Diseño Conceptual de Un Muelle PDF

Bell Bay Pulp Mill Wharf Facility Conceptual
Design Study
September 2005
Conceptual Design Study
Prepared for
Gunns Limited
Ref 20024505.00
Date September 2005
Prepared by Cristian Alfred
Reviewed by Michael Coull
Revision History
Authorised
Revision
Revision Details
Date
Name/Position Signature
Conceptual Study Report-

B 26/09/2005 Michael Coull
Final

C 14/12/2005 Michael Coull
Final

D 21/02/2006 Michael Coull
Final
Maunsell Australia Pty Ltd

Level 11, 44 Market Street, Sydney NSW 2000, PO Box Q410, QVB Post Office NSW 1230, Australia
T +61 2 8295 3600 F +61 2 9262 5060 www.maunsell.com
ABN 20 093 846 925
Maunsell Australia Pty Ltd 2006
The information contained in this document produced by Maunsell Australia Pty Ltd is solely for the use of the Client identified
on the cover sheet for the purpose for which it has been prepared and Maunsell Australia Pty Ltd undertakes no duty to or
accepts any responsibility to any third party who may rely upon this document.
All rights reserved. No section or element of this document may be removed from this document, reproduced, electronically
stored or transmitted in any form without the written permission of Maunsell Australia Pty Ltd.
Specification - Bell Bay Pulp Mill Wharf Facility Conceptual Design Study
K:\20024505_00_BELLBAYPM\Eng-Plan\Reports\Bell Bay Pulp Mill Wharf Facility - Report - Rev D

(Public).doc
Revision C September 2005
Table of Contents
1.0 Introduction 1
2.0 Design Criteria 2
2.1 Wharf Geometry 2
2.2 Environmental Data 2
2.2.1 Tidal Planes 2
2.2.2 Wind 3
2.2.3 Waves 3
2.2.4 Currents 3
2.3 Design Vessels 3
2.4 Design Loads 4
2.4.1 Cargo 4
2.4.2 Terminal Tractor and Trailer Loads 4
2.4.3 Other Material Loads 4
2.4.4 Cranes 4
2.5 Services 5
2.5.1 Lighting 5
2.5.2 Power 5
2.5.3 Water 5
2.5.4 Stormwater 5
2.5.5 Containment of Hazardous Materials 5
2.6 Service Life 6
3.0 Geotechnical Conditions 7
4.0 Wharf Concepts 8
4.1 Location 8
4.2 Concepts Considered 8
4.2.1 Option 1 Piled Deck with Approach Bridges 8
4.2.2 Option 2 Piled Deck with Approach Causeways 9
4.2.3 Option 3 Bulkhead Wharf 9
4.3 Comparison of Options and Construction Costs 9
4.3.1 Comparative Budget Costs 9
4.3.2 Comparison of Options 10
Option 1 Piled Deck with Approach Bridges 10
Option 2 Piled Deck with Approach Causeways 10
Option 3 Bulkhead Wharf 10
4.4 Discussion of Options 11
4.5 Preferred Option 11
4.6 Notes on Budget Costs 11
5.0 Modifications to Preferred Scheme 13
5.1 Portainer Crane Option 13
5.1.1 Typical Portainer Crane Dimensions and Loading 13
5.1.2 Modifications due to Portainer Crane Requirements 13
5.1.3 Portainer Crane Option Comparative Costs 14
5.2 Heavy Lift Area Option 14
5.2.1 Heavy Lift Area Comparative Costs 14

(Public).doc
6.0 Conclusions 15
Appendix A Supplementary Information a
Appendix B Drawings b

(Public).doc
1.0 Introduction
Gunns Limited (Gunns) is proposing to develop a new pulp mill on a site adjacent to the Tamar River
in North Eastern Tasmania. The site is situated between Big Bay and Dirty Bay on the northern
shoreline of the River Tamar. A locality plan is included in Appendix A. This area also hosts Gunns
existing wood chip berths upstream, and the Hydro Electric Berth downstream, from the site.
The pulp mill will produce pulp in 250kg pulp bales, which will be placed into 2000 kg pulp units. The
pulp units will be shipped in pulp carriers to overseas markets.
A wharf facility is required to provide the infrastructure necessary for the tie-up of a bulk carrier vessel
and to allow the pulp units to be loaded onto the vessel. The wharf will be approximately 224 metres
long, and suitable for use by purpose built pulp carriers of up to 40000 45000dwt and general cargo
vessels of up to 5000 dwt.
Gunns has commissioned Maunsell to carry out a conceptual design of a wharf facility for the pulp mill.
This report presents Maunsells work on the study.
(Public).doc
Page 1
2.0 Design Criteria
To allow the wharf concepts to be established, a number of criteria must be considered. The following
design criteria for the wharf have been developed:
Wharf Geometry.
Environmental Data.
Design Vessels.
Design Loads.
Services.
Service Life.
2.1 Wharf Geometry

The wharf geometry adopted for the purposes of this study and nominated by Gunns is as follows:
Loading quay (wharf deck) is 224m long.

Wharf deck level of RL+5m.
Depth along berthing face to allow for vessel draft of 12m.
The width of the quay allows tractor trailers to pass each other. The adopted width of the quay is
20m.
The width of the approach trestles is 10m.
2.2 Environmental Data

The following environmental data have been considered in this study:
Tidal planes.
Wind.
Waves.
Currents.
2.2.1 Tidal Planes

The following tidal planes, extracted from the Hydrographic Map Aus 168, are relevant and have been
considered in formulation of the concept design:
Highest Astronomical Tide (HAT) 3.4m

Mean High Water Springs (MHWS) 3.1m
Mean Sea Level (MSL) 1.9m
Mean Low Water Springs (MLWS) 0.7m
Lowest Astronomical Tide (LAT) 0.0m
(Public).doc
Page 2
2.2.2 Wind
Wind data was not available. AS1170 has been used to calculate likely wind velocities on site.
2.2.3 Waves
Wave climate has been estimated for a Category 1 terrain (water surfaces) using fetch lengths and
average water depth. The maximum fetch length is approximately 10km to the north-west. An
average water depth of approximately 10m has been assumed. The corresponding significant wave
height expected for the site is approximately 1.9m with a period of 5 seconds.
The wharf deck level at RL+5m is sufficiently high to avoid overtopping by waves and is suitable.
2.2.4 Currents
Port of Launceston Authority (PLA) current records were received from Gunns. The records comprised
data sets of current measurements taken on 22 June 2005 at various locations and at multiple depths
in the vicinity of the site. This data is included in Appendix A. This data shows several data runs
taken at the surface, at 4.5m depth and at 9m depth. From this data, an average current velocity of
0.8m/s has been adopted for the concept design.
2.3 Design Vessels

The facility is required to cater for Open Hatch Bulk Carriers (OHBC) and Gearbulk vessels (General
Cargo vessels). In addition to these, the facility is also required to accommodate barges. Details of
the vessels considered in the design are noted below:
* *
Type Max Vessel Min Vessel Barge Barge
OHBC Gearbulk vessel Heavy Plant & Port of Launceston

Star O Class Equipment No. 4 Barge
Dead Weight 40,661tonne 5,000tonne - -

Tonnage (dwt) (to 40,000tonne)
Loaded 48,661tonne 7,500tonne to 1000 ton (approx) 80tonne
Displacement 45,000tonne
Tonnage
Length OA 199m 105m to 200m 50m 24.4m
Beam 32.26m 15.8m to 32m 15m 7.8m
Laden draught 12.02m 6.4m to 12m 3m 1.66m
Laden freeboard 4.5m 2.7m to 4.5m 0.5m 0.5m
* Note Barges will require fender piles or lower fender face panels over the length of wharf at which it will berth.
The design vessel (OHBC) is self loading. Gunns has advised that the vessels would not be shifted
during loading. The vessel includes two overhead gantries that may load the ship simultaneously.
Based on a laden draft of 12.02m, it is proposed that a minimum underkeel clearance of 1m be

adopted. A minimum of 13m depth for the maximum design vessel will thus be required below LAT,
thus the seabed level adjacent to the wharf face is to be RL-13m or lower.
It is expected that berthing would be carried out in relatively sheltered conditions, and that under these
conditions, vessels would berth at approximately 0.1m/s. Based on quarter point berthing and this
(Public).doc
Page 3
assumed berthing velocity, it is expected that for normal operations, the berthing energy would be
21.5ton-m. Assuming an accidental berthing factor of 2 (in accordance with BS6349: Part 4, Cl 4.9.1),
then the berthing energy would increase to 43ton-m. From these assumptions, it is anticipated that
1.0m dia. cone fenders or similar may be used along the berthing face. Modified fendering will be
required to accommodate barges due to their low freeboard.
It is anticipated that 80 tonne bollards would be used along the wharf and 100 tonne quick release
hook assemblies be used on the dolphins.
2.4 Design Loads

2.4.1 Cargo
The OHBC and Gearbulk vessels will carry pulp stacks, organised into 32 tonne units. It is anticipated
that the units would be stacked and stored in a warehouse adjacent to the wharf. The stacking of
units would be carried out by forklifts, and transportation of these to the wharf would be carried out by
terminal tractors and trailers. It is assumed that pulp stacks will not be placed on the wharf.
2.4.2 Terminal Tractor and Trailer Loads

Terminal tractors and trailers would be loaded such that the maximum total combined load of a single
tractor trailer will be 90 to 100 tonnes. The trailers would be approximately 3.6m wide, have three
axles and be designed to support 64 tonnes (2 pulp units). In accordance with standard axle spacing
dimensions, it is assumed that the axle spacing would be approximately 1.25m in elevation and 2m in
plan between the wheels.
The terminal tractor trailers would be similar to the Kalmar terminal tractor trailers, used in Australian
ports.
The terminal export operations considered involve the continuous shuttling of pulp units to the wharf
where they are loaded onto the vessel by the ships gear.
2.4.3 Other Material Loads

Salt will be unloaded from the Gearbulk vessels and either unloaded into truck loading hoppers or
placed directly on the deck by retrieval by front end loaders into trucks.
Measures will be required to address potential structure durability issues that will arise from this
operation.
2.4.4 Cranes
Mobile Cranes
The wharf site will be used as a staging point for the importation of select equipment during the
construction of the new pulp mill. The size of some of this equipment impedes its transportation via
road, thus the new wharf will receive such items. It is expected that this gear will be brought onto site
via barge and unloaded off the barge at the wharf with the use of mobile cranes. Mobile cranes will
also be used for the occasional unloading of heavy cargo from vessels once the wharf is operational.
The mobile cranes expected to operate in this capacity are the following:
400 tonne Liebherr mobile crane.

2 no. 100 tonne Gottwald cranes lifting together.
(Public).doc
Page 4
Allowance has been made for a heavy lift bay to facilitate the operation of these mobile cranes.
2.5 Services
The following Services were considered:
Lighting
Power
Water
Fire
Containment of Hazardous Materials
2.5.1 Lighting
General operational lighting on wharf for trucking operations and on mooring dolphins for line handling
will be required. For the purposes of reducing potential impact on neighbouring properties, lighting will
be baffled as required. Cope lighting would also be provided along the berthing face of the wharf.
2.5.2 Power
General power would be provided on the wharf. General Purpose Outlets (GPOs) would be positioned
along the wharf approximately every 40 metres.
2.5.3 Water
Potable water will be provided on the wharf. A non-potable water main would also be installed on the
wharf for deck and hopper wash down and fire fighting. An approved (by the Fire Brigade) 150
diameter main, will need to be provided with hydrants at 60m centres for adequate coverage. Both
potable and non-potable water services on the wharf would be connected to water mains on land.
2.5.4 Stormwater
Kerb and guttering would be provided and a stormwater system would be provided to drain the facility.
The stormwater system would comprise stormwater pits on the working platform and approach trestles
which would drain into Gross Pollutant Traps (GPT) installed on the wharf (suspended off the deck) or
installed on land.
2.5.5 Containment of Hazardous Materials

It is understood that hazardous materials including liquid caustic soda, sulphuric acid bullets, and salt
would be handled on the wharf. These substances would be handled in specified bunded areas on the
wharf. The bunded areas will drain into a GPT through valves, installed on the deck, which will be
open when chemicals and other hazardous materials are not being handled. At times when chemicals
are being handled, these valves will be locked shut to guard against the possibility of a spill into the
stormwater system and to contain the spill in the bund.
Pipework would be provided on the wharf to allow for the pumping of caustic soda from the vessel to a
tank and transfer pump on the reclaimed land. The caustic transfer pipe outside the bunded area will
be installed inside a second outer pipe for safety and for containment of any leak should this occur.
As noted in Section 2.5.3, potable water will be provided on the wharf for a safety shower and
eyewash for emergency washdown.
(Public).doc
Page 5
Salt handling operations will occur on the wharf and run off from this area will be through the
stormwater system into a GPT as for normal stormwater.
2.6 Service Life

The design life of the structure, as advised by Gunns, is 50 years. The design life will be achieved
with the use of quality materials and with prudent design detailing including the use of quality concrete
mixes, adequate concrete cover for reinforcing steel, the protection of steel piles such as paint
systems, the use of cathodic protection to steel and the use of trafficable chemically resistant coatings
to concrete in areas where hazardous materials are to be handled.
(Public).doc
Page 6
3.0 Geotechnical Conditions
Although geotechnical information of the site is limited at present, geotechnical information for the No.
1 Wood Chip Berth upstream of the site has been supplied by PLA.
The No 1 Woodchip berth is located approximately 2000m upstream of the proposed site. The borelog
records which have been made available show that sound rock may be found close to the surface.
The boreholes are located approximately 130m from the shoreline on average, and all boreholes show
the presence of rock close to the surface that is overlain with silty material. Data for 11 boreholes for
this berth show that the silty material is between 1m to 2m in depth and that it overlays fractured and
weathered dolerite. The weathered dolerite varies in depth, but may be expected to be 2 m to 3 m on
average before encountering solid rock.
Although similar conditions may be found at the proposed location of the pulp mill wharf, two scenarios
have been considered for the options given the unavailability of site specific geotechnical information,
namely:
Hard rock being found at a shallow level below the river bed.
Hard rock being found at reasonable depth (10m -15m) below the river bed.
(Public).doc
Page 7
4.0 Wharf Concepts
4.1 Location
The site is located between Big Bay and Dirty Bay on the Northern shoreline of the River Tamar. The
location of the wharf concepts is based on PLA Drawing 18D-129, dated 27 June 2005 as supplied by
Gunns. This drawing is in Appendix A.
The river bathymetry of the site (shown on PLA Dwg. 18D-129) suggests that a constant drop in depth
from 0 to 6m exists from the shoreline for about 160m. From this point however, contours suggest a
sharp drop in depth with an RL-12m contour appearing on average at approximately 180 m from
shore.
Given the assumed required depth for acceptable underkeel clearance (RL -13), the wharf face is
situated approximately 185m from the shoreline. To account for adequate clearance, the berth face
has been located some 28m downstream of the footprint originally nominated by Gunns (as shown on
PLA Drawing 18D-129). Placing the wharf at this location will result in there being no need for
dredging or blasting of any materials from the riverbed to accommodate the design vessels at
maximum draft.
4.2 Concepts Considered

Three wharf concepts were assessed in this study:
Option 1- Piled Deck with Approach Bridges.

Option 2 - Piled Deck with Approach Causeways.
Option 3 - Bulkhead Wharf.
Details of each concept are provided below.
4.2.1 Option 1 Piled Deck with Approach Bridges

This scheme is shown in sketch 20024505 SK001 and sketch 20024505 SK004 in Appendix B.
This option comprises a complete suspended structure on piles and 2 mooring dolphins. The
suspended structure consists of two approach trestles, each approximately 10m wide and 95m long,
and a wharf deck, 20m wide and 224m long respectively. Generally, this suspended structure
consists of an in-situ reinforced concrete deck on prestressed concrete planks supported by precast
concrete headstocks.
The facilitys mooring dolphins (approximately 4m x 4m in dimension and supported on piles) are
positioned upstream and downstream of the wharf deck with an offset of approximately 30m from the
approach trestles and a setback of 10m from the berthing face. Catwalks provide access to the
dolphins.
Pile size and pile bent spacings for the wharf were adopted after considering the geotechnical
conditions (as described in Section 3). For the shallow rock scenario, the piles are steel tubes of
1,066mm diameter with pile bent spacings at 14m. The total thickness of the concrete deck for this
scenario is 700mm. For the deep rock scenario the steel tubular piles are 760mm diameter with bent
spacings reduced to 6m. The total thickness of the deck for this scenario is 450mm.
(Public).doc
Page 8
For shallower rock, the piles will be driven to refusal with reinforced concrete anchors constructed to
anchor the piles into the rock. For deep rock, the piles will be driven to a nominated level or to refusal
in the rock depending on the soil conditions and depth of rock.
4.2.2 Option 2 Piled Deck with Approach Causeways

This scheme is shown in sketch 20024505 SK002 in Appendix B.
This option comprises a suspended structure on piles and approach causeways with 2 mooring points.
The suspended structure consists of two short approach trestles and a wharf deck with dimensions
being 10m wide and 20m long, and 20m wide and 224m long respectively. Similar to Option 1, the
suspended structure consists of an in-situ deck on prestressed planks supported by precast concrete
headstocks. The approach causeways are approximately 70m long and are constructed from rock fill
with the embankments lined with rock armour to protect against erosion.
The mooring points (approximately 4m x 4m in dimension and also supported on piles within
embankment) are positioned upstream and downstream of the wharf deck with an offset of
approximately 40m and a setback of 10m from the berthing face.
Similar to Option 1, the pile size and pile bent spacings for the suspended structures for the shallow
rock and deep rock scenarios are 1,000mm diameter at 14m spacing and 750mm diameter at 6m
spacing respectively. Deck thicknesses are 700mm and 450mm respectively. Piling work will be as
noted for Option 1.
4.2.3 Option 3 Bulkhead Wharf

This scheme is shown in sketch 20024505 SK003 in Appendix B.
This option is essentially reclaimed land with a bulkhead wall forming the berth line. The bulkhead wall
is constructed using steel tubular piles with welded clutches, tie rods and anchor piles. Retained fill
comprises excavated material from the pulp mill site.
This option includes mooring points similar to those of Option 2 (approximately 4m x 4m in dimension
and also supported on piles) that are positioned within the fill at the extreme ends of the bulk head
wall.
4.3 Comparison of Options and Construction Costs

4.3.1 Comparative Budget Costs
Comparative construction budget costs were prepared for each Option. The comparative construction
costs were based on budget rates and responses from enquiries to suppliers and contractors.
(Public).doc
Page 9
4.3.2 Comparison of Options
Option 1 Piled Deck with Approach Bridges

Advantages Disadvantages
Relative low cost for both shallow and For shallow rock scheme, piles would require
deep rock schemes. temporary support unless end over end
Least impact on river hydraulics. construction is adopted.
Least impact on river siltation.
Option 2 Piled Deck with Approach Causeways

Relative low cost for both shallow and The causeways would impact on the river
deep rock schemes. hydraulics which may cause eddy shedding
and changes in river streamlines.
The causeways would act as groynes which
may cause accretion/erosion of the riverbanks
and collect river borne debris.
For the shallow rock scheme, piles would
require temporary support unless an end over
end construction is adopted.
The option requires fill (approximately
3
63,000m ) to be provided from the pulp mill
excavation earthworks which may not be
readily available. Soft material on the river bed
may also require replacement or treatment.
Armour rock is also required for facing of the
embankments. It is additional to this volume
and will need to be sourced either from the
pulp mill site or purchased from a suitable
quarry.
There may be siltation issues related to
release of fines from material placed in the
river.
There may be loss of fines from the fill which
will require additional fill to compensate.
Option 3 Bulkhead Wharf

Development of large reclamation area More than twice the cost of Options 1 or 2.
behind the bulkhead which can be used The bulkhead structure is difficult to construct
for open air storage. in that the anchor wall and tie rods will need to
be installed and supported prior to backfilling
the bulkhead wall. It is considered undesirable
to place the significant fill volumes that would
be required to enable the bulkhead to be
driven into fill.
There is likely impact on river hydraulics which
(Public).doc
Page 10
may cause eddy shedding and changes in
river streamlines.
The reclamation will act as a groyne which
may cause accretion/erosion of the riverbanks
and collect river borne debris.
The scheme requires significant fill volumes
3
(approximately 300,000m ) to be provided
from the pulp mill excavation earthworks which
may not be available. Soft material on the river
bed may also require replacement or
treatment. Armour rock required for facing of
the embankments is additional to this volume
and will need to be sourced either from the
pulp mill site or purchased from a suitable
quarry.
There may be siltation issues related to
release of fines from material placed in the
river.
There may be loss of fines from the fill which
will require additional fill to compensate.
4.4 Discussion of Options

The comparative costs show that the piled deck with approach causeways (Option 2) would be the
least expensive to build. However, this assumes that rock will be readily available from the pulp mill
excavation earthworks at no extra cost. If rock required for the fill is not available from the pulp mill
site, the construction cost would be expected to increase. It is noted that the cost differences are
negligible between the deep rock and shallow rock schemes.
Option 3 is the least favourable option given the high construction cost and possible significant impact
on the river hydraulics. High costs would be expected given the relative difficulty of installing a
bulkhead wall. This option also assumes that rock will be readily available from the pulp mill
excavation earthworks at no extra cost. There is a potentially significant cost increase if rock is
required at deeper levels as well.
Option 1 appears to present best value (within 5% of Option 2) and vastly superior hydraulic
characteristics. Impacts on river hydraulics would be negligible. This option also places no reliance on
fill being obtained form the pulp mill site, removing a potential cost uncertainty. It is noted that the cost
difference between the deep rock and shallow rock schemes is negligible.
4.5 Preferred Option

Given the above, the preferred option for the wharf facility is Option 1 Piled Deck with Approach
Bridges. Although this option was found to be marginally more expensive than Option 2, its
advantages from an environmental view and cost risk lead to the conclusion that it is preferred over
Options 2 and 3.
4.6 Notes on Budget Costs

Although the budget rates used are deemed to be adequate for the purposes of comparison, Maunsell
Australia Pty Ltd has no control over the cost of labour, materials, equipment or services furnished by
others, neither has it control over contractors methods for determining prices, competitive bidding or
(Public).doc
Page 11
market conditions. The opinion of probable construction cost produced by Maunsell has been made
on the basis of best judgement as an experienced and qualified engineering consultant, familiar with
the construction industry. As Maunsell is not a qualified Quantity Surveyor, nor does it employ
quantity surveyors, Maunsell cannot and will not guarantee that any tenders or actual construction
costs will not vary from this opinion of construction cost.
(Public).doc
Page 12
5.0 Modifications to Preferred Scheme
5.1 Portainer Crane Option
Gunns has identified that containers may also be utilised in the near future for the transportation of
pulp and, as a result, a portainer crane option has been considered. The portainer crane scheme is
based on the preferred option (piled deck with approach bridges) with additional crane beams and
intermediate piles being introduced to support crane loads and tie down. Other modifications to the
preferred option scheme include the provision of a crane maintenance area.
For the portainer crane operation, the necessary wharf modifications are considered in two stages.
Stage 1 includes works that are built into the wharf at the time of initial construction. Implementing the
Stage 1 works will reduce the cost of those items that would be difficult to build into the facility at a
later time. Stage 2 includes works that can be deferred until a later time without the need for
significant modification of the constructed wharf.
For the size of vessels using the facility (40,000dwt) the overall hatch coverage length is
approximately 150m. With buffers placed clear of the approach road the coverage of the crane would
be 177m (224m-20m-27m).
5.1.1 Typical Portainer Crane Dimensions and Loading

It is anticipated that the rail mounted ship to shore crane would be as follows:
General Dimensions
Rail Gauge 25.4m
Length of crane between buffers 27m
Reach 40m
Distance between wheel bogie 12m
centrelines
Loading
Wheels per leg 8 no.
Distance between wheels 1m
Load per wheel 60 tonnes
5.1.2 Modifications due to Portainer Crane Requirements

The modifications to the preferred scheme (Option 1) include the addition of 2 crane beams (front and
rear), extra piles to support the crane loads and a crane maintenance area as shown in Sketch
20024505 - 007 in Appendix B. As shown in the sketch, the rear crane beam would be tied to the
main wharf deck by a strut at each headstock location. The strut may be constructed from either a
steel tube section or a precast concrete member. If a steel tube connection was preferred, chemical
anchors may be used to connect the tube between the rear beam and the wharf headstocks. To
accommodate a concrete member, a corbel would be constructed on the front face of the rear crane
beam and on the back face of the wharf headstocks.
It is anticipated that the Portainer Crane would be installed some time after commissioning of the
wharf and thus only the front crane beam would be provided in the initial construction (Stage 1). The
front crane beam would be constructed along the front row of piles. For the shallow rock condition, an
(Public).doc
Page 13
additional 1066OD piles will be required on the front row to reduce the beam span from 14 m to 7 m.
For the deep rock condition, the front row piles will need to be increased from 760OD to 914OD.
A rebate for the later installation of a crane rail and power supply cable (if required) can be provided in
the front crane beam as part of the Stage 1 works. The rebate can be filled with a low strength
concrete until the rail is required. No allowance had been made at this stage for a cable pit adjacent
to the front beam. This would be retrofitted at Stage 2.
The rear crane beam would be built as Stage 2 and prior to the commissioning of the Portainer Crane
and its construction would most likely be carried out from the existing deck.
Provision may need to be made for the stacking of hatch covers. For the purposes of this report it is
assumed that trucking operations will not be constricted by the ships hatch covers i.e. the hatch
covers can be stacked on the wharf deck. If this were unacceptable, then additional decking would be
required between the rear of the wharf and the rear crane beam.
5.1.3 Portainer Crane Option Comparative Costs

Construction budget costs were prepared for the Portainer Crane Option. The construction costs were
based on budget rates and responses from enquiries to suppliers and contractors.
5.2 Heavy Lift Area Option

Gunns has identified that a heavy lift area would give greater flexibility in operation of the wharf. This
heavy lift area would be used initially for the unloading of large/heavy equipment brought via barge
(required for the construction of the mill) and once the wharf is operational, be used for the occasional
unloading of heavy cargo from vessels.
The heavy lift area would consist of supplementary parallel RC beams that would be installed in the
mid section of the wharf. The heavy lift area would be located as shown in the Drawings.
5.2.1 Heavy Lift Area Comparative Costs

Construction budget costs were prepared for a Heavy Lift Area. The construction costs were based
on budget rates and responses from enquiries to suppliers and contractors
(Public).doc
Page 14
6.0 Conclusions
A number of options for constructing a new wharf required for the export of pulp material from Bell Bay
have been investigated.
The evaluation process considered likely construction costs and environmental implications relative to
the site. The preferred scheme of a piled deck with approach trestles (Option 1) offers a number of
advantages. These include:
There is no fill used (with the exception of the reclaimed land by others).
The variation in price between deep rock and shallow rock schemes are not significant, indicating
that ground conditions will not have a significant impact on final costs.
The wharf layout would have the least impact on river hydraulics. It is anticipated that its
construction would have negligible eddy shedding effects and imperceptible changes to river
streamlines.
The wharf layout would have the least impact on river siltation and accretion/erosion of river
banks.
The feasibility of making provision in the wharf for the later use of a portainer crane was also
considered. If a portainer crane operation is to be utilised then staged implementation of the works is
feasible and will reduce the overall capital costs.
(Public).doc
Page 15
Appendix A Supplementary Information

(Public).doc
Revision C September 2005 Page a
Area of
enlargement
RI
VE
R
TA
M PR
AR O
P
O
SE
D
PU
LP
PROPOSED LOCATION M
IL
OF WHARF FACILITY L
LOCALITY MAP
SURVEY DATE 22/06/2005
LOCATION BIG BAY AREA
TIME OF HW or LW HW BELL BAY 1148 3.42m
File Name Float ID Depth No Easting Northing Time Set Drift Rate m/s
LALSASC.CST 1 486444 5445925.8 150706 0 0 0

LALSASC.CST 2 486430.4 5445944.1 151036 323.4 22.8 0.11
LALSASC.CST 3 486412 5445957.1 151750 305.2 22.5 0.05
LALSASC.CST 4 486374.5 5445967.5 153305 285.5 38.9 0.04
LR-R-1.CST SURFACE 1 492631.1 5444116.1 133938 0 0 0

LR-R-1.CST SURFACE 2 492455.8 5444260.4 134600 309.5 227.1 0.59
LR-R-1.CST SURFACE 3 492367.1 5444355.6 134934 317 130.1 0.61
LR-R-1.CST SURFACE 4 492277 5444454 135230 317.5 133.4 0.76
LR-R-1.CST SURFACE 5 492197.6 5444563.3 135544 324 135.1 0.7
LR-R-1.CST SURFACE 6 492139.1 5444638.8 135745 322.2 95.5 0.79
LR-R-2.CST SURFACE 1 492540 5444289.7 141215 0 0 0

LR-R-2.CST SURFACE 2 492502.5 5444349.3 141402 327.8 70.4 0.66
LR-R-2.CST SURFACE 3 492457.5 5444413.5 141615 325 78.4 0.59
LR-R-2.CST SURFACE 4 492377.3 5444522.1 142000 323.6 135 0.51
LR-R-2.CST SURFACE 5 492291.9 5444638 142410 323.6 144 0.69
LR-R-3.CST SURFACE 1 492499.5 5444273.2 143336 0 0 0

LR-R-3.CST SURFACE 2 492398.6 5444372.5 143644 314.5 141.6 0.75
LR-R-3.CST SURFACE 3 492291 5444487.3 144019 316.9 157.3 0.73
LR-R-3.CST SURFACE 4 492160.5 5444631.5 144438 317.9 194.5 0.75
LR-R-3.CST SURFACE 5 492105.8 5444693.9 144629 318.8 83 0.75
LR-R-4.CST SURFACE 1 492069.9 5444747.5 145318 0 0 0

LR-R-4.CST SURFACE 2 492021.3 5444802.3 145504 318.4 73.2 0.69
LR-4M-1.CST 7 4.5 1 492564.7 5444158.8 134208 0 0 0

LR-4M-1.CST 7 4.5 2 492471.5 5444253.1 134629 315.3 132.6 0.51
LR-4M-1.CST 7 4.5 3 492412.5 5444301.3 134842 309.2 76.2 0.57
LR-4M-1.CST 7 4.5 4 492325.6 5444396.1 135147 317.5 128.6 0.7
LR-4M-1.CST 7 4.5 5 492240.8 5444496 135459 319.7 131 0.68
LR-4M-1.CST 7 4.5 6 492195.3 5444552.1 135643 321 72.2 0.69
LR-4M-1.CST 7 4.5 7 492115.1 5444640.9 135941 317.9 119.7 0.67
LR-4M-2.CST 7 4.5 1 492519.6 5444279.1 141256 0 0 0

LR-4M-2.CST 7 4.5 2 492484 5444329.3 141436 324.7 61.5 0.62
LR-4M-2.CST 7 4.5 3 492411.3 5444422.9 141801 322.2 118.5 0.58
LR-4M-2.CST 7 4.5 4 492351.2 5444499.1 142051 321.7 97 0.57
LR-4M-2.CST 7 4.5 5 492258.4 5444604.8 142541 318.7 140.7 0.49
LR-4M-3.CST 4.5 1 492523.6 5444251.5 143413 0 0 0

LR-4M-3.CST 4.5 2 492445.2 5444328.1 143738 314.3 109.6 0.53
LR-4M-3.CST 4.5 3 492361.3 5444411.8 144119 314.9 118.5 0.54
LR-4M-3.CST 4.5 4 492206.4 5444588.8 144851 318.8 235.2 0.52
LR-4M-3.CST 4.5 5 492105 5444705.2 145359 318.9 154.4 0.5
LR-4M-3.CST 4.5 6 492052.9 5444764.4 145643 318.7 78.9 0.48
LR-9M-1.CST 9 1 492481.5 5444050.9 134113 0 0 0

LR-9M-1.CST 9 2 492413.6 5444123.9 134411 317.1 99.7 0.56
LR-9M-1.CST 9 3 492330.5 5444220.3 134748 319.2 127.3 0.59
LR-9M-1.CST 9 4 492256.6 5444294.5 135046 315.1 104.7 0.59
LR-9M-1.CST 9 5 492177 5444372.4 135351 314.4 111.4 0.6
LR-9M-2.CST 9 1 492504.5 5444273.2 141317 0 0 0

LR-9M-2.CST 9 2 492468.5 5444318.8 141502 321.7 58.1 0.55
LR-9M-3.CST 9 1 492410.7 5444204.4 143520 0 0 0

LR-9M-3.CST 9 2 492328.5 5444286 143851 314.8 115.8 0.55
LR-9M-3.CST 9 3 492244.1 5444370 144239 314.9 119.1 0.52
LR-9M-3.CST 9 4 492051.7 5444572.3 145109 316.4 279.2 0.55
Appendix B Drawings

(Public).doc
Revision C September 2005 Page b
FOR INFORMATION ONLY
GUNNS LIMITED
GUNNS LIMITED
GUNNS LIMITED
GUNNS LIMITED
GUNNS LIMITED
GUNNS LIMITED
GUNNS LIMITED

Diseño Conceptual de Un Muelle PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

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

Diseño Conceptual de Un Muelle PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bell Bay Pulp Mill Wharf Facility Conceptual

Date September 2005

Prepared by Cristian Alfred

Reviewed by Michael Coull

Conceptual Study Report-

Conceptual Study Report-

Conceptual Study Report-

Maunsell Australia Pty Ltd

Maunsell Australia Pty Ltd 2006

K:\20024505_00_BELLBAYPM\Eng-Plan\Reports\Bell Bay Pulp Mill Wharf Facility - Report - Rev D

K:\20024505_00_BELLBAYPM\Eng-Plan\Reports\Bell Bay Pulp Mill Wharf Facility - Report - Rev D

K:\20024505_00_BELLBAYPM\Eng-Plan\Reports\Bell Bay Pulp Mill Wharf Facility - Report - Rev D

2.1 Wharf Geometry

Loading quay (wharf deck) is 224m long.

2.2 Environmental Data

2.2.1 Tidal Planes

Highest Astronomical Tide (HAT) 3.4m

2.3 Design Vessels

OHBC Gearbulk vessel Heavy Plant & Port of Launceston

Dead Weight 40,661tonne 5,000tonne - -

Beam 32.26m 15.8m to 32m 15m 7.8m

Laden draught 12.02m 6.4m to 12m 3m 1.66m

Laden freeboard 4.5m 2.7m to 4.5m 0.5m 0.5m

Based on a laden draft of 12.02m, it is proposed that a minimum underkeel clearance of 1m be

2.4 Design Loads

2.4.2 Terminal Tractor and Trailer Loads

2.4.3 Other Material Loads

400 tonne Liebherr mobile crane.

2.5.5 Containment of Hazardous Materials

2.6 Service Life

4.2 Concepts Considered

Option 1- Piled Deck with Approach Bridges.

Details of each concept are provided below.

4.2.1 Option 1 Piled Deck with Approach Bridges

4.2.2 Option 2 Piled Deck with Approach Causeways

4.2.3 Option 3 Bulkhead Wharf

4.3 Comparison of Options and Construction Costs

Option 1 Piled Deck with Approach Bridges

Option 2 Piled Deck with Approach Causeways

Option 3 Bulkhead Wharf

4.4 Discussion of Options

4.5 Preferred Option

4.6 Notes on Budget Costs

5.1.1 Typical Portainer Crane Dimensions and Loading

5.1.2 Modifications due to Portainer Crane Requirements

5.1.3 Portainer Crane Option Comparative Costs

5.2 Heavy Lift Area Option

5.2.1 Heavy Lift Area Comparative Costs

K:\20024505_00_BELLBAYPM\Eng-Plan\Reports\Bell Bay Pulp Mill Wharf Facility - Report - Rev D

LALSASC.CST 1 486444 5445925.8 150706 0 0 0

LR-R-1.CST SURFACE 1 492631.1 5444116.1 133938 0 0 0

LR-R-2.CST SURFACE 1 492540 5444289.7 141215 0 0 0

LR-R-3.CST SURFACE 1 492499.5 5444273.2 143336 0 0 0

LR-R-4.CST SURFACE 1 492069.9 5444747.5 145318 0 0 0

LR-4M-1.CST 7 4.5 1 492564.7 5444158.8 134208 0 0 0

LR-4M-2.CST 7 4.5 1 492519.6 5444279.1 141256 0 0 0

LR-4M-3.CST 4.5 1 492523.6 5444251.5 143413 0 0 0

LR-9M-1.CST 9 1 492481.5 5444050.9 134113 0 0 0

LR-9M-2.CST 9 1 492504.5 5444273.2 141317 0 0 0

LR-9M-3.CST 9 1 492410.7 5444204.4 143520 0 0 0

K:\20024505_00_BELLBAYPM\Eng-Plan\Reports\Bell Bay Pulp Mill Wharf Facility - Report - Rev D

You might also like