CONDITION ASSESSMENT, REPAIR STRATEGY AND BUDGET ESTIMATE FOR OLP PIER 1 RMG YARD AREA

Transcription

1 OLP Piraeus Port Authority S.A. Greece CONDITION ASSESSMENT, REPAIR STRATEGY AND BUDGET ESTIMATE FOR OLP PIER 1 RMG YARD AREA Draft Final Report December 2015

2 OLP Piraeus Port Authority S.A. Greece CONDITION ASSESSMENT, REPAIR STRATEGY AND BUDGET ESTIMATE FOR OLP PIER 1 RMG YARD AREA Draft Final Report Container Terminal Altenwerder Am Ballinkai Hamburg Germany Phone: Fax: e.kutschka@hpc-hamburg.de Internet: Copyright by HPC 03/12/ /12/ :41 Y:\PROJ\PPOS\26584_OLP RMG Yard\Report\OLP Pier 1 RMG Yard_draft final.doc

3 OLP Pier 1 RMG Yard Assessment, Repair Strategy and Budget Estimate iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1. INTRODUCTION 1 2. YARD AREA INSPECTION OVERVIEW AND RESULTS Inspection Overview Inspection Results 4 3. YARD AREA REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES Repair Activities and Cost Estimates Maintenance Activities and Cost Estimates SUMMARY 14 ANNEX Annex 1: Maintenance Cost Plan RMG Yard Area

4 iv OLP Pier 1 RMG Yard Assessment, Repair Strategy and Budget Estimate TABLE OF FIGURES Page Figure 1: RMG Yard OLP Pier 1 2 Figure 2: Yard Area with Strongest Settlement 4 Figure 3: RMG Yard Area Inspection 5 LIST OF TABLES Page Table 1: Yard Area Repair Cost Estimates 11 Table 2: Yard Area Maintenance Cost Estimates 13

5 OLP Pier 1 RMG Yard Assessment, Repair Strategy and Budget Estimate 1 1. INTRODUCTION The OLP Pier 1 terminal has experienced settlements in the RMG yard, especially on the rails which affect operational performance and usability of the area. With damages on the RMG yard area impacting operations, HPC Hamburg Port Consulting GmbH ( HPC or the Consultant ) has been engaged by OLP Piraeus Port Authority S.A. ( OLP or the Client ) to understand the damage and assess the associated immediate repair costs and finally obtain insights in maintenance cost estimates of the same over the next 30 years. Scope of the present report is the condition assessment, repair strategy and budget estimate for Pier 1 RMG Yard Area. The data required for the underlying survey was provided by OLP. Further data collection was conducted during the site visit to OLP Pier 1 terminal carried out by the Consultant s technical experts on the 10 th and 11 th of November The site visit included an in-depth discussion with the OLP container terminal s management, the heads of the operations and the maintenance department as well as employees from OLP s technical department. The in-depth discussion was followed by a guided visit of Consultant s experts by OLP s authorized personnel in the container terminal facilities. During the visit, a visual inspection of the RMG yard area has been carried out to assess general working conditions as well as major visible deficiencies and deteriorations. The focus of this inspection was on damages caused by the above mentioned settlements.

6 2 OLP Pier 1 RMG Yard Assessment, Repair Strategy and Budget Estimate 2. YARD AREA INSPECTION OVERVIEW AND RESULTS This section provides an overview over the Pier 1 RMG yard area inspection and the results obtained from visual inspection. 2.1 Inspection Overview As to the RMG yard infrastructure the technical experts carried out an inspection of the terminal area including crane runway beams in RMG block R1 (i.e. R100 and R200) and in RMG block R2 (i.e. R300 and R400) as well as the respective stacking areas (see Figure 1). Figure 1: RMG Yard OLP Pier 1 Source: Metrica, HPC Note: The origin of coordinate system (origin of distances) of the rails is set at the north-eastern end of the rails, for both blocks R1 and R2.

7 OLP Pier 1 RMG Yard Assessment, Repair Strategy and Budget Estimate 3 During the site-visit the Consultants received various documents from OLP technical department including two settlement studies performed by Metrica in and , respectively, and crane rail measurements performed by Metrica in 2012 and 2014, as well as data on rail specification, a cross-section of the crane runway beams, biometric maps and construction photos, and a geotechnical report (2007) 3 from the two previous boreholes and dynamic compaction methods applied. These documents have been considered in the elaboration of the repair and maintenance strategy for the Pier 1 RMG yard infrastructure. As to the mentioned settlements that OLP Pier 1 terminal experienced the settlement reports prepared by Metrica in 2012 and 2014 indicate maximum settlements in the rail foundations of about 9.8cm since construction of Pier 1 until the first measurement in Between 2012 and 2014, maximum settlements of about 1.5cm were registered. The following figure provides a rough indication of the area where the strongest settlements have been observed. At block R1 the strongest settlements are observed in a zone approximately 180m long (from position 250m to position 460m), while at block R2 settlements are observed in the zone from position 300m to position 370m. 1 Measurements of RMGs rails, Metrica, December Measurements of RMGs rails-2 nd series of measurements, Metrica, April Study for soil improvement applying dynamic compaction, TRITON Consulting Engineers Ltd., October 2007

8 4 OLP Pier 1 RMG Yard Assessment, Repair Strategy and Budget Estimate Figure 2: Yard Area with Strongest Settlement Source: HPC/HHLA, Nov Inspection Results The review of planning documents provided by OLP further showed that crane runway beams do not have a deep foundation and that the system of crane runway beams chosen is very rigid (beams without joints). This is especially critical in areas with backfilling and land reclamation since especially in these areas increased settlements can be expected. The crane rails show severe damage in the area of the rail head. In large parts of the crane rails the rail head is heavily worn on both sides, in some areas up to 2.0cm. In block R2 the crane rail has not been centrally mounted on the crane runway beams (in the first 100m). The resulting static deviation (eccentric) is not available to the technical experts. In the area with the strongest settlement the rail fastening is demolished and no longer existing. In some areas it was further noticed that the crane rail fastening has not been installed properly (i.e. crane rail fastening has been welded too closely to the crane rail).

9 OLP Pier 1 RMG Yard Assessment, Repair Strategy and Budget Estimate 5 In addition, the mortar bed was found to be completely destroyed under the lamella. In some parts the crane rail is no longer fixed due to the missing screw connection. The complete drainage channel was found to not to meet the strength requirements of terminal operations. The bearing capacity of the cover installed (i.e. C250) is too low (for straddle carriers loads F 900 are usually necessary). Hence, the crane runway beams including drainage are not traversable with a straddle carrier. In some areas, the drainage channel is severely damaged at the surface and there exists a danger of collapse. The surface pavement of the stacking area shows common but minor traces of usage. There is currently no need for repair works. Figure 3 below provides an indication for major deficiencies observed during the site visit. Figure 3: RMG Yard Area Inspection Stacking area R1 including drainage channel Railhead R100 (R1) Rail fastening devices R100 (R1)

10 6 OLP Pier 1 RMG Yard Assessment, Repair Strategy and Budget Estimate Worn railhead R100 (R1) Damaged rail fastening R1 Missing rail fastening devices R100 (R1) Rail Breakage R100 (R1)

11 OLP Pier 1 RMG Yard Assessment, Repair Strategy and Budget Estimate 7 Rail Breakage R100 (R1) Missing rail fastening devices and deficient surface pavement in the area around the drainage channel R100 (R1) Eccentric rail position R300 (R2) Worn railhead R300 (R2) Rail Breakage R300 (R2) Damaged Railhead R300 (R2)

12 8 OLP Pier 1 RMG Yard Assessment, Repair Strategy and Budget Estimate Damaged drainage channel (R2) Stacking area R2 Damaged railhead R400 (R2) Source: HHLA, Nov. 2015

13 OLP Pier 1 RMG Yard Assessment, Repair Strategy and Budget Estimate 9 3. YARD AREA REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES This section delivers an overview over the recommended repair and maintenance measures based on the above described inspection results. In addition, cost estimates associated with the recommended measures will be provided. 3.1 Repair Activities and Cost Estimates Repair activities for the mentioned damages in the RMG yard area are to a large extent depending on the settlement expected in the upcoming years. To the knowledge of the Consultant no settlement projections exist for the terminal so far. The settlement studies carried out by Metrica in 2012 and 2014 indicate that the rate of settlement has dropped significantly. However, at the current status of knowledge there is no guarantee that settlements will not continue, even though most likely at a slower rate. Therefore, a repair strategy that accounts for a potential of further settlements is considered as the most sustainable one. The recommended repair strategy is based on the assumption that settlements will continue in an area of about 200m length (for a rough indication see Figure 2 above). The repair works foresee the installation of a new crane runway beam for both blocks R1 and R2 and a deep foundation of the same by means of sand piles in the area with the strongest settlements. In particular, repair works comprise the following major work steps: After the technical processing (Task 1 in Table 1 below), the construction site is installed (Task 2.1) and the crane rail, rail clips, lamella, etc. are entirely removed (Task 2.2). Further to this, the crane runway beam is removed in the area of major settlements (this area comprises about 200m of each of the 4 beams) (Task 2.3) and the existing mortar bed is removed along the rest of the 4 beams, etc. (Task 2.4). Thereafter, a new crane runway beam is installed at both blocks R1 and R2 with a deep foundation by means of sand piles (with geotextiles) in the area with the strongest settlements (Task 3). For the sand pile foundation, steel tubes are rammed or drilled in the ground (reference to Task 3.1). Instead of concrete, sand or gravel is then filled in and compressed while the casing tube is extracted. Compared to the reinforced concrete pile foundation, the foundation with sand piles is more flexible as it allows for slight settlements of the crane runway beams.

14 10 OLP Pier 1 RMG Yard Assessment, Repair Strategy and Budget Estimate By contrast, no flexibility exists for a reinforced concrete pile foundation in case of settlements since the reinforcement of the piles is connected with the reinforcement of crane runway beam. Since the area founded with reinforced concrete piles is insensitive to settlements, settlements would cause cracks and damages of the crane runway beam concrete. 4 After the construction of the crane runway beam (Task 3.2) the lamella is installed (Task 3.3). In particular, the lamella is brought to the required height above the adjusting screws. Thereafter, the cavity which is uneven in size is filled with epoxy resin which is very fluid when prepared. The recommended usage of epoxy resin underneath the lamella can be attributed to its mechanical / static properties (high compressive strength) and its material properties (high flowability). Due to the material properties the crane rail can be aligned and assembled the very next day. Further to this, a connection between the blasted concrete surface and the epoxy resin including the lamella is created. The project is finalised with the reconstruction of surface drainage system (Task 3.4) and the concrete pavement (Task 3.5). Table 1 below provides a brief overview over the required tasks and the associated costs which are estimated at 4.4 million EUR in total. 4 The exact dimensions of the foundation with sand piles are under the responsibility of the geotechnical engineer.

15 OLP Pier 1 RMG Yard Assessment, Repair Strategy and Budget Estimate 11 Table 1: Yard Area Repair Cost Estimates Task Task Description Cost Estimation 1 Planning Block R1 and R2 (4 sections with 200m each in the settlement area) 1.1 Land Survey, Soil Investigation Report, Structural Calculation etc. 180, ,000 2 Site Installation and Site Removal 648, Site Installation 200, Removal of rails, rail clips (fixing), lamella (panel), incl. disposal 100, Removal crane runway beam (4 beams x 200m) 313, High pressure cleaning, removal the existing mortar bed along the rest of the 4 beams 35,000 3 Installation of New Crane Runway Beam 3,284, Deep foundation by means of sand piles (approx. 700 pieces) 440, Construction crane runway beam (reinforced concrete) 1,050, Installation lamella, application of epoxid resin underneath, installation of crane rail, welding etc. 1,530, Reconstruction of surface drainage system 120, Reconstruction of concrete pavements 144,000 Source: HHLA/Marnet, Nov Total 4,112,000 Contingencies, approx. 7% 288,000 Grand Total 4,400,000 In order to carry out the repair works described above the following repair strategy is recommended: 5 a) Block R1 is refurbished at one time, i.e. the construction company has to rehabilitate 2 x 606m track length at once. While repair works are carried out no operations are taking place in this block. The time frame for rehabilitation of the block and, hence, of operation suspension is estimated with 18 weeks. 5 The suggested repair works assume normal working hours (i.e. excluding weekends and night shifts)

16 12 OLP Pier 1 RMG Yard Assessment, Repair Strategy and Budget Estimate b) Block R2 is refurbished the same way as suggested for R1 in a). Time frame for rehabilitation is also estimated with 18 weeks. Due to the setup of the construction site and the repair works recommended a gradual repair of each block is not possible. The recommended repair works for the RMG yard cannot be viewed in isolation. For a sustainable rehabilitation, yard area repair works have to be accompanied by appropriate repair works for the RMG cranes which experienced severe damages at the gantry systems due to the described rail settlements. The recommended repair works for the RMG Cranes are outlined in the Consultant s report on Condition Assessment, Repair Strategy and Budget Estimate for OLP Pier 1 RMG Cranes (2015). 3.2 Maintenance Activities and Cost Estimates For the RMG yard area, the following maintenance measures are recommended: Crane Rail: Annual rail inspection (including coach screw connections and rail clips) Replacement of defective rail clips and inspection of coach screws (screw connections) every 6 months (this measure requires sufficient spare parts, i.e. clips) Annual survey of rails and runway Re-profiling of railhead every two years according to requirements Crane Runway Beam: Define site datums (fixed points) on the crane runway every 50m and annual inspection of the same If necessary, open up cracks in concrete and filling with cement injection Annual inspection of construction joints and rework, if necessary Crane Runway Beam Delimiter: Check torque of delimiter screws at the crane rail (fastening), maintenance / inspection of buffer devices

17 OLP Pier 1 RMG Yard Assessment, Repair Strategy and Budget Estimate 13 Cable Tray Crane: Annual inspection of the cable tray, cleaning of the tray (including supply shafts) Drainage: Annual inspection of the drainage system including gutters, inlets and tubes, etc. as well as rinsing of ducts. Since the above recommended RMG yard repair works are considered as sustainable it is expected that only common maintenance works will be necessary in the upcoming years provided that the suggested maintenance measures are implemented successfully. Maintenance cost estimates for the upcoming 30 years are outlined in Table 2 as percentage of initial repair works costs. Table 2: Yard Area Maintenance Cost Estimates Year after initial repair works Maintenance Costs per year (in % of Initial Repair Works) % % % Source: HHLA/HPC, Nov Based on the cost indications outlined in Table 2 a maintenance cost plan for the RMG yard area is provided in Annex 1 covering the upcoming 30 years.

18 14 OLP Pier 1 RMG Yard Assessment, Repair Strategy and Budget Estimate 4. SUMMARY This section briefly summarises the results of the report including major repair and maintenance works recommended for OLP Pier 1 RMG yard area and the associated costs. In recent years, OLP Pier 1 terminal has experienced settlements in the RMG yard which have affected operational performance and the usability of the area. As to the RMG yard infrastructure, severe damages have been observed on the crane rails (crane runway beams are not deeply founded) while the surface pavement of the stacking area shows only minor traces of usage with no need for major repair works. Settlement measurements in 2012 and 2014 indicate that the rate of settlement has dropped significantly. However, at the current status of knowledge it cannot be excluded that settlements will continue, even though most likely at a slower rate. The repair strategy recommended for the RMG yard area considers the possibility of further settlements and comprises the installation of a new crane runway beam for both RMG blocks R1 and R2 as well as a deep foundation by means of sand piles in the area with the strongest settlements. Yard area repair costs are estimated at 4.4 million EUR. For a sustainable rehabilitation, the repair works recommended for the RMG yard area have to be accompanied by appropriate repair works for the RMG cranes which experienced severe damages at the gantry systems due to the mentioned rail settlements. Given that the suggested maintenance works are implemented successfully, maintenance costs for the RMG yard area over the next 30 years are estimated with 0.3 to 2.5% of initial repair costs for the first 5 year period after repair works have been carried out, with 2.5 to 4.0% for the second 5 year period and 4.0 to 6.0% for the remaining years of the 30 years period.

19 OLP Pier 1 RMG Yard Assessment, Repair Strategy and Budget Estimate 15 MAINTENANCE COST PLAN RMG YARD AREA Annex 1

20 16 OLP Pier 1 RMG Yard Assessment, Repair Strategy and Budget Estimate

21 Maintenance Cost Plan OLP Pier 1 RMG Yard Area Report on OLP Pier 1 RMG Yard Area, December 2015 Year Project Year Maintenance Cost Yard Area million EUR Year Project Year Yard Area million EUR Year Project Year Yard Area million EUR