Day 1 development scenarios english final

657 views
544 views

Published on

Published in: Business
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
657
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
166
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
41
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Day 1 development scenarios english final

  1. 1. Port Development Scenarios 13 May 2014 Formulation and Development of Port Development Scenarios
  2. 2. 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. 3. 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
  4. 4. Port Development Scenarios Segment 1: Port Master Planning Overview 13 May 2014 Formulation and Development of Port Development Scenarios
  5. 5. Port Development Scenarios Segment 1: Port Master Planning Master Planning Approach 13 May 2014 Formulation and Development of Port Development Scenarios
  6. 6. 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. 7. 7 The Port Master Planning Process
  8. 8. 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. 9. 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
  10. 10. Port Development Scenarios Segment 1: Port Master Planning Overview The Challenges facing existing ports 13 May 2014 Formulation and Development of Port Development Scenarios
  11. 11. 11 Challenges facing existing ports • Increases in cargo volumes • Changes in cargo types • Changes in vessel fleet • Inland connections constrained • Changing physical conditions
  12. 12. 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. 13. 13 Challenges facing existing ports: Changes in cargo type (Source: World Trade Organisation) • Significant historic increase in container tonnage
  14. 14. 14 Challenges facing existing ports: Changes in cargo type (Source: World Trade Organisation) • Cargo volumes have increased – beyond port capacity • Significant historic increase in container tonnage • Increased container penetration • Trade and container type imbalance increasing need to move containers • Increase in transhipment operations
  15. 15. 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. 16. 16 Challenges facing existing ports: Changes in vessel fleet Container ships are getting bigger Clifford Maersk (8,000 TEU) docked at Tanjung Pelepas (Photo: AECOM)
  17. 17. 17 Challenges facing existing ports: Changes in vessel fleet Container ships are getting beamier Image: Maersk Mc-Kinney Moller (18,270TEU, 399m LOA) Courtesy Howard Wren Consulting
  18. 18. 18 Video: The Worlds Largest Container Ship
  19. 19. 19 Challenges facing existing ports: Changes in vessel fleet • Approaches: • Determine margins in channel geometry and turning areas through simulation • Consider need for tidally restricted access or other navigation constraints • Aged Berth structures • Deepen berth box – if structure permits • Offset berthing line • Crane Loads and gauge • Review capacity and gauge of existing rail • Consider new crane rails • Crane height • Apron and yard • Apron not wide enough to accommodate unloading rates needed from larger vessels • Yard not able to grow at the same rate as throughput
  20. 20. 20 Challenges facing existing ports: Changes in vessel fleet Image: Low height ship to shore cranes arriving at Port Botany (image: Hutchison Port Holdings)
  21. 21. 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. 22. 22 Challenges facing existing ports: Inland Connections $7.2bn Khalifa Port – UAE: Containers relocated to enable growth
  23. 23. 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. 24. 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. 25. 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. 26. 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. 27. 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
  28. 28. Port Development Scenarios Segment 2: Development Scenario Considerations 13 May 2014 Formulation and Development of Port Development Scenarios
  29. 29. Port Development Scenarios Segment 2: Development Scenario Considerations Functional Requirements of a new port 13 May 2014 Formulation and Development of Port Development Scenarios
  30. 30. 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. 31. 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. 32. 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. 33. 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. 34. 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. 35. 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.
  36. 36. Port Development Scenarios Segment 2: Development Scenario Considerations Establishing Baseline Conditions 13 May 2014 Formulation and Development of Port Development Scenarios
  37. 37. 37 Development Scenario Considerations: Establishing physical baseline conditions • Topographic and Bathymetric • Metocean • Wind • Waves • Currents • Tides • Coastal • Geotechnical • Environmental
  38. 38. 38 Development Scenario Considerations: Establishing physical baseline conditions • Topographic and Bathymetric • Determine dredge and reclamation volumes • Inputs to hydrodynamic models • Can use charts if current- fairsheets if possible • Sidescan • Should overlap
  39. 39. 39 Development Scenario Considerations: Establishing physical baseline conditions • Important to understand relationship between sea and land datums at the site: • Land Datum: Constant level plane • Sea Datum (CD): Not constant dependant on tidal range • Difference between datums site specific • Should be confirmed for each site Land Datum  
  40. 40. 40 Development Scenario Considerations: Establishing physical baseline conditions • Metocean • Wind and waves – crane downtime, vessel downtime, berth alignment, cope levels, structural design, mooring loads, breakwaters • Tides and Water levels – surges, dredging and reclamation levels • Currents – berthing and mooring, tug requirements, sedimentation • All need long sample times to cover cycles • Wind for wave hindcasting needs high resolution sampling at regular intervals over a long period • Good to collect all data at the same time
  41. 41. 41 Development Scenario Considerations: Establishing physical baseline conditions • Geotechnical Investigation • Confirm dredging viability and cost • Establish suitable reclamation material • Input to structural design • Combination of geophysics supplemented with ground truthing tests • Boreholes • CPTs
  42. 42. 42 Development Scenario Considerations: Establishing physical baseline conditions • Coastal • Understand Littoral transport • Assess accretion/erosion • Assess Sedimentation • Evaluate impacts to Water quality
  43. 43. 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. 44. 44 Development Scenario Considerations: Design life and extreme events
  45. 45. Port Development Scenarios Segment 2: Development Scenario Considerations Basic Layouts 13 May 2014 Formulation and Development of Port Development Scenarios
  46. 46. 46 Port Master Planning – Basic Layouts • What’s the difference between a port and a harbour?
  47. 47. 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. 48. 48 • Develop a natural harbour • Create a new harbour Development Scenario Considerations: Basic Coastal Harbour Layouts
  49. 49. 49 Development Scenario Considerations: Create a new harbour – Puerto Caucedo, Dominican Republic
  50. 50. 50 Development Scenario Considerations: Develop and natural harbour – Port Botany, Australia
  51. 51. 51 • Cut a channel Development Scenario Considerations: Basic Coastal Harbour Layouts
  52. 52. 52 Development Scenario Considerations: Cut channel – El Sokhna Port, Egypt
  53. 53. 53 • Use an existing island • Create and island Development Scenario Considerations: Basic Coastal Harbour Layouts
  54. 54. 54 Development Scenario Considerations: Island creation – Fisherman’s Island, Australia
  55. 55. 55 • Old ports – low handling rates • New ports – high handling rates Development Scenario Considerations: Basic Harbour Configurations
  56. 56. 56 Development Scenario Considerations: Old style port - Jakarta
  57. 57. 57 Video: Jebel Ali Port Terminal 3
  58. 58. Port Development Scenarios Segment 3: Development Scenarios – Port Approaches and Sizing 13 May 2014 Formulation and Development of Port Development Scenarios
  59. 59. 59 Video: the importance of getting it right
  60. 60. Port Development Scenarios Segment 3: Development Scenarios – Port Approaches and Sizing Approaches, channels and basins 13 May 2014 Formulation and Development of Port Development Scenarios
  61. 61. 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. 62. 62 Development Scenario Considerations: Establishing Navigational Areas - Channels • Objectives • Minimise transit time to the port • Minimise access restrictions • Channel dimensions a function of: • Size of vessel • Manoeuvrability of vessels • Winds • Currents • Choice of one-way or two-way is a economic one: • Dredging costs (both capital and maintenance) • Volume of traffic and likely demurrage costs • The transit time and VTMS system • Pilotage and tug availability
  63. 63. 63 Development Scenario Considerations: Establishing Navigational Areas - Channels • Rule of thumb: • One-way container channel: 3.6 - 6 x beam (>5 x beam for oil and gas) • Two-way channel: 6.2 - 9 x beam
  64. 64. 64 Development Scenario Considerations: Establishing Navigational Areas - Channels • Manoeuvring lane typically: 1.3 to 2.0 x Beam • Sensitive to lateral wind areas: tankers in ballast, cruise and container • Cross currents can cause yaw: 0.5 x Beam • Caution with proximity to banks and other vessels – can cause suction • 2-way channel clearance >30m or largest B • Widen channel at bends >10o to at least 4 x Beam, can be more. Depth dependant • Minimum curve radius >10 x greatest LOA • Should not be designed for ‘hard over’ rudder • Should avoid vessel heading for quay during approach
  65. 65. 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. 66. 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. 67. 67 Development Scenario Considerations: Establishing Navigational Areas - Depths Consider tidal restricted access: From PIANC report 121:2014
  68. 68. 68 Development Scenario Considerations: Establishing Navigational Areas - Depths Tidal restricted access - The Port of Newcastle:
  69. 69. 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. 70. 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. 71. 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. 72. 72 Development Scenario Considerations: Example Fast-time simulation 30kn wind from NW 2.1kn current from SE Arrival: ‘comfortable’ Departure: ‘challenging’
  73. 73. 73 Development Scenario Considerations: Example Full-Mission Simulation
  74. 74. Port Development Scenarios Segment 3: Development Scenarios – Port Approaches and Sizing Basin and Berth box 13 May 2014 Formulation and Development of Port Development Scenarios
  75. 75. 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. 76. 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. 77. 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. 78. 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.
  79. 79. Port Development Scenarios Segment 3: Development Scenarios – Port Approaches and Sizing Terminal and Yard Sizing 13 May 2014 Formulation and Development of Port Development Scenarios
  80. 80. 80 Development Scenario Considerations: Establishing Yard Dimensions Typicallyabout500m
  81. 81. 81 Development Scenario Considerations: Establishing Yard Dimensions - Apron Typically about 50m
  82. 82. 82 Video: Loading and unloading container ships
  83. 83. 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. 84. 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 50m130m320m 500m
  85. 85. Port Development Scenarios Segment 4: Development Scenarios – Berth Availability and Engineering 13 May 2014 Formulation and Development of Port Development Scenarios
  86. 86. Port Development Scenarios Segment 4: Development Scenarios – Berth Availability and Engineering Calmness and efficiency at berth 13 May 2014 Formulation and Development of Port Development Scenarios
  87. 87. 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. 88. 88 Development Scenario Considerations: Berth Availability and Calmness • How far can a vessel move before loading/unloading is affected? • Which direction of motion is likely to be worst for container loading/unloading? • How many days per year should the berth be available?
  89. 89. 89 Development Scenario Considerations: Berth Availability and Calmness • Caused by: • Passing vessels • Tides • Wind • Waves • Local waves – fetch, duration limited. 5-10s. • Swell waves – propagated from distant storms. 8- 20s. • Long Waves – low frequency/surfbeat/infragravity. Solitary or with wave group. 30s - >minutes
  90. 90. 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. 91. 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. 92. 92 Development Scenario Considerations: Berth Availability and Calmness • Acceptable movement depends on vessel type and size: • PIANC 1995:
  93. 93. 93 Development Scenario Considerations: Berth Availability and Calmness Acceptable vessel motions- current guidance (PIANC Rpt 2012-115): PIANC 2012-115:
  94. 94. 94 Development Scenario Considerations: Berth Availability and Calmness Smaller Container vessels, PIANC 2012-115 recommends:
  95. 95. 95 Development Scenario Considerations: Berth Availability and Calmness Assess by: • Numerical modelling of wave agitation at the berth • Mooring analysis • Physical modelling Design out if necessary by: • Selection of berth orientation – usually within 30o of prevailing wind direction • Consider sheltering the berths – either with reclamation or breakwaters – most effective for local and swell waves • Consider risk of long wave activity
  96. 96. 96 Development Scenario Considerations: Berth Availability and Calmness Case Example: Port Kembla Port Kembla has a history of wave agitation in the outer harbour Photo taken during a storm in 1950 (modified from Figure 3 of Fitzpatrick and Sinclair, 1954)
  97. 97. 97 Development Scenario Considerations: Berth Availability and Calmness – Numerical seiching modelling of masterplan – Clear long wave seiching axis – Revised master plan eliminated seiching – Modifications made to tug harbour
  98. 98. 98 Development Scenario Considerations: Berth Availability and Calmness Image courtesy New South Wales Ports (formerly Port Kembla Port Corporation)
  99. 99. Port Development Scenarios Segment 4: Development Scenarios – Berth Availability and Engineering Dredging, reclamation and berth structures 13 May 2014 Formulation and Development of Port Development Scenarios
  100. 100. 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. 101. 101 Development Scenario Considerations: Grab dredger Jan de Nul Postnik Yakovlev 40m3
  102. 102. 102 Development Scenario Considerations: Trailing suction hopper dredger for maintenance dredging Jan de Nul Manzillo II 4,000m3
  103. 103. 103 Development Scenario Considerations: Cutter suction hopper dredger for dredging in stiff clays and soft rocks
  104. 104. 104 Development Scenario Considerations: Bucket Dredgers for fine work
  105. 105. 105 Sweep Barge for maintenance dredging
  106. 106. 106 Development Scenario Considerations: Ground improvement • Siagon Premier Container Terminal • 950m long wharf, 40ha yard • Deep soft soils
  107. 107. 107 Video: installation of wick drains
  108. 108. 108 Development Scenario Considerations: • What’s the difference between a berth and a wharf?
  109. 109. 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. 110. 110 Development Scenario Considerations: Selection of Berth Structure – Gravity Walls • Doha Port, Qatar (March 2014)
  111. 111. 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. 112. 112 Development Scenario Considerations: Selection of Berth Structure – Anchored bulkhead • Port Kembla, Australia – Berth 103 • Tied circular pile bulkhead wall
  113. 113. 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. 114. 114 Development Scenario Considerations: Selection of Berth Structure – Open Piled Berth 6, Manilla, 2013
  115. 115. 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. 116. 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. 117. 117 Video: New Doha Port
  118. 118. Port Development Scenarios Segment 4: Development Scenarios – Berth Availability and Engineering Utilities and shore connections 13 May 2014 Formulation and Development of Port Development Scenarios
  119. 119. 119 Development Scenario Considerations: Utilities • Power: • During construction and operation • Usually from local grid • Emergency power supply – port responsibility • Power demand can be large – container cranes and reefers • Substations likely • Water: • During construction and operation • Usually from public network • If remote may need de-salination plant
  120. 120. 120 Development Scenario Considerations: Utilities • Fire Fighting • During construction and operation • Depends on trade types and port size • May need own supply • Bulk liquids and LNG need special consideration • Liquid and solid waste • During construction and operation • Usually public network • If not, space will need to be allocated • Communications • Phones lines, IT etc usual
  121. 121. 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. 122. 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
  123. 123. Port Development Scenarios Segment 5: Development Scenario and Assessment – Case Studies 13 May 2014 Formulation and Development of Port Development Scenarios
  124. 124. Port Development Scenarios Segment 5: Development Scenario and Assessment – Case Studies Part 1: International Example 13 May 2014 Formulation and Development of Port Development Scenarios
  125. 125. Port Development Scenarios Segment 5: Development Scenario and Assessment Part 2: The Port of Makassar 13 May 2014 Formulation and Development of Port Development Scenarios
  126. 126. 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. 127. 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. 128. 128 Development Scenarios: Makassar Port Scope to develop existing terminals
  129. 129. 129 Development Scenarios: Makassar Port Scope to develop existing terminals • Hatta: • 850m caisson wharf • 150m extension • Design water depth 12m (2012 survey shows 10.8m) • Yard width 150-240m • Yard area: 11.4 hectares • Quay Cranes: 7 • 2012 handled 548,000 TEU • Design terminal capacity: 700,000 TEU • Soekarno • 1360m wharf • 9m depth
  130. 130. 130 Development Scenarios: Makassar Port Scope to develop existing terminals Hatta: • Caisson not readily deepened • Inefficient container storage • Yard area constrains planning • Yard depth primary constraint • Ultimate capacity could be 800,000TEU • Efficient capacity limit about 550,000TEU – today’s throughput • Road network congested Soekarno: • Not deep enough for containers • Suited to handling bulks Need for new container terminal confirmed
  131. 131. 131 Development Scenarios: Makassar Port Location of new site
  132. 132. 132 Development Scenarios: Makassar Port Baseline data
  133. 133. 133 Development Scenarios: Makassar Port Baseline data
  134. 134. 134 Development Scenarios: Makassar Port Baseline data
  135. 135. 135 Development Scenarios: Makassar Port Baseline data
  136. 136. 136 Development Scenarios: Makassar Port Baseline data Point Depth (m) Soil Description SPT Value (N) BH - 1 0.00 – 4.90 Very Soft silt ; black 0 - 14 4.95 – 6.00 Silty clay ; black 14 – 59 6.00 – 6.75 Sand - clamshell 59 6.75 – 20.00 Clay stone ; greyish black 60 BH - 2 0.00 – 5.10 Very soft mud silt ; grey - black 0 – 11 5.10 – 6.20 Silty clay ; black 11 – 14 6.20 – 7.00 Sand coarse – clamshell 14 – 37 7.00 – 20.00 Clay stone ; greyish black 37 – 60 BH -3 0.00 – 4.90 Very soft silt ; grey - black 0 – 6.25 4.90 – 5.90 Silty clay ; black 6.25 – 7.5 5.90 – 7.00 Sandy clay – clamshell ; black 7.5 – 33.75 7.00 – 20.00 Clay stone ; grey - black 33.75 – 58.75
  137. 137. 137 Development Scenarios: Makassar Port Baseline data Point Depth (m) Soil Description SPT Value (N) BH - 4 0.00 – 3.90 Soft silt ; black 0 – 8.75 3.90 – 4.90 Silty clay ; black 8.75 – 31.25 4.90 – 5.70 Silty clay ; grey 31.25 – 48.75 5.70 – 6.30 Sand coarse – clamshell ; black 48.75 – 58.75 6.30 – 20.00 Clay stone ; black 60 BH – 5 0.00 – 6.00 Silt ; black 0 – 10 6.00 – 7.00 Silty clay ; black 10 – 57.5 7.70 – 8.40 Sand coarse – clamshell ; black 57.5 8.40 – 20.00 Clay stone ; greyish black 60 BH - 6 0.00 – 6.00 Very soft silt – clamshell ; black 0 6.00 – 7.70 Silty clay ; black 58.75 7.70 – 8.40 Sand coarse ; grey 58.75 8.40 – 20.00 Clay stone ; black 60
  138. 138. 138 Development Scenarios: Makassar Port Baseline data • Metocean • Wind data obtained • Review of wave climate • Anecdotal • hindcasted
  139. 139. 139 Development Scenarios: Makassar Port Baseline data • Traffic review issues: • Local road network narrow and congested • Parking/waiting area for trucks • Narrow bridge crossing Tallo river • Toll plaza entry points • Improvements to the road network are planned which should open up this area to development
  140. 140. 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. 141. 141 Development Scenarios: Makassar Port Development Scenario – local connections
  142. 142. 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. 143. 143 Development Scenarios: Makassar Port Stage 1 Options
  144. 144. 144 Development Scenarios: Makassar Port Stage 2 Option Refinement • Option 1
  145. 145. 145 Development Scenarios: Makassar Port Stage 2 Option Refinement • Option 2
  146. 146. 146 Development Scenarios: Makassar Port Stage 2 Option Refinement • Option 3
  147. 147. 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. 148. 148 Development Scenarios: Makassar Port Stage 2 Option – Preferred Option • Insignificant cost difference • Increased growth potential
  149. 149. 149 Development Scenarios: Makassar Port Stage 2 Option – Development Phasing
  150. 150. 150 Video: Khalifa Port – Abu Dhabi
  151. 151. 151 Thank you.

×