The document describes the recovery of a 393-tonne lock gate from Gladstone Dock in Liverpool that was damaged during a storm. The initial plan was to use a tipping cradle lifted by a floating crane to rotate the gate horizontally and transfer it to a barge for repairs. However, challenges included the gate being heavier than expected and the floating crane's limited capacity. The final solution involved using tugs to assist in the initial rotation and adding foundations to withstand lateral loads during lifting. Thorough testing and safety measures were implemented due to the complex and high-risk nature of the recovery operation.
3. Recovery of Gladstone Gate
• The gate was subsequently recovered & put in temporary
storage
• Temporary measures to bring port back into operation
• The gate was damaged & required repairing
• Removal from the dock was required
• Solution for gate removal from the dock to be developed
In January 2004 operations at the Port of Liverpool were
brought to a halt, when, during a storm one of the lock
gates at Gladstone dock was ripped from its hinges.
11. Recovery of Gladstone Gate
Initial Concept
Initial feasibility undertaken by MDHC
Options considered
•Conventional repair using dry dock
•Conventional lift of gate using crane
•Tipping cradle
12. Recovery of Gladstone Gate
Conventional repair using dry dock
• Condition of gate below water line unknown
• Availability of dry dock
13. Recovery of Gladstone Gate
Conventional lift using cranes
• Weight & size of gate would require a tandem
lift using two 1000 tonne cranes
• Availability of space to accommodate the
footprint
15. Recovery of Gladstone Gate
Tipping Cradle
• Distinct advantages to MDHC
• Mersey Mammoth floating crane could be used
(250 t capacity)
• Wholly owned by MDHC
• Another 5 gates require refurbishment
• cradle could be reused
17. Recovery of Gladstone Gate
Initial Option
Use of Mersey Mammoth to rotate gate and pull it onto quay
side
230 tonne of kentledge required
Requirement to rotate gate from bottom
18. Recovery of Gladstone Gate
What to do when gate is horizontal
Two options considered
• Slide gate onto quay side
• Provide vertical support at end of cradle
• Enter the Camel
19. Recovery of Gladstone Gate
What is “The Camel”
• Floating barge Used to salvage vessels
• Built circa 1958
• Length 104’ (42.67m)
• Beam 35’ (10.67 m)
• Owned by MDHC
• Laid-Up for 3-4 years
• Therefore no cost on project & ideal for use
23. Recovery of Gladstone Gate
Problems With Using Camel
• Floating vessel
• Age – Unknown condition
• No access to inside for condition survey
• Fuel on board – No possibility of welding to deck
24. Recovery of Gladstone Gate
Problems With Using Camel
• Floating vessel
Design calculations
• Age – Unknown condition
Lloyds survey
• No access to inside for condition survey
Lloyds survey
• Fuel on board – No possibility of welding to deck
Clamped connection to bollards
26. Recovery of Gladstone Gate
Preferred solution
• Use tipping cradle to recover gate
• Mersey Mammoth used to lift cradle
• Camel used to support gate during repairs
28. Recovery of Gladstone Gate
Design Method
• Very good drawings of gate available
• Strength an condition of dock wall uncertain
• Good Guide to gate weights & CoG’s
• Uncertainty on gate condition
Amount of leakage
Amount of entrained silt
• Trial lift required
29. Recovery of Gladstone Gate
Trial Lift
• Trial lift undertaken May 2005
• Results inconclusive –
Gate appears heavier than drawing weight
• Further investigation revealed gate was not
emptied of all water for trial.
• Gate reported as being clear of silt
• 2nd
trial lift not possible during design
• Uncertainty as to reason for excess weight
30. Recovery of Gladstone Gate
Design Brief
• To cater for uncertainty of gate weight 50 tonne allowance
• 60% / 40% split in load to cater for
1.Uneven distribution in load
2. Incorrect position of gate in cradle
• Upper & lower bound load cases defined
• Upper bound – Used for member design & lifting loads
• Lower bound – Used for lifting loads
• Stability and strength of dock wall by assessment
• Lateral load resisted by shear key in foundations
33. Recovery of Gladstone Gate
171 te
83 te
72 te 75 te
100 te
74 te
329 te
201 te
230 te
195 te
168 te
142 te
0 te
50 te
100 te
150 te
200 te
250 te
300 te
350 te
400 te
450 te
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Angle of Rotation
MammothLoad
Upper Bound Vertical Mammoth Load
Lower Bound Vertical Mammoth Load
High Predicted load on Mammoth not including
Buoyancy
Low Predicted load on Mammoth including
Buoyancy
34. Recovery of Gladstone Gate
Design Brief
• 250 tonne capacity of Mammoth not sufficient to rotate
gate from vertical
• Additional lifting capacity required
• Additional capacity should provide horizontal pull
• Use of tugs to start lift
• Mammoth to complete lift
• Foundations provided remote from quay edge to take
lateral loads
36. Recovery of Gladstone Gate
Method of Analysis
Simple 2D STAAD Pro models for various configurations
Vertical, 10°,22.5°, 33.75°, 45°, 67.5, 90°
Various configurations
•Gate against wall
•Gate supported on Mammoth
•Gate supported on tug
•Gate supported on Camel (final condition)
37. Recovery of Gladstone Gate
Testing Requirements
• Two types of testing
• NDT of welds
• Load testing of critical items
38. Recovery of Gladstone Gate
Testing Requirements
NDT of welds
• Many full penetration weld in highly loaded areas
• No redundant load path in these areas
• All full pen welds 100% MPI & 100% UT
41. Recovery of Gladstone Gate
Testing Requirements
LOLER Requirements
REGULATION 9 -THOROUGH EXAMINATION AND
INSPECTION
Load testing to confirm the build quality and structural load
bearing capability of the lifting equipment
Functional and operational envelope tests to verify the
satisfactory working range of the lifting equipment.
Testing of lifting equipment should be undertaken at the
discretion of the competent person
.
42. Recovery of Gladstone Gate
Testing Requirements
Load test of critical items
Discussions with HSE
• Main pin assembly
• Tug lifting eye
• Mammoth lifting eye
43. Recovery of Gladstone Gate
Testing Requirements
Load test of critical items
Programme & cost implications
•Test main pin assemblies only
•Full NDT of all components of Lifting Eyes
•Measures taken to ensure no person under the shadow
of the lift
•For design of lift items FoS = 2.0
•For load test proof load = 1.5