2017 - ConditionAssessmentReport Wharf 6
2017 - ConditionAssessmentReport Wharf 6
6.0 ASSESSMENT................................................................................................................................................................ 24
6.1 Timber piles .............................................................................................................................................................. 24
6.1.1 Current structural condition ......................................................................................................................................24
6.1.2 Potential Health and Safety Risks ..............................................................................................................................24
6.1.3 Specifications and Requirements of ‘AS4997-2005 Guidelines for the design of maritime structures’ ...............24
6.2 Timber headstocks & girders ........................................................................................................................... 25
6.2.1 Current structural condition ......................................................................................................................................25
6.2.2 Potential Health and Safety Risks ..............................................................................................................................25
6.2.3 Specifications and Requirements of ‘AS4997-2005 Guidelines for the design of maritime structures’ ...............25
6.3 Concrete deck........................................................................................................................................................... 26
6.3.1 Current structural condition ......................................................................................................................................26
6.3.2 Potential Health and Safety Risks ..............................................................................................................................26
6.3.3 Specifications and Requirements of ‘AS4997-2005 Guidelines for the design of maritime structures’ ...............26
6.4 Operational limitation/issues .......................................................................................................................... 27
CAIRNS +61 7 4031 3199 | [email protected] | 138 Spence Street PO Box 5820 CAIRNS QLD 4870
DARWIN +61 8 8911 0046 | [email protected] | 3/93 Mitchell Street GPO Box 4299 DARWIN NT 0800
MACKAY +61 7 4944 1200 | [email protected] | 56 Gordon Street PO Box 45 MACKAY QLD 4740
TOWNSVILLE +61 7 4724 5737 | [email protected] | 370 Flinders Street PO Box 891 TOWNSVILLE QLD 4810
Flanagan Consulting Group is a registered business name of South Pacificsands Pty Ltd A.C.N. 052 933 687
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Ports North is seeking to undertake the ‘Cairns Shipping Development Project’ (CSDP) which includes
widening and deepening of the existing channel into the Port of Cairns to improve access for large cruise
ships, enable growth for HMAS Cairns Navy base and improve Port efficiencies. The project also involves
the structural upgrade of wharfs and upgrade of services to the wharfs to accommodate the larger cruise
ships.
Ports North has assessed the forecast ship visitations that will result from the channel upgrade and
determined that the Trinity Wharfs (Wharfs 1 – 6) will need to have the ability to accommodate two cruise
ships at berth at a time, potentially of sizes up to 290+ metres length. A drawing showing the potential
cruise ship berthing arrangements is included in Appendix A. The berthing potential arrangements clearly
identify that both berthing and mooring loads will be transferred to Wharf 6.
Therefore, as part of the CSDP, Ports North require a structural assessment of ‘Wharf 6’ to inform decision
makers of the current condition and structural value of the existing structure and its appropriateness for
continued use as a general purpose wharf, and as a cruise ship berth.
The structural assessment consisted of a visual inspection of the wharf in conjunction with a desktop review
of the large body of technical information that has been accumulated over the past three decades.
Wharf 6 is currently in very poor structural condition due to the severe deterioration of the timber piles,
headstocks, timber girders and concrete deck. Testing of these key structural components has confirmed
that significant loss of strength and durability has occurred and is continuing to occur at an increasing rate.
The failure of any of these structural elements could result in catastrophic collapse of the deck and could
endanger users and equipment.
Wharf 6 does not comply with current Australian Standards and is not fit for purpose.
Error! Reference source not found.Error! Reference source not found. Page 3 of 27
A visual inspection of Wharf 6 was undertaken on 26 July 2016 by Mr Liam Kenny, Senior Structural Engineer
and RPEQ.
Error! Reference source not found.Error! Reference source not found. Page 4 of 27
· Extract of engineering investigation report no. CET3653/C from Mr David Beal, dated June 1993;
· Report No. ITPL008-066 (‘Integrity testing of timber, concrete and steel piles at Cairns Port, Qld’)
from Integrity testing Pty Ltd dated 23 December 2008
· Timber support structure damage audit including wharf layout and defects register indicating
damaged members of the wharf structure and planned repairs.
· General documentation, correspondence, photos and emails relating to operational issues, repairs
and use of the wharf.
· ‘The visual inspections of the concrete cores and observation on site would indicate that there is
severe deterioration of the lower section of the concrete slab including cracking up to mid height of
the depth of the slab. The bottom layer of the reinforcement is corroding.’
· ‘The concrete was badly compacted and generally had a high voids content and had a large capacity
to absorb water.’
· ‘The carbonation of the concrete is nil from the top surface but approximately 60mm from the soffit
deck…As carbonation of the concrete is above the level of the reinforcement for the lower section of
the deck slab, corrosion has occurred.’
· ‘The values of resistivity of the concrete are in the high to very high range. Therefore in this concrete
deck, the tests would indicate a high corrosion rate for all reinforcement.’
· ‘From all the tests, the results indicated that the concrete is carbonated up to the bottom reinforcing
level. The corrosion currents do exist at high levels and the lower reinforcement is corroding at a
high rate.’
· ‘The cracking of the deck slab up to the middle of the slab from the soffit would indicate that this
deck has had loads above its capacity.’
· ‘As this concrete deck slab is under-designed for the live loads that it is carrying and it would be very
difficult to do concrete repairs to the soffit of the deck, the most appropriate method of
reinstatement of this wharf would be replacement of the deck slab. This would be done only if the
timber sub-structure is in a condition that would warrant the continued use of this structure.’
Error! Reference source not found.Error! Reference source not found. Page 5 of 27
Based on the test information, the piles were categorised as per below:
· Category 2: generally assigned to piles which are serviceable, and with a normal load;
· Category 3: defective piles, with major defects but still capable of design loads as indicated in the
“total load” results
· Category 4: Either structurally redundant or with sufficient defects to the pile to be replaced
immediately.
1 pile (pile no. 103) was assessed as a Category 4 pile and therefore is needing replacement.
4 piles were assessed as Category 3 piles and therefore are needing replacement in the near future.
5 piles were assessed as Category 2 piles and therefore still serviceable piles.
The Mod-Shock test carried out in 2008 identified that 50% of the tested piles were defective piles with
major defects, requiring either immediate replacement (category 4 piles) or replacement in the near future
(category 3 piles).
Error! Reference source not found.Error! Reference source not found. Page 6 of 27
· A detailed inspection of Wharf 6 was carried out in 2010 where all members were assessed. After
the inspection Ports North started to develop a repair strategy including restricted access to critical
areas and targeted repairs to maintain reasonable access and functionality.
· In 2012 areas of significant damage were identified where the load limit of 20t posed a risk.
· Ports North has undertaken, over the years, an inspection and maintenance program for Wharf 6.
Within this program load limits have been implemented over the wharf deck and, occasionally,
access totally restricted to those areas requiring major repair.
Error! Reference source not found.Error! Reference source not found. Page 7 of 27
The wharf was constructed at a time when material costs were at a premium and a short design life was
justified/anticipated. Due to the durability of some elements and past maintenance efforts by the Port
Authority, the wharf has been usable well beyond what would be considered a reasonable lifespan, and has
experienced an acceleration in deterioration over the past decade.
Error! Reference source not found.Error! Reference source not found. Page 8 of 27
Error! Reference source not found.Error! Reference source not found. Page 9 of 27
The height of the concrete sleeves was observed to vary in level. It is understood that progressive
settlement into the soft underlying sediments, tidal or vessel generated scour, and potential effects of
periodic dredging of the adjacent wharf berth pocket, has undermined the base of the sleeves (and
potentially the piles) resulting in the sleeves dropping in level over time. The variability of the sleeve height
is concerning as it indicates that the pile embedment level and the current support conditions are drastically
different to that when the wharf was originally constructed and designed. The sleeve movement has
reduced the durability of the piles and could be resulting in additional ‘drawdown’ forces on the piles
reducing their capacity.
Various attempts have been made to fix and protect problem piles throughout the wharf. Several piles were
observed to be wrapped, coated and in places spliced with varying degrees of success. It was observed that
two piles were completely missing, leaving a section of the deck unsupported (this zone has been fenced
off).
Degraded and decayed portion of piles visible above the concrete sleeves. Variable height of concrete sleeves.
Error! Reference source not found.Error! Reference source not found. Page 10 of 27
Advance degradation and decay of pile. Severe reduction in section dimension of pile.
Error! Reference source not found.Error! Reference source not found. Page 11 of 27
Splitting of pile.
Error! Reference source not found.Error! Reference source not found. Page 12 of 27
Error! Reference source not found.Error! Reference source not found. Page 13 of 27
Error! Reference source not found.Error! Reference source not found. Page 14 of 27
Spliced piles connected with steel plates bolted around the perimeter of the pile
Error! Reference source not found.Error! Reference source not found. Page 15 of 27
Missing piles
Error! Reference source not found.Error! Reference source not found. Page 16 of 27
All bolted connections have experienced a degree of corrosion and section loss.
Error! Reference source not found.Error! Reference source not found. Page 17 of 27
Error! Reference source not found.Error! Reference source not found. Page 18 of 27
Error! Reference source not found.Error! Reference source not found. Page 19 of 27
Error! Reference source not found.Error! Reference source not found. Page 20 of 27
Error! Reference source not found.Error! Reference source not found. Page 21 of 27
Corrosion to iron steel. Portions of the sheeting had completely rusted away.
Error! Reference source not found.Error! Reference source not found. Page 22 of 27
Severe corrosion of bottom reinforcement. Steel sheeting to underside of deck has completely rusted away.
Error! Reference source not found.Error! Reference source not found. Page 23 of 27
· Current structural conditions based on our visual inspection and on tests carried out in the past;
· Specification and requirements of ‘AS4997-2005 Guidelines for the design of maritime structures’;
· Operational limitation/issues;
The consideration/evaluation of the economic viability of the Wharf 6 with consideration to the direct
maintenance costs and indirect costs arising from the required operational limitations (load restrictions) has
not been taken into account in this report.
The Mod-Shock test carried out in 2008 identified that 50% of the tested piles were defective piles with
major defects, requiring either immediate replacement (category 4 piles) or replacement in the near future
(category 3 piles). It is unclear what repairs (if any) were undertaken to address these issues in the past but
it is obvious that further deterioration has occurred since the time of the testing.
Error! Reference source not found.Error! Reference source not found. Page 24 of 27
The size of the timber sections and the quality of the original timber has enabled these sections to remain
largely intact in a number of areas.
The Wharf 6 timber headstocks and girders are 74 years old and are beyond their original design life. The
timber headstocks and girders do not comply with current Australian Standards.
Error! Reference source not found.Error! Reference source not found. Page 25 of 27
Our observations and previous testing indicate that the Wharf 6 concrete deck:
AS4997-2005 specifies that, where these requirements are met, a design life of 25 years can be expected.
Error! Reference source not found.Error! Reference source not found. Page 26 of 27
The characteristics of the deck are well below the requirements of AS4997-2005.
7.0 CONCLUSION
Wharf 6 is in very poor structural condition and is beyond any practical repair. The deterioration of the
structural members has resulted in a structure that could fail catastrophically and endanger users and
equipment.
The wharf does not comply with current Australian Standards and has exceeded its design life.
Yours faithfully,
Liam Kenny
Error! Reference source not found.Error! Reference source not found. Page 27 of 27