20 - WIAL Runway Extension - Draft AECOM Concept Feasibility and Design Report

Wellington International Airport Limited
Runway Extension Project

Concept Feasibility and Design Report
Volume I
Prepared for
November 2015
Prepared by
AECOM New Zealand Limited
Wellington, New Zealand
Concept Feasibility and Design Report, Volume 1
Client:Wellington International Airport Limited

Co No.: 396240
Prepared by
AECOM New Zealand Limited
Level 3, 80 The Terrace, Wellington 6011, PO Box 27277, Wellington 6141, New Zealand
T +64 4 896 6000 F +64 4 896 6001 www.aecom.com
November 2015
Job No.: 42792153/60436023
AECOM in Australia and New Zealand is certified to the latest version of ISO9001, ISO14001, AS/NZS4801 and
OHSAS18001.
AECOM New Zealand Limited (AECOM). All rights reserved.

AECOM has prepared this document for the sole use of the Client and for a specific purpose, each as expressly
stated in the document. No other party should rely on this document without the prior written consent of AECOM.
AECOM undertakes no duty, nor accepts any responsibility, to any third party who may rely upon or use this
document. This document has been prepared based on the Clients description of its requirements and AECOMs
experience, having regard to assumptions that AECOM can reasonably be expected to make in accordance with
sound professional principles. AECOM may also have relied upon information provided by the Client and other
third parties to prepare this document, some of which may not have been verified. Subject to the above
conditions, this document may be transmitted, reproduced or disseminated only in its entirety.
Revision B - November 2015

Prepared for Wellington International Airport Limited Co No.: 396240
Quality Information
Document Runway Extension Project
Ref 42792153/60436023
Date November 2015

Prepared Philip Hadfield, Marty Czarnecki
by
Reviewed Graeme Doherty, Raye Powell
by
Revision History
Authorised
Revision
Revision Details
Date
Name/Position Signature
A Oct-2015 Update to include new Philip Hadfield,
project studies and Marine Task Lead
analyses
B Nov-2015 Address comments from Philip Hadfield,
WIAL Marine Task Lead

Table of Contents
Volume 1
Executive Summary i
1.0 Purpose and Scope of Project 1
1.1 Purpose 1
1.2 Background 1
1.3 Baseline Projects and Options 1
1.4 Scope of Work 2
1.4.1 Preliminary Feasibility Report 2
1.4.2 Lyall Bay Geotechnical Investigation and New South Project
Options 4
1.4.3 Construction Methodology Report 4
1.4.4 Completion of Feasibility Report 4
2.0 Existing Conditions 6
2.1 Airport/Airfield 6
2.2 Topography/Bathymetry 6
2.3 Geotechnical 7
2.3.1 Field Investigation 7
2.3.2 Laboratory Testing 8
2.3.3 Geotechnical Analysis 9
2.3.4 Settlement 9
2.3.5 Liquefaction 9
2.3.6 Further Investigation 10
2.4 Roads, Tunnels, and Underground Utilities 10
2.5 Sewer Outfall 10
3.0 Runway Extension Preliminary Design Criteria 11
3.1 Seismic 11
3.1.1 Seismic Ground Motion 11
3.1.2 Seismic Performance Objective 11
3.1.3 Alternative Seismic Performance Objective 12
3.2 Wave 12
3.3 Geotechnical 12
3.3.1 Initial Seismic Deformation Analyses 12
3.3.2 Additional Analyses 13
3.3.3 Ground Improvement 13
3.4 Rock Dyke Protection 13
3.5 Fill Sources 14
3.6 Other Criteria 15
3.6.1 Airfield 15
3.6.2 Roads and Utilities 16
4.0 Optioneering 17
4.1 Chronology 17
4.2 North Baseline Option 17
4.2.1 Airfield Civil 17
4.2.2 Aeronautical Ground Lighting and Navigational Aids 18
4.2.3 Reclaimed Land Platform Design 19
4.2.4 Roads, Tunnels, and Utilities 20
4.3 South Baseline and Options 21

4.3.1 Airfield Civil 21
4.3.2 Aeronautical Ground Lighting and Navigational Aids 21
4.3.3 Reclaimed Land Platform Design 22
4.3.4 Roads, Tunnels and Utilities 24
4.3.5 Sewer Outfall 25
4.4 North/South Hybrid Option 25
4.5 Pile-Supported Options 26
4.6 Summary of Project Alternatives 27
4.7 Preliminary Construction Programmes 31
4.7.1 North Baseline Project 31
4.7.2 South Baseline Project 32
4.8 Construction Costs 33
4.8.1 Cost Estimating Approach and Results 33
4.8.2 Costs for Initial Baseline and Option Projects 36
4.8.3 Sensitivity Studies 38
4.8.4 Costs for New South Baseline Project and Options 39
4.9 Conclusion and Recommended Options 40
5.0 Description of Preferred Option 42
5.1 Overview 42
5.2 Runway Extension Design Criteria 43
5.3 Indicative Construction Programme 43
5.4 Key Project Parameters 44
6.0 Construction Methodology and Considerations 49
6.1 Construction Methodology 49
6.2 Marine Equipment Mooring Systems 50
6.3 Sewer Outfall Protection Systems 50
6.4 Stone Column Constructability 50
6.5 Rock Dyke Constructability 51
7.0 Limitations 52
List of Tables
Table 3.5.1 Preliminary Estimates of Materials and Volumes Required
Table 3.5.2 Shortlist of Potential Fill Material Sources
Table 4.8.1 Cost Summary of Initial Baseline and Option Projects
Table 4.8.2 Cost Summary of New South Baseline and Option Projects
Table 5.2 Summary of Key Design Criteria
Table 5.4 Summary of Key Project Parameters
List of Figures
Figure 4.5 Pile-Supported Runway Structure Concepts
Figure 4.8.3.1 Taxiway Configuration Options
Figure 5.1 New South Baseline Project Option
Figure 5.4.1 Project Plan View
Figure 5.4.2 Project Profile View
Figure 5.4.3 Project 3-D Model View

List of Appendices
Appendix A Geotechnical Investigation Data
Appendix B Geotechnical Analysis Results
Appendix C Earthquake Ground Motion Response Spectra and Time Histories
Appendix D 100-Year Design Waves for Extension Alternatives
Appendix E Seismic Deformation Analyses for Initial and New Project Options
Appendix F Rock Dyke Protection
Appendix G Fill Material Sources
Appendix H Initial Runway Extension Options
Appendix I Preliminary Construction Programme for North Runway
Appendix J Preliminary Construction Programme for South Runway
Appendix K Cost Estimates
Appendix L Construction Methodology Report
Appendix M Marine Construction Mooring System Concepts
Appendix N Outfall Pipe Protection Schemes
Appendix O Stone Column Constructability
Appendix P Rock Dyke Constructability
Volume 2
List of Figures
Part 1 North Runway Extension into Evans Bay
Part 2 South Runway Extension into Lyall Bay

Glossary
AECOM AECOM Technical Services

AGL Aeronautical Ground Lighting
ASDA Accelerate Stop Distance Available
BOQs Bills of Quantities
CADD computer-aided design drafting
3-D 3-dimensional
H1/10 average height of the highest 10 percent of waves
ICAO International Civil Aeronautics Organization
LDA Landing Distance Available
NAVAIDS Navigational Aids
OLS Obstacle Limitation Surface
PAPI Precision Approach Path Indicator
PGA peak ground acceleration
PSHA probabilistic seismic hazard analysis
RESA Runway End Safety Areas
TORA Take-Off Runway Available
URS URS Corporation
WIAL Wellington International Airport Limited
South Runway Extension into

Executive Summary
This report presents the results of a study to determine the engineering feasibility of building
a runway extension at Wellington International Airport to achieve a minimum Take-Off
Runway Available of 2,300 metres. The primary purpose of this study is to provide
information to Wellington International Airport Limited (WIAL) to assist with the Resource
Management Act 1991 (RMA) consenting process for this project. This study was executed
by performing preliminary engineering analyses and conceptual design, developing
preliminary drawings, preparing construction methodologies and preliminary programmes,
and estimating the cost for construction, design fees, and Airport project management fees.
The study initially examined two baseline projects. One baseline would build the runway
extension north into Evans Bay; and the other would build south into Lyall Bay. The cost
analyses of these baseline projects revealed that the cost to build north was greater than the
cost to build south by a significant margin, nearly a factor of 2. This finding led to the
development and costing of six options to build the extension south into Lyall Bay, as well as
one hybrid north/south option. These options represent a combination of various
assumptions concerning the characteristics of the soil properties and their liquefaction
potential, the depth to bedrock (greywacke), value engineering with respect to the rock dyke
design and improvement of the marine sediments, and reduced expectations for seismic
performance,. A summary of the costs for the baselines and options is provided in the
Report.
The thickness and engineering properties of the marine sediments in Evans and Lyall Bays
are important considerations that influence the cost and construction methodology for the
baseline projects and options. The North Baseline project used existing available
geotechnical information that characterised the thickness and properties of the marine
sediments in Evans Bay. Sediment thicknesses overlying bedrock in Evans Bay are in the
order of 40 to 50 metres deep. Much of this sediment layer has been determined to be
susceptible to earthquake-induced liquefaction, a factor that significantly increases the likely
cost to build in Evans Bay.
For Lyall Bay, existing geotechnical information presented an incomplete picture. Thus, the
Initial South Baseline project and all the options, as well as a North/South Hybrid Option,
were based on assumed engineering properties for the Lyall Bay marine sediments. As a
result, these initial South Baseline project and Options projects were assessed using rather
conservative assumptions for these properties, particularly with respect to the thickness of
materials and their susceptibility to liquefaction. For some of the Initial South Options, less
conservative (more optimistic) assumptions were used for the characteristics of the Lyall Bay
marine sediments so as to assess the impact of the subsurface conditions on the project
seismic performance and construction costs. Upon completion of the first phase of the study,
it was not feasible to choose between the South Baseline and Options because the cost and
feasibility of these options was based on assumed geotechnical information that needed to
be confirmed via additional subsurface explorations.
As a result, WIAL commissioned AECOM to perform a supplementary geotechnical
investigation, which was performed in order to obtain additional information on the soil
strength and liquefaction potential of the marine sediments in Lyall Bay, as well as confirm
the depth to bedrock (greywacke). Although the extent of the completed investigation was
limited, the information obtained provided further understanding of the marine sediments,
including that the potential for seismic-induced liquefaction of these sediments is very low.
This study concludes that there are feasible design and construction concepts that could be
used to build the project, and provides a framework for the detailed engineering that will be
needed to fully resolve the design and construction issues that have been identified by the
investigations and assessments carried out to date. As indicated in the Report, the preferred
approach for the Project is a southern extension of the runway into Lyall Bay, with
corresponding project costs (including cost of construction design fees and Airport project
management fees) ranging from $315.1 million to $291.9 million at 95 percent confidence.
The median cost range is $280.4 million to $258.5 million. However, with residual
uncertainty over the characteristics of the subsurface conditions in Lyall Bay, the project cost
with contingency included for potential ground improvement of the marine sediments under
the rock dyke ranges from $335.1 million to $311.9 million at 95 percent confidence. A
detailed geotechnical investigation will be necessary as this project progresses to further
confirm the project preliminary design and construction costs.
All of the proposed designs envisage the construction of a rock dyke around the perimeter of
the runway extension and construction of a reclaimed land platform inside the rock dyke
using dredge and/or land-based fill construction methods. The soils beneath the rock dyke
may need to be improved or removed to provide a firm foundation for the dyke. This will be
confirmed once further geotechnical investigations have been completed. The reclaimed land
platform will undergo settlement. The settlement process must be substantially complete
before the runway and taxiway can be built on it. The settlement process can be accelerated
by placing - then removing - a surcharge fill, with installation of vertical wick drains, and/or
using ground improvement methods. Again, this construction detail will be confirmed once
further geotechnical and detailed design work has been completed.
The 50:1 Obstacle Limitation Surface off the end of the existing runway presents a significant
constraint to construction of the proposed project. This constraint has been addressed within
the Report by considering low headroom construction equipment and performing construction
during night-time hours. These factors will decrease efficiency and increase the cost. An
implicit assumption is that future phases of the project, including detailed design, will further
examine and confirm the interaction between construction and airport operations to achieve
maximum efficiency of both during the construction period.
This Executive Summary should be read in conjunction with the main body of the report so
the reader can fully understand the basis for the information presented in this Report.

Concept Feasibility and Design Report 1
1.0 Purpose and Scope of Project

1.1 Purpose
The purpose of this project is to determine the engineering feasibility of extending Runway
16/34 at Wellington International Airport Limited (WIAL) to achieve a minimum Take-Off
Runway Available (TORA) of 2,300 metres. Engineering feasibility has been judged based
on two criteria. The first criterion is the feasibility of the design concepts and construction
methodologies that would be used to build the project. Included in this category is the
feasibility of maintaining Airport operations during the construction. The second criterion is
cost: whether or not the project could be designed and built with a budget of approximately
NZ$300 million. For the purpose of these comparisons, the cost includes the expected
construction contract and design and Airport project management fees. Not included herein
are the indirect costs (e.g., any loss of revenue) due to any impairment of Airport operations
that might occur due to the construction.
A variety of engineering studies were performed starting in 2014 to accomplish this stated
purpose. The objective of this report is to consolidate these various studies into a single
document that describes the feasibility, cost, methodology, and recommended programme
for extending Runway 16/34 at Wellington International Airport to achieve a TORA of 2300
metres.
1.2 Background
In June of 2014, AECOM (AECOM) New Zealand Limited (as legacy firm URS [URS] New
Zealand Limited) prepared a Preliminary Feasibility Study Report for extending Runway
16/34 to achieve a 2300 metre TORA. This Report is an update of the June 2014 Report and
includes the findings of additional investigations and engineering analyses that have been
completed since the issuance of the Preliminary Feasibility Study Report. One of the key
additional studies performed since the preparation of our original report was a geotechnical
investigation to further characterise the marine sediments in Lyall Bay.
AECOM also prepared (in January of 2015) a Preliminary Construction Methodology Report
for this project. This Report describes the revisions to the construction methodology,
programme and cost that flow from the additional investigations and engineering analyses
mentioned in the previous paragraph.
Section 1.4 of this Report describes the scope of work that was undertaken to prepare the
June 2014 Preliminary Feasibility Study Report and the scope of work completed since.
1.3 Baseline Projects and Options

The June 2014 Preliminary Feasibility Study Report described two baseline projects, referred
to as the North Baseline and the South Baseline. The analysis of these two baseline projects
led to the conclusion that the South Baseline was favourable from a cost and constructability
perspective.
The June 2014 Preliminary Feasibility Study Report also described six (6) options for
constructing a runway extension to the south and one (1) option for a hybrid north/south
construction. The results of this optioneering led to a conclusion that an extension to the
south would be the most feasible option from a cost and constructability perspective.
However, the selection of a preferred option was not possible at that time because of the
uncertainties associated with the subsurface geotechnical conditions in Lyall Bay and the
resulting impacts on costs to construct. This finding led to the execution of an additional
subsurface exploration program to further characterise the geotechnical properties of the
marine sediments in Lyall Bay. The results of this exploration program were used in January
2015 to develop and estimate the construction cost of a New South Baseline Project and
New South Options 1 through 3.
All of the aforementioned baseline and option projects envisaged the runway extension to be
constructed on a reclaimed land platform. In a parallel study, Nippon Steel & Sumitomo
Metal Corporation (NSSMC) developed an alternative for building a northern runway
extension in Evans Bay on a pile-supported structure. NSSMC also investigated building a
southern pile-supported platform in Lyall Bay, which required a separate breakwater structure
to mitigate the significant uplift forces resulting from the wave energy generated by the 100-
year storm event. The costs of both alternatives were found to be significantly higher that the
reclamation options and therefore were outside the project budget.
As a consolidation of all engineering studies performed to-date, this report addresses the
following baseline and option projects:
1) The North Baseline Project presented in the June 2014 Preliminary Feasibility Study
Report.
2) The Initial South Baseline Project and South Options 1 through 6 from the June 2014
Preliminary Feasibility Study Report.
3) The New South Baseline Project and New South Options 1 through 3 from the January
2015 update and presented herein.
4) The North/South Hybrid Option from the June 2014 Preliminary Feasibility Study Report.
5) The Pile-Supported Structure Options developed by Nippon Steel
The reports referred to above include work to estimate the respective costs of the various
options considered. It is important to note that the estimated construction costs associated
with Items 1, 4 and 5 above were significantly greater than the other options under
consideration. For this reason, these options were not investigated further as they were not
feasible from a budgetary perspective. The continuing engineering focus and majority of the
detail of this Report was directed at further assessment of the engineering options presented
in Items 2 and 3 above. Thus, the focus of this Report is on the options identified in Items 2
and 3.
1.4 Scope of Work

This Report summarises the multiple engineering tasks performed for WIAL between January
2014 and September 2015. The initial tasks were performed as AECOM legacy firm URS,
with the remaining tasks completed as AECOM, as noted below. The tasks performed are
described below.
1.4.1 Preliminary Feasibility Report
This work, performed as AECOM legacy firm URS, included the six primary tasks detailed
below and was completed in June 2014 with submittal of a Draft Preliminary Feasibility Study
Report.
Task 1: Development of Fill Sources: This study determined the sources, characteristics,
availability, and cost of fill and rock material for the reclaimed land platform. The scope
primarily focused on land-based sources (such as quarries) that are currently consented, as
well as potential dredge material sources. Where there were considered significant cost
advantages through the use of other sources, these sources were also investigated.
Task 2: Air Lancing: This task consisted of an offshore geotechnical investigation off the
southern end of the runway in Lyall Bay using a technique that can probe to a maximum

depth of 6 metres into soft sediments. The primary objective was to investigate depth to
bedrock through probing locations on a roughly 75-metre spacing in a grid pattern. The
results of this task were generalised logs of the sediment profile encountered, derived from
grab samples at various locations and depths throughout the probing.
Task 3: Development of Baseline Projects: This task was composed of the following
subtasks:
Subtask 3.1: Development of Seismic Design Criteria: A probabilistic seismic

hazard analysis (PSHA) was performed for the site, which developed peak ground
accelerations (PGAs), ground-motion time histories, and uniform hazard spectra for
return periods of 500 and 2,500 years.
Subtask 3.2: Development of Wave Design Criteria: The 100-year design storm
wave heights (significant wave heights) were developed for the northern and southern
runway extensions.
Subtask 3.3: Platform Analysis and Design: Engineering analysis and design were
performed to determine the geometry and configuration of the land reclamation,
comprising the rock dyke, the fill material, and any supplemental ground improvement
that may be needed. This subtask consisted of the following items:
Conventional geotechnical analyses to evaluate consolidation and liquefaction-
induced settlements in the existing marine sediments.
Two-dimensional soil-structure interaction modelling to evaluate the seismic
performance of the rock dyke and develop ground improvement schemes for
improved seismic performance.
Development of the rock dyke and coastal protection schemes for the reclamation
edge structure.
Subtask 3.4 Schematic Design Development: Schematic designs for the runway
extension (runways, taxiways, and airfield electrical systems), roads and tunnels, and
underground utilities were prepared. Except for the tunnels, these elements are not
believed to be significant cost drivers, so the design work mostly considered duplication
of existing infrastructure.
This subtask included the preparation of 3-dimensional computer-aided design drafting
(3-D CADD) models depicting existing conditions and proposed improvements (i.e.,
platform, runways, taxiways, and airfield electrical systems; roads and tunnels; and
underground utilities). The intent of the 3-D CADD models was twofold: to describe the
schematic design concepts; and to enable the calculation of the quantities of
construction to support costing of options (Task 4).
Task 4: Costing of Baseline Projects: The scope of this task was to develop cost
estimates for the baseline and option projects developed in Task 3. The cost estimates
included the expected cost of the construction contract and the costs for design and Airport
project management fees. This task included the development of construction methodology
concepts and preliminary programmes for the baseline Evans Bay and Lyall Bay projects. A
probabilistic approach was used to characterise the uncertainty in the cost estimates due to
the preliminary nature of the engineering design upon which they were based.
Task 5: Development and Costing of Options: The scope of this task was to develop
engineering properties to describe the options developed, and to prepare cost estimates.
The engineering properties of these options were developed by modifying specific elements

of the baseline projects, adjusting the quantities of construction accordingly, and

re-calculating costs using the same approach described in Task 4.
Task 6: Preparation of Reports: This task included the preparation of reports (preliminary
and final) and participation in two workshops.
This work formed the initial basis for WIAL to undertake further investigations with the intent
of assessing the environmental effects of the project and ultimately to assist with preparing
consenting documentation for the runway extension.
1.4.2 Lyall Bay Geotechnical Investigation and New South Project Options
Following from the initial feasibility study, WIAL commissioned AECOM (as legacy firm URS)
to undertake a physical geotechnical investigation to redress the imbalance of subsurface
geotechnical information between Evans Bay and Lyall Bay.
The results of the first stage air lancing investigations were used to prepare a scope for the
more costly second stage of the geotechnical investigation, which comprised machine
borehole drilling from a barge and laboratory testing. A maximum of 6 borehole locations
were proposed to determine the nature and in situ strength of the subsurface materials,
obtain undisturbed samples for laboratory testing, and to confirm the depth to bedrock in
Lyall Bay below the reach of the air lancing investigation. Despite multiple attempts, due to
weather and time constraints, only a single borehole was able to be completed between 19th
August and 13th September 2014.
Despite the limited success of the investigation, completion of the one borehole was
significant as we were able to obtain subsurface information that previously did not exist, as
well as confirm the depth to greywacke. This information was used to produce a revised
geotechnical subsurface profile that was then used to perform additional geotechnical
analyses, refine the previous options and update the cost of the refined options. These tasks
were completed in November 2014.
1.4.3 Construction Methodology Report
In January 2015, AECOM prepared a draft Construction Methodology Report with the
appropriate level of detail required to support the assessment of environmental effects, which
would ultimately assist in the preparation of consenting documentation. The Report included
descriptions of the construction objectives and constraints, provided an outline of the
construction programme and description of the project establishment, and developed the
baseline construction methodology.
1.4.4 Completion of Feasibility Report
From August through November 2015, AECOM was tasked with completing the Feasibility
Study report that was initially prepared in June 2014. This task included addressing the
additional items detailed below.
Task 1: Mooring Systems and Sewer Protection Concepts: Two technical memoranda
were prepared to address the need for mooring infrastructure to support construction activity,
as well as how best to handle the existing Moa Point outfall sewer within the project limits.
These memoranda identified and assessed protection concepts for the sewer pipeline and
offshore and shore-based mooring system concepts for marine based construction
equipment in Lyall Bay. Existing site information was used to develop both mooring system
and pipe protection concepts. This information included the following:
- Site and project information generated from the work performed by AECOM for this
project, such as the geotechnical investigation;
- Previous site information obtained from WIAL and other sources, such as bathymetric
and metocean data; and
- Moa Point outfall as built drawings.

Task 2: Stone Column and Rock Dyke Constructability: Technical memoranda were
prepared to evaluate the constructability of stone columns for ground improvement of the
seabed under the proposed rock dykes, if required, as well as the constructability of the rock
dykes with considerations for the potential adverse weather conditions that could be
encountered in Lyall Bay.
Task 3: Completion of the Feasibility Study Report: This task included preparation of
this Report, which is an update of the June 2014 Draft Report to include all relevant project
information generated after submittal of that Report.

2.0 Existing Conditions

2.1 Airport/Airfield
WIAL operates on a constrained 110 hectare site in Rongotai, a residential suburb within
8 kilometres of the centre of Wellington City. The Airport has a single, 1,945 metre long
runway, with 90 metre Runway End Safety Areas (RESA) at each end of the runway, and is
bounded by water at either end. Operational restrictions also apply due to the limited area
and location of the Airport relative to surrounding high terrain and residential areas. The
Airport operates with a night-time curfew due to restrictions on aircraft noise.
At present, WIAL can handle a large number of aircraft types; however, larger Code E aircraft
such as the Boeing 777 or Airbus A330 are principally limited as to range due to the short
runway.
Some specific Code E aircraft types such as the Boeing 777 300ER variants are unable to
land at their maximum landing weight. These restrictions limit the growth capability of WIAL.
In addition, smaller Code Csized aircraft such as the Boeing 737 or Airbus A320 regularly
face operating restrictions due to runway length, particularly on warm, still days.
A runway extension would unlock the full potential of the Airport by allowing:
1. Long-haul flights by Code E aircraft;
2. Trans-Tasman flights by Code E aircraft; and
3. Unrestricted Code C trans-Tasman flights.
WIAL performed detailed reviews of traveller demographics, and determined that a viable
case for long-haul travel exists from WIAL. In addition, WIAL is aware of new entrant airlines
that wish to operate trans-Tasman flights, but are unable to because of the length of the
runway.
WIAL also performed a detailed analysis of known aircraft characteristics to determine the
optimum runway length. This analysis has concluded that extending the runway to a
minimum TORA of 2,300 metres would enable WIAL to handle most Code E aircraft types
with sufficient load capacity to and from Asian and American destinations.
Accordingly, WIAL commenced planning for extending the runway, beginning with an
engineering feasibility study that is summarised in this Report.
2.2 Topography/Bathymetry
In support of the engineering feasibility study, topographic data for the Airport land area and
bathymetry data for Evans and Lyall Bays were provided by WIAL. The data sources used
are shown in Volume 2, Figure G.1.
The data sources included dxf contours for bathymetry adjacent to the shorelines for both the
Evans and Lyall Bay areas; and two txt point files for additional areas in Lyall Bay, but
outside the project area. Also used were topographic shapefiles of the existing ground (land)
contours, existing kerbs, buildings, and pavement markings. These data sources were
merged to develop one fully coordinated Civil 3D model that could be used for both the land
and offshore areas of the project.
Because data were drawn from different sources, extra care was taken to ensure that there
were no discontinuities. For example, the topography and bathymetry data were checked at
the shoreline to confirm consistency. The bathymetry data from different sources were

checked to the extent possible where they are adjacent to each other. These verifications,
although clearly approximate in nature, did not reveal any inconsistencies.
The Civil 3D model of existing topography and bathymetry that resulted from the compilation
of various data sources was used as the basis for the drawings presented in Volume 2, and
also forms the basis of many construction-related quantity calculations upon which the
construction cost estimates were ultimately based. As the project moves into the future
detailed design phase, it is recommended that additional topographic and bathymetric
surveys are performed as validation for the next phase of the project.
2.3 Geotechnical
Prior to undertaking the feasibility Study, existing available geotechnical information for the
project site consisted of the following:
- Offshore (three) and onshore borings on the Evans Bay side of the runway;
- Onshore borings on the Lyall Bay side of the runway, in proximity to the existing tunnel;
- Subsurface geophysical imaging; and
- Geologic reports and documentation.
2.3.1 Field Investigation
To address the lack of geotechnical information in Lyall Bay, AECOM performed a two stage
geotechnical investigation. The first stage of the investigation used underwater air-lancing
equipment within the proposed reclamation area to confirm the near surface material type for
marine sediments and to gauge the approximate extent of shallow bedrock at the southern
end of the runway. The second stage of the investigation consisted of drilling a borehole off
the southern end of the existing runway to confirm marine sediment composition and
characteristics at depth.
Both stages of the investigation are described in more detail in the sections below.
2.3.1.1 Air Lancing
The air lancing program consisted of performing 20 probes within the proposed reclamation
area over a period of 3 days. The objective of the investigation was to probe the marine
sediments and take select subsurface samples to confirm the material type and gradation of
marine sediments. The air-lancing equipment was able to penetrate to a depth of up to 4.5
metres and select bag samples were obtained for Particle Size Distribution testing.
The results confirmed that greywacke bedrock is present at the seafloor close to the southern
end of the existing Airport runway. Where sediments overlay bedrock, the subsoil profile to
4.5 metre depth was found to comprise interbedded sands and gravels. Particle-size testing
on samples retrieved from the lancing indicated that the sands are relatively clean, with fines
contents ranging from 1 to 5 percent and gravel contents from 1 to 23 percent.
However, the air-lancing technique is not capable of determining the in situ density of the
marine sediments, a key parameter to determine the extent to which they are susceptible to
earthquake-induced liquefaction. The investigation was also not able to identify the depth to
greywacke farther away from the end of the runway, particularly in the footprint of the rock
dyke along the southern and western edges of the proposed reclamation. The results of the
investigation are presented in Appendix A.

2.3.1.2 Soil Borings

A borehole investigation was conducted over a total of 11 days between 19 August and
13 September, 2014. This borehole investigation was performed to confirm the properties of
marine sediments at depth below the footprint of the proposed reclamation rock dyke. In
particular, the investigation was undertaken to confirm the in situ density of marine sediments
and depth to greywacke.
Work was conducted from Seaworks barge Brandywine, which used a four point mooring
system to anchor over each investigation point. Due to long periods of unfavourable weather
and some drilling difficulties, the fieldwork consisted of completing one (1) borehole to a total
depth of 31.86m below the sea floor. Drilling techniques included the use of a rotary sonic rig
and a heli-portable rotary coring rig, as well as a vibro core head.
The completed borehole required drilling of three (3) separate boreholes, two at the proposed
BH3 location and one approximately 20m southwest of the original location. The material
encountered when the borehole was terminated at a depth of 31.86m below the sea floor
appeared to be highly to completely weathered rock (greywacke).
Samples were logged by the supervising URS engineering geologist in general accordance
with the New Zealand Geotechnical Societys Field Description of Soil and Rock. A log of the
borehole is included in Appendix A. The description for the upper 8m is logged at the BH3
location and below this level from the BH3a location.
Particle Size distribution testing on samples from the soil boring showed the marine
sediments to be interbedded sands and gravels with a layer of Silt at approximately 8-11m
below the sea bed. Another silt/clay layer was encountered at depth around 22.5m below the
sea bed. Laboratory testing and geotechnical analysis is discussed in more detail in the
section below.
2.3.2 Laboratory Testing
Laboratory testing was completed on 17 samples from BH3. Laboratory testing was
conducted by Central Testing Services, and Babbage Geotechnical Laboratory, both of which
are New Zealand accredited laboratories.
The following laboratory tests were undertaken:
- Density of Soil
- Hydrometer Test
- Liquid Limit,
- Moisture Content,
- One Dimensional Consolidation
- Particle Size Distribution
- Plastic Limit,
- Plasticity Index,
- Shear Box,
- Solid Density
- Triaxial Compressive Strength
- Unconfined Compressive Strength Test

A summary of the tests undertaken and the full results of the laboratory tests are included in
Appendix A.
2.3.3 Geotechnical Analysis
The geotechnical analysis comprised the following tasks:
- Review of previous available geotechnical data. The locations of previous and new
boreholes are shown in Figure H.0 in Volume 2.
- Development of subsurface profiles for the northern and southern ends of the runway.
The profiles for both ends of the runway are presented in Figure H.1 of Volume 2.
- Estimation of potential short- and long-term settlements.
- Estimation of liquefaction-induced settlements.
The subsurface profile for Evans Bay was largely based on the three (3) borings undertaken
by the Ministry of Works Department in 1978 and published correlations of soil types to
geotechnical properties. The full table of geotechnical properties derived from the desktop
analysis is presented in Appendix B.
Sediment gradation and properties were obtained from the soil boring and air lancing
programs, as well as a seismic profile developed by Davey in 1971, which also provided the
depth to bedrock. It should be noted that there is not a high degree of confidence in the
Davey report. However, the depth to bedrock from the soil boring appeared to correlate well
with the proposed depth to bedrock of the Davey Report.
2.3.4 Settlement
The soil profiles and properties, as well as the analysis methodology used to estimate
settlements, are presented in Appendix B. For Evans Bay, the results of this analysis
indicated maximum settlements ranging from 2.5 to 2.8 metres. The time for 90 percent
consolidation is estimated to be on the order of 2 to 5 years, with approximately 75 percent of
the consolidation occurring in the first year following construction. It is likely that settlement
will occur more quickly than predicted, and the majority of settlement could occur prior to
completion of construction.
At the Lyall Bay end, maximum settlements occurring under the reclamation were estimated
to be about 0.65 metres. Approximately 92 percent of the settlement would be immediate.
The time for 90 percent consolidation settlement is estimated to be 1 to 1.6 years. It is
expected that the settlements can be accommodated within the construction program.
2.3.5 Liquefaction
An assessment of settlement due to liquefaction of the marine sediments underlying the
proposed reclamation was also performed. The soil profiles and properties used, as well as
the analysis methodology used to estimate liquefaction-induced settlements, are presented in
Appendix B.
In Lyall Bay, liquefaction-induced settlements of marine deposits were tested for return
periods of 500, 1,000 and 2,500 years. For all return periods analysed liquefaction was
predicted between 16.5m and 19.5m depth below sea bed. Liquefaction settlement in the
marine deposits below the seabed was estimated to be on the order of 50 to 200mm. At the
Evans Bay end of the runway, liquefaction-induced settlements of the marine sediments
(assuming the runway platform fills are placed above) were estimated to be on the order of
1 metre.

2.3.6 Further Investigation

The offshore profile for the Lyall Bay end of the runway has been developed predominantly
from the borehole investigation program described herein. While an attempt was made to
assess layer thicknesses from descriptions of the drilling rates and washings from drilling
water recovery, the thickness of layers is indicative only. Soil layer descriptions were based
on disturbed SPT samples which typically represent less than 15% (450mm at 3m intervals)
of the profile below 3m depth. As part of future detailed engineering design of the proposed
reclamation and rock dykes, it is expected that additional geotechnical site investigation,
including continuous core sampling, will be carried out at the southern end of the runway to
confirm the geological profile.
At that time, additional boreholes could be supplemented with updated geophysical
investigations to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the subsurface conditions
at the southern end of the runway.
2.4 Roads, Tunnels, and Underground Utilities

Existing roads near and on Airport property would be affected by the runway extension. The
option to extend north into Evans Bay would have the greatest impact and a new tunnel
would need to be constructed through the runway platform to accommodate Cobham Drive.
The existing roundabout that forms the intersection of Cobham Drive and Calabar Road
would need to be relocated to the east. Calabar Road may require some re-alignment, and
underground utilities under Cobham and Corbin drives would also need to be relocated.
In addition to the cost of road and utility reconstruction (which will not be trivial), the
relocation of north-side roads and utilities may create significant traffic congestion, and
constrain access to Miramar and Maupuia, as well as the Airport, during construction.
The option to extend south into Lyall Bay would require modification and extension of the
existing tunnel (Moa Point Road) and underground utility relocation. Although less daunting
than the northern option, the existing tunnel under the runway would need to be extended
(which would require provisions for fire and life-safety considerations as the tunnel length is
increased) or a second bridging or tunnel structure erected to accommodate the extended
taxiway.
2.5 Sewer Outfall

The existing Moa Point Treatment Plant Ocean Outfall pipe passes through the area of the
proposed reclamation dyke, as shown in the figures in Volume 2. The outfall pipe extends
approximately 1,870m from the shoreline. The outfall pipe alignment is oblique to the east
side of the proposed southern extension reclamation and approximately 210m of the existing
outfall pipeline would be located under the proposed new reclamation.
The pipeline is a 1265mm diameter steel pipe with a cement mortar lining and 122 mm thick
concrete weight coating on the exterior. The pipe was constructed in pipe strings of
approximately 160m that were reportedly assembled onshore and connected offshore.
As-built drawings indicate that the first 40m of outfall pipe that would be covered by the
proposed reclamation is underlain by rock. Beyond that, the outfall pipe is believed to be
underlain by Pebble-cobble gravel. The nominal burial cover for the outfall where it crosses
below the proposed southern reclamation is 1.0 to 1.5m below sea bed level.

3.0 Runway Extension Preliminary Design Criteria

In addition to published design criteria (e.g., the International Civil Aeronautics Organization
[ICAO] Annex 14 design standards and Advisory Circular AC 139 6 Aerodrome Design
Requirements), the project-specific design criteria developed and used for this preliminary
design work are presented below.
3.1 Seismic
3.1.1 Seismic Ground Motion
Seismic design criteria were developed by performing a site-specific probabilistic seismic
hazards analysis (PSHA). The criteria developed for this project comprise 500-year and
2,500-year design earthquake ground-motion response spectra and time histories for free-
field bedrock conditions. These bedrock ground-motion time histories were used as inputs at
the base of the soil and fill layers for the seismic soil-structure interaction analyses of the
proposed reclaimed land platform. The results of the PSHA are provided in Appendix C.
The peak ground acceleration (PGA) for the 500-year design earthquake has been
determined to be 0.60g, with a PGA of 0.98g for the 2,500-year design earthquake. The
ground response spectra associated with these design events, and suite of ground motion
time histories to match these spectra, are shown in Appendix C.
3.1.2 Seismic Performance Objective
Seismic performance objectives were developed to accompany the 500 year and 2,500 year
design events. Different levels of damage to the runway extension would be expected to
occur for both events. Through discussions with WIAL, it has been determined that the
performance objective for the 500 year design event should match the Airports current post-
disaster operational requirements, which include the Airport being operationalalbeit
possibly with a shortened runwaywhile repairs are made. These requirements include
performing minor repairs to the earthquake-damaged runway, such as filling in cracks and
levelling the landing surface with conventional heavy construction equipment, so that C 130
aircraft can land within 1 to 2 days following the earthquake.
Based on our understanding of C 130 aircraft landing requirements, landing can be
performed on a runway with up to 19 to 20 centimetres of differential settlement between
adjacent pavement sections. It is anticipated that with these criteria, several months of
reconstruction may still be required to reinitiate commercial flight operations. AECOM has
interpreted this objective as meaning no more than 2 metres of lateral displacement and
1 metre of vertical settlement of the rock dyke will occur during the 500 year design event.
For the 2,500 year design event, the performance objective is to have no catastrophic failure
of the perimeter rock dykes surrounding the runway extension. AECOM has interpreted this
to mean that the dyke and reclaimed land platform will remain stable following the 2,500 year
design event; although extensive re-construction will likely be needed before the runway can
be put back into service for commercial operations.
AECOMs experience on other projects suggests that a design meeting the 2 metre lateral
displacement/1 metre vertical criteria for the rock dykes during a 500 year design event is
sufficiently robust to also meet the stability (i.e., no catastrophic failure) criterion for the 2,500
year design event. Therefore, for this project we have focused the seismic analysis work on
the 500 year design event for development of design concepts, but confirmed these concepts
with the 2,500 year design event.

3.1.3 Alternative Seismic Performance Objective

As part of the optioneering for the project, some of the South Options were characterised by
more optimistic (less conservative) assumptions concerning the depths and areas beneath
the rock dyke for which soil improvement would be needed and less robust implementation of
soil improvement. The seismic analyses of these options revealed the resulting movements
of the rock dyke do not meet the performance objectives described above. This means that
these options would suffer greater damage and require longer runway down-time for repair,
in comparison to the other options. Therefore, although the options developed with the
alternative seismic performance criteria met the cost criteria for feasibility, they were
disregarded as they were not comparable from a seismic reliability perspective, i.e. they did
not meet the 2-metre lateral displacement/1-metre vertical criteria for the rock dykes during a
500-year design event.
3.2 Wave
The 100 year wave design criteria were developed for runway extensions north into Evans
Bay and south into Lyall Bay. A memorandum summarising this work is provided in
Appendix D.
The criteria for Lyall Bay were derived from an analysis of the annual frequency of
occurrence of maximum height of a single wave; the average height of the highest 10 percent
of waves (H1/10); and the average height of the highest 30 percent of waves, also called the
significant wave height. The 16-year data record from 1998 to 2013 for waves measured at
the Baring Head buoy by the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA)
was used in the Lyall Bay analysis. For the Evans Bay extension, fetch-limited calculations
were performed based on the extreme sustained wind speeds experienced during the Gisele
ex-tropical cyclone.
The probabilistic analysis of the Baring Head dataset yielded deep-water significant wave
heights, and H1/10 heights of 10.5 metres and 12.5 metres, respectively. Depth limitations in
Lyall Bay, which will induce wave breaking, yield a range of probabilistic significant wave
heights and H1/10 heights for the southern extension in Lyall Bay of 9.5 metres to
10.5 metres.
The 100 year significant wave heights and H1/10 wave heights for the northern extension in
Evans Bay can be expected to be in the range of 1.5 metres to 1.75 metres, and 1.9 metres
to 2.2 metres, respectively.
The basis upon which these criteria were developed is provided in Appendix D.
3.3 Geotechnical
3.3.1 Initial Seismic Deformation Analyses
A series of seismic deformation analyses were performed as part of the alternatives
evaluations for the proposed runway extension schemes extending north into Evans Bay and
south into Lyall Bay. The analyses considered reclamation fills contained by rock dykes
along the perimeter. Seismic stability of the perimeter rock dykes was evaluated using
nonlinear numerical analyses, which included the effects of seismically induced liquefaction
of both the underlying marine sediments and the reclamation fill. The purpose of these
numerical analyses was to determine the dyke configurations (slope, width, etc.) and the
extent of ground improvement required to limit seismic deformations to acceptable limits, for
both 500-year and 2,500-year design earthquakes. The results of the analyses are
presented in Appendix E.

3.3.2 Additional Analyses

The initial seismic deformation analyses were performed based on historical published
subsurface information and the results of the air lancing investigation. Due to the limited
nature of this data, assumptions were made in regard to the depth to bedrock and the
liquefaction potential of the marine sediments, which resulted in the need for implementation
of ground improvement measures for seismic performance of the rock dyke.
Based on the results of the supplementary geotechnical (soil borings) investigation
performed in Lyall Bay, additional seismic deformation analyses were performed for the
South Baseline and Option Projects. The additional analyses followed the same approach
and design criteria as the initial analyses. The results of the analyses are presented in
Appendix E.
3.3.3 Ground Improvement
The settlements discussed In Sections 2.3.4 and 2.3.5 are typically mitigated using ground-
improvement techniques. For the seismic deformation analyses performed for this project
(summarised in Appendix E), we considered the following ground-improvement schemes:
- Install stone columns beneath the rock dykes to mitigate settlements of the loose marine
sediments under the loading of the rock dykes, and liquefaction-induced settlements
affecting the seismic performance of the dykes.
- Perform vibro-compaction beneath the rock dykes to mitigate settlements of the loose
marine sediments under the loading of the rock dykes, and liquefaction-induced
settlements affecting the seismic performance of the dykes.
- Remove and replace the marine sediments beneath the rock dykes to mitigate
settlements of the loose marine sediments under the loading of the rock dykes, and
liquefaction-induced settlements affecting the seismic performance of the dykes.
- Surcharge the reclamation fills, combined with installation of vertical wick drains, to
accelerate consolidation of the reclamation fills and underlying loose/soft marine
sediments.
- Perform vibro-compaction of the reclamation fills to mitigate settlements in the
reclamation.
Other ground-improvement techniques are available, such as deep-soil-mixing and jet
grouting. However, these were not investigated in detail because they were considered more
costly as compared to the techniques mentioned above. These should be considered in the
future detailed engineering design phases of the project, if additional geotechnical data
changes the relative cost-effectiveness of various soil improvement techniques. This is
considered unlikely, but it cannot be totally dismissed at this point.
3.4 Rock Dyke Protection

One of the key components of the runway extension either north into Evans Bay or south into
Lyall Bay is the rock dyke that will retain and protect the reclamation from the 100 year
extreme event design waves. The Lyall Bay extension would be exposed to storms from the
south, whereas Evans Bay is relatively sheltered. As demonstrated by the June 20, 2013
storm, during which breakwater material was carried onto the southern end of the runway -
requiring airport closure - the Lyall Bay rock dyke design is an important factor in the
feasibility evaluation of that extension.

Preliminary design of the rock dykes had to consider the resistance to storm waves and
surges, as well as the stability of the structures, taking into account the underlying weak
marine sediments and the effects of possible liquefaction generated by seismic events. The
approach and development of the design for both the Evans Bay and Lyall Bay rock dykes is
included in Appendix F.
3.5 Fill Sources

A desk top study was undertaken in 2014 to identify the most likely borrow sources to provide
the fill materials required for the reclamation, as well as provide an assessment of their
suitability, quantities and availability. The focus of the study was on already approved
(consented) sources and operators of commercial operations were consulted during the
study that, in some cases, included site walkover visits to observe the potential borrow
sources.
Table 3.5.1 below shows the material types and estimated volumes required for the
proposed northern and southern extensions.
Table 3.5.1 Preliminary Estimates of Materials and Volumes Required

Total Placed Volume
Required
Material Types Required Comments
Northern Southern
Extension Extension
Riprap (1-ton boulders)
Core material
2 M m3 1 M m3
Bulk fill (sand/gravel/rock) Up to 300 mm size; sand
preferred
Note:
Specific volume requirements have not yet been determined. These are estimated neat line volumes
and do not take into account settlement of the marine sediments under the reclamation, or
consolidation in the reclamation fills.
M = million
3
m = cubic meters
An assessment was made of the suitability of the material at each consented source and the
available volumes from each source.
Sand dredged from the entrance channel to Wellington Harbour appears to offer a suitable
source of sand-dominated bulk fill material that could be delivered to site via pipeline or
barge. The potential volume available is estimated to exceed 1 Mm3 and could be as high
as 3 Mm3.
The Kiwi Point, Belmont, and Horokiwi quarries are jointly capable of providing large volumes
of variably weathered greywacke suitable for bulk fill. The Kiwi Point, Belmont and Horokiwi
quarries are also jointly capable of providing large volumes of highly weathered greywacke
suitable for use as core material. The level of processing that may be required has not yet
been determined.
The local Wellington greywacke quarries should not be relied upon for riprap for this project.
The best-quality riprap source identified is the operating Mt. Burnett dolomite quarry near
Collingwood, Golden Bay, which has previously supplied riprap to Wellington via barge.

A shortlist of fill material sources was prepared giving consideration to the transportation
methods and constraints involved with each fill source. The shortlist is shown in Table 3.5.2
below.
Table 3.5.2 Shortlist of Potential Fill Material Sources
Transportation Method/
Material Type Potential Source
Constraints
Riprap Golden Bay Dolomite quarry Truck 42 km, barge from
Tarakohe (Takaka)
Bulk fill and/or Belmont Quarry, Lower Hutt Road, 28 km; must cross city
riprap Horokiwi Quarry, Lower Hutt Road, 18 km; must cross city
Kiwi Point Quarry, Ngauranga Road, 16 km; must cross city
Bulk fill Wellington Harbour Pipeline or barge (2 to 10 km)
Core material Kiwi Point, Belmont, Horokiwi Road, as above
quarries
Pauatahanui Road, 38 km; must cross city
Hillersden Gravel, Blenheim Truck 35 km to port, barge from
Picton
Moutere Gravel, Nelson Truck 30 km to port, barge from
Nelson
Note:
Trucks site from any of the greywacke quarries will need to pass through residential areas
km = kilometres
In conclusion, the required volumes of the various fill materials are available from a variety of
consented sources in Wellington and the upper south island. Further discussion of the study
results is included in Appendix G.
3.6 Other Criteria

3.6.1 Airfield
The preliminary layout and design of the airfield components have been based on ICAO
Annex 14 design standards and Civil Aviation Authority of New Zealand Advisory Circular
AC 139 6 Aerodrome Design Requirements Revision 4, with several modifications to
standards, as noted in this Report.
The design considers Code E aircraft in the following areas:
- Taxiway turning movements, shoulders, and strip dimensions;
- Loading of the Runway and Taxiway extensions; and
- The overall length of the extension and the runway geometry.

3.6.2 Roads and Utilities

For roads and offsite underground utilities, the layout and preliminary design options
described in this Report are largely based on replicating and relocating existing facilities.
The inherent assumption is that the cost of any upgrade or modernisation of the existing
facilities (above and beyond replication) would not be borne by WIAL.
For tunnels it has been assumed that structures would meet the requirements of the
Austroads Guide to Road Tunnels where applicable to New Zealand through the New
Zealand supplement NZ Transport Agency Guide to Road Tunnels.

4.0 Optioneering
4.1 Chronology
This Section 4 presents the optioneering process that was implemented to result in the
preferred option that is presented in Section 5. The process is most easily understood in
terms of the chronology of work that was performed and culminates in this Runway Extension
Project Engineering Feasibility Study Report.
As indicated earlier in this report, WIAL commissioned AECOM (as legacy firm URS) to
prepare a preliminary Runway Extension Project Engineering Feasibility Study Report. This
work, which concluded in June 2014, was initially focused on two options, one which would
extend the runway north into Evans Bay and a second that would extend south into Lyall
Bay. These two options are referred to as the North Baseline Option and the Initial South
Baseline Option, as discussed in more detail below. The June 2014 report also developed
Initial South Options 1 through 6 and a North/South Hybrid Option. These options were
based upon considering a range of assumptions concerning the area and depth of existing
Lyall Bay marine sediments that would need improvement, as well as alternate configurations
for the rock dyke construction and methods for consolidating the reclamation fill. The Initial
South Options and the North/South Hybrid Option are also discussed in more detail below.
In a separate 2014 study, WIAL commissioned Nippon Steel & Sumitomo Metal Corporation
to investigate a runway extension options comprised of a steel pile-supported structural
platform. This design concept is described in Section 4.5 below.
Following completion of the aforementioned additional geotechnical work, the design team
performed further analysis and conceptual design resulting in development of a New South
Baseline project and New South Options 1, 2 and 3. These are described further in Section
4.6 of this report along with a summary of the North and Initial South Baseline and Options
from the June 2014 report.
4.2 North Baseline Option

4.2.1 Airfield Civil
The airfield civil design for the North Baseline Project is shown in Volume 2, Figures N1.0,
N2.0 and N2.1. The design is based on providing a minimum 2,300 metre TORA and
150 metres of full-strength pavement beyond the declared end of both runways 16 and 34.
For this design, there were no modifications proposed for the Runway 34 end.
The Runway 16 end would feature a displaced landing threshold. The proposed
configuration is shown in Volume 2, Figures N2.0 and N3.1.
The longitudinal profile of the Runway 16 north extension option is -0.80 percent to the new
proposed end of the runway. From this point, the grade of the RESA slopes downward to
minimise reclamation fill.
Typical runway and taxiway pavement sections are shown in Volume 2, Figures N7.0 and
N7.1. The pavement sections are included for costing purposes. Pavement sections are
based on existing conditions plus limited supplemental pavement design; this in turn is based
on fleet-mix data provided by WIAL and experience with similar runway/taxiway systems.
The geometry of the runway/taxiway extensions was designed to accommodate Code E
aircraft. A preliminary layout was prepared to illustrate the geometry needed for Code F
aircraft, but this was abandoned due to its significant increase on the size of the reclaimed
land platform. However, this does not preclude use airfield by Code F aircraft. Code F
aircraft could still use the airfield, albeit with special operational procedures in place.

Although not shown on the drawings, the design and cost estimates include a new temporary
taxiway connector between Taxiway A and Runway 16/34. This feature was included to
facilitate airfield operations during construction should the runway need to be temporarily
shortened.
4.2.2 Aeronautical Ground Lighting and Navigational Aids
The proposed modifications to AGL systems and NAVAIDS are shown in Volume 2,
Figure E1.0 North. The scope of the AGL systems modifications for the north runway
extension option included the following actions:
- Installing new taxiway centreline lights in the additional taxiway portion and lead-in lights
onto the runway;
- Installing new taxiway edge lights on the additional taxiway portion;
- Installing new runway guard lights at the intersection of the extended taxiway and the
new runway end;
- Installing new runway overrun lights;
- Installing new runway edge lights; and
- Reconfiguring runway lighting colour codes along the length of the runway.
The scope of the NAVAIDS systems modifications for the north runway extension option
included the following actions:
- Relocating the existing Runway 34 localizer, localizer shelter, ground checkpoints, and
associated power and communication infrastructure;
- Installing new runway distance remaining signs to delineate the new, longer, usable
pavement. Note: runway distance remaining signs are used to delineate available
pavement, and not the remaining ASDA or LDA;
- Installing new threshold bar at the runways new threshold location;
- Relocating the existing PAPI; and
- Relocating the existing glide slope antenna, shelter, and associated power and
communication infrastructure.
The proposed NAVAIDS modifications and other aspects of the construction for the northern
extension option would have impacts to airfield operations during construction:
- Arrivals on Runway 34 would be impacted for the period of construction during which the
Runway 34 localiser is being relocated;
- The length of Runway 34 may need to be temporarily shortened to accommodate near-
shore construction on the Runway 16 end;
Runway 16 glide slope antenna is being relocated;
- New flight procedures would need to be developed prior to commissioning the new
runway;
- Revised flight procedures may be needed during the construction period; and

- There would be electrical infrastructure installed in areas outside of the civil pavement in
between the runway ends. This would cause runway and taxiway shutdowns during
daytime hours unless all electrical work in this area was limited to night-time closures.
4.2.3 Reclaimed Land Platform Design
The reclaimed fill platform in Evans Bay consisted of the primary components discussed in
the subsections below.
4.2.3.1 Rock Dyke
The rock dyke section proposed for Evans Bay is shown in Appendix F. Key layers of the
rock dykes were as follows:
- Quarry run for the core of the dyke;
- Underlayer over the quarry run on the outside of the dyke, consisting of 150 millimetre
rock fill over the quarry run on the inside slope of the dyke; and
- Primary armour units, consisting of local Greywacke or Dolomite rock of about
2 to 3 tonnes in size.
The wave exposure of the rock dyke in Evans Bay would be far less than that in Lyall Bay,
because Evans Bay is sheltered and has a far shorter wave fetch generation length.
Therefore, the rock dyke system for Evans Bay was not required to be as robust as the Lyall
Bay rock dyke schemes. Recommended materials for each of the above layers are
presented in Appendix F.
4.2.3.2 Improvement of Existing Marine Sediments
Because the rock dyke would be sitting on loose, potentially liquefiable marine sediments, as
well as several soft, compressible clay layers, ground improvement of these sediments would
be necessary for the dyke to meet the seismic performance criteria for the project. Without
ground improvement, these loose soils would experience significant lateral spreading during
the 500 year event, causing excessive lateral displacement and failure of the rock dykes, as
well as large vertical settlements in the reclamation fills immediately behind the dykes.
Soil-structure interaction modelling was performed to evaluate the seismic performance of
the rock dyke system and to develop conceptual ground-improvement schemes. The results
of the modelling are presented in Appendix E. The ground-improvement scheme was
developed to meet the seismic performance criteria described within this Report for a 500
year earthquake, but was also verified with the 2,500 year earthquake performance
requirements. Based on the results, ground improvement has been assumed to consist of 1-
metre diameter stone columns, installed 3 metres on-centre, and extending to the bottom of
the loose marine sediment layers.
Due to the variable depths of the loose, liquefiable marine sediments, the proposed stone
column improvement depths vary. The northern (end) dyke would generally requires stone
column improvement up to 15 to 16 metres below the mudline; whereas the eastern and
western (side) dykes would require stone column improvement up to 30 to 31 metres below
the mudline.
4.2.3.3 Reclamation
For initial design and costing purposes, we have assumed the fill materials used for the
reclamation consist primarily of sandy sediments dredged from the Wellington Harbour
Entrance Navigation Channel. Fill quantities were developed based on the results of
geotechnical consolidation/settlement analyses, as described in Appendix B.

Alternatives sources include upland borrow sites in the Wellington area, as discussed in
Appendix G. It should be noted that the Project may require the use of fill materials from the
upland borrow sites for completion of the reclamation.
4.2.3.4 Improvement of Reclamation Fill
Depending on the placement methods of the reclamation fill materials, improvement of these
materials may have been required for reduction of both static settlements and liquefaction
(seismic)-induced settlements. For the purpose of this study, we have assumed construction
of a surcharge fill on top of the reclamation. Combined with installation of vertical drains (at
about 2 metres on centre), the surcharge fill would accelerate consolidation of the
reclamation fills, resulting in a denser subsurface layer under the runway that would perform
better during an earthquake.
The surcharge and wick drain design criteria were developed based on the results of the
geotechnical analyses and modelling, and previous experiences with marine reclamation
projects similar to this project. The location and height of the surcharge fill would be
constrained by the OLS. It has been assumed that the surcharge fill would not be practical
where the distance from the new runway platform to the existing OLS is less than about 3
metres. Inboard (south) of this location, the reclamation fill would need to be treated via
vibro-compaction. Outboard (north) of this location, the surcharge fill (with wick drains) would
likely be placed to follow the slope of the OLS to reach a maximum height of 7.5 metres, and
remain constant at 7.5 metres to the northern end of the reclaimed land platform.
4.2.4 Roads, Tunnels, and Utilities
The impacts to existing roads and utilities would be much greater for the north runway
extension option, in comparison to the south extension option. Cobham Drive would likely
need to be lowered (by approximately 1.5 metre) and reconstructed in a new vehicular
tunnel. This lowering would provide sufficient space between the roadway and runway/
taxiway surface to allow for: the tunnel design vehicle, structural support for the
runway/taxiway loads, and tunnel services. Volume 2, Figures N2.1, N7.2 and N7.4, show
indicative design concepts that were developed for cost estimating purposes. The existing
roundabout would need to be relocated to the east; see Volume 2, Figures N2.1 and N7.3.
The relocation of the roundabout would require significant excavation into Wexford Hill (see
Figure N2.1 and the section drawn on Figure N4.2 in Volume 2 of this Report), and
stabilisation of the resulting cut slope with rock bolts and shotcrete. For this option, Calabar
Road may require some re-alignment, and underground utilities under Cobham and Corbin
Drives would also need to be relocated.
There are several co-lateral impacts associated with lowering the grade at Cobham Drive:
- There would be no room for fill over the tunnel, so substantial run-on slabs would be
required to mitigate differential settlement of the fill relative to the structure;
- The tunnel may need a pump station or stormwater rising main to meet the New Zealand
Transport Agencys road design criteria, and to avoid backflow problems when storm
events combine with high tide;
- Additional excavation at the Cobham/Calabar roundabout may be needed to match the
lower level (even if vehicles can start climbing as they exit the tunnel); and
- There is a greater maximum height for the Calabar Road retaining walls.
The following north-side utilities would potentially be impacted:
- 33,000 V Cable;
- 11,000 V Cable;

- DC Cable;
- Fibre-Optic Line;
- 100 millimetre PE Gas Line;
- Stormwater Lines;
- Sewer Line Rising Main;
- Water Main Line; and
- Communications Line.
In addition to the cost of road and utility reconstruction (which will not be trivial), the
relocation of north-side roads and utilities would likely create significant traffic congestion,
and constrain Airport access during construction.
4.3 South Baseline and Options
The various project elements discussed in this section apply to the South Baseline project ,as
well as all south project options.
4.3.1 Airfield Civil
The airfield civil design for the South Baseline Project is shown in Volume 2, Figures S1.0,
S2.0, and S2.1. The design is based on providing a minimum 2,300 metre TORA and
150 metres of full-strength pavement beyond the declared end of the both runways 16 and
34. For this design, there would be no modifications proposed for the Runway 16 end.
The Runway 34 end would feature a displaced landing threshold. The proposed
configuration is shown in Volume 2, Figures S2.0 and S3.1.
The longitudinal profile of the Runway 34 southern extension option would maintain the
grade of the existing runway (+0.37 percent) to the new proposed end of the runway. From
this point, the grade of the RESA would slope downward to minimise reclamation fill.
Typical runway and taxiway pavement sections are shown in Volume 2, Figures S7.0 and
S7.1. The pavement sections are indicated for costing purposes. Pavement sections are
based on existing conditions plus limited supplemental pavement design, based on fleet mix
data provided by WIAL and experience with similar runway/taxiway systems.
The geometry of the runway/taxiway extensions has been designed to accommodate Code E
aircraft. A preliminary layout was prepared to illustrate the geometry needed for Code F
aircraft, but this was abandoned due to its significant increase on the size of the reclaimed
land platform. However, this would not preclude use of the airfield by Code F aircraft. Code
F aircraft could still use the airfield, albeit with special operational procedures in place.
Although not shown on the drawings, the design and cost estimates include a new temporary
taxiway connector between Taxiway A and Runway 16/34. This feature was included to
facilitate airfield operations during construction should the runway need to be temporarily
shortened.
4.3.2 Aeronautical Ground Lighting and Navigational Aids
The proposed modifications to Aeronautical Ground Lighting (AGL) systems and Navigational
Aids (NAVAIDS) are shown in Volume 2, Figure E1.0 South. The scope of the AGL
systems modifications for the south runway extension option includes the following actions:

- Installing new taxiway centreline lights in the additional taxiway portion, and lead-in lights
onto the runway;
- Installing new taxiway edge lights on the additional taxiway portion;
- Installing new runway guard lights at the intersection of the extended taxiway and the
new runway end;
- Installing new runway overrun lights;
- Installing new runway edge lights; and
- Reconfiguring the runway lighting colour codes along the length of the runway.
The scope of the NAVAIDS systems modifications for the south runway extension option
included the following actions:
- Relocating the existing Runway 16 localizer, localizer shelter, ground checkpoints, and
associated power and communication infrastructure;
- Installing new runway distance remaining signs to delineate the new, longer, usable
pavement. Note: runway distance remaining signs are used to delineate available
pavement, and not the remaining Accelerate Stop Distance Available (ASDA) or Landing
Distance Available (LDA);
- Installing new threshold bar at the runways new threshold location;
- Relocating the existing Precision Approach Path Indicator (PAPI); and
- Relocating the existing glide slope antenna, shelter, and associated power and
communication infrastructure.
The proposed NAVAIDS modifications and other aspects of the construction for the south
extension option would have the following impacts to airfield operations during construction:
Runway 16 localiser is being relocated;
Runway 34 glide slope antenna is being relocated;
- New flight procedures would need to be developed prior to commissioning the new
runway;
- Revised flight procedures may be needed during the construction period; and
- There would be electrical infrastructure installed in areas outside of the civil pavement
between the runway ends. This would cause runway and taxiway shutdowns during
daytime hours unless all electrical work in this area is limited to night-time closures.
4.3.3 Reclaimed Land Platform Design
The reclaimed fill platform in Lyall Bay consists of the primary components discussed in the
subsections below.

4.3.3.1 Rock Dyke

Three different rock dyke sections were proposed, based on the depth of water and level of
exposure to the significant wave heights, as shown in Volume 2, Figures S3.0, S3.1, S3.2
and S3.3. Key layers of the rock dykes are as follows:
- Quarry run for the core of the dyke;
- Filter stone over the quarry run;
- Secondary armour, consisting of 1.6- to 3.1 tonne high-quality stone over the filter stone;
- Primary armour units, consisting of 34 tonne accropodes at the head of the reclamation
and returns; 24 tonne units along the eastern and western sides of the reclamation; and
reuse of the existing Akmon armour units on the shallower and more sheltered eastern
side of the runway extension; and
- Concrete wave wall at the top of the dyke to reduce wave overtopping.
The above rock dyke scheme is a robust system that would be necessary to provide
protection from the southern ocean storm waves and storm surges, and avoid repeating
previous failures of the shoreline protection system that have occurred at the Lyall Bay end of
the existing runway. Recommended materials for each of the above layers are presented in
Appendix F.
The components described above comprise a full-section rock dyke that was proposed for
the South Baseline project, as well as some of the South Options. Alternatively, some of the
South Options included a two-stage rock dyke as a cost-saving measure. The primary
difference is that the two-stage rock dyke would replace a portion of the quarry run core with
reclamation fill materials (such as sandy sediments dredged from the Wellington Harbour
Entrance Navigation Channel). The two-stage rock dyke is illustrated in the geotechnical
analyses results included in Appendix E.
4.3.3.2 Improvement of Existing Marine Sediments
Because the rock dyke could be sitting on loose, potentially liquefiable marine sediments,
ground improvement of these sediments may be necessary for the dyke to meet the seismic
performance criteria for the project. If this is the case, without ground improvement, these
loose, liquefiable soils could experience significant lateral spreading during the 500 year
design earthquake event, causing excessive lateral displacement that would compromise the
rock dykes, as well as large vertical settlements in the reclamation fills immediately behind
the dykes.
As mentioned elsewhere in this report, the engineering properties of the marine sediments in
Lyall Bay are not well known. In addition, although the depth to greywacke is relatively well
known close to the end of the runway (based on prior investigations and the air lancing
performed as part of this project), the depth to greywacke is not known under the southern
and western edges of the reclamation. However, the depth to greywacke was identified at
one location from the soil boring program and this appears to correlate quite well with the
Davey interpretation for depth to bedrock (see Appendix B).
For the initial analyses, which were performed prior to performing the soil boring program,
assumptions were needed concerning the depth of sediments that are susceptible to
earthquake-induced liquefaction. It was assumed that the boundary between liquefiable and
non-liquefiable sediments in Lyall Bay was 50 percent of the distance from the mud line to
the greywacke, based on the Davey interpretation; i.e., the upper half of the marine
sediments are susceptible to liquefaction. Additional analyses also evaluated less
conservative assumptions (i.e. shallower depths) for the depth to greywacke.

Soil-structure interaction modelling was conducted to evaluate the seismic performance of

the rock dyke system and develop conceptual ground improvement schemes. The results of
the modelling are presented in Appendix E. The ground-improvement scheme was
developed to meet the seismic performance criteria described herein for a 500 year
earthquake, but was also verified with the 2,500 year earthquake performance requirements.
Based on the results, ground improvement is assumed to consist of 1 metre-diameter stone
columns, installed 3 metres on centre, and extending to the bottom of the loose liquefiable
marine sediments layers (i.e., half the distance from the mud line to the greywacke, per the
Davey line). Figure S3.0 in Volume 2 illustrates the plan for improving existing marine
sediments.
Further analyses were performed after completion of the additional subsurface investigation
in Lyall Bay. The results of these analyses (presented in Appendix E) indicated that, for the
New South Baseline and Options, ground improvement of the marine sediments would not
be necessary in order for the rock dyke to meet the seismic performance criteria. However, it
should be cautioned that this assessment is based on only one (1) soil boring; therefore
additional geotechnical investigation will be required during the future detailed design phase
of the Project to confirm whether ground improvement is required for the rock dyke.
4.3.3.3 Reclamation
We have assumed the fill materials used for the reclamation consist primarily of sandy
sediments dredged from the Wellington Harbour Entrance Navigation Channel. Fill quantities
were developed based on the results of geotechnical consolidation/settlement analyses, as
described in Appendix B.
Alternatives sources include upland borrow sites in the Wellington area, as discussed in
Appendix G. It should be noted that the Project may require the use of fill materials from the
upland borrow sites for completion of the reclamation.
4.3.3.4 Improvement of Reclamation Fill
Depending on the placement methods of the reclamation fill materials, improvement of these
materials may be required for reduction of both static settlements and liquefaction (seismic)-
induced settlements. For the purpose of this study, we have assumed construction of a
surcharge fill on top of the southern portion of the reclamation, with vibro-compaction of the
reclamation fills in the northern portion (due to OLS restrictions).
The location and height of the surcharge fill is constrained by the OLS. It has been assumed
that the surcharge fill is not practical where the distance from the new runway platform to the
existing OLS is less than about 3 metres. Inboard (north) of this location, the reclamation fill
would need to be treated via vibro-compaction. Outboard (south) of this location, the
surcharge fill (with wick drains) can be placed to follow the slope of the OLS, starting at a
height of 3.5 metres, to reach a maximum height of 7.5 metres and remain constant at 7.5
metres to the southern end of the reclaimed land platform.
Combined with installation of vertical drains (at about 2 metres on centre), the surcharge fill
would accelerate consolidation of the reclamation fills, resulting in a denser subsurface layer
under the runway that would perform better during an earthquake. The surcharge and wick
drain design criteria were developed based on the results of the geotechnical analyses and
modelling, and previous experiences with marine reclamation projects similar to this project.
4.3.4 Roads, Tunnels and Utilities
To the south, the existing roadway tunnel under the runway would need to be modified and
extended under the new taxiway extension. The length of the new combined tunnel (i.e.,
under the runway and taxiway) may result in a new design requirement to provide additional
features for fire and life safety. The new portion (under the taxiway extension) would include

a pedestrian/services tunnel adjacent and connected to the southern side. Figure S7.2 in
Volume 2 shows an indicative design to accomplish these objectives. However, it is
assumed that the existing tunnel would not need to be modified to incorporate this feature.
The following underground utilities may be impacted by the south runway extension. The
construction cost estimate has included an allowance to either protect in place or relocate
these utilities.
- Telecom Duct;
- 11,000-V Cable;
- 400-V Cable;
- Stormwater Lines;
- Dual 180-millimetre Concrete-Encased Steel Sewer Line Rising Main;
- 200-millimetre Water Main; and
- Gas Line.
4.3.5 Sewer Outfall
Figure S3.0 in Volume 2 (among other figures) shows the rock dyke being constructed over
the existing sewer outfall. Initial calculations show that the pipeline is strong enough to
withstand the increased loading from the reclamation. However, greater stresses from
dumping of rock dyke materials could be placed upon the outfall during construction. In
addition to this, settlement of up to 400mm could occur in the marine sediments along the
pipeline alignment. The marine sediments in the vicinity of the pipeline could potentially be
grouted (improved) to reduce settlements.
Options for pipeline protection include:
- Realignment of the outfall pipeline. The pipeline could be realigned either outside the
reclamation footprint or within the reclamation itself. If installed within the reclamation, a
determination would need to be made whether the pipeline could be installed during
construction of the reclamation or after completion of construction.
- Providing a cover over the pipeline to protect it from dumped dyke materials and shield it
from increased over burden pressures.
Approximately 500m of pipe will be affected by the reclamation. If the pipe is to be relocated
outside of the reclamation, design and installation of Y-structures would be required to tie into
the existing outfall and possibly temporary shutdowns to cut over to the new pipeline.
For the purposes of this study, we have assumed the outfall pipeline would be protected-in-
place. The pipeline is concrete-lined steel pipe with a concrete weight-coat around the
outside, and is therefore structurally strong. Protection would be provided to avoid impact
damage during construction and post-construction settlements. Precast concrete units could
be fitted around the pipeline, with compressible material attached to the underside of the
panel to allow the overburden stresses on the panels to be supported beyond the limits of the
outfall pipe. More detail on protection options for the sewer outfall are provided in Section 6
of this Report.
4.4 North/South Hybrid Option

The proposed north/south hybrid option consisted of a 75 metre extension to the north, with
the remainder of the runway extension to the south. The intent of this option was to reduce
the length of the reclamation fill into Lyall Bay in an attempt to position the perimeter rock
dyke, especially at the southern end, over a less thick layer of potentially liquefiable marine
sediments overlying bedrock, resulting in a reduction of costly ground improvement

measures. This option would also likely to avoid the Moa Point sewer outfall.
The northern extension was assumed to be entirely land based and included the following
characteristics:
- Mechanically-stabilised earth (MSE) retaining wall and fill on the south side of Cobham
Drive adjacent to the end of the existing runway,
- Bridge structure over Cobham Drive with large diameter drilled piers to greywacke, and
- Stone column improvement of liquefiable soils under the bridge structure.
The southern extension into Lyall Bay was relatively similar to the initial South Option 3, with
a two-stage rock dyke as a cost-saving measure and using the alternative (reduced) seismic
performance criteria.
4.5 Pile-Supported Options

In addition to the Project options developed by AECOM, WIAL commissioned the Nippon
Steel & Sumitomo Metal Corporation (NSSMC) to investigate the potential for a pile-
supported extension similar to the southern kilometre of the Runway D at Haneda Airport in
Tokyo Bay (the northern 2 kilometres of the runway are traditional reclamation).
Figure 4.5 Pile-Supported Runway Structure Concept
Initial work performed by NSSMC evaluated a pile-supported structure at the southern end of
the runway, based on the geotechnical, seismic and wave design criteria developed by
AECOM (as presented in Appendices A through E) indicated that the 100 year H1/10 Lyall
Bay wave heights of between 9.5 and 10.5m would result in uplift forces acting on the
underside of pile-supported structure exceeding the weight of the structure by between 20 to
30 times, thus requiring either significant engineering and/or substantial breakwaters to
mitigate this uplift effect. The cost for this option could not be estimated without performing
additional studies to determine the requirements for a separate breakwater.
NSSMC also investigated a northern pile-supported option, again based on the geotechnical
information developed by AECOM. Although a northern option was determined to be
possible, without the need for the additional breakwater structures as required for the
southern option, an estimated cost for this option on the order of NZ$1 billion was determined
to be uneconomic compared to the traditional land reclamation options.
The primary drivers for this high cost were the materials required to resist the corrosion
effects of the harsh marine environment specifically stainless steel piles and a titanium

underdeck. Lesser grade alternatives would have yielded a cheaper initial price, however the
operational maintenance costs over the life of the structure would have been significant.
Based on the high cost for the northern pile-supported structure, no additional studies were
performed to further evaluate either option.
4.6 Summary of Project Alternatives

A variety of runway extension configurations, design concepts and construction approaches
were considered to achieve a minimum 2,300-metre TORA at WIAL. With respect to runway
configuration, this project focuses on two baseline projects.
1. North Baseline: Runway with parallel taxiway extension to the north into Evans Bay; and
2. South Baseline: Runway with parallel taxiway extension south into Lyall Bay.
The construction approaches for both the Evans Bay and Lyall Bay extension options are
driven by the need to construct a runway platform in or over water. There are two
construction approaches that could be considered: a pile-supported structure (similar to a
pier); or a platform built on reclaimed land. Only the reclamation approach was considered in
detail, because it is offers the lowest lifecycle cost.
The reclamation approach envisages constructing a full section rock dyke around the
perimeter of the runway extension and building a reclaimed land platform inside the rock
dyke using dredge-and-fill construction methods. The fill materials are assumed to consist of
sandy sediments dredged from the Wellington Harbour Entrance Navigation Channel.
Alternatives sources include upland borrow sites in the Wellington area. It should be noted
that the Project may require the use of fill materials from the upland borrow sites for
completion of the reclamation.
The loose, potentially liquefiable soils in Evans Bay, and potentially also Lyall Bay, may need
to be either improved or removed to provide a firm foundation for the rock dykes and this
requirement has a significant impact on the costs to implement the construction approach
described above. These subsurface conditions are not uniformly well-known, and this
uncertainty drives the need to assume the engineering properties for the marine sediments,
particularly for Lyall Bay, although additional subsurface exploration did provide some further
useful characterization of the marine sediments.
Once completed, the reclaimed land platform will undergo settlement. This settlement
process must be substantially complete before the runway and taxiway can built upon it. The
settlement process can be accelerated by placing - then removing - a surcharge fill, with
vertical wick drains, and/or using ground improvement methods. Due to the OLS restrictions,
surcharging and wick drains were only considered for portions of the reclamation, with
ground improvement using vibro-compaction methods able to be used over the entire
reclamation area.
A series of concept design options were developed based on the project variables discussed
above in order to determine the range of costs that might be expected from applying less
conservative assumptions concerning subsurface conditions and soil improvements,
variations in construction approaches, and different seismic performance objectives.
From these options, a range of Project Alternatives were developed and evaluated in two
phases. The first phase was completed prior to performing the additional soil boring
investigation in Lyall Bay. Project Alternatives 1 through 9, developed during the first phase
and are summarised below, with details presented on figures in Appendix H. It should be
noted that these figures also represent the design variables for Project Alternatives 10
through 13 developed during the second phase. The design concepts for each project

alternative are also shown in the soil-structure interaction modelling results presented in
Appendix E.
1. Alternative 1 North Baseline
a. Full-section rock dyke
b. Ground improvement (using stone columns) under the entire footprint of the
rock dyke extending to the greywacke
c. Meets project seismic performance objective
d. Dredged material for reclamation fill
e. Vibrocompaction and surcharging with vertical wick drains for improvement of
the reclamation
2. Alternative 2 Initial South Baseline
the reclamation
3. Alternative 3 Initial South Option #1
a. Two-stage rock dyke
e. Vibrocompaction and surcharging (without vertical wick drains) for
improvement of the reclamation
lower stage of the rock dyke extending to the mid-point (halfway) between the
sea floor and greywacke (this assumption results in a reduction in the depth to
which the stone columns are installed)
rock dyke extending to a quarter of the way between the sea floor and

greywacke (this assumption results in a further reduction in the depth to which

the stone columns are installed)
b. Ground improvement (using stone columns) under the half the footprint of the
lower stage of the rock dyke extending to a quarter of the way between the
sea floor and greywacke (this assumption results in a reduction in number of
stone columns that are required, but their depth will be the same as the
previous option)
c. Does not meet the project seismic performance objective
b. The area of potentially liquefiable soils under half the footprint of the lower
stage of the rock dyke extending to a quarter of the way between the sea floor
and greywacke is removed and replaced with rock
b. Ground improvement (using vibrocompaction) under the half the footprint of
the lower stage of the rock dyke extending to a quarter of the way between the
sea floor and greywacke
9. Alternative 9 North/South Hybrid Option
a. North extension (75 metres)
i. MSE retaining wall and fill on the south side of Cobham Drive
ii. Bridge structure over Cobham Drive with large diameter drilled piers
extending into the greywacke

iii. Stone column improvement of liquefiable soils under the bridge

structure.
b. South extension
i. Two-stage rock dyke
ii. Ground improvement (using stone columns) under the entire footprint
of the rock dyke extending to a quarter of the way between the sea
floor and greywacke
iii. Dredged material for reclamation fill
iv. Vibrocompaction and surcharging (without vertical wick drains) for
Based on the results of the additional geotechnical investigation performed in August through
September of 2014, New South Baseline and Options were developed assuming that ground
improvement of the marine sediments under the rock dyke was not required. The results of
that investigation, although based on one borehole, showed that competent, not liquefiable
sediments were likely underlying the rock dyke giving us an increased confidence in the
seismic performance of the rock dyke without ground improvement. The options developed
during the second phase, including the key elements of each option, are summarised below.
10. Alternative 10 New South Baseline
b. No ground improvement under the rock dyke
the reclamation
11. Alternative 11- New South Option #1
d. Land-based material for reclamation fill
e. Stone columns for improvement of the reclamation
e. Vibrocompaction for improvement of the reclamation


d. Land-based material for reclamation fill
e. Stone columns for improvement of the reclamation
In addition to the Project options developed by AECOM, Pile-Supported Structure Options
were developed (by NSSMC), as summarised below.
14. Alternative 14 South Pile-Supported Option
a. Structure with titanium underdeck and supported by stainless steel piles
b. Separate breakwater structure
15. Alternative 15 North Pile-Supported Option
a. Structure with titanium underdeck and supported by stainless steel piles
4.7 Preliminary Construction Programmes

Preliminary construction programmes were developed for the North and South Baseline
Projects in order to estimate the project costs. This information has also been used as a
basis for some aspects of the environmental effects assessments. The construction
programmes discussed in the sections below are a summary of the preliminary construction
methodologies prepared for North and South Baseline Projects by Leighton Contractors. The
purpose of the construction methodology reports, presented in Appendices I and J,
respectively, were to determine a reasonable approach for construction phasing, sequencing,
equipment types, and schedule in an effort to develop rough order-of-magnitude construction
unit rates and costs to be used for the project cost analyses discussed in Section 4.8.
4.7.1 North Baseline Project
A preliminary construction programme and methodology for the North Baseline Project Is
provided in Appendix I. The following is a summary of the major stages of construction.
Stage A: Install stone columns beneath rock dyke. Commence installation of stone columns
from start of eastern rock dyke (land end), working around to the western wall limit.
Stage B: Once stone columns are sufficiently advanced, commence installation of stone
blanket over stone columns and toe underlayer followed by toe armour. Part done by bottom
dumping, part by placing rock ex-hopper barge, part using fallpipe. Backhoe dredge-trim all
rock to final profile.
Stage C: Once stone blanket, toe underlayer, and toe armour are advanced sufficiently,
commence installation of core rock for rock dyke. Carried out initially via split hopper barges
(to -5.0) until too shallow to dump, then via road trucks and dozer from land. Overbuild outer
batter to natural angle of repose of core rock ~ 1.3H:1V. Land-based long-reach excavator-
trim core rock to final core rock profile.
Stage D: Progressively place geofabric and 150 millimetre-diameter rock fill to inner batter,
and underlayer followed by armour to outer batter. Deep batters may need to be trimmed
using backhoe dredge and barge. Fabricate geotextile into large panels and roll onto
mandrel. Fix geotextile to top of rock dyke and roll down the batter. Once completed
sufficiently, dredging can commence.
Stage E: Establish dredge pipes, and pick-up point for dredge. Commence reclamation from
end of existing runway working outwards toward the northern rock dyke, relocating discharge
point progressively. Once entire reclamation is filled, relocate dredge discharge point to end
of existing runway again, and place final dredged layers to finished grade.
Stage F: Place balance of core rock, trim and place internal batter geotextile and
150 millimetre rock lining, and outer batter underlayer and armour.
Stage G: Commence installation of wick drains to reclamation. Once 50 percent of the area
is completed, commence construction of surcharge.
Stage H: Once surcharging is complete, remove surcharge to pavement subgrade using one
5,000 tonne barge, one tug, one 988 loader, and one conveyor. Construct airfield drainage,
pavements, and install navigation lighting, etc.
4.7.2 South Baseline Project
A preliminary construction programme and methodology for the South Baseline Project is
provided in Appendix J. Similar construction methodologies would be used for the South
Options Projects, as well as the south portion of the North/South Hybrid Option. The
following is a summary of the major stages of construction.
Stage A: Install stone columns beneath rock wall. Commence installation of stone columns
from start of eastern/western seawalls (existing land) and 1/3 along the rock dyke working
outwards into deeper water.
Stage B: Once stone columns are sufficiently advanced, commence installation of stone
blanket over stone columns and adjacent filter layer on seabed and secondary armour layer
over seabed filter layer. Backhoe dredge trim all rock to final profile.
Stage C: Once stone blanket, seabed filter layer, and secondary armour over seabed filter
are sufficiently advanced, commence installation of core rock for rock dyke. Remove existing
Akmon armour units in the immediate vicinity where land-based operations have
commenced. This will be carried out initially via split-hopper barges, and road trucks and
dozer from land.
Stage D: Progressively place filter layer to outside of core batter, and trim to profile. Trim top
of core material to obtain filter profile to complete placement of filter material.
Stage E: Place primary armour to toe; secondary armour over batter filter layer; followed by
outer primary armour to batter. Progressively recover existing Akmon armour units to place
on outside of new eastern rock dyke.
Stage F: Complete core and filter to top surface, and then place secondary armour and
primary armour top (horizontal) layers. Leave out accropodes immediately adjacent to
precast concrete wall location.
Stage G: Fabricate geotextile into large panels and roll onto mandrel. Fix geotextile to top of
rock dyke and roll down the batter.
Stage H: Establish dredge pipes, and pick up point for dredge. Commence reclamation from
end of existing runway working outwards toward the southern rock wall, relocating discharge
point progressively. Once entire reclamation is filled, relocate dredge discharge point to end
of existing runway again, and place final dredged layers to finished grade.
Stage I: Once reclamation is complete, place precast concrete wave wall units (3 metre-long
precast units ~30 tonnes each) using crawler crane. Place final accropodes in position
adjacent to the precast structure. Place precast drain and graded gravel surface, etc., to top
surface of precast concrete wave wall units.
Stage J: Commence installation of wick drains to reclamation. Once 50 percent of an area
is completed, commence construction of surcharge. Perform vibro-compaction of
reclamation fills in northern portion of reclamation.

Stage K: Once surcharging is complete, remove surcharge to pavement subgrade using one
5,000 tonne barge, one tug, one 988 loader, and one conveyor. Construct airfield drainage,
pavements, and install navigation lighting, etc.
4.8 Construction Costs

4.8.1 Cost Estimating Approach and Results
The methodology used for construction cost estimating is described in the following
paragraphs. The first step was to complete the preliminary engineering studies, which are
provided in this Report. These engineering studies were then used, along with topography
and bathymetry data for existing conditions, to create the drawings provided in Volume 2 of
this report. The drawings were created using a 3 dimensional design tool (CIVIL 3D), which
serves several purposes. The CIVIL 3 D models allow 3 dimensional visualisation of the
design (see Figures S6.0 and N6.0 in Volume 2) and the ability to view 2 dimensional cross-
sections of the design at any chosen location. Beyond its visualisation capability, the
CIVIL 3 D models created for this project provide an efficient tool for determining the
quantities of construction upon which the construction cost estimates are based.
Upon completion of the CIVIL 3 D models, the next step was the development of a Bills of
Quantities (BOQs). These BOQs (see Appendix K) were populated with quantities derived
from the models and spreadsheet calculations, as appropriate.
The BOQs with quantities were then used to develop the preliminary construction
programmes provided in Appendices I and J, and Section 4.7. Using this information, unit
prices were developed. The development of the BOQs, construction methodologies,
programmes, and unit pricing was a collaborative effort between AECOM and Leighton
Contractors.
The preliminary nature of the engineering studies was specifically considered in the cost
estimates by using probabilistic analysis approach based on Monte Carlo simulation
techniques. To implement this approach, the design and estimating team were asked to
provide three values for each BOQ quantity and for each unit price: the most likely value, the
minimum value, and the maximum value. The most likely values were based on the
engineering design and unit cost analysis. The minimum and maximum ranges were based
on the judgement and experience of the project team members, reflecting their
understanding of the risk of each value being less than or more than the most likely value.
For the quantities of construction, the most likely values were calculated from the CIVIL 3 D
model and spreadsheet calculations, as mentioned above. The minimum range was typically
taken as either 100 percent or 90 percent of the most likely values. The maximum range was
taken as either 110 percent or 120 percent of the most likely values. The assignment of the
120 percent factor was applied to some of the highest cost items in the project; for example,
the rock dyke and reclamation fill. This represents our assessment of uncertainties
embedded throughout the design process, and the possibility that further investigations,
analyses, and design work would increase the design requirements for these items beyond
those contemplated within this Report.
A similar approach was adopted for the unit cost of the BOQ items. For the most likely
values for the unit costs, AECOM relied upon our experience on other large reclamation
projects, input from specialty consultants/contractors with world-wide experience, and
contractors with New Zealand large-project experience. As a separate independent effort,
Leighton Contractors developed a detailed construction methodology and programmes
(specific for this project), and derived unit costs rates based on these considerations.
AECOM combined data from all these sources and determined the most likely unit cost for
each item of the BOQ. For the minimum-range cost, we typically assigned a value 90 percent

of the most likely unit costs. For the maximum cost range, we assigned the larger value of
either 110 percent of the unit cost rates received from the Leighton analysis (which were
generally higher than unit cost rates received from other sources) or 110 percent of the most
likely unit cost rate.
The @Risk software was used to perform the Monte Carlo simulation calculations. Five
thousand (5,000) simulations were performed for both the South Baseline and North Baseline
projects, at which stable statistics were achieved (i.e., performing additional simulations
would not significantly change the results).
The results from the process described above are probabilistic distributions of construction
costs. The results for the Initial Project Baselines and Options are provided in Appendix K.
Key results from the initial cost analyses were extracted and are shown in Table 4.8.1 below.
Table 4.8.1 Cost Summary for Initial Baseline and Option Projects
North Baseline1 South Baseline1 South Option 11 South Option 21

Project 1 2 3 4
Alternative
Description See description in See description in See summary of See summary of
Section 4.2 and Section 4.3 and description in description in
drawings in Part 1 drawings in Part 2 Section 4.6, Section 4.6,
of Volume 2. of Volume 2. drawings in Part 2 drawings in Part 2
and Appendix H. and Appendix H.
Median Cost $664.8 million $349.5 million $339.2 million $324.8 million
95 Percent $770.1 million $388.3 million $375.7 million $360.1 million
Confidence
Cost
Key Factors Meets seismic Meets seismic Seismic Seismic
performance performance performance will be performance will
objective. During objective. During similar to South be similar to South
the 500-year the 500-year Baseline i.e., about Baseline i.e., about
earthquake event, earthquake event, 1m of lateral 1m of lateral
the rock dyke will the rock dyke will movement and 0.5m movement and
undergo about 1m undergo about 1m of vertical settlement 0.5m of vertical
of lateral movement of lateral movement for the 500-year settlement for the
and about 0.5m of and about 0.5m of earthquake event. 500-year
vertical settlement. vertical settlement. earthquake event.

South Option 31 South Option 41 South Option 51 South Option 61

Project Option 5 6 7 8
Description See summary of See summary of See summary of See summary of
description in description in description in description in
Section 4.6 and Section 4.65 and Section 4.6 and Section 4.6 and
Appendix H. Appendix H. Appendix H. Appendix H.
Median Cost $310.3 million $292.7 million $288.9 million $284.8 million
95 Percent $345.6 million $325.9 million $323.7 million $318.3 million
Confidence
Cost
Key Factors Seismic Seismic Seismic Seismic
performance meets performance is performance is performance is
the less than 2m of diminished and does diminished and does diminished and
lateral movement not meet the project not meet the project does not meet the
and 1m of vertical seismic performance seismic performance project seismic
settlement for the objective. The objective. The performance
500-year earthquake expected rock dyke expected rock dyke objective. The
event. Although this deformations are deformations are expected rock
is more deformation 3.5m of lateral 3.5m of lateral dyke deformations
than the Initial South movement and 1m movement and 1m are 3.5m of lateral
Baseline and vertical settlement vertical settlement movement and 1m
Options 1 and 2, it for the 500-year for the 500-year vertical settlement
meets the project earthquake event. earthquake event. for the 500-year
seismic performance earthquake event.
objective.
North/South Option 71
Option 71
Project Option 9
Description See summary of
description in
Section 4.4 and
Appendix H.
Median Cost $346.3 million
95 Percent $372.6 million
Confidence
Cost
Key Factors Seismic
performance will be
similar to the Initial
North and South
Baselines
Notes:
1 The Initial South Baseline and Options are based on assumed in situ subsurface geotechnical
properties, prior to performing the supplemental geotechnical (soil borings) investigation.

The values stated in Table 4.8.1, and those provided in Appendix K, are based on 2014
New Zealand Dollars. These values represent the expected project costs; that is, the cost of
the construction contract plus allocations for design and Airport management fees.
4.8.2 Costs for Initial Baseline and Option Projects
As indicated in Table 4.8.1, the Initial North and South Baseline projects (Project Alternatives
1 and 2, respectively) did not meet the project objective with respect to the expected cost
being approximately NZ $300 million. With this result, the project was re-examined to
determine the conditions that would be needed to arrive at a project that approached the NZ
$300 million target.
The first consideration was the elimination of the North Baseline project (Project Alternative
1), with it being significantly more expensive that the Initial South Baseline project (Project
Alternative 2). The primary cost drivers for the North Baseline project (compared to the Initial
South Baseline) are:
- The elevation of the runway end above the level of Evans Bay,
- Water depths in Evans Bay increase rapidly offshore and become rather deep at the end
of the runway, and
- The marine sediments in Evans Bay being quite thick and relatively unconsolidated, and
- The need to relocate Cobham Drive in a tunnel and underground services.
All of these factors (except Cobham Drive) lead to a more massive reclaimed land platform
and rock dyke and the need for more ground improvement of the existing marine sediments.
With focus on the Lyall Bay extension, a series of options (Initial South Alternatives 1 through
6; Project Alternatives 3 through 8, respectively) were developed along with a North/South
Hybrid Option (Project Alternative 9). See Appendix H for details. These options represent
a combination of value engineering, revised assumptions concerning soil properties, and less
conservative expectations for seismic performance.
With respect to value engineering, the changes to the Initial South Baseline project (Project
Alternative 2) applied to Initial South Option 1 (Project Alternative 3) are the introduction of a
two-staged rock dyke rather than a full-section rock dyke, and the elimination of the wick
drains. As indicated in Table 4.8.1 and in Appendix H, these changes minimally impact the
seismic performance of Initial South Option 1 (Project Alternative 3), in comparison to the
Initial South Baseline project (Project Alternative 2). Therefore, Initial South Option 1 (Project
Alternative 3) is a viable alternative to the Initial South Baseline project (Project Alternative
2). The concept of a two-stage rock dyke and elimination of wick drains has been
implemented for Initial South Options 2 through 6 (Project Alternatives 4 through 8) and
North/South Hybrid Option (Project Alternative 9).
Initial South Options 2 through 6 (Project Alternatives 4 through 8) all rely on accepting less
conservative assumptions of the Lyall Bay soil conditions. The specifics of these
assumptions are provided in Section 4.6 and Appendix H. In general terms, these
assumptions result in a reduction of the depth of loose, potentially liquefiable marine
sediments under the rock dyke that requires improvement. South Options 2, 3, and 4
(Project Alternatives 4, 5 and 6) accomplish soil improvement using stone columns, the same
technique considered for the Initial South Baseline project (Project Alternative 2) and Initial
South Option 1 (Project Alternative 3). However Initial South Option 5 and 6 (Project
Alternatives 7 and 8) introduce value engineering suggestions to accomplish soil
improvement by removal and replacement of unsuitable soils with rock (Initial South Option
5; Project Alternative 7), and by vibro-compaction (Initial South Option 6; Project Alternative
8).

The seismic performance of Initial South Options 2 and 3 (Project Alternatives 4 and 5) are
compliant with the project seismic performance objectives and might be considered as viable
alternatives on this basis. However, the viability of Initial South Options 2 and 3 (Project
Alternatives 4 and 5) is conditioned on assumed soil conditions, which would need to be
confirmed.
Initial South Options 4 through 6 (Project Alternatives 7 through 9) all carry two conditions
that need to be considered to judge their viability. One condition is the assumption of
improved soil conditions that would need to be confirmed. The second condition is the
acceptance of the fact that (even with the assumed improved soil conditions) the seismic
performance of these options is not comparable to the seismic performance of the Initial
South Baseline project and Initial South Options 1 and 2 (Project Alternatives 1, 2 and 3).
Note that the two-stage dyke of Project Alternatives 4 and 5 have ground improvement under
the entire footprint of the lower stage of the rock dykes. These options have acceptable
seismic performance. Project Alternatives 6, 7 and 8 also have two-stage rock dykes, but
with partial ground improvement under the lower stage of the rock dykes; these Project
Alternatives do not have acceptable seismic performance. Thus, we have assessed the
viability of the two-stage rock dyke concept depends on the extent of ground improvement
that is applied to its foundation.
The North/South Hybrid Option (Project Alternative 9) uses the two-stage rock dyke and the
elimination of wick drains, the same as the other South options. Noteworthy is the fact that
the southward extension for this option is 75 metres shorter than the other South options,
and this means the thickness of the potentially liquefiable soils under the rock dyke are
reduced compared to the other South options. The repositioning of the rock dyke for this
North/South Hybrid Option (Project Alternative 9) allows a reduction in the depth of loose,
potentially liquefiable marine sediments requiring improvements, and a reduction in the
number and length of stone columns. However, the northern portion of this option introduces
significant costs that tend to overwhelm the cost savings achieved on the southern end. The
cost drivers for the northern end of North/South Hybrid Option (Project Alternative 9) are the
elevation of the runway end above the level of Evans Bay and the need to build the runway
on a bridge structure over Cobham Drive.
Several conclusions can be drawn from the data presented in Table 4.8.1 and Appendix H.
First is elimination from further consideration of the Initial North Baseline project (Project
Alternative 1) because of cost. Second is that Initial South Options 1 and 2 (Project
Alternatives 3 and 4) may be viable alternatives to the Initial South Baseline project (Project
Alternative 2), depending on the outcome of future subsurface investigations. North/South
Hybrid Option (Project Alternative 9) appears to present no advantages when compared to
other alternatives. Considering Initial South Options 3 through 6 (Project Alternatives 5
through 8), we would judge that Initial South Options 4, 5, and 6 (Project Alternatives 6, 7
and 8) are possibly too optimistic, depending on the results of further subsurface
investigations to confirm the assumed soil conditions upon which they are based. Also, the
seismic performance of Initial South Options 4, 5, and 6 (Project Alternatives 6, 7 and 8) is
marginal for the 500 year earthquake event. Acceptance of any one of these options would
require careful consideration of the risk of earthquake damage, in comparison to the cost to
mitigate the risk.
Initial South Options 1, 2 and 3 (Project Alternatives 3, 4 and 5) have good seismic
performance. The assumed soil conditions for Initial South Option 3 (Project Alternative 5)
might not be confirmed by further investigation, but those of Initial South Option 2 (Project
Alternative 4) are more likely to be confirmed.

4.8.3 Sensitivity Studies

4.8.3.1 Turnaround Option (i.e., no parallel taxiway)
A qualitative sensitivity study was performed to investigate the potential savings that could be
achieved by introducing a turnaround at the end of the runway and eliminating a portion of
the parallel taxiway configuration. The blue triangle on Figure 4.7.3.1 below illustrates the
portion of the project that could be eliminated by introducing an ICAO-compliant turnaround
for Code E aircraft. If this option was implemented, an aircraft intending to take off to the
north would enter the runway via Taxiway A and taxi south on the runway, executing a
turnaround manoeuver at the southern end, The ICAO standards require a substantial
footprint at the runway to allow an aircraft to taxi onto the runway without excessive
manoeuvring (which might cause delays and increase risk of aircraft damage). Thus, only the
blue triangle in Figure 4.8.3.1 would be eliminated from the project.
The main cost savings associated with this turnaround option is the potential elimination of
the need to extend the existing Moa Point Road tunnel under the taxiway, and reduction of
the scope of relocation of services. This would save approximately NZ $25 million to NZ $30
million. Other potential savings associated with reductions in the scopes of taxiway
reclaimed land platform construction would be relatively minor because the portions of the
project that would be eliminated are not particularly expensive to build.
The next phase of the project might continue this turnaround option to develop its
engineering parameters and preliminary costs.
Figure 4.8.3.1 Taxiway Configuration Options

4.8.3.2 Maximum Range Unit Costs for @Risk Cost Analysis

As mentioned in Section 4.7.1, the maximum unit cost rates for the rock dyke, reclamation
fills, and soil improvement were assigned as 110 percent of the unit cost rates received from
the Leighton Contractors. This is believed to be a relatively conservative approach, using
110 percent of rates that were already considered to be somewhat greater than expected.
To judge the impact of this factor, the @Risk models for the South Baseline and for South
Option 1 were re-run using 80 percent of the maximum unit cost values used for the analyses
reflected in Table 4.7.1. The results suggest that the impact of using the higher rates is
about a 5 percent to 6 percent increase in the cost at 95 percent the confidence level. The
next phase of detailed design for the project will advance the engineering design and further
refine the cost analyses.
4.8.3.3 Number of Simulations
The probabilistic method for calculating cost uses a Monte Carlo simulation method for which
the results can depend on the number of simulations used for the analysis. The goal is to
select a sufficient large number of simulations so that stable results are achieved; that is,
increasing the number of simulations does not significantly change the result. The results
shown in Table 4.8.1 are based on performing 5,000 simulations for each estimate. To test
suitability of 5,000 simulations, the @Risk models for the Initial South Baseline (Project
Option 2) and Initial South Option 1 (Project Option 3) were re-run using 10,000 simulations.
The results showed a difference in the 95 percent confidence cost estimates of less than
1 percent. Therefore, it was concluded that using 5,000 simulations produces stable results,
and it is not necessary to increase the number of simulations.
4.8.4 Costs for New South Baseline Project and Options
The cost estimates for Project Alternatives 10 through 13 were prepared using the same
methodology as described in Section 4.8.1. The same @Risk cost models were used. The
only difference was changes in the quantities of materials dictated by revisions to the design
concepts. Project Alternatives 11 and 13 also included additional Contractor Overhead due to
the extended programme associated placing land-based material for the reclamation fill.
It is noteworthy that the costs for Project Alternatives 10 through 13 all fall within a fairly
narrow range from $335.1 million to $311.9 million. Project Alternatives 12 and 13 do not
meet the project seismic performance objectives. As such, the cost savings of Project
Alternatives 12 and 13 compared to Project Alternatives 10 and 11 would not appear to be a
good bargain. Project Alternatives 10 and 11 both have acceptable seismic performance and
the only cost difference is due to the use of dredged sediments (Project Alternative 10)
versus land-based material (Project Alternative 11) for the reclamation fill. It is likely that
construction of the project would involve a combination of dredged and land-based fill
materials.
Table 4.8.2 Cost Summary for New South Baseline and Option Projects
New South New South New South New South

Baseline Option 1 Option 2 Option 3
Project 10 11 12 13
Alternative
Description See description in See description in See description in See description in
Section 4.3, Section 4.3, Section 4.3, Section 4.3,
summary in summary in Section summary in summary in Section
Section 4.6 and 4.6 and drawings in Section 4.6 and 4.6 and drawings in
drawings in Part 2 Part 2 of Volume 2. drawings in Part 2 Part 2of Volume 2.
of Volume 2. of Volume 2.
Median Cost $268.3 million $ 280.4million $258.5 million $271.7 million
Contingency $20 million $20 million $20 million $20 million
(see note)
95 % Cost $ 302.1million $ 315.1million $ 291.9million $304.1 million
95 % Cost $ 322.1million $ 335.1million $ 311.9million $324.1 million
+Contingency
Key Factors Meets seismic Meets seismic Seismic Seismic
performance performance performance will performance will be
objective. During objective. During the be less favourable less favourable than
the 500-year 500-year than New South New South Baseline
earthquake event, earthquake event, Baseline i.e., more i.e., more than 1m of
the rock dyke will the rock dyke will than 1m of lateral lateral movement
undergo about 1m undergo about 1m movement and and more than 0.5m
of lateral of lateral movement more than 0.5m vertical settlement
movement and and about 0.5m of vertical settlement for the 500-year
about 0.5m of vertical settlement. for the 500-year earthquake event,
vertical settlement. earthquake event, but meets seismic
but meets seismic performance
performance objective.
objective.
Note concerning Contingency: The contingency is intended for mitigation of project risks that have not
yet been fully characterised. The contingency amount is based on the presumption that future soils
investigation may result in the need for ground improvement (stone columns) under the rock dyke.
However, the contingency should be carried as mitigation against this and other potential project risks.
The values stated in Table 4.8.2 are based on 2014 New Zealand Dollars. These values
represent the expected project costs; that is, the cost of the construction contract plus
allocations for design and Airport management fees.
4.9 Conclusion and Recommended Options

We conclude that the project is feasible with respect to the criteria considered in this study.
The construction methods that would be used are well established and widely used for land
reclamation projects. Further, there are multiple examples world-wide of building runways
and taxiways on reclaimed land. The project challenges are mainly associated with building
under the OLS, the weather in Lyall Bay, and the logistics associated with moving and
placing large quantities of fill material. The project is of sufficient size to attract large
international marine contractors who have the experience, technology, equipment, and
resources for a project of this scale. Experience suggests that the marine contractors who
will be attracted to this project will come with the technical capability to effectively and
efficiently deal with these challenges.

From a cost perspective, the results presented within this Report clearly favour Lyall Bay.
With limited site-specific geotechnical data, this study initially considered a range of
assumptions concerning the extent of ground improvement for the marine sediments in Lyall
Bay, which influenced the initial estimation of the project cost. Although the supplemental
geotechnical investigation performed during this project seemed to indicate competent
subsurface marine sediments that do not require ground improvement for seismic
performance of the rock dyke, the investigation data is limited and may not represent the
subsurface conditions for the entire project site. However, with a better understanding of the
subsurface conditions within Lyall Bay, the costs for the New South Baseline and Option
Projects range from $315.1 million to 291.9 million at 95 percent confidence, with median
costs ranging from $280.4 million to $258.5 million.
In consideration for the continuing uncertainty over the subsurface conditions in Lyall Bay, a
contingency cost ($20 million) for ground improvement under the rock dykes was
incorporated into the new project costs. At 95 percent confidence, the project cost with this
contingency ranges from $335.1 million to $311.9 million. It should be noted that the
contingency amount is based on the presumption that future soils investigation may result in
the need for ground improvement (stone columns) under the rock dyke. However, the
contingency should be carried as mitigation against this and other potential project risks that
have not yet been fully characterised.

5.0 Description of Preferred Option

5.1 Overview
The recommended option for extension of the runway to achieve a minimum 2,300 metre
TORA is the New South Baseline Project (Project Alternative 10). This option comprises the
following key elements listed below and as shown in Figure 5.1 below.
- A reclaimed land platform constructed using a combination of marine- and land-based
methods.
- Fill materials to consist of sandy sediments dredged from the Wellington Harbour
Entrance Navigation Channel and/or land-based fill sourced from local quarries.
- A full section rock dyke around the perimeter of the reclaimed land platform.
- Potential ground improvement of the marine sediments under the rock dyke using stone
column installation methods.
- Protection of the section of Moa Point sewer outfall that extends under the reclaimed
land platform.
- Ground improvement of the reclaimed land platform using vibro-compaction methods to
accelerate settlement of the reclamation fill materials.
- Airfield infrastructure, including grading, paving and utilities.
- Aeronautical ground lighting and navigational aids.
- Modification of the existing roadway tunnel under the runway and a new tunnel under the
taxiway extension.
Figure 5.1 New South Baseline Project Option
The key design criteria, indicative construction programme, key design and construction
parameters of the Project are discussed in the sections below.

5.2 Runway Extension Design Criteria

The key design criteria for the Project are summarised in Table 5.2 below.
Table 5.2 Summary of Key Design Criteria

Key Design Parameter Design Criteria
Runway Specifications Minimum 2300 m TORA

Minimum 2150 m Landing Distance Available
RESA Specifications 90 m RESA
60 m runway strip
Aircraft Requirements Code E Aircraft
Occasional passage of Code F (particularly A380) Aircraft
Taxiway Specifications 107.5 m from runway, centre-line to centre-line
Seismic Performance 500-year earthquake; 0.60g PGA; less than 2 m lateral
displacement & 1 m vertical settlement
2,500-year earthquake; 0.98g PGA; no catastrophic failure
Wave Height 100-year wave; highest 10% of waves (H1/10 = 10.5 m; deep-
water significant wave height = 12.5 m
5.3 Indicative Construction Programme

Based on the Project preliminary design criteria and constraints, an indicative construction
methodology and timeline was developed for the southern runway extension. A number of
construction stages can occur at the same time with a group of stages also occurring in more
than one location at any one time. The actual staging of the works would be determined by
the Contractor chosen to construct the project.
An indicative construction programme correlated to this methodology is discussed in more
detail in Section 6 of this Report
The general staging and likely durations for construction of the reclamation platform may be
as follows, however as noted above the actual staging and durations of the works will be
determined by further detailed design and by the successful Contractor.
- Stage A 14 months: Installation of stone columns beneath the rock dyke, if required.
Commence installation of stone columns from the start of the eastern/western rock
dykes (existing land) and 1/3 along the rock dyke working outwards into deeper water.
- Stage B 14 months: Once stone columns are sufficiently advanced, commence
installation of stone blanket over stone columns, adjacent filter layer on seabed and
secondary armour layer over seabed filter layer. Trim all rock to final profile.
- Stage C 14 months: Once stone blanket, seabed filter layer and secondary armour
over seabed filter are sufficiently advanced, commence installation of core rock section
of the rock dyke. Remove existing Akmon armour units in the immediate vicinity where
land-based operations have commenced.
- Stage D 14 months: Progressively place filter layer to outside of core batter and trim to
profile. Trim top of core material to obtain filter profile to complete placement of filter
material.
- Stage E 15 months: Once the core section and filter layer are sufficiently advanced,
place primary armour to toe; secondary armour over batter filter layer; followed by outer
primary armour to batter. Progressively recover existing Akmon armour units to place on
outside of new eastern rock dyke.
- Stage F 13 months: Complete core and filter to top surface, and then complete
placement of secondary armour and primary armour top (horizontal) layers. Leave out
accropods immediately adjacent to precast concrete wall location.
- Stage G 1 month: Fabricate geotextile into large panels and roll onto mandrel. Fix
geotextile to top of rock dyke and roll down the batter.
- Stage H 5 months: Construction reclamation using locally dredged material and
marine-based equipment. Alternatively, up to 18 months using land-based (and possibly
marine based) equipment and land-based fill material: For the marine-based method,
establish pumping connections and locations for off-load of the dredged material from
marine-based equipment, as well as flow discharge points from reclamation. Commence
reclamation from end of existing runway working outwards toward the southern rock
dyke, relocating flow discharge points as needed. Once entire reclamation is filled, place
final dredged layer to finished surface level. For the land-based method, place fill across
the east-west width of the reclamation and progress in a southerly direction, starting at
the southern end of the existing land.
- Stage I 3 months: Once reclamation is complete, place precast concrete wave wall
units (3-metre-long precast units ~30 tonnes each) using crawler crane. Place final
(primary armour) accropodes in position adjacent to the precast structure. Place precast
drain and graded gravel surface to top surface of precast concrete wave wall units.
- Stage J 1 month for installation of vertical wick drains and, if performed, 10 months for
surcharge including 8 months for consolidation: Commence installation of wick drains to
reclamation. Once 50 percent of an area is completed, commence construction of
surcharge, if required. Alternatively, perform ground improvement (such as
vibrocompaction) of reclamation fill materials.
- Stage K - 10 months: If surcharge fill placed, remove surcharge. Construct airfield
drainage, pavements, and install navigation lighting, etc.
5.4 Key Project Parameters

The key design and construction parameters for the New South Baseline Project (Project
Alterative 10) are summarised in Table 5.4 below and presented in Figures 5.4.1, 5.4.2 and
5.4.3.

Table 5.4 Summary of Key Project Parameters

Approximate Dimension
Item Project Parameter
or Quantity
A Length of runway extension, from threshold to threshold 361 m
B Length of runway extension, from runway end to runway end 393 m
C Length of platform extension, at crest of platform 354 m
D Length of platform extension, at mean sea level (MSL) 331 m
Length of platform extension, at mean high water springs 331 m
(MHWS)
E Length of platform extension, at toe of platform 337 m
F Width of platform, at crest of platform 220 m
G Width of platform, at MSL 239 m
Width of platform, at MHWS 238 m
H Width of platform, at toe of platform 301 m
I Height of platform, from toe to highest point 21.8 m
J Height of platform, from MSL to highest point 9.0 m
Height of platform, from MHWS to highest point 8.1 m
K Area of platform, at crest 9.3 ha
L Area of platform, at MSL 8.1 ha
Area of platform, at MHWS 8.1 ha
M Area of platform, at toe 10.82 ha
N Length of perimeter rock dyke, along wave wall 986 m
O Width of rock dyke at crest 10 m
P Width of rock dyke, from toe to toe at widest point 80 m
Q Volume of rock dyke materials (including armour layers) 583,600 cu.m
R Volume of reclamation fill materials 857,380 cu.m

Figure 5.4.1 - Project Plan View
Figure 5.4.2 - Project Profile View
Figure 5.4.3 - Project 3-D Model View
6.0 Construction Methodology and Considerations

6.1 Construction Methodology
One of the key components of the project is the construction methodology that could be used
to build the southern runway extension, including the likely sequencing, methods and
durations of the various construction activities. Although the actual methodology cannot be
finalised until the detailed design has been completed and the construction contract awarded,
a preliminary construction methodology was developed for the project based on the
conceptual engineering design work completed to date, the associated geotechnical
investigations performed as part of the project, and consideration of the project objectives
and constraints.
The construction methodology is driven by the objectives of the proposed project and
generally consists of construction of a runway platform over reclaimed land. The
Construction Methodology Report prepared for the project is included in Appendix L and
addresses the following primary elements:
- Constructing a full-section rock dyke around the perimeter of the runway extension
- Building a reclaimed land platform inside that rock dyke using fill materials consisting of
dredged, primarily sandy marine sediments and/or fill obtained from local quarries.
- Improvement or removal of any potentially liquefiable and/or loose/soft soils beneath the
rock dyke to provide a firm foundation for the rock dyke.
- Improvement of the reclaimed land platform to mitigate/minimise settlements within the
fills before construction of the runway and taxiway. The settlement process can be
accelerated by placing a surcharge fill, along with vertical wick drains, and/or using
ground improvement methods (such as stone columns or vibrocompaction methods).
- Activities in parallel with the above include extending the Moa Point Road tunnel under
the Taxiway A and relocation of any underground utility services, including relocation
and/or protection of the Moa Point sewer outfall.
- Construction of the runway and taxiway extensions, AGL and Navaids, which would
occur following settlement of the reclaimed land platform and removal of any surcharge
fill and wick drains that were installed to accelerate the settlement process.
It is anticipated that the runway extension would be constructed using a combination of land-
and marine-based equipment, although it is likely that the majority of construction would be
performed using marine-based equipment. This approach is dependent upon the sources of
fill materials being available for the reclamation. Even if in-water sources (dredging sites) are
confirmed for the project, the high likelihood of adverse weather conditions affecting marine
construction dictates that land-based borrow sites should also be available to the project as
alternative sources of fill material to minimise potential impacts to the construction schedule.
The construction approach and sequencing for the project are very much dependent upon
the selected contractors construction methodologies and equipment, as well as the actual
sources of fill available for the reclamation. Scheduling and sequencing will be a significant
challenge for this project. Construction will need to maximise operations to the full extent
possible during standard working hours to account for the variability in weather conditions
(including potentially adverse storm events), material availability, equipment height, and
equipment availability and costs.
However, due to the OLS constraints, a significant amount of work will also need to be
performed during the 1am to 6am time period when the airport runway operations are shut
down. As a result, to maximise the overall construction period, there may be a need to seek

approval for some of the construction activities to penetrate the OLS during the airports
operational hours, provided visibility is adequate and flight operations can continue to occur
without compromising safety.
6.2 Marine Equipment Mooring Systems

One of the key elements for the project will be the impact of weather and ocean conditions on
the construction activities. Adverse (storm) weather conditions will most certainly impact
construction activities and schedules, particularly positioning and staging of the marine
equipment used on the project.
As such, possible mooring system concepts were developed for the marine construction
equipment anticipated for the project in support of the proposed construction activities, as
well as to minimise demobilisation of marine equipment from Lyall Bay. The various mooring
systems alternatives developed for the project are discussed in Appendix M. The types of
mooring systems required for the project will depend upon the contractors proposed
construction approach and the marine construction equipment utilised for the project. As
such, the alternatives present combinations of mooring systems that could be used by a wide
range of marine equipment, including consideration for marine equipment that have self-
mooring capabilities and do not require the use of floating or fixed mooring systems.
6.3 Sewer Outfall Protection Systems

The southern runway extension involves a new reclamation fill extending south of the current
airport runway into Lyall Bay, retained by a perimeter rock dyke. One of the project concerns
is that the existing Moa Point Treatment Plant ocean outfall pipe passes through the area of
the proposed rock dyke. As such, the outfall pipe was evaluated to determine the potential
impact from the reclamation (and rock dyke) loads and concepts were developed for
protection of the outfall pipe from damage resulting from these loads, as well as from
placement of the dyke and reclamation fills. The results of this evaluation are discussed in
Appendix N.
6.4 Stone Column Constructability

The proposed Project currently assumes that ground improvement of the seafloor sediments
is not required for support and seismic performance of the rock dykes in Lyall Bay. However,
this assumption is based on completion of one soil boring. As such, the need to perform
ground improvement, specifically installation of stone columns, cannot be ignored and should
still be considered during detailed design for the Project.
If future more detailed subsurface investigation determines that ground improvement is
necessary, constructability of the stone column will become a critical element of the project,
primarily due to the following reasons:
- Stone column installation requires a stable over-water working platform, which may be
difficult with the weather conditions that will be encountered in Lyall Bay; and
- Low headroom equipment will be necessary in order to install the stone columns below
Aiports OLS.
Based on our assessment of typical construction methodologies and equipment, it is feasible
to install stone columns within Lyall Bay; however, consideration will need to be given for the
weather conditions and airport operations, which may result in temporary suspension of
installation activities during adverse weather conditions and performance of night work. A
summary of typical stone column installation equipment is included in Appendix O.

6.5 Rock Dyke Constructability

One of the critical elements of the project is construction of the perimeter rock dyke that will
contain the fill materials placed for the reclamation as there is a potential that adverse
weather conditions within Lyall Bay could impact construction. The rock dyke will be the first
component of the project as it is unlikely that any fill material will be placed until the dyke is in
place so as to minimise loss of fill materials. The dyke is also not immune to weather
impacts, with the inner core materials at risk to adverse weather conditions until the the outer
primary armour layer has been placed.
It should be noted that both the original airport construction and the first runway extension
were faced with similar concerns, yet were successfully completed. However, understanding
this concern, AECOM identified other projects that were successfully completed while facing
similar issues, Summaries of some of these project, as well as the lessons learned (where
relevant) that were applied to the preliminary design of the rock dyke for this Project, are
presented in Appendix P.

7.0 Limitations
AECOM New Zealand Limited (AECOM, including legacy firm URS Corporation) has
prepared this Report in accordance with the usual care and thoroughness of the consulting
profession for the use of Wellington International Airport Limited (WIAL), Except as required
by law, no third party may use or rely on this Report unless otherwise agreed by AECOM in
writing.
To the extent permitted by law, AECOM expressly disclaims and excludes liability for any
loss, damage, cost or expenses suffered by any third party relating to or resulting from the
use of, or reliance on, any information contained in this Report. AECOM does not admit that
any action, liability or claim may exist or be available to any third party.
The report is based on generally accepted practices and standards at the time it was
prepared. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the professional advice
included in this Report.
It is prepared in accordance with the scope of work and for the purpose outlined in the
Contract titled Agreement for Engagement of Consultant, Wellington International Airport
Limited, URS New Zealand Limited, Phase 1 Civil Engineering Services for Consenting the
Extension of Runway 16/34 and the subsequent contract titled Agreement for Engagement
of Consultant, Wellington International Airport Limited, URS New Zealand Limited, Phase 2
Civil Engineering Services for Consenting the Extension of Runway 16/34.
Where this Report indicates that information has been provided to AECOM by third parties,
AECOM has made no independent verification of this information except as expressly stated
in the Report.
AECOM assumes no liability for any inaccuracies in or omissions to that information.
This Report should be read in full. No responsibility is accepted for use of any part of this
Report in any other context or for any other purpose or by third parties.


20 - WIAL Runway Extension - Draft AECOM Concept Feasibility and Design Report

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

20 - WIAL Runway Extension - Draft AECOM Concept Feasibility and Design Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Wellington International Airport Limited

Runway Extension Project

Runway Extension Project

Concept Feasibility and Design Report, Volume 1

Client:Wellington International Airport Limited

Job No.: 42792153/60436023

AECOM New Zealand Limited (AECOM). All rights reserved.

Revision B - November 2015

Date November 2015

Revision B - November 2015

Concept Feasibility and Design Report

4.3 South Baseline and Options 21

Revision B - November 2015

Revision B - November 2015

AECOM AECOM Technical Services

South Runway Extension into

Revision B - November 2015

Revision B - November 2015

1.0 Purpose and Scope of Project

1.3 Baseline Projects and Options

1.4 Scope of Work

Revision B - November 2015

Subtask 3.1: Development of Seismic Design Criteria: A probabilistic seismic

Revision B - November 2015

of the baseline projects, adjusting the quantities of construction accordingly, and

- Moa Point outfall as built drawings.

Revision B - November 2015

2.0 Existing Conditions

Revision B - November 2015

Revision B - November 2015

2.3.1.2 Soil Borings

Revision B - November 2015

Revision B - November 2015

2.3.6 Further Investigation

2.4 Roads, Tunnels, and Underground Utilities

2.5 Sewer Outfall

Revision B - November 2015

3.0 Runway Extension Preliminary Design Criteria

Revision B - November 2015

3.1.3 Alternative Seismic Performance Objective

Revision B - November 2015

3.3.2 Additional Analyses

3.4 Rock Dyke Protection

Revision B - November 2015

3.5 Fill Sources

Table 3.5.1 Preliminary Estimates of Materials and Volumes Required

Revision B - November 2015

3.6 Other Criteria

Revision B - November 2015

3.6.2 Roads and Utilities

Revision B - November 2015

4.2 North Baseline Option

Revision B - November 2015

Revision B - November 2015

Revision B - November 2015

Revision B - November 2015

4.3 South Baseline and Options

Revision B - November 2015

Revision B - November 2015

4.3.3.1 Rock Dyke

Revision B - November 2015

Soil-structure interaction modelling was conducted to evaluate the seismic performance of

Revision B - November 2015

4.4 North/South Hybrid Option