Day 1 development scenarios english final

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


Segment 1: Port Master Planning Overview



Segment 1: Port Master Planning

Master Planning Approach


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


Segment 1: Port Master Planning Overview

The Challenges facing existing ports


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


• Significant historic increase in container tonnage

14

Challenges facing existing ports: Changes in cargo type


• 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


Container ships are getting bigger

Clifford Maersk (8,000 TEU) docked at Tanjung Pelepas (Photo: AECOM)

17


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

Videos/1 - Maersk Line Triple-E- The largest, most efficient ship in the world.mp4

19


• 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


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


Segment 2: Development Scenario Considerations




Functional Requirements of a new port


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.



Establishing Baseline Conditions


37

Development Scenario Considerations: Establishing physical baseline conditions

• Topographic and Bathymetric

• Metocean

• Wind

• Waves

• Currents

• Tides

• Coastal

• Geotechnical

• Environmental

38


• Topographic and Bathymetric

• Determine dredge and reclamation volumes

• Inputs to hydrodynamic models

• Can use charts if current- fairsheets if possible

• Sidescan

• Should overlap

39


• 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


• 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


• 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


• 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



Basic Layouts


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


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


52

Development Scenario Considerations: Cut channel – El Sokhna Port, Egypt

53

• Use an existing island

• Create and island


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

Videos/2 - Jebel Ali Port -- Container Terminal 3 - ميناء جبل علي- محطة الحاويات رقم 3.mp4


Segment 3: Development Scenarios – Port Approaches and Sizing


59

Video: the importance of getting it right

Videos/3 - Spectacular Ship Collision- 'Grand Rodosi' Crushes 'Apollo S' Like A Can.mp4



Approaches, channels and basins


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


• 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


• 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


• 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


Consider tidal restricted access:

From PIANC report 121:2014

68


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



Basin and Berth box


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.



Terminal and Yard Sizing


80

Development Scenario Considerations: Establishing Yard Dimensions

Typic

ally

about

500m

81

Development Scenario Considerations: Establishing Yard Dimensions - Apron

Typically about 50m

82

Video: Loading and unloading container ships

Videos/4 - Loading of a container ship.mp4

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


Segment 4: Development Scenarios – Berth Availability and Engineering




Calmness and efficiency at berth


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


• 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


• 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


• Acceptable movement depends on vessel type and size:

• PIANC 1995:

93


Acceptable vessel motions- current guidance (PIANC Rpt 2012-115):

PIANC 2012-115:

94


Smaller Container vessels, PIANC 2012-115 recommends:

95


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


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


– Numerical seiching modelling of masterplan

– Clear long wave seiching axis

– Revised master plan eliminated seiching

– Modifications made to tug harbour

98


Image courtesy New South Wales Ports (formerly Port Kembla Port Corporation)



Dredging, reclamation and berth structures


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

107

Video: installation of wick drains

Videos/5 - Wick Drain Installation Video.mp4

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

117

Video: New Doha Port

Videos/5a - New Port October 2011.mp4



Utilities and shore connections


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:


• Usually from public network

• If remote may need de-salination plant

120

Development Scenario Considerations: Utilities

• Fire Fighting


• Depends on trade types and port size

• May need own supply

• Bulk liquids and LNG need special consideration

• Liquid and solid waste


• 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


Segment 5: Development Scenario and Assessment – Case Studies



Segment 5: Development Scenario and Assessment – Case Studies

Part 1: International Example



Segment 5: Development Scenario and Assessment

Part 2: The Port of Makassar


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


• 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


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


134


135


136


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


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


• Metocean

• Wind data obtained

• Review of wave climate

• Anecdotal

• hindcasted

139


• 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


• Option 2

146


• 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

Videos/6 - ADPC- Khalifa Port.mp4







151

Thank you.

Business

Day 1 development scenarios english final