CAIRNS SHIPPING DEVELOPMENT PROJECT

Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement

APPENDIX AE: Condition Assessment Report: Wharf

6, Wharf Street Cairns
 CONDITION ASSESSMENT REPORT

Wharf 6, Wharf Street, Cairns

Project No. 3527-02

Reference No. R-DB0095A
Date: May 2017
Table of Contents

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................................................................3

2.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................................4

3.0 EXISTING DOCUMENTATION .............................................................................................................................5

3.1 Engineering investigation report no. CET3653/C ..................................................................................... 5
3.2 Report No. ITPL008-066 .......................................................................................................................................... 6
3.3 Documentation of wharf layout and defect register ............................................................................... 7

4.0 THE EXISTING STRUCTURE .................................................................................................................................8

5.0 INSPECTION OBSERVATIONS......................................................................................................................... 10

5.1 Timber piles .............................................................................................................................................................. 10
5.2 Timber headstocks & girders ........................................................................................................................... 17
5.3 Concrete Deck .......................................................................................................................................................... 22

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

7.0 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................................................... 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

May 2017 3527-02 / R-DB0095A Page 3 of 27

January 2016 4467/01 Page 3 of 27

2.0 INTRODUCTION
Flanagan Consulting Group was commissioned to undertake a condition assessment of Wharf 6.

The commissioned scope of works includes the following tasks:

· Visual inspection of the wharf;

· Review of existing records, assessment, analysis and data;
· RPEQ endorsed report outlining:
o Historic use, maintenance and repair;
o Relevant Australian Standards and ‘likely’ compliance;
o Issues affecting design life, operation and risk/safety;
o General commentary on structural value.

A visual inspection of Wharf 6 was undertaken on 26 July 2016 by Mr Liam Kenny, Senior Structural Engineer
and RPEQ.

Google Earth aerial view indicating the location of Wharf 6.

Google Earth aerial view indicating the location of Wharf 6.

Error! Reference source not found.Error! Reference source not found. Page 4 of 27

May 2017 3527-02 / R-DB0095A Page 4 of 27

January 2016 4467/01 Page 4 of 27

3.0 EXISTING DOCUMENTATION
Flanagan Consulting Group was provided with the following documentation:

· 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.

3.1 Engineering investigation report no. CET3653/C

The key points of the structural investigation from Mr David Beal, which was carried out through destructive
testing of the concrete deck, are the followings:

· ‘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

May 2017 3527-02 / R-DB0095A Page 5 of 27

January 2016 4467/01 Page 5 of 27

3.2 Report No. ITPL008-066
Integrity Testing carried out Mod-Shock tests on 10 timber piles in 2008. According to information provided
by Integrity Testing, the Mod-Shock test uses the broad-spectrum frequency response from a hammer blow
to the element under test. The reflected signals are captured by a transducer placed on the element under
test and recorded for later analysis. Through this test method Integrity Testing was able to provide
information about pile diameter and length, pile defects, minimum pile diameter , depth of the pile where
the greatest loss of section was found, pile head stiffness, total elastic load etc.

Based on the test information, the piles were categorised as per below:

· Category 1: a good pile, with no major defects;

· 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

May 2017 3527-02 / R-DB0095A Page 6 of 27

January 2016 4467/01 Page 6 of 27

3.3 Documentation of wharf layout and defect register
Based on the correspondence provided by the client we understand the following:

· 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.

· The current load limit to the wharf is 10t (max G.V.M.)

Current load limit to Wharf 6.

Error! Reference source not found.Error! Reference source not found. Page 7 of 27

May 2017 3527-02 / R-DB0095A Page 7 of 27

January 2016 4467/01 Page 7 of 27

4.0 THE EXISTING STRUCTURE
Wharf 6 was constructed in 1942 and is therefore 74 years old and beyond it is original design life. The
wharf structure consists of hardwood timber piles supporting hardwood timber headstock and girders. A
concrete deck cast on galvanised iron steel is supported by the timber sub-structure. Three independent
concrete structures, which previously provided support for a lifting crane, have been constructed in the
southern portion of the wharf.

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.

The wharf is approximately 135m in length at quayline and 27m in width.

Timber substructure of wharf and concrete structure.

Error! Reference source not found.Error! Reference source not found. Page 8 of 27

May 2017 3527-02 / R-DB0095A Page 8 of 27

January 2016 4467/01 Page 8 of 27

 Timber substructure of wharf.

Galvanised steel formwork over timber girders.

Error! Reference source not found.Error! Reference source not found. Page 9 of 27

May 2017 3527-02 / R-DB0095A Page 9 of 27

January 2016 4467/01 Page 9 of 27

5.0 INSPECTION OBSERVATIONS
5.1 Timber piles
The timber piles are typically encased by backfilled concrete sleeves (reinforced concrete pipes) in order to
provide the piles with a degree of protection against marine borers and to reduce the rate of deterioration
within the tidal zone. The bases of the piles are typically in very poor condition with significant (and in
places, complete) section loss. Severe degradation, decay and evidence of marine borer attack was
observed within the tidal zone of the piles.

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

May 2017 3527-02 / R-DB0095A Page 10 of 27

January 2016 4467/01 Page 10 of 27

 Degraded and decayed portion of piles visible above the concrete sleeves. Variable height of concrete sleeves.

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

May 2017 3527-02 / R-DB0095A Page 11 of 27

January 2016 4467/01 Page 11 of 27

 Top portion of concrete sleeve at same height of water level.

Splitting of pile.

Error! Reference source not found.Error! Reference source not found. Page 12 of 27

May 2017 3527-02 / R-DB0095A Page 12 of 27

January 2016 4467/01 Page 12 of 27

 Splitting of pile and damage to concrete sleeve.

· Damage to the concrete sleeves was evident at different locations.

Damage to concrete sleeve.

Error! Reference source not found.Error! Reference source not found. Page 13 of 27

May 2017 3527-02 / R-DB0095A Page 13 of 27

January 2016 4467/01 Page 13 of 27

 Void between the pile and the concrete sleeve.

Wrapped pile with tape.

Error! Reference source not found.Error! Reference source not found. Page 14 of 27

May 2017 3527-02 / R-DB0095A Page 14 of 27

January 2016 4467/01 Page 14 of 27

 Pile wrapped with epoxy coating.

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

May 2017 3527-02 / R-DB0095A Page 15 of 27

January 2016 4467/01 Page 15 of 27

 Spliced piles connected with steel plates bolted around the perimeter of the pile

Missing piles

Error! Reference source not found.Error! Reference source not found. Page 16 of 27

May 2017 3527-02 / R-DB0095A Page 16 of 27

January 2016 4467/01 Page 16 of 27

5.2 Timber headstocks & girders
Staining and fungal decay was evident in the timber headstocks and girders. Significant section loss has
resulted from water leakage through cracks in the concrete deck.

All bolted connections have experienced a degree of corrosion and section loss.

Staining and damage to timber

Error! Reference source not found.Error! Reference source not found. Page 17 of 27

May 2017 3527-02 / R-DB0095A Page 17 of 27

January 2016 4467/01 Page 17 of 27

 Staining on headstock surface.

Localised damage to headstock.

Error! Reference source not found.Error! Reference source not found. Page 18 of 27

May 2017 3527-02 / R-DB0095A Page 18 of 27

January 2016 4467/01 Page 18 of 27

 Corrosion to steel rods, nuts and washers.

Corrosion to steel rods, nuts and washers.

Error! Reference source not found.Error! Reference source not found. Page 19 of 27

May 2017 3527-02 / R-DB0095A Page 19 of 27

January 2016 4467/01 Page 19 of 27

 Staining to timber girders.

Advance degradation and decay to timber girders.

Error! Reference source not found.Error! Reference source not found. Page 20 of 27

May 2017 3527-02 / R-DB0095A Page 20 of 27

January 2016 4467/01 Page 20 of 27

 Advance degradation and decay to timber girders.

Error! Reference source not found.Error! Reference source not found. Page 21 of 27

May 2017 3527-02 / R-DB0095A Page 21 of 27

January 2016 4467/01 Page 21 of 27

5.3 Concrete Deck
The concrete deck is supported by the timber girders and only spans a short distance between these
members. The concrete deck has been poured in various sections with (potentially) sacrificial soffit
formwork. Where it still remains, this formwork is in very poor condition. Spalling of concrete (due to
corroded reinforcing) is evident throughout the structural indicating an accelerating decline of the deck.

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

May 2017 3527-02 / R-DB0095A Page 22 of 27

January 2016 4467/01 Page 22 of 27

 Severe corrosion to bottom reinforcement. Steel sheeting to underside of deck has completely rusted away.

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

May 2017 3527-02 / R-DB0095A Page 23 of 27

January 2016 4467/01 Page 23 of 27

6.0 ASSESSMENT
The following aspects of Wharf 6 have been considered:

· Current structural conditions based on our visual inspection and on tests carried out in the past;

· Potential Health and safety risks related to a structural failure event;

· 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.

6.1 Timber piles

6.1.1 Current structural condition
The timber piles are in poor condition with varying degrees of section loss and damage throughout the
wharf. Several piles were completely missing and others were cracked, crooked and close to collapse. The
condition of the piles within the concrete sleeves and below the water could not be observed, however loss
of capacity could be inferred from the sleeve movements.

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.

6.1.2 Potential Health and Safety Risks

The damaged piles represent a high risk to the safety of deck users, their equipment and adjacent boat
users. Failure of a compression member of this nature would result in catastrophic failure of the section of
deck supported by the pile. Structural failure of the pile would be sudden and could occur with little
warning.

6.1.3 Specifications and Requirements of ‘AS4997-2005 Guidelines for the design of

maritime structures’
AS4997-2005 specifies that ‘generally timber would not be used as the principal structural medium for a
facility with a design life greater than 25 years’.

Error! Reference source not found.Error! Reference source not found. Page 24 of 27

May 2017 3527-02 / R-DB0095A Page 24 of 27

January 2016 4467/01 Page 24 of 27

 The Wharf 6 timber piles are 74 years old and are beyond their original design life. The timber piles do not
comply with current Australian Standards.

6.2 Timber headstocks & girders

6.2.1 Current structural condition
The condition of the headstocks and girders varied across the wharf. Staining and fungal decay was evident
and significant section loss has resulted from water leakage through cracks in the concrete deck. The
connections between members (bolts) have corroded.

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.

6.2.2 Potential Health and Safety Risks

The damaged headstocks and girders represent a high risk to the safety of deck users, their equipment and
adjacent boat users. The rot and section loss where water ingress has occurred could result in localised
crushing or shear failure of these members and sudden deck collapse.

6.2.3 Specifications and Requirements of ‘AS4997-2005 Guidelines for the design of

maritime structures’
AS4997-2005 specifies that ‘generally timber would not be used as the principal structural medium for a
facility with a design life greater than 25 years’.

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

May 2017 3527-02 / R-DB0095A Page 25 of 27

January 2016 4467/01 Page 25 of 27

6.3 Concrete deck
6.3.1 Current structural condition
The concrete deck was built approximately 74 years ago with engineering design knowledge, construction
materials, construction techniques and quality control systems which are well below the current industry
standard requirements.

Our observations and previous testing indicate that the Wharf 6 concrete deck:

· Varied in thickness and construction technique

· Is constructed from poorly compacted concrete with a high void content

· Has low concrete strength and density

· Is severely carbonated beyond the depth of the reinforcing

· Has a high rate of corrosion

· Has cracked as a result of prior overload

The concrete deck is in very poor structural condition.

6.3.2 Potential Health and Safety Risks

The concrete deck represents a high risk to the safety of deck users, their equipment and adjacent boat
users. Given the short span between the timber girders it is probably that the concrete is working primarily
in shear with little flexural action as a result of the deteriorated reinforcing. The limited concrete thickness
of the deck indicated that punching shear from a wheel load or similar could easily occur. Punching shear is
a brittle failure mode, with no visible signs prior to failure.

6.3.3 Specifications and Requirements of ‘AS4997-2005 Guidelines for the design of

maritime structures’
Current requirements of ‘AS4997-2005 Guidelines for the design of maritime structures’ in terms of
structural durability are:

· Cementitious content should be not less than 400 kg/m³;

· Minimum characteristic compressive strength of 40 MPa;

· Minimum cover to reinforcing steel of 70mm (considering a concrete characteristic compressive

strength of 40 MPa) for an expected design life of 25 years;

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

May 2017 3527-02 / R-DB0095A Page 26 of 27

January 2016 4467/01 Page 26 of 27

 The investigation and tests carried out in 1993 identified the followings characteristics of the concrete deck:

· Cementitious content of approximately 320 kg/ m³;

· Minimum characteristic compressive strength of 24 MPa(average compressive strength of concrete

specimen was determined as approximately 27MPa);

· Minimum cover to reinforcing steel of 20mm;

The characteristics of the deck are well below the requirements of AS4997-2005.

6.4 Operational limitation/issues

Ports North have cordoned off the worst sections of the wharf (where piles are completely missing) and
have attempted to put load restrictions on the remaining areas of the wharf. This approach is extremely
difficult to monitor and maintain due to the variability in vehicle wheel loading, mass and configuration
(particularly for frannas cranes) and operator awareness and knowledge. Given the structural defects and
the nature of failure described in sections 6.1 – 6.3, consideration should be given to further restrictions or
closure of the wharf.

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,

FLANAGAN CONSULTING GROUP

Liam Kenny

Senior Structural Engineer (RPEQ No. 8787)

Error! Reference source not found.Error! Reference source not found. Page 27 of 27

May 2017 3527-02 / R-DB0095A Page 27 of 27

January 2016 4467/01 Page 27 of 27