Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 26

EVALUATION REPORT ON PILING

AND DREDGE SLOPE STABILITY


OFFSHORE GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
DAMPIER PORT UPGRADE PROJECT
PARKER POINT, DAMPIER, WA

Report prepared for:

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ PTY LTD


LEVEL 3, 1 MILL STREET
PERTH WA 6000

Report prepared by:

SOIL & ROCK ENGINEERING


CONSULTING GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS
AND GEOLOGISTS
PO BOX 1346
OSBORNE PARK WA 6916

Our Reference: dcb5930_02_03EvalRep.doc


Date: 4 December, 2003
dcb5930_02_03EvalRep.doc

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page no.

1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
2.0 BACKGROUND INFORMATION 2
2.1 Ground Conditions 2
2.2 Details of the Structure 4
3.0 PILE ULTIMATE CAPACITY 4
3.1 Methodology 4
1.2 Design Geotechnical Parameters 5
1.3 Estimated Pile Lengths 5
1.4 Ordering of Pile Lengths 6
1.5 Proving of Pile Capacity 7
1.5.1 Testing Requirements 7
1.1.2 Driving Set 9
4.0 PILE DRIVEABILITY 9
4.1 General 9
4.2 Review of Existing Pile Driving Data 9
4.3 Driveability Analysis Parameters 10
4.4 Selection of Appropriate Piling Hammers 11
4.5 Pile Refusal Depths 11
5.0 ANCHOR DESIGN 12
5.1 General 12
5.2 Design Concept 12
5.3 Design Parameters 13
5.4 Anchor Deflections 15
5.5 Construction Sequence 15
5.6 Anchor Testing 16
6.0 PILE DEFLECTIONS 16
6.1 Design Parameters 16
1.2 Vertical Deflections 17
1.3 Lateral Deflections 17
dcb5930_02_03EvalRep.doc

TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)


Page no.

2.0 SLOPE STABILITY 18


2.1 Method of Analysis 18
2.2 Minimum Acceptable Factors of Safety 19
2.3 Soil Parameters for Stability Analysis 19
2.4 Recommended Batter Slopes – Berth Pockets and Channels (not adjacent to wharf)20
2.5 Batter Slopes Adjacent to the Wharf 20
3.0 UNEXPECTED VARIATIONS IN GROUND CONDITIONS 22
4.0 STANDARDS AND REFERENCES 22

LIST OF PLATES (behind text)

Site Plan PLATE 1


Geological Cross Sections – Base Plan PLATE 2
Geological Cross Sections A to F PLATES 3 to 8
UCS v Point Load Strength Relationship PLATE 9
Design Profiles of UCS PLATE 10
Pile Schedule – Assuming no dredging before piling PLATES 11 to 16
Pile Schedule – Assuming dredging before piling (effected piles only) PLATE 17
UCS v Young’s Modulus Relationship PLATE 18
Batter Slopes – Assuming piling is before cutter suction dredging PLATE 19
Batter Slopes – Assuming piling is after cutter suction dredging PLATE 20

LIST OF APPENDICES (behind plates)

Pile Capacity Charts APPENDIX A

* * * * *
File no: 5930/02 4 December, 2003
Our ref: dcb5930_02_03EvalRep.doc

PROJECT: HAMERSLEY IRON, DAMPIER PORT UPGRADE PROJECT


CLIENT: SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ PTY LTD
LOCATION: PARKER POINT, DAMPIER, WA
SUBJECT: EVALUATION REPORT ON PILING & DREDGE SLOPE STABILITY
OFFSHORE GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This Evaluation Report presents the interpretive results and recommendations on piled foundation
design and slope stability for the marine works associated with the Hamersley Iron, Dampier Port
Upgrade Project at Parker Point, Dampier, WA. The marine works include dredging of two new
berthing pockets and approach channels, disposal of the dredged spoil into a new reclamation and
construction of a new iron ore load out wharf and berthing dolphins. This report should be read in
conjunction with the Offshore Geotechnical Investigation Factual Report, reference
“mkd5930_02_03factualrep.doc”, dated 5 November, 2003, hereafter referred to as the Factual
Report.

A Site Plan showing the location and extent of the proposed works, and the geotechnical
investigation works carried out for the project is presented as Plate 1.

The objectives of the investigation were to provide sufficient geotechnical information for detailed
design and budgeting of the proposed dredging, wharf foundations, and dredged spoil containment
bunds. The aims of the investigation addressed by this Evaluation Report were to ascertain the
following:

(i) Estimated pile toe depths and minimum penetrations for ultimate load capacity.
(ii) Pile driveability assessment, including estimated driving set requirements.
(iii) Estimated pile settlements.
(iv) Advice on ground anchors.
(v) Requirements for testing during construction.
(vi) Advice on underwater dredge slope stability.
(vii) Advice on the capacity of the front piles on the existing wharf where their capacity
will be effected by dredging to deepen the adjacent berthing pocket.

Comments relating to the dredged spoil and construction of facilities on the reclamation are given in
a separate geotechnical report on the onshore structures.
Our reference: dcb5930_02_03EvalRep.doc Page 2

The study was commissioned by Sinclair Knight Merz, on behalf of Hamersley Iron Pty Ltd, via
Service Order No. DPU/C/SO/4012.

Terms of reference for this study were provided in Soil & Rock Engineering correspondence dated
11 March, 2003 (Ref. dcb5930_02_03pro.doc).

This Evaluation Report has been prepared for the use of Sinclair Knight Merz in accordance with
generally accepted consulting practice. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the
professional advice included in this report. This report has not been prepared for the use by parties
other than Sinclair Knight Merz, Hamersley Iron, their respective consultants and nominated
contractors. This report may not contain sufficient information for the purposes of other parties or
for other uses.

2.0 BACKGROUND INFORMATION

2.1 Ground Conditions

As noted previously, the factual results of the geotechnical investigation are reported in the Factual
Report, reference “mkd5930_02_03factualrep.doc”, dated 5 November, 2003. The investigation
included 25 cored boreholes. A site plan showing the location of the boreholes is given on Plate 1.

The ground conditions at the Parker Point wharf, encountered by the investigation, were summarised
in the Factual Report as follows:

UNIT 1 - SILICEOUS CARBONATE SILT (CI)/ very soft, grey blue, wet, medium plasticity,
CALCAREOUS SILT (CI) …. fine grained sand bands, shell fragments to
50mm, with iron ore fines in upper 0.5m,
intersected thickness of 0.45m to 3.6m and
extending to depths of -7.6mCD to -11.4mCD,
overlying.
UNIT 2 – CALCAREOUS CLAY (CI) …. dark brown, firm to hard, moist, medium
plasticity, calcareous with calcarenite gravels
and shell materials, 0.2m to 0.7m thick,
extending to levels varying from -10.8mCD to –
11.7mCD, overlying.
Our reference: dcb5930_02_03EvalRep.doc Page 3

UNIT 3 – SILICEOUS CARBONATE medium dense to very dense, mottled red brown
SAND (SC) …. fine to coarse grained, moist, shelly, very
weakly cemented to weakly cemented, with low
to medium plasticity clay and isolated bedrock
gravels and cobbles. Unit may include well
cemented Calcarenite “caprock” development
on upper surface, generally less than 0.5m
thick, and frequent moderately well cemented
Siliceous Calcarenite bands throughout. May
range from Carbonate Sand to Calcareous Silica
Sand. Ranging from 1.6m to 8.5m thick and
extending to levels varying from –8.5mCD to –
16.2mCD, overlying and grading to;
UNIT 4 – SILICEOUS CALCARENITE…. extremely low to high strength, red brown to
creamy white, fine to coarse grained, shelly,
moderately well cemented to very well
cemented, may contain open or clay in filled
vughs. May vary from Calcarenite to
Calcareous Siltstone. Ranging from 7.95m to
13.9m thick, extending to levels varying from –
22.8mCD to –28.7mCD, overlying and grading
to;
UNIT 5 – CONGLOMERATIC Very low to high strength, white to mottled red
CALCIRUDITE …. brown, angular bedrock gravels and cobbles to
100mm in a very well cemented, fine grained
carbonate matrix, with basal breccia/scree
deposits. Ranging in thickness from 2.0m to
9.2m and extending to levels varying from –
8.95mCD to –33.97mCD, overlying;
BEDROCK - GRANITE/DOLERITE/ Very low to very high strength, distinctly
GABBRO/GRANOPHYRE …. weathered to fresh, homogenous to brecciated,
extending to the remaining depth of the
investigation coinciding with a level of
–48.57mCD.

Diagrammatic representation of the above mentioned geological strata, showing the relative
elevations in each borehole are given on geological cross sections A to F, presented as Plates 3 to 8.
Plate 2 shows the location of the sections. The strata boundaries shown on the cross sections are for
illustrative purposes and may not represent the actual conditions between borehole locations.
Our reference: dcb5930_02_03EvalRep.doc Page 4

2.2 Details of the Structure

Nominally 285 piles are proposed to be driven to support the wharf, transfer platform and access
bridge. The piles are open ended steel tube and have diameters of 700mm, with 16mm and 20mm
wall thicknesses and 1200mm, with 20mm and 22mm wall thicknesses.

Ultimate loads on the piles are understood to vary nominally up to 7,250kN in compression and
4,750kN in tension.

3.0 PILE ULTIMATE CAPACITY

3.1 Methodology

Assessment of pile ultimate load capacity has been carried out, using a static analysis, in accordance
with the recommendations of AS 2159-1996 Piling - Design and Installation. The following
assumptions have been made in the estimation of pile capacity.

(i) The weak rock through which the piles will be driven behaves as a cohesive
material.
(ii) The undrained shear strength (su) of the material is equal to UCS/2.
(iii) A design profile of UCS was estimated for each borehole as discussed in
Section 3.2.
(iv) Estimation of pile skin friction and end bearing has been carried out in accordance
with Clause G.4.2 of the API RP2A-LRFD-1993 code.
(v) It has been assumed that the piles will have plugged at the design depth, however an
allowance for the compressibility of the soil plug has been made by multiplying the
end bearing capacity by a factor of 0.77 as suggested by Bruno (1999).
(vi) The ratio of skin friction for piles in tension is assumed as 0.8 times the skin friction
determined for the piles in compression.
(vii) A geotechnical capacity reduction factor φg of 0.75 has been adopted in accordance
with Table 4.1 of AS2159-1995, on the assumption that pile capacities will be
confirmed, during construction, by dynamic load testing supported by signal
matching, on nominally 10% of the piles, and on the basis of a reasonably
comprehensive geotechnical investigation and the adoption of conservative
geotechnical design parameters.

The analysis of pile capacity was conducted in a spreadsheet, producing charts of Design
Geotechnical Strength (R*g) for compression and uplift, for each applicable combination of
borehole, starting elevation and pile diameter. Only boreholes located along the wharf and berthing
dolphin alignments (BH06 to BH11) were included. Twenty combinations were required to cover all
of the proposed piles. The results of these analyses are presented on the charts in Appendix A.
Our reference: dcb5930_02_03EvalRep.doc Page 5

3.2 Design Geotechnical Parameters

For the purpose of pile design, the rock strength has been characterised according to Uniaxial
Compressive Strength (UCS). The UCS was measured on various samples in the laboratory, and
inferred from Point Load Strength Index testing by linear correlation. Due to the high degree of
variability between each borehole, separate design profiles of UCS were evaluated for each of the
relevant boreholes.

The linear correlation of Point Load Strength Index to UCS was established with the data from 51
rock samples, where both UCS and Point Load testing was carried out on adjacent pieces of core.
Based on the chart presented on Plate 9, a relatively wide degree of scatter was observed, however a
correlation of nominally UCS = 7 x Is(50) was judged to be a reasonable correlation for pile design,
without being overly conservative. It should be noted that data points showing a UCS/Point Load
Strength ratio of less than about 4 were considered to be potentially unreliable as they are probably
indicative of UCS test results that have failed prematurely on defects in the core and are not
representative of the true rock strength.

To develop a design profile of UCS for each applicable borehole (ie. BH06 to BH11), the measured
and inferred UCS data points were plotted against elevation in the borehole. A design line was then
adopted having regard to the UCS data as well as the estimated strength profile recorded on the
borehole logs. A large scatter of UCS results is evident in each borehole. When adopting the design
line, results indicating a UCS of less than nominally 400kPa were treated with caution as they imply
a strength of less than that of hard clay and are probably indicative of UCS test results that have
failed prematurely on defects in the core and are not representative of the true rock strength.

Sampling, preparation and testing of high quality point load and UCS samples in weak rock materials
is difficult, and it is considered likely that a significant number of tests either failed on defects in the
rock or were weakened by the drilling, core handling and sample preparation processes.
.
The design profiles of UCS for each of the 6 boreholes used in the pile design are shown on Plate 10.
It will be noted that there is little strength data for the upper zone above nominally –12mCD. This is
because this upper zone is generally uncemented (so not testable by UCS) and contributes little
capacity to the piles. Conservative assumptions of material strength were adopted for this zone.

3.3 Estimated Pile Lengths

The estimated toe level required for each pile, depending on its diameter, location, starting elevation
and required ultimate geotechnical strength was initially interpolated from the Charts in Appendix A,
using the chart applicable to the borehole nearest to the pile.

The initial pile lengths were then reviewed and increased as necessary to satisfy the following
criteria:
(i) Minimum penetration of 5 times the pile diameter (required to ensure moment fixity
of the pile);
Our reference: dcb5930_02_03EvalRep.doc Page 6

(ii) Minimum embedment necessary to avoid the potential failure mode of cone pull-out
as described in Clause 4.3.2 of AS2159-1995.
For the front dolphin piles, the pile estimated toe levels were also lowered from those obtained from
the design charts in order to take account of the future dredge levels and their proximity to the
dredged cut slope forming the berthing pocket.

It should be noted that the estimated toe level for many of the piles was governed by the
requirements for capacity in uplift. To account for the possibility of piles striking a harder layer, at a
higher level than anticipated, a minimum driven embedment (ie excluding self weight penetration)
was also determined for each pile in order to satisfy the above criteria.

Notwithstanding the above criteria, several piles were identified as likely to refuse on a hard layer
prior to reaching the minimum driven embedment required to achieve the design geotechnical
strength in uplift. These piles will require anchors and are discussed in Section 5.0.

At the time of preparation of this report there existed an uncertainty as to whether dredging would be
completed before or after piling. This effects the start levels of the piles and hence also effects the
toe levels of the piles. As a result, the process of determining the appropriate pile lengths was
repeated for the “No Pre-Dredging” case and the “With Pre-Dredging” case. The estimated toe
levels and minimum driven embedments for each pile as well as the requirement for anchoring is
presented on Plates 11 to 16 for the “No Pre-Dredging” case and on Plate 17 for the piles that have
different lengths based on the “With Pre-Dredging” case. It should be noted that the toe levels and
penetrations listed for the piles that are likely to require anchors are those levels and depths
applicable assuming the piles do not refuse and therefore do not require anchors. The estimated
refusal depths for these piles are also shown on the above referenced plates and are discussed in
Section 4.5.

The actual required pile embedments and toe elevations, and the achieved pile capacities must be
proved during construction by a program of pile testing and pile driving analysis, as discussed in
Section 3.5.

3.4 Ordering of Pile Lengths

When ordering the pile lengths for the project, it is important to note that allowance for additional
length of pile needs to be made to account for the following:

(i) Allowance for variability in ground conditions and the possibility of the need to
drive further should the ground conditions be weaker than anticipated
(ii) Uncertainties in the pile design, particularly given the non-uniformity of the rock
and the wide scatter of strength test data.
(iii) Allowance for cutting off sections, at the top of the piles, damaged by the driving
process.
Our reference: dcb5930_02_03EvalRep.doc Page 7

(iv) Allowance for replacing piles that may need to be abandoned due to out of
alignment tolerance or shallow refusal, etc.
(v) Allowance for variation in the starting depth, due to over dredging, etc.
(vi) The consequences of running out of pile lengths are far worse than those for having
left over pile lengths at the end of the project.

Consideration also needs to be given as to whether the extra pile sections ordered are coated (for
corrosion protection) or uncoated. Greater lengths of uncoated section are preferred, to allow for
both shallower than expected refusal (where the specified base level for the coated section is not
achieved) or deeper than expected refusal where additional coated sections may need to be spliced on
during driving.

With regards to the piles that are expected to refuse shallower than the target depth and require
anchors, a decision needs to be made as to whether the piles are ordered to match the refusal depth or
the target depth. Generally, for those piles requiring anchors, there is a difference of up to 4m
between the target depth, below which anchors are not expected to be required and the estimated
refusal depth. Since it is desirable for the piles to be installed to full depth, and the refusal depth is
very difficult to estimate, it is recommended that these piles be ordered based upon their target depth,
accepting the possibility of having to cut off the additional length if the pile does indeed refuse at a
shallower depth.

Given the uncertainties involved with accurately estimating the quantity of pile lengths required, it is
strongly recommended that the pile order be divided into two orders, with the second order being
placed after the piling has commenced and test results for the initial piles are available.

3.5 Proving of Pile Capacity

3.5.1 Testing Requirements

The estimated pile embedments and toe levels, given in Section 3.3, need to be confirmed and
adjusted as necessary during construction. This proving of capacity should be carried out by the
recording of pile driving parameters for every pile, and rigorous testing of selected piles.

A program of dynamic pile testing is recommended. To justify the adopted geotechnical capacity
reduction factor, φg, of 0.75, used in the pile design, a minimum of 10% of the piles need to be tested.
To enable assessment of the contributing portions of shaft and base capacity, the testing should be
accompanied by a rigorous analysis of a selected blow from the final set, using full wave signal
matching of the recorded data obtained from the instrumentation transducers.

During the initial stages of driving, a combination of testing at the end of driving, then after periods
of 24hrs, 48hrs and 72hrs will be required to determine the effects of set-up over time and the
optimum time for testing of each pile type.
Our reference: dcb5930_02_03EvalRep.doc Page 8

The results of the pile driving dynamic analyses should be used to calibrate the minimum
embedments and driving parameters required for the remainder of the piles. Piles, not dynamically
tested and subject to compression loads only, will need to have their capacity verified by
measurement of embedment length, final set and temporary compression.

Piles subjected to uplift loads may need to have their capacity verified by analysis of the blow counts
throughout the driving, in addition to the review of the final set, temporary compression and
embedment length. The recommended numbers of pile tests, to be allowed for on each pile type are
shown in Table 1 below. It is noted that these testing quantities represent a "best estimate" of the
number of tests required. Additional tests need to be allowed, when determining the appropriate
budgetory amounts to allow for pile testing, for the following reasons:

(i) As a contingency for anomalies in the results.


(ii) Testing to confirm whether or not anchors are required in piles that will be subjected
to uplift loads and have refused at a more shallow depth than their minimum
embedment requirement.

Table 1 Recommended Pile Testing Frequencies

Estimated Breakdown of
Diameter & Type of Pile Number of Piles
Section of Testing (Number of Tests)
Work Restrike
Diam. Vertical/ Total To Be End of
(mm) Raking Tested Drive 24hr 48hr 72hr
Dolphins 1200 Raking 70 9 9 2 2 2
700 Raking 9 1 1 1
Wharf 700 Vertical 10 1 1
1200 Vertical 25 3 3 1
1200 Raking 74 8 8 2 2 2
Wharf Tail 700 Vertical 60 4 4
End 700 Raking 18 4 4 1 2 1
Access Jetty 700 Vertical 7
700 Raking 10 2 2 1
Catwalk 700 Raking 2
Support
Totals 285 32 32 5 9 5
Our reference: dcb5930_02_03EvalRep.doc Page 9

3.5.2 Driving Set

The pile set and temporary compression required to verify the ultimate capacity of each pile will
depend on the pile hammer and driving system adopted by the contractor. These parameters will
need to be estimated once this equipment has been chosen and then confirmed during construction,
by comparison with dynamic testing on an appropriate number of piles, as described in Section 3.5.1
above.
4.0 PILE DRIVEABILITY

4.1 General

A pile driveability assessment has been conducted to investigate appropriate pile hammers and
depths of penetration that can be achieved with the piles. This information has been provided as an
example only. Piling contractors should make their own assessments of driveability, based on the
available data, their own experience and available equipment.

The driveability assessment has been conducted using the computer package GRLWEAP, Version
2003.

4.2 Review of Existing Pile Driving Data

A review of available pile driving information was conducted. Pile driving information was obtained
from the 1981 Parker Point Upgrade by Clough and the 1965 piling for the original wharf. The
following points are noted from these records:

1965 Piling

(i) The piles were 760mm diameter;


(ii) The piles were driven with a 6 ¾ ton hammer with a 3 to 4 ft hammer drop height;
(iii) Penetration depth ranged between 1.8m and 12.5m, corresponding to a deepest
elevation of approximately –23.5mCD, with the majority of piles penetrating to
around –18m to –21mCD.

1981 Piling

During 1981, there was an upgrade to the dolphins on the existing wharf. This included a row of
new piles behind the wharf (A1 to A6 bents) and additional piles added to Dolphins B1 and B2. The
following points are noted from these records:

(i) The piles were 760mm diameter;


(ii) Delmag D22 and Kobe KB60 hammers were used for the driving, with initial driving
by the D22, then completion of each pile with the KB60.
Our reference: dcb5930_02_03EvalRep.doc Page 10

(iii) The A1 to A6 dolphins caused refusal of the D22 at levels between –15.4mCD to
<–19.0mCD
(iv) The A1 to A6 dolphin piles at the rear of the wharf were driven with the KB60 to
levels between –18.6 and –19.2m, with sets ranging from 1mm to 7mm.
(v) The B1 dolphin piles caused refusal of the D22 at levels between –18.9mCD to
–22.95mCD (ie a difference of 4m within the one dolphin)
(vi) The B1 dolphin piles caused refusal of the KB60 at levels between –21.65mCD to
–24.6mCD (ie a difference of 3m within the one dolphin)
(vii) The B2 dolphin piles caused refusal of the D22 at levels between –18.15mCD to
–18.85mCD (ie a difference of 4m within the one dolphin)
(viii) The B2 dolphin piles caused refusal of the KB60 at levels between –19.55mCD to
–20.6mCD (ie a difference of 3m within the one dolphin)
(ix) After refusal with the KB60, the B1 and B2 dolphin piles were then advanced by
predrilling and redriving. Two of the piles in B2 encountered problems with the toe
buckling during this process.

4.3 Driveability Analysis Parameters

Prior to conducting the driveability analysis on the proposed piles, some back analysis of the existing
B2 dolphin piles and A6 dolphin piles was conducted. No pile load testing or PDA testing results
were available.

A review of the recent pile driving and PDA test results in Port Hedland was also carried out. This
piling was in similar ground conditions and included 0.8m and 1.0m diameter piles, driven with 9t
and 16t hydraulic hammers respectively.

The back analyses were used to estimate appropriate quake and Smith damping factors. Based on the
Port Hedland results, the following quake and damping factors were selected:

Skin Quake 2.0mm Skin Damping 0.5sec/m


Toe Quake 1.0mm Toe Damping 0.35sec/m

These parameters are less conservative than the default values recommended in the GRLWEAP
manual which are:

Skin Quake 2.5mm Skin Damping 0.65sec/m


Toe Quake 2.5mm Toe Damping 0.5sec/m

Using both sets of damping and quake factors and pile capacities estimated from static analysis as
per Section 3.1, the following conclusions were drawn:
Our reference: dcb5930_02_03EvalRep.doc Page 11

(i) For the KB60 hammer, the B2 dolphin piles can be modeled to reasonable accuracy
using the default quake and damping values.
(ii) For the D22 hammer, the B2 dolphin piles can be modeled to reasonable accuracy
using the Port Hedland quake and damping values.
(iii) For the KB60 hammer, the A6 dolphin piles can be modeled to reasonable accuracy
using the default quake and damping values and a gain/loss factor of 1.5, or using the
Port Hedland quake and damping values and a Gain/Loss factor of 2.0.

4.4 Selection of Appropriate Piling Hammers

Simple Bearing Graph wave equation analyses were conducted, using GRLWEAP, to initially
investigate a range of potentially suitable pile hammers. For each pile hammer, the default
GRLWEAP "manufacturer's recommended" parameters were used for the driving system (hammer
cushion, helmet, etc).

These analyses estimated that for the 700mm piles, a 9tonne hydraulic hammer, such as a Junttan
HHK9A will drive most of the piles to target depth. For the 1200mm piles, an 18 tonne Junttan
HHK18A hydraulic hammer was estimated to drive most of the piles to target depth.

As discussed in the following section, even with the 18 tonne hydraulic hammer, many of the piles
may encounter refusal short of the target depth, and hence a larger hammer may be preferable,
subject to availability.

4.5 Pile Refusal Depths

More detailed driveability analyses were carried out on selected piles, using a the Junttan HHK9A
for 700mm diameter piles and the Junttan HHK18A for the 1200mm diameter piles.

Based on these analyses, the levels at which the piles refused were estimated for all of the piles and
listed as the second last column in the tables on Plates 11 to 17.

Where the estimated refusal depth was <1.0m short of the estimated toe level required for tension
capacity, the tables on Plates 11 to 17 indicate an anchor is “possibly” required. Where the estimated
refusal depth was >1.0m short of the estimated toe level required for tension capacity, the tables on
Plates 11 to 17 indicate an anchor is required. Where the estimated refusal depth was greater than
the estimated toe level required for tension capacity, the tables on Plates 11 to 17 indicate an anchor
is not required.
Our reference: dcb5930_02_03EvalRep.doc Page 12

Based on these analyses, it is estimated that, assuming no dredging is carried out prior to pile driving,
57 piles will require anchors and an additional 35 piles will possibly require anchors. If dredging is
carried out prior to piling, then 73 piles will require anchors and an additional 28 piles will possibly
require anchors. It should be noted that in determining these quantities, an attempt has been made to
be reasonably conservative in estimating the driveability, allowing for the ground to be harder than
expected. This is opposite to the assessment of pile lengths where conservatism implies that
allowance has been made for the ground to be weaker than expected and thus the piles penetrate
deeper than expected. Because it is not possible to know how the piles will behave at this stage,
allowance needs to be made for both possibilities of the ground being weaker or stronger than
expected.

Compressive Stresses estimated to be generated in the piles, during driving, were generally in the
range of 200MPa to 250MPa. These values are below the Yield stress of the piles which is
understood to be 350MPa.

5.0 ANCHOR DESIGN

5.1 General

The design of many of the piles is governed by the tension capacity which, ideally will be achieved
through skin friction on the piles developed by adequate penetration into the founding strata.
Geotechnical investigation has, however detected the presence of hard layers in the rock profile that
have the potential to cause refusal of the piles at various depths above the target depths.

Due to the uncertainties involved with estimating pile driveability and capacity, it is very difficult to
confirm how many piles will require anchors at this stage. As discussed in Section 4.5, between 57
and 101 piles are estimated to require anchors, depending on a number of factors including, most
importantly, the depth of penetration of the piles and whether the dredging will be carried out before
or after piling.

Given the above uncertainties, the design and pricing structure of the anchors will need to be flexible
and allow for variations in both number and length of anchors.

5.2 Design Concept

Based on discussions with Sinclair Knight Merz, it has been determined that the anchor design needs
to have the following characteristics:

(i) The anchors need to be passive (ie not pre-stressed);


(ii) The anchors need to be designed to transfer loads to the pile at the base of the pile;
(iii) The anchors need to be designed to minimise their extension before taking up the
design loads. This is so the deflections of the piles are minimised;
(iv) The anchor lengths need to be flexible.
Our reference: dcb5930_02_03EvalRep.doc Page 13

Based on the above requirements, the proposed anchor concept is for the following:

(i) Ultimate Design capacity of anchors to correspond to the S* ultimate limit state uplift
design action effect for the corresponding pile.
(ii) Anchors to be 150mm to 325mm diameter drilled and grouted passive anchors, except
for access bridge piles which encounter refusal with < 1.5m driven penetration. These
piles may require pre-stressed anchors or other means of support;
(iii) Anchors to consist of galvanised 63.5mm diameter DSI stress bar, grade 700MPa steel
(unfactored Ultimate Load of 2217kN);
(iv) Grout to have a minimum UCS strength of 40MPa
(v) Anchorage / Load transfer to be at base of pile. The inside of the piles to come with a
prefabricated spiral weld pattern designed to assist load transfer (to be designed by
Sinclair Knight Merz)

5.3 Design Parameters

Table 2 gives an indication of the estimated pile refusal depth and depths to a harder rock layer
(medium strength or stronger calcareous conglomerate or limestone ) and igneous bedrock. Except
for BH09 and BH10, design of the fixed length of the anchors for the ultimate loading case should be
based on the embedment being below the igneous bedrock surface. Estimation of anchor extension
under working loads can however be based on a free length from the pile toe to the harder rock layer.

For BH09 and BH10, the anchors penetrate 7m to 9.5m of limestone or conglomeratic limestone
before reaching the igneous bedrock. This material is of sufficient strength to consider as part of the
fixed anchor length design.
Our reference: dcb5930_02_03EvalRep.doc Page 14

Table 2 Summary of Estimated Pile Refusal and Rock Levels


Borehole Elevation (mCD) Length (m)
Estimated Harder Igneous Pile toe to Pile toe to igneous
Pile refusal rock* bedrock Harder rock * bedrock
BH06 –23 to –27 –28.5 –31.0 1.5 to 5.5 4.0 to 8.0
BH07 –22 to –23 –26.5 –29.0 3.5 to 4.5 6.0 to 7.0
BH08 –25 to –27 –30.0 –33.0 3.0 to 5.0 6.0 to 10.0
BH09 –23 to –24 –26.0 –33.0 2.0 to 3.0 9.0 to 10.0
BH10 –22 to –23 –26.0 –35.5 3.0 to 4.0 12.5 to 13.5
BH11 –25 N/A –27 N/A 2.0
BH12 –3.6 to –16 N/A –9 N/A 0.0
* Harder rock is the level of medium strength or stronger calcareous conglomerate or limestone.

The bonded length for all the anchors should be between 3.0m and 10.0m long. Table 3 presents a
summary of the anchor details recommended for the various loads which may be required. The bond
lengths will need to be confirmed for each individual anchor based upon the strength of the materials
encountered.

Table 3 Suggested Anchor Details

S* Design Tension Anchor Minimum Minimium Bond Length (m) Minimum


Load (kN) Diameter Number of Free
Medium Igneous
(mm) 63.5mm bars Length (m)
Strength Bedrock
(700MPa) 1 for cone
Limestone 2
pull-out 3
Up to 1400 (bridge) 150 1 N/A 3.0 4.0
1800 to 1900 (bridge) 275 2 N/A 3.0 4.5
3000 275 2 7.0 3.0 N/A
3500 to 3750 300 3 8.0 3.0 N/A
4500 to 4750 300 3 10.0 4.0 N/A
1
Notes Minimum number of bars for strength. Additional bars may be required to limit deflections.
2
Only applicable for anchors intersecting white medium or high strength limestone or conglomeratic limestone
UCS>10MPa. (BH09 & BH10).
3 Applicable for access bridge piles where the depth to igneous bedrock is shallow.
Our reference: dcb5930_02_03EvalRep.doc Page 15

5.4 Anchor Deflections

Anchor deflections under working load conditions need to be minimised so that the toe of the pile
does not have to move far before transferring the load to the anchors. The anchor free length, which
could be up to 5.5m (according to Table 4) will be responsible for the majority of the deflection.

For the wharf piles and dolphin piles, under working load conditions (assumed as S*/1.5) it is
expected that, conservatively, the pile skin friction will resist at least 50% of the working load,
leaving 50% to be resisted by the anchors. Using these assumptions, Table 4 shows the estimated
anchor extensions, for an anchor with 5.5m free length, which would correspond also to movement
of the pile toe. These movements would occur each time the working load is applied, but are elastic
(or recoverable) and are not accumulative.

Table4 Estimated Anchor Extensions

Pile Working Load Estimated Anchor


Extension (at pile toe)
(50% transferred to anchor) Number of bars
(mm)
(kN)
2,000 2 5
2,500 3 4
3,167 3 5

If these extensions are considered to be excessive, then the number of bars for each anchor could be
increased.

5.5 Construction Sequence

The following preliminary construction sequence is recommended, subject to review by the proposed
contractor:

(i) Drive piles to refusal using the specified hammer;


(ii) Determine whether the pile requires an anchor based upon driven length and PDA
testing;
(iii) Clear out loose material from inside of the pile using air lifting (or other suitable)
techniques, but no closer than 1.0m from the toe (except for access bridge piles where
the pile may not have plugged and the loose material may extend down to the pile
toe);
Our reference: dcb5930_02_03EvalRep.doc Page 16

(iv) Insert a guide casing (size to suit anchor drilling requirements) and grout into the base
of the pile with a minimum 1.0m grout plug. This guide casing is the casing through
which the anchor will be drilled. The casing needs to be fitted with a decoupling
device nominally 1.3m from the toe, so that it can be removed, and needs to have a T
piece (or similar arrangement) at the top so that the drill cuttings do not fall back into
the pile;
(v) Drill the anchor, through the temporary casing, until igneous bedrock is encountered,
then to the required fixed anchor length into the bedrock. Ensure that the drill method
does not allow any wash-out of the pile toe. Drill cuttings will need to be logged to
confirm strata;
(vi) Flush out the hole, install the anchor and ensure it is centralised (using rigid lanterns)
(vii) Grout from the base upwards, up inside temporary drill casing;
(viii) Disconnect drill casing and continue grouting until the design length of the grout
transfer plug is achieved inside the pile.

5.6 Anchor Testing

It is recommended that the first anchor to be installed is installed as a test anchor ahead of the
production anchors. This anchor should be installed under supervision by Soil & Rock Engineering
and will be used to confirm design assumptions and optimise the construction methodology.

Given the costs involved in testing the anchors, conservative design assumptions have been made
when determining the bond length required in the igneous bedrock, and anchors bonded into the
igneous bedrock need not be tested, subject to there being geotechnical supervision during drilling to
confirm the strength of the strata intersected.

If anchors are to be bonded into the limestone or conglomeratic limestone encountered in BH09 and
BH10, then it is recommended that nominally 20% are load tested.

6.0 PILE DEFLECTIONS

6.1 Design Parameters

Estimation of pile settlements has been carried out using elastic theory. This is considered
appropriate as the piles have been designed to carry the majority of their serviceability loads in skin
friction and because the founding materials consist of unfractured to slightly fractured rock and
heavily overconsolidated clayey materials. The critical parameters for elastic analysis are the
young’s Modulus E, Shear Modulus G and Poisson’s Ratio, υ. These three parameters are
inter-related according to the following:

E
G=
2(1 + υ )
Our reference: dcb5930_02_03EvalRep.doc Page 17

Selected samples were tested to determine the Young’s Modulus and UCS parameters of the rock.
The results are summarised on the chart of UCS versus Young’s Modulus presented as Plate 18 in
the Factual Report. From this chart, a correlation of E = 150xUCS appears to be reasonable. Whilst
this correlation has been determined based on testing of small samples, the relatively low number of
rock mass discontinuities observed in the boreholes, suggests the correlation is considered to be also
appropriate for the rock mass stiffness and applicable for pile settlement estimation.

Based on a correlation of E = 150xUCS, the Young’s Modulus for the siliceous calcarenite (Unit 4)
layers through which the piles penetrate is estimated to vary from 75MPa to 450MPa. The harder
layers on which the piles are expected to refuse are estimated to have a Young’s modulus in the
range of 750MPa to 1,500MPa.

Poisson’s Ratio was not measured and hence a uniform value of υ = 0.25 was assumed.

6.2 Vertical Deflections

The pile settlements in the vertical direction were estimated using the computer program PIGLET
(Randolph, 1994), which can be used to estimate pile settlements using elastic analysis. The
serviceability load was estimated as nominally 70% of the ultimate limit state design load for the
pile.

Selected piles were analysed, with the maximum load corresponding to 6,300kN for the vertical P5
type wharf piles. The results indicate that the estimated deflections of the piles vary up to nominally
10mm at the seabed level. Elastic compression of the pile above seabed level is in addition.

The effect of cyclical loading was considered. Since the majority of piles will be driven to refusal
and the majority of the working loads are taken in skin friction, additional settlements due to the
cyclic nature of the loading are expected to be minimal. An additional allowance of 5mm settlement
is suggested to account for on-going settlements for those piles subject to cyclic loading.

6.3 Lateral Deflections

Lateral pile deflections and moment fixity was investigated using the geotechnical software program
LPILE which allows detailed analysis of a single laterally loaded pile and PIGLET which allows
simplified analysis of pile groups. The deflection behaviour of a typical wharf bent was
investigated. The wharf bents consist of three 1200mm diameter piles with a single vertical pile at
one end and a pair of oppositely raking piles at the other end.

For the pile group analysis, PIGLET assumes that the pile cap acts as a rigid body. SKM indicated
that applying a horizontal load of 4,000kN to the pile group at RL+9.75mCD gives a reasonable
approximation of a typical bent’s restraint base moments, although the vertical loads are high due to
the gross simplification of the loading.
Our reference: dcb5930_02_03EvalRep.doc Page 18

The results of the PIGLET analysis indicated that under the above loading, the pile group could be
expected to undergo horizontal deflections of the order of 70mm at the pile cap. The majority of the
load was transferred axially through the raker piles, estimated to be in the range of 7,000kN to
8,000kN. Lateral loads (perpendicular to the pile axis), distributed evenly between the piles, are
estimated to be generally <100kN, and maximum bending moments in the piles below the seabed
were estimated at <1.2MNm.

A more detailed analysis of the variation in bending moments and deflections with depth was
conducted using LPILE. Alternative analyses were undertaken using the “weak rock model” and the
“stiff clay with free water” models. These analyses indicated the following general patterns of
behaviour for the 1200mm diameter piles:

(i) Maximum bending moments generally occur within 2m below the siliceous
calcarenite surface which is present below nominally –15mCD.
(ii) Bending moments reduce to less than nominally 10% of the maximum by nominally
3.0m to 5.0m below seabed level.
(iii) Horizontal deflections of the piles at the seabed level are estimated to be <5mm.

Based on the above, it can be assumed that the piles have full fixity for structural design if they
penetrate a minimum of nominally 5m into the seabed.

7.0 SLOPE STABILITY

7.1 Method of Analysis

Stability analyses have been carried out as part of the design process for the dredge batter slopes and
the dredge spoil disposal area embankments using the computer package SLOPE/W Version 5.11
(2002).

Using SLOPE/W, three alternative methods of slice analyses for examining potential circular slip
failures were utilised, namely the Bishop Simplified, Janbu Simplified and Morgenstern-Price
methods. These three methods use slightly different methodology in the way they determine the
factor of safety for a given slip surface. Bishop's Simplified method determines the factor of safety
with respect to moment equilibrium, whereas Janbu's Simplified method determines the factor of
safety with respect to force equilibrium. The Morgenstern Price method is more rigorous and
determines the factor of safety with respect to both force and moment equilibrium. For each slope
analysed, the results for the three methods were compared and the minimum Factor of Safety was
reported.
Our reference: dcb5930_02_03EvalRep.doc Page 19

Separate analyses were conducted for static and earthquake loading cases. A pseudo-static approach
was used for the earthquake analysis. In the pseudo-static method, the effects of the earthquake are
estimated by applying a static horizontal force to each slice of the potential slip. The direction of the
force is towards the direction of sliding. The magnitude of the force applied to each slice is
determined by multiplying the slice weight by the seismic co-efficient. The horizontal acceleration
co-efficient, a, for Dampier, was adopted as 0.12, based on Figure 2.3(d) of AS1170.4-1993, which is
applicable for an earthquake with a 10% chance of exceedence in 50 years.

7.2 Minimum Acceptable Factors of Safety

The adopted minimum Factors of Safety used to back calculate safe slope angles in the stability
analyses are summarised in Table 5. These values were selected on the basis of reasonably
conservative soil input parameters, as identified in Section 7.3, and are in general agreement with
those recommended in NAVFAC DM-7.1 (1982).

Table 5 Adopted Minimum Factors of Safety for Slope Stability

Case Adopted Factor of Safety


Normal Loading Earthquake Conditions

Underwater Dredged Slopes – Long Term 1.5 1.2

7.3 Soil Parameters for Stability Analysis

The necessary soil parameters adopted for the stability analyses were derived from the results
presented in the Factual Report. Table 6 summarises the adopted effective stress parameters used for
the dredge slope analyses.
Our reference: dcb5930_02_03EvalRep.doc Page 20

Table 6 Soil Parameters For Slope Stability Analysis

Material Unit Weight Long Term


(kN/m3) (Effective Stress Parameters)
c/ (kPa) φ/ (°)
Clay / Mud 17 0 15
Sandy Clay 20 5 32
Very low strength Siliceous 20 100 0
Calcarenite / conglomerate etc
Low strength Siliceous 20 250 0
Calcarenite / conglomerate etc

7.4 Recommended Batter Slopes – Berth Pockets and Channels (not adjacent to wharf)

Dredging is required to form the berth pockets and approach channels. Table 9 gives the
recommended side slopes for these dredged areas.

Table 9 Recommended Batter Slopes – Berth Pockets and Channels


(not adjacent to wharf)

Approximate Elevation Material Description Recommended Underwater Batter Slope

Above –12m Mud / sediments 5H:1V


–12mCD to –15mCD Sandy clay 1.5H:1V
Below –15mCD Siliceous Calcarenite 1H:1V

7.5 Batter Slopes Adjacent to the Wharf

It is understood that due to dredge availability and other programming aspects, trailer suction
dredging will probably be completed before the piling, but it is uncertain as to whether cutter suction
dredging will be commenced before or after the wharf and dolphin piles are installed.

To maximise the slope stability beneath the wharf it is recommended that the trailer suction dredging
be taken as deep as possible beneath the wharf. This depth of dredging is anticipated to be between
nominally –12mCD and –15mCD.
Our reference: dcb5930_02_03EvalRep.doc Page 21

The proposed batter slopes underneath the wharf, should piling be completed before cutter suction
dredging are shown on Plate 19. Selection of batter slopes under neath the wharf are governed by the
following:

(i) To avoid interference with the piles, it has been specified that the dredge must be kept
a minimum of 2.0m away from the piles.
(ii) The design of the dolphins dictates that the toe of the dredge slope must be a
minimum of 1.0m behind the face of the dolphins, and therefore nominally 4m away
from the piles.

It is recommended that the batter slopes must be cut as flat as possible within these constraints. The
flattest slope possible on the southern side of the wharf (–12.0mCD to –19.5mCD) is 2.0H:7.5V. On
the northern side of the wharf (–16mCD to –19.5mCD), the flattest slope possible is 2.0H:3.5V.

On the southern side of the wharf, where the depth of cut will be greatest and the slope angle
steepest, slope stability analyses indicate that the minimum factor of safety, is nominally 2.0 for the
static case and 1.8 for the earthquake case, assuming the rock is uniform without any defect planes.

It must be noted that although these calculations indicate that the slopes will be stable in the short to
medium term, there may still be some gradual slope degradation over time, particularly for the
material above nominally –15mCD. This degradation could cause the face to flatten off, resulting in
material accumulating in the berthing pocket. If the risk of this is unacceptable, then a profile of
dredging in between the dolphin piles will be required in order to achieve a more stable slope angle.

It must also be acknowledged that there may be significant defects that could not be detected by the
boreholes, and these could cause localised instability. Ideally, the “dredging” before piling option is
preferred as the slope would then not have to be as steep. This is shown on Plate 20.

Depending on how shallow the pile toe starts to plug, driving of the dolphin piles nearest to the
dredge slopes may lock in significant horizontal stresses in the rock strata. As the dredging will be
close to the piles (between 2m and 4m away), there is a potential for the dredging to cause relief of
the locked in stresses on one side of the pile, resulting in spalling of the block of rock between the
pile and the dredge face. Whether or not this will happen, and to what extent is very difficult to
predict, but needs to be allowed for by careful monitoring of the pile deflections and diver
inspections during and after the dredging.

Pile design needs to allow for the possibility of spalling on one side by ensuring that the piles are
driven deep enough and include anchors where necessary. If spalling occurs on a pile that does not
include an anchor, then the pile will have to be re-assessed to determine whether an anchor is
required.
Our reference: dcb5930_02_03EvalRep.doc Page 22

One means of avoiding the likelihood of causing stress relief and spalling problems with the piles
would be to pre-bore holes for the piles to the base of the dredged level to ensure that the pile toe
extends beyond the dredge depth before plugging starts to occur. If this methodology is adopted,
then the pile lengths and target toe elevations will need to be re-assessed.

8.0 UNEXPECTED VARIATIONS IN GROUND CONDITIONS

It should be noted that the sea bed area investigated represents an extremely small proportion of the
site to be developed and there are always some variations in subsurface conditions across a site
which cannot be fully defined by investigation. Hence it is unlikely that the measurements and
values obtained from sampling and testing during the investigation will represent the extremes of
conditions which exist within the site. Accordingly, variations to the sub seabed conditions are likely
and allowance should be made for variability in the design and construction budgets.

9.0 STANDARDS AND REFERENCES

The following standards and references were used in the preparation of this report.

(i) API Recommeded Practice 2A-LRFD (RP 2A-LRFD) 1993, Recommeded Practice
for Planning, Designing and Constructing Fixed Offshore Platforms – Load and
Resistance Factor Design
(ii) AS 1289 Method of Testing Soils for Engineering Purposes.
(iii) AS 1726-1993 Geotechnical Site Investigations.
(iv) AS 2159-1995 Piling-Design and Installation.
(v) AS 4133.0-1993 Methods of Testing Rocks for Engineering Purposes.
(vi) BS 8081-1989 Ground Anchorages.
(vii) GRLWEAP (2003) Wave Equation Analysis of Pile Driving, Pile Dynamics, Inc.
Version 2003.
(viii) Randolph , M. F. (1994) PIGLET Analysis and Design of Pile Groups
(ix) SLOPE/W Version 5.13 (2002) GEO-SLOPE International Ltd.

* * * * *

The plates and appendices referred to herein are attached and complete this report.
dcb5930_02_03EvalRep.doc

PROJECT: DAMPIER PORT UPGRADE PROJECT


CLIENT: SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ PTY LTD
LOCATION: PARKER POINT, DAMPIER
SUBJECT: OFFSHORE GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
EVALUATION REPORT
APPENDIX A – PILE CAPACITY CHARTS
________________________________________________________________________________

This appendix contains the pile capacity charts for various diameters and starting levels, based on the
following boreholes:

BH06 PLATE A1 to A5
BH07 PLATES A6 to A8
BH08 PLATES A9 to A11
BH09 PLATES A12 to A14
BH10 PLATES A15 to A17
BH11 PLATES A18 to A20

* * * * *