shrinkable mortar grout ? Also here all steel parts should be stainless steel. Detail-1: The end of a cantilever slab ALWAYS needs a water nose implement.

/age % ( )

between the concrete pavement and the top of the beams there must be a two layer bituminous water proof membrane. This layers must be torn down over the side of the cantilever and have a free part of minimum 100mm see also sketch on drawing. cable racks are attached to the concrete cannel. Are these loads attached to the outer beam (torsion moment!) ?. These moments also will cause reaction in the side wall of the channel is this taken in consideration? the bituminous layers must be covered by a concrete slab at any horizontal surface. enlarge the slab at the right side of the channel until the end of the cantilever.

J2-CIV-JT2-222-002 (2/2) section C JS calls it a full continuity insitu joint. It is actually called a movement or expansion joint. Detail-4: How can a joint be flexible, if the anchor bars 50mm diameter are embedded in non shrinkable mortar grout ? Also here all steel parts should be stainless steel. sections: The end of a cantilever slab ALWAYS needs a water nose implement. between the concrete pavement and the top of the beams there must be a two layer bituminous water proof membrane. This layers must be torn down over the side of the cantilever and have a free part of minimum 100mm see also sketch on drawing. cable racks are attached to the concrete cannel. Are these loads attached to the outer beam (torsion moment!) ?. These moments also will cause reaction in the side wall of the channel is this taken in consideration? the bituminous layers must be covered by a concrete slab at any horizontal surface. enlarge the slab at the right side of the channel until the end of the cantilever. Guard rail detail: the embedding of the rail stayer in the concrete curb is not accepted. This detail caused a lot of maintenance and lifetime problems at bidges. Make a base plate and anchor it into the curb. at any anchoring point of the guard rails there must be an additional reinforcement to guide the horizontal forces into the construction. calculate and show this reinforcement, also show the distance of these anchor points.

J2-CIV-JT2-250-001 show or refer to detail of elastic joint construction longitudinal slope 4% over all will be more practical add an elastic joint at the middle support of the bridge Also here all steel parts should be stainless steel. section C: at the end of the bridge the construction is wider than at the rest of the trestle. is there a separate detail calculation for the diaphragm beam? change the bearing details, so the expansion joints actually can move! at document D-365 on page 31, the calculation gives a bearing force of 715 kN. this is 71.5 tons. At the detail Js shows a 10to elastomeric bearing pad, this is obviously not correct. /age * ( )

if there is any change of the bearing parts necessary in future, how will it be done? Design a detail, where it is possible to change the bearing pads later on.

J2-CIV-JT2-260-001 show or refer to detail of elastic joint construction the gap between the bottom of the beams and the top of the concrete supports is very small. This gap might be filled with seaweed or similar and blocks the whole movement. Enlarge this gap. Also here all steel parts should be stainless steel. the waterproof membrane should have a loop at the joint at the middle support. The waterproof also should cover the vertical part of the beam ends

J2-CIV-JT2-263-001 Detail 3: see also the sketched detail on drawing .-220-002 Also here all steel parts should be stainless steel.

J2-CIV-JT2-264-001 Detail for lifting cable: this structure is ok, but very laborious. There are prefabricated systems, easy to install, easy to use. For example find a system attached. .

Calculation: J2-CIV-JT2-311 2. slope 0% and 8%, better 4% over all, see above page 4/31 section A: the section shows the enlarged diaphragm beam at the west abudment. this section is not calculated in the document. 4. Use latest edition of ACI 318! 2011 3.1.1. The model for load distribution to the single girders shows a continuous supported beam with the same stiffness over all. this is wrong here. The concrete pavement isnt connected to the girders, so it will work only as a distribution slab, but with different thickness from north to south. there is no connection between the beams themselves. so you cannot assume them as one system. supposed system :

/age ' ( )

or

3.1.1. The model for load distribution to the single girders shows a continuous supported beam with the same stiffness over all. this is wrong here. The concrete pavement isnt connected to the girders, so it will work only as a distribution slab, but with different thickness from north to south. there is no connection between the beams themselves. so you cannot assume them as one system.

3.2.1. The model for load distribution to the single girders shows a continuous supported beam with the same stiffness over all. this is wrong here. The concrete pavement isnt connected to the girders, so it will work only as a distribution slab, but with different thickness from north to south. there is no connection between the beams themselves. So you cannot assume them as one system. sketch see above

3.4.3. Load cases. Load case with Po1 and Po2 gives maximum Moments in the middle of the beam, but not the maximum shear force at the supports. Please add a load case with Po1 close to a support. All the other results depend on this additional load case. 3.6.1. The shear force line should be checked according to my previous comment. 3.1.1. the cross sections only show quarter and middle part. Near the western support, there is an enlargement of the beam. show this section as well 3.1.2. the cross section only shows the eastern end beam. Show the Western end beam as well, according to your additional calculations. Where is the calculation of the end beams? 4. if there are flexible bearings, what is a must, the rebars cannot be imbedded in mortar. Find a suitable solution. If the supports are constructed with these rebars, the bearings can never be changed again. Think about it and find a better solution. 4.2.3 if the bearings are designed correct (horizontally) there are no component forces according to the slope. The only horizontal forces will occur due to: breaking (car), wind, earthquake, forces out of friction steel-steel, elastic forces out of the deformed elastomeric pads.

/age & ( )

4.4 concrete breakout failure: is the end of the beams not reinforced? design a sufficient reinforcement, so concrete breakout is no question 5. There is no sliding joint in your support design. change the design according to previous comments. 5.1 according to your structure, the stopper is useless. 6. bearing design: for sliding constructions (which will be necessary in the design) you also have to calculate the thickness of the pad, not only the size. This is according to the expected movements of the bearing. The approach bridge east of the two spans is not calculated at all. no reinforcement shown, no detail designed.

The design calculations should be rejected.

These comments dont include a checking of the calculation itself. They shall only support the design review team of ILF/Saudconsult from a bridge-engineering point of view.

The detail design and calculations show many serious issues, partly bad mistakes. We are concerned about the engineering skills of JS.

_____________________

Engr. Markus Unterholzner MEng senior civil & structural Eng. ILF Consulting Engineers

/age ) ( )