Extension of 300T Goliath Crane South Track by 50 Meter ...environmentclearance.nic.in/.../Online/...Final_Feasibility_Report.pdf · Extension of Goliath Crane Track at Mazagon Dock,

C O N S U L T I N G E N G I N E E R I N G S E R V I C E S ( I ) P V T . L T D .

K O L K A T A N E W D E L H I M U M B A I

Extension of 300T Goliath Crane South Track by 50 Meter towards sea.

FE ASIB IL ITY STUDY REPORT

D o c u m e n t N o : 4 7 4 0 0 8 0 0 / M N / F S R / D O C - 0 1

R e v i s i o n : R 1

D a t e : J U N E 1 7 , 2 0 1 4

Extension of Goliath Crane Track at Mazagon Dock, Mumbai

Feasibility Study Report June 17, 2014 Page 2

CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background 4

1.2 Project Objective 4

1.3 Report Structure 4

2.0 Project Description

2.1 Project Site 5

2.2 Project Layout 5

2.3 Facility Requirement 5

3.0 Topographical Features, Geotechnical Data and Sea State

3.1 Topographical Features 5

3.2 Geotechnical Data 6

3.3 Bathymetric & Seismographic Data 6

3.4 Sea State 6

3.5 Additional Survey and Investigation 6

4.0 Project Concept

4.1 General 7

4.2 Alternative Proposals 7

4.3 Advantages and Disadvantages of Alternatives 7

4.4 Evaluation of alternatives 8

4.5 Recommendation 10

5.0 Project Design and Specification

5.1 Design Basis 10

5.2 Structural Idealisation 14

5.3 Specification 15

6.0 Cost Estimate

6.1 Basis of Estimate 15

6.2 Rates of principal items 16

6.3 Block Cost Estimate 16

7.0 Project Implementation

7.1 Constructability of Recommended Option 16

7.2 Time of completion 16

7.3 Construction area 16

7.4 Project Schedule 17



CONTENTS 8.0 Approvals, Safety and Security

8.1 Statutory Approvals 20

8.2 Safety and Security 20

9.0 Conclusion 20

List of Tables

Table 4.1 : Advantages & Disadvantages of alternatives

Table 4.2 : Relative Weightages

Table 4.3

: Rating

Table 4.4 : Results of Sensitivity Analysis

Table 5.1 : Seasonal Wind Variations

Table 5.2 : Ship Data

Table 5.3 : Crane Wheel Load Data

Table 5.4 : Load Combination

Table 5.5 : Soil Stratification

Table 5.6 : Grade of Material

List of Figures

Figure 5.2 : Structural idealisation diagram

Figure 7.1 : Activity Schedule - I

Figure 7.2 : Activity Schedule - II

List of Drawings

47400800/MN/FSR/01 : Layout Plan

47400800/MN/FSR/02 : Topographical Features

47400800/MN/FSR/03 : Bathymetric Data

47400800/MN/FSR/04 : Seismographic Data

47400800/MN/FSR/05 : Deck Supported on Twin Pile

47400800/MN/FSR/06 : Hollow Block Wall

47400800/MN/FSR/07 : Mass Concrete Gravity Wall



1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1. Background

Mazagon Dock Limited (MDL), a Government of India Undertaking, under the administrative control of Department of Defence Production, Ministry of Defence, is engaged in the activities/business of Shipbuilding, Submarine Construction and Heavy Engineering Works. MDL is currently having a 300T capacity rail mounted gantry crane named Goliath Crane in addition to the other facilities in the work premises to facilitate their business activities.

For optimum utilization for lifting items placed on barge using seafront MDL appointed Consulting Engineering Services (I) Pvt. Ltd [CES] for preparation of Feasibility Report, Detailed Project Report, Detailed Design, Tender Preparation, Evaluation of tenders and Supervision including obtaining necessary approvals from Statutory Authorities for Extension of 300T Goliath Crane South Track.

1.2. Project Objective

The gantry crane is spanning approximately 138.0 M. The elevation of North rail is (+) 7.010 M CD and that of South rail is (+) 6.39 M CD. At present overall length of South side crane rail is around 228 M. MDL proposes to extend the South side crane rail by 50 M (approx.) towards sea. This will result in travelling of Goliath crane towards sea further by 50 M and facilitate lifting of items placed on barge between the two Goliath crane legs and place the same on slipways or vice versa.

1.3. Report Structure

The Feasibility Report consists of the following chapters;

a) Chapter 1 : Introduction Provides the background information including the objective and Report Content

b) Chapter 2 : Project Description Provides details about Project Site, Layout and Facility Requirement.

c) Chapter 3 : Topographical Features, Geotechnical Data and Sea State Provides details about topographical, bathymetric, geotechnical features and sea state

d) Chapter 4 : Project Concept Presents the alternative proposals, respective merits and demerits, evaluation and recommendation.

e) Chapter 5 : Project Design and Specifications Presents the design basis, basic design and specifications.

f) Chapter 6 : Cost Estimate Presents the basis of estimate, rate and block cost estimate.

g) Chapter 7 : Project Implementation Presents the constructability, time of completion and schedule of the recommended alternative

h) Chapter 8 : Approvals, Safety and Security Presents the authorities from which statutory approvals will be sought and safety and security aspects

i) Chapter 9 : Conclusion



2.0 Project Description

2.1. Project Site

The present limit of south track foundation of Goliath Crane will be further extended by about 50 m. Salient features of the site are given below:

a) Project site is within high security zone

b) Worksite is flanked by Mughal Dry Dock on its south and Slipway on its north

c) Project site is constrained with very limited scope for access of construction equipment and vehicles

d) Limited space available near project site for casting yard, storage of construction materials, precast blocks etc.

e) Sea bed level is around 0.0 m CD

f) Dredging and underwater blasting is a prerequisite, for block-wall or mass concrete foundation.

g) The rock surface is having rugged / uneven profile

h) Chance of hitting the proposed structure by drift of vessel when floated out to sea through the slipway need to be considered.

i) Above proposition suggests the requirement of a robust construction capable of withstanding high horizontal forces which necessitates providing both horizontal and vertical fenders throughout the berthing face.

2.2. Project Layout

The Layout Plan of the project is presented in drawing no. 47400800/MN/FSR/01

2.3. Facility Requirement

a) Extension of 300 ton Goliath Crane south track by 50 m towards sea.

b) Quay edges to be rounded and corners curved to avoid chaffing of ropes and reduce impact effects.

c) 13 nos. of horizontal fenders (SM 500H , each 3.25 m long)

d) 16 nos. of vertical fenders (SM 500H, each 4.15 m long)

e) 8 nos. (approx.) Cast Iron bollards of 40 ton capacity

f) Proposed structure top level is (+) 6.355 m CD

g) Top of Crane rail is (+) 6.390 m CD

h) A single lamppost for floodlight about 6 m away from Crane buffer at the end of south track towards north to be installed for illumination of pier

i) Security Post (Railing) to be provided in such a manner so that movement of ropes is not obstructed during berthing of vessels.

3.0 Topographical Features, Geotechnical Data and Sea State

3.1. Topographical Features

The topographical features of the site are presented in drawing no. 47400800/MN/FSR/02.



3.2. Geotechnical Data

Bore logs of 4 nos. marine bore holes (BH – 11, 12, 13 and 22) and two land bore holes (BH – 112 and 113) near the proposed extension has been studied and findings given below:

a) Date of investigation was from May to July 2004

b) Bore Hole 22, the nearest marine bore hole is around 150 m away from the location of proposed extension

c) Bore hole 113, the nearest land bore hole is around 75 m away from the location of proposed extension

d) Study of the existing soil data reveals around 6 to 7 m depth of soft clay / silt with gravel overlays hard to very hard rock (basalt) below it.

3.3. Bathymetric & Seismographic Data

The bathymetric data and seismography of the project site as per available information is presented in drawing no. 47400800/MN/FSR/03 & drawing no. 47400800/MN/FSR/04 respectively.

3.4. Sea State

a) The tide data w.r.t. Chart Datum is presented below:

Highest Recorded Tide (HRT) : (+) 5.40 m

Highest Astronomical Tide (HAT) : (+) 5.04 m

Mean High Water Spring (MHWS)

: (+) 4.42 m

Mean High water Neap (MHWN) : (+) 3.30 m

Mean Sea Level (MSL) : (+) 2.51 m

Mean Low Water Neap (MLWN) : (+) 1.86 m

Mean Low Water Spring (MLWS) : (+) 0.76 m

Lowest Astronomical Tide : (-) 0.46 m

b) Currents and Waves

(i) The currents at the site are caused by tides and not influenced to any extent by monsoons. The strength of both ebb and flood currents are similar about 0.75 to 1 m per second and directed generally North to South / South to North respectively.

(ii) The predominant waves entering are swell waves generated by deep sea storms. The arise mainly just before and during the south west monsoons. The wave height at site is not expected to exceed 1.5 m. Most wave periods last between 6 seconds and 10 seconds.

(iii) During continuation of north east monsoon, north easterly winds known as ‘Elephantas’ blow for short duration during the months of October – November. As the fetch and duration of these winds are limited, significant wave height is not likely to exceed 1 m with wave period ranging from 3 to 5 seconds.

3.5. Additional Survey and Investigation

After study of data stated above, it was agreed that only site specific geotechnical investigation [at least one/two borehole(s)] need to be carried out to ascertain the soil/rock parameters for detailed design.



4.0 Project Concept

4.1. General

The present proposal is for extension of south side Goliath Crane Track by about 50 meters sea ward. Existing south side Goliath Crane Track, being the south side wall of slip way 2, is founded on a robust gravity type structure. There is always a chance of hitting the quay wall due to drift of vessels while plunging into the water out of the adjacent slipway. As a protective measure against damage to quay wall as also the hull of the vessel, a mesh of vertical and horizontal fenders is a prerequisite.

4.2. Alternative Proposals

a) Alternative – 1: Deck supported on Twin Pile

The concept includes transverse precast beam on two piles, longitudinal beam supporting the crane rail, precast deck planks and cast in situ deck concrete. Cross section of concept has been presented in drawing no. 47400800/MN/FSR/05. This alternative does not require dredging operation.

b) Alternative – 2: Precast Hollow block wall

The concept includes fabrication and placing of precast hollow blocks with pinning arrangement between blocks along horizontal direction. The bottom hollow portion of first two layers will be filled with in situ concrete. The balance hollow portions in between blocks may be filled up with sand. The top reinforced capping beam will support the crane rail. Dredging of seabed (and/or controlled blasting) and underwater tremie concrete/rubble base to form a uniform bed for placement of precast blocks is a prerequisite for this alternative. Cross section of concept shown has been presented in drawing no. 47400800/MN/FSR/06.

c) Alternative – 3: Mass Concrete Gravity structure

This concept includes mass concreting from the hard rocky surface (including anchoring, if required) to the top including foundation for the crane rails. The top reinforced capping beam will support the crane rail. Dredging (including controlled underwater blasting) of seabed is also a prerequisite for this alternative. Cross section of concept has been presented in drawing no. 47400800/MN/FSR/07.

4.3. Advantages and Disadvantages of Alternatives

Advantages & Disadvantages of alternatives has been presented in Table 4.1.

Table 4.1: Advantages & Disadvantages of alternatives

Alt. Description Advantages Disadvantages

1 Deck supported on twin pile

1. Dredging not required

2. Least Costly

3. Divers not needed

4. Most accurate and most effective solution for load transfer

5. Least time of construction

1. Piles vulnerable to be hit by drift of vessels floated out of slipway

2. Limited space for storing, stacking of construction material and casting /fabrication yard.

3. Cost of Mobilization is high as need of jack up barge / gantry for piling.



Table 4.1: Advantages & Disadvantages of alternatives

Alt. Description Advantages Disadvantages

2. Hollow Block Wall

1. Simple method of construction

2. Robust structure

3. Boring in hard rock not needed

1. Chance of drifting of base tremie concrete to adjacent slipway during construction

2. Lack of space for casting and storage yard of precast elements

3. Difficult to provide uniform base for placement of concrete blocks.

4. Cost of Mobilization more due to need of barge and heavy duty floating crane for placing of blocks

5. Dredging is a prerequisite

6. Service of highly skilled & expensive operators and divers necessary.

7. Diver required for maximum period of time

8. Most expensive method.

3. Mass Concrete Gravity Wall

1. Robust structure

2. Boring in hard rock not needed

3. Time of construction is least among all alternatives

4. Installation of horizontal fenders for protection of structure is possible

5. Can be executed from shore based installations, mobilization time and cost is less.

1. Chance of drifting of tremie concrete to adjacent slipway during construction

2. Dredging is a prerequisite.

3. Temperature control is necessary for mass concrete.

4. Very difficult method of construction

5. Controlled underwater blasting required for dredging of hard rock, which is a difficult and time consuming proposition considering construction within high security zone

6. Mobilization of hydraulic jack and large involvement of shuttering material is necessary.



4.4. Evaluation of Alternatives

A multi criteria analysis has been carried out to evaluate the three alternatives to identify the best possible one. Set of criteria with their possible relative weightages. Weightages have been changed to assess the sensitivity. Relative Weightages has been presented in Table 4.2.

Table 4.2: Relative Weightages

Sl. No. Criteria

Relative Weightage

Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4 Case 5 Case 6 Case 7

1 Time of implementation 20 22 25 15 35 12 15

2 Cost 25 22 15 10 30 18 15

3 Functional Stability & Durability 10 15 17 20 10 25 15

4 Material Availability 5 11 5 20 5 5 13

5 Constructability, Construction Equipment & Site Installation 15 10 20 12 10 8 15

6 Maintenance 15 5 13 8 5 12 14

7 Aesthetic/Environmental Aspects 10 15 5 15 5 20 13

Total : 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

All the above mentioned criteria has been evaluated on merit on a five point scale for the proposed alternatives and the markings have been presented in Table 4.3.

Table 4.3 : Rating

Sl. No. Criteria Twin Pile Block Wall Mass Concrete

1 Time of implementation 4 2.5 3.5

2 Cost 4.5 2 2.5

3 Functional Stability & Durability 2 5 5

4 Material Availability 5 5 5

5 Constructability, Construction Equipment & Site Installation 3.5 2.5 4

6 Maintenance 3 4 4

7 Aesthetic/Environmental Aspects 4 3 3

Full Rating 5 5 5



The results of sensitivity analysis have been summarized in Table 4.4.

Table 4.4: Results of Sensitivity Analysis

Sl No Alternatives Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4 Case 5 Case 6 Case 7

1 Twin Pile 75.5 77.6 71.6 74.5 80.5 70 73.8 2 Block Wall 60.5 63.8 63.9 72.9 56.5 68.8 68 3 Mass Concrete 71.5 73.4 76.4 80.5 69.5 75.4 77

4.5. Recommendation

Referring to the Table 4.3, twin pile supported deck emerges as the suitable alternative particularly with respect to time and cost considerations.

5.0 Project Design and Specification

5.1. Design Basis

a) Design Standard

The design standards are based on the standard of BIS Code of Practice as well as guidelines provided by MDL for this particular project. In absence of any specific guidelines on the above, sound engineering practice and/or Consultants experience and/or recommendation to fulfill the project requirement and bridge the gap in guidelines/ standard have been followed.

b) Environmental Data

(i) Rainfall

Average annual rainfall 2080mm, average 71 days with 2.5mm or more. Highest averages June (520mm), July (709 mm) ,August (419 mm), lowest averages December, January, February, March and April all less than 10mm. abnormal rain of 934mm in one day in July 2005.

(ii) Temperature

Mean minimum air temperature is 16oC, mean maximum is 36oC and extreme maximum is 40oC.

(iii) Relative Humidity

Relative humidity Range is between 62 to 86%.

(iv) Barometric Pressure

At mean sea level, monthly means range from 1004 to 1013 mb.

(v) Wind

General direction of wind is from the North to the West quarter, with seasonal variations as shown below:

Table 5.1: Seasonal Wind Variations

Months Directions Speeds

Feb-May Mainly from North West (Max 8 to 10 Beaufort. Substantial 4-6 Beaufort)

June - Sep Mainly from West North West (Max 8 to 10 Beaufort. Substantial 6-8 Beaufort)



Table 5.1: Seasonal Wind Variations

Months Directions Speeds

Oct – Jan Mainly from West North West (Max 6 to 8 Beaufort. Substantial 2-6 Beaufort)

(vi) Cyclones

These may occur during the period of May-June or October-November. The last severe storm was experienced in 1982.

Occasionally, sudden, high winds also occur during the fine weather period from North East.

(vii) Datum, Sea State and Tide Data

The Datum of soundings ( Chart Datum ) denoted by CD is 21.95 meters above Town Hall Datum, which is 30.48 meters below the Town Hall Bench Mark. All the levels shown on the drawings or referred to in the specifications are related to the Chart datum, unless mentioned otherwise.

Tidal data for the site are presented in para. 3.4.1.

c) Design Ship data

Type of Ship : Warship / Submarines

Ship Data as provided by MDL

Table 5.2 : Ship Data

DWT MD LOA LBP B D F

(t) (t) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m)

6000 8900* 190 180* 20 6 2.8*

* - Assumed data

d) Level Data

Levels of the proposed extension is as below

Design Deck Level : (+) 6.355 m CD

Top of Crane Rail : (+) 6.390 m CD

e) Load Data

(i) Dead Loads

The following unit weights are used in the design to assess dead loads i.e. permanent loads due to the self-weight of the structure and permanent equipment.

Reinforced concrete : 25.0 kN/m3

Structural Steel : 78.5 kN/m3

Water density : 10.0 kN/m3

(ii) Live Loads

Uniformly distributed load of 10 kN/m2, apart from the crane rail load of 1.5 kN/m where crane rail consists of dual rail has been considered.



(iii) Equipment Loads

a) Rail Mounted Goliath Crane

For the purpose of present design following load of the Goliath crane has been used. Following data is based on the load data made available to the Consultant by MDL.

Table 5.3: Crane Wheel Load Data

Wheel Load Loading case Vertical (kN) Perpendicular

to rail (kN) Parallel to rail

(friction force)(kN)

Fixed Leg ( North Side)

No wind 358 16 8

Wind 20 m/s 401 23 16

Storm wind 53.1 m/s 524 52

Hinged Leg ( South Side )

No wind 320 10 5

Wind 20 m/s 363 10 13

Storm wind 53.1 m/s 435 - -

(iv) Earthquake Load

Earthquake load has been adopted as per IS 1893 – 2002.

The design value for the horizontal seismic coefficient αh shall be computed according to the following expression where

αh = 𝑍.𝐼.𝑆𝑎2.𝑅.𝑔

αh = Design horizontal seismic coefficient

Z = zone factor

R = Response reduction factor

I = Coefficient depending upon importance of the structure

Sa/g = Average response acceleration coefficient

The site falls under Zone III as per the seismic map of India shown in IS 1893 and hence as per table 2, Zone factor Z = 0.16. Importance factor of 1.5 has been considered for this structure.

(v) Fender Spacing & Berthing Loads

Berthing Energy, Fender Selection and Fender Spacing has been evaluated as per IS 4651 (Part III) with the following data available:

Design Vessel Size = 6000 t



Length = 190 m Length between PP (considered) = 180 m Beam = 20 m Draft (considered) = 6 m Approach Velocity = 0.35m/sec (moderate wind & swell) Angle of Approach = 10o The following coefficient is evaluated as recommended by IS 4651 (Part III) and are used in calculating the berthing energy.

Eccentricity Factor = 0.53 (as per clause 5.2.1.3) Softness Coefficient = 0.9 (as per Clause 5.2.1.4) Hydrodynamic Mass Coefficient = 1.62 (as per Clause 5.2.1.2)

(vi) Mooring Load

A mooring force of 40 T has been considered in design.

(vii) Berthing Load

A Berthing force of 80 T has been considered in design.

f) Load Combinations

Following load combinations have been considered as per IS: 4651 – Part (IV)

Table 5.4: Load Combination

Type of Loading

Load Cases

Limit State of Service

Limit State of Collapse

I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX

1 Dead Load 1.0 1.0 1.5 1.2 0.9 1.2 0.9 1.2 0.9

2 Live Load 1.0 1.0 1.5 1.2 0.9 1.2 0.9 1.2 0.9

3 Hydrostatic & hydrodynamic 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.2 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

4 Berthing & Mooring Force 1.0 1.0 1.5 1.5 - - - -

5 Seismic Force - - - - - - - 1.5 1.5

6 Wind Force - - - - - 1.5 1.5 - -

g) Geotechnical Data

Soil Investigation Report dated May to July 2004 conducted by DBM has been considered. For preliminary design. The summary of such report is given below:



h) Material for Construction

Grade of material as considered in the design for various elements of the jetty are as presented in the table

i) Design Codes & Standards

The following design codes are used in the design of various components of jetty.

IS-4651 Parts 1 to 5 : Code of Practice for Planning & Design of Ports and Harbours

IS-2911 Parts 1 to 3 : Design of Pile Foundation

IS-800 : Code of Practice for General Construction in Steel

IRC-6 : Code of Practice for Roads & Bridge Loading

IS-1893 : Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of Structure

IS-875 : Code of Practice for Design Loads

IS-456 : Code of Practice for Plain and Reinforced Concrete

5.2. Structural Idealisation

Structural analysis shall generally be carried out using STAAD.Pro. A three dimensional rigid jointed space frame is modeled where different main structural elements are idealized. Pile fixity levels shall be based on method given in IS-2911 on the basis of sub-soil properties from respective bore holes. Soil springs will not be applied between design mud line & point of fixity for this analysis.

A single pile analysis shall be performed for the critically loaded pile (force & moments) resulting from application of appropriate loads and their combinations as mentioned in para 5.1. The structural as well as geotechnical load bearing capacity shall be checked for the piles. For the super structural components, design of members will be performed adhering to codal guidelines. Individual items of the structures may be designed as separate units with the provision that interaction between elements is properly addressed.

For all items the influence of pre-fabrication or construction phasing should be properly addressed.

Table 5.5 : Soil Stratification

Strata. No.

Description RL (m) Thickness

(m) From To

I Soft, thickly bedded highly plastic marine clay +0.2 (-)1.8 2

II Very stiff thickly bedded greyish brown clay with parting of sand & gravels (-)1.8 (-)3.8 2

III Moderately weak slightly weathered thickly bedded closely spaced yellowish brown volcanic Breccia

(-)3.8 (-)24.8 21

Table 5.6 : Grade of Material

Structural Item Material

Concrete Steel

Pile M 40 Fe 500

Precast Beam M 40 Fe 500

In situ Concrete M 40 Fe 500



For concrete structures the analysis will be based on the assumption of linear elastic (uncracked) behaviour. This assumption will generally generate upper bound sectional forces within the various elements, and is therefore considered to be a conservative approach. For evaluation of serviceability aspects (deflections) a large part of the structures will generally be in an uncracked state. Localized cracking can occur during normal serviceability conditions but this will have a limited effect on overall structure deflections. Only in case critical deflections are predicted using linear elastic section properties the effect of localized cracking needs to be taken into account.

Figure 5.2: Structural idealisation diagram

5.3. Specification

Specification as prevalent for similar type of work will generally be followed. However, specification of item of work not covered in such projects will be drawn up as per international practice with necessary modification to suit the requirements of the project.

6.0 Cost Estimate

6.1. Basis of Estimate

The cost estimate prepared and presented in this chapter is based on the project proposal, preliminary design and drawings. The rates of items for civil works have been taken from present cost of the projects of similar nature and own analysis. For electro-mechanical works, the rates are based on the information available in the data base.



6.2. Rates of principal items

The rates of items for civil works have been taken from present cost of the projects of similar nature and own analysis.

6.3. Block Cost Estimate

The block cost estimate of the recommended option is around Rs. 200 Million. At feasibility study stage the percentage of variation will be + 25%

7.0 Project Implementation

7.1. Constructability of Recommended Option

Bore log of earlier investigation report of nearby area shows silty clay / silty sand / gravel / boulder from seabed level (~ 0.0 m CD) to about (-) 1.5 m CD. Hard rock with RQD in the range of 80% and above from an RL of (-) 3.5 m CD exists. This signifies longer duration for boring of pile foundation and work involves installation of MS liners to refusal by means of Jack up barge, boring by percussion method (chiseling and bailing) and/or by RCD if required, insertion of reinforcement cage, tremie concreting for piling, and erection of precast pile muffs, beams, planks and cast in situ deck concrete. Installation of suitable fenders up to low water level is considered. This alternative does not require dredging and underwater blasting.

Principal Equipment:

a) Jack up Barge with anchoring and positioning system and crawler mounted crane

b) Double acting Diesel hammer and / or vibratory hammer for driving of liner (casing)

c) DGPS-RTK system required for Survey work

d) Pile Positioning Template

e) 7.5t capacity bore piling winch and/or RCD machine with required accessories

f) DG set for power supply

g) Welding set

h) Steel bracing between lines for position fixing

i) Transit Mixture for transportation of concrete from nearby RMC plant

j) Concrete pump with accessories

k) Barge required for transportation of casing/reinforcement to the main working barge

l) Motor launch for general transportation of staff and supply of provisions

m) Shore Crane for installation of Goliath Crane Rail, fenders and bollards

7.2. Time of Completion

Estimated time of completion for recommended option is around 8 months

7.3. Construction area

An area of about 2,500 sq.m is estimated to be required by the Contractor for the purpose of storage of construction materials including for precast yard and fabrication of MS liners. Considering constraint for availability of land within Mazagon Dock, provision of batching plant within dock area for this work has not been considered.



7.4. Project Schedule

The process of selection of ‘Eligible Bidders’, evaluation of Technical and Financial proposals till award of Works will normally require not less than six months.. The major activities precedent to award of Works is preparation, submission and approval of DPR and Tender Documents including detailed design and drawings. In order to ensure award of Works within the target date by end of November 2014, as projected by MDL, it is prudent to initiate parallel action for shortlisting the bidders before finalization of tender documents, design and drawings to gain time. Project Schedule considering Pre-Qualification of bidders prior to invitation of main bid as also qualification of bidders along with the main bid has been presented as Figure 7.1 and 7.2 respectively.



Note - * Delay in obtaining of approvals will not be attributable to the Consultant.



Note – (*) Delay in obtaining of approvals will not be attributable to the Consultant. (#) -This activity has been shown to initiate parallel action for prequalification of bidders to gain time and facilitate award of work within end of November 2014, as discussed with MDL.



8.0 Approvals, Safety and Security

8.1. Statutory Approvals

Following approvals shall be obtained for the proposed extension work.

a) Allotment of water area from MbPT

b) From CWPRS (through MbPT ) on model study ( if reqd.)

c) Environment clearance from MoEF / MPCB

d) Information to MMRDA & MCGM

8.2. Safety and Security

The project will be executed within Mazagon Dock which is a high security zone. The execution Contractor needs to strictly comply with the security regulations of MDL.

Contractor needs to ensure a job safety plan, identification of risks, their respective mitigation measures are done and follow the same to comply the approved safety plan.

9.0 Conclusion

The project is feasible subject to:

(a). Availability of good foundation material to be confirmed by project specific geotechnical investigation

(b). Statutory Environmental clearance from MoEF/MPCB as applicable

(c). Availability of waterfront from MbPT on lease

(d). Approval by CWPRS with regard to Model Study, if required, by liaison with MbPT.

DRAWINGS