MASTERPLAN FOR THE PORT OF MEULABOH

Transcription

1 MASTERPLAN FOR THE PORT OF MEULABOH EXPANSION PROJECT FINAL REPORT Master Thesis: Technical University of Delft Faculty of Civil Engineering and Geosciences Hydraulic and Offshore Section Student: A. M. Martín Soberón Stdnr Graduation committee: Witteveen+Bos Prof. Ir. H. Ligteringen; A. Clijncke MSc; G. Hamoen MSc; Ir. F.A.M. Soons. Universidad Politécnica de Valencia Escuela Técnica Superior de Caminos, Canales y Puertos Departamento de Transporte, Urbanismo y Ordenación del Territorio

2

3 Summary In December 24 th 2004 an earthquake caused a tsunami that devastated the coast areas of about 10 countries. Nowadays, these areas are still being rebuilt. Communication and transport infrastructures like ports are considered of vital importance for the regional development given that they facilitate the re-construction works, the distribution of goods and the passenger flow. The port of Meulaboh (Sumatra, Indonesia) was placed 200 km far from the place where the earthquake epicentre took place and was practically destroyed by the tsunami waves. After the catastrophe a jetty was built by the Singaporean Red Cross as a temporary structure. Presently it forms part of the UNDP recovery programme which intends to build a port to replace the facilities that used to be before the December 2004 catastrophe. For that reason the present situation of Meulaboh port is identified and its boundary conditions analysed in order to plan several possible layout alternatives according to the minimum requirements. The most suitable alternative for the port is identified by a Multi-Criteria Evaluation which takes into account the safety against future tsunami events. Once the most promising alternative has been selected it is developed in further detail given conceptual designs of the hydraulic structures and a detailed design of the protection works: a land-connected rubble mound breakwater. Also some tsunami mitigation and protection measures that can be applied to this layout are included. Finally some conclusions and recommendations for further studies about the project are given.

4

5 A todos aquellos que han aguantado mis malos ratos durante estos seis años de carrera.

6

7 Acknowledgements First of all, I would like to thank TUDelft and my home university (Universidad Politécnica de Valencia) the chance of spending in The Netherlands the last and one of the best years of my studies. From Technische Universiteit Delft I would like to make special mention of: Prof. ir. Ligteringen who suggested the subject of the project and agreed to be the supervisor of this Master Thesis; Alice Clijncke, my daily supervisor, who has been helping me as the weeks have been gone. Ir. F.A.M. Soons, who made a big effort to help me in my last weeks of work. I am also really grateful to Witteveen+Bos, company involved in the project. Specially to Mr. Hamoen who, in addition of providing me the necessary data for the development of the project, has participate actively in the Master Thesis as a member of the graduation committee. Furthermore, I would like to mention the collaboration of other lecturers from TUDelft, like Ir. W.F.Molenaar and Ir. H.J.Verhagen, who have helped me unselfishly in the development of different parts of this report. I would not like to finish these acknowledgements without mentioning Prof. Medina, my supervisor from the Universidad Politécnica de Valencia who advised me to choose this thesis. In addition, it is a good moment to express my gratitude to all the lecturers who have shared with me their knowledge during my academic training; specially to my AutoCAD teacher. And last but not least, I would like to thank my parents and my sister for giving me the chance and the support necessary to study Civil Engineering. (Por último, pero no menos importante me gustaría agradecerles a mis padres que me dieran la oportunidad y el apoyo necesario para estudiar Caminos)

8

9 Abstract In December 24 th 2004 an earthquake caused a tsunami that devastated the coast areas of about 10 countries. Nowadays, these areas are still being rebuilt. Communication and transport infrastructures like ports are considered of vital importance for the regional development given that they facilitate the re-construction works, the distribution of goods and the passenger flow. In Meulaboh (Sumatra), it is intended to build a port to replace the facilities that used to be before the December 2004 catastrophe. For that reason several alternatives based on the local hydraulic and geotechnical conditions have been defined and assessed to identify the most promising one which will be developed in further detail.

10

11 Index MASTERPLAN FOR THE PORT OF MEULABOH; EXPANSION PROJECT, Msc Thesis List of tables List of figures List of layouts List of graphs 1. Introduction 1.1. Introduction Meulaboh The port of Meulaboh Problem definition Objective Scope of this study Backgrounds Parties involved in the report Universidad Politécnica de Valencia TU Delft Witteveen+Bos Graduation committee Structure of this report 5 2. Port of Meulaboh present situation 2.1. Introduction Description of the harbour Tsunami event Parties involved in the port Port functions and organization Commodities Water area Land area General cargo Ferry Other port functions Land ownership Income and expenses Surrounding ports Relation with other projects The hinterland of Meulaboh port Vessels characteristics General cargo vessels 20 i

12 Ferry vessels Hydraulic and geotechnical boundary conditions 3.1. General Environmental conditions Climate Wind Temperature Humidity Precipitation Visibility Water levels Sea level pressure Sedimentation and maintenance dredging Currents Wave Normal Wave Climate Extreme Wave Climate Seismic considerations Tsunami generation Geotechnical Coast soil Sea bottom Surface levels Topography: Land profile Bathymetry: Sea bottom profile Sedimentation Available of quarry material Summary Layout requirements new port expansion 4.1. Introduction Port requirements Commodities General cargo Ferry Cargo flow Throughput General Cargo Ferry Other Commodities Summary Shipping forecast 45 ii

13 Vessel sizes Future development of the vessels Location and layout Location of the port expansion Location and alignment of the ferry terminal Location of general cargo berths Functions of the existing port in the expansion plans Functions of the jetty Removal, renewal and adaptation of some facilities Number of berths and quay length Introduction Number of berths Quay length Quay width Summary Terminal area General cargo Ferry Future expansion Elevation levels Design water level Design land level Hydraulic facilities level Water areas in the port Access channel Harbour basin Seismic requirements Summary New harbour layout 5.1. Introduction Layout requirements General consideration Preliminary calculations for the breakwater Breakwater width Breakwater length Layouts Layout Layout Layout Layout Layout 5 98 iii

14 6. Selection of most promising alternative 6.1. Introduction Simplifications and assumptions Jetty type Multi-Criteria Analysis Objectives Criteria evaluation Comparison of alternatives Cost estimation Tsunami safety Growth possibilities Layout adaptability Increasing vessel size Minimize downtime due to hydraulic effects Minimize the length of the transport lines Nautical safety Terminal safety Minimize land facilities area Minimize water area Continuity of sediment transport Evaluation Layout Evaluation Layout Evaluation Layout Evaluation Layout Evaluation Layout Final ranking Layout optimisation Layout drafts Most promising alternative 7.1. Introduction Layout description Introduction Water area Land area Coastal protection works Layouts Technical design Introduction Coastal protection: Breakwater Jetty conceptual design Tsunami mitigation measures and recommendations Cost estimation Introduction 149 iv

15 Jetty costs Breakwater costs Dredging works costs Reclamation and revetment works costs Demolition costs Hydraulic structures costs Terminal area costs Total cots Construction schedule Conclusions and recommendations 8.1. Introduction Conclusions Recommendations 155 References 158 Glossary 160 At the end of the report the following annexes are attached: -Annex 1: -Annex 2: -Annex 3: -Annex 4: -Annex 5: -Annex 6: -Annex 7: -Annex 8: Additional information about the present situation of Meulaboh Port Additional information about the hydraulic & geotechnical boundary conditions Harbour layout alternatives Tsunami generation Cost estimation Breakwater design Jetty conceptual design Cost estimation of the most promising alternative List of tables Table 2.1. Vessel dimensions according to Shibata Fender Design Manual. 21 Table 2.2. Vessel dimensions according to Technical Standard for Port and Harbour Facilities in Japan. 21 Table 3.1. Omnidirectional wind speeds according to ARGOSS. 24 Table 3.2. Water levels. 26 v

16 Table 3.3. Table 3.4. MASTERPLAN FOR THE PORT OF MEULABOH; EXPANSION PROJECT, Msc Thesis Percentages of time that wave heights in the given direction are reached in the port of Meulaboh according to Witteveen+Bos report (2006). 27 Percentages of time that wave heights in the wave period are reached in the port of Meulaboh according to Witteveen+Bos report (2006). 27 Table 3.5. Results of the Normal Wave Climate, generated by SWAN, in 3 different locations next to the wharf collected in Witteveen+Bos report (2006). 28 Table 3.6. Significant offshore wave heights for different return periods. (Witteveen+Bos report (2006)). 29 Table 3.7. Results of the Extreme Wave Climate, generated by SWAN, in 3 different locations next to the wharf included in Witteveen+Bos report (2006). 30 Table 3.8. Benchmarks established for the survey. 34 Table 3.9. Construction materials available near Meulaboh. 35 Table Density of the construction materials available near Meulaboh. 35 Table Normal Wave Climate summary table. 36 Table Extreme Wave Climate summary table. 36 Table 3.13 Design Operational Wave Climate. 36 Table Design Extreme Wave Climate. 36 Table 4.1. Cargo flow summary. 45 Table 4.2. Characteristics of the design general cargo vessel. 46 Table 4.3. Characteristics of the design ferry vessel. 46 Table 4.4. Summary of characteristics of the general cargo and the ferry berths. 59 Table 4.5. Summary of equipment for the general cargo terminal. 60 Table 4.6. Water levels. 63 Table 4.7. Embankment design conditions. (Witteveen+Bos report (2006)). 65 Table 4.8. Embankment design conditions considering protection structures. 65 Table 4.9 Additional widths for straight channel sections (PIANC, (1997)). 70 Table Additional widths for bank clearance (PIANC, (1997)). 71 Table Influence of basic manoeuvring lane in channel width (PIANC, (1997)). 71 Table Basins depth. 73 vi

17 Table Basins depth summary table. 73 Table 4.4 Recommended motion criteria for safe working conditions, (PIANC, (1995)). 74 Table Berth dimensions summary table. 77 Table Approach channel summary table. 77 Table 5.1. Layout requirements summary. 79 Table 5.2 Layouts classification according to their main characteristics. 84 Table 5.3 Summary of the main characteristics of Alternative Table 5.4 Summary of the main characteristics of Alternative Table 5.5 Summary of the main characteristics of Alternative Table 5.6 Summary of the main characteristics of Alternative Table 5.7 Summary of the main characteristics of Alternative Table 6.1. Weighted scored criteria. 105 Table 6.2. Costs of the different alternatives. 106 Table 6.3. Auxiliary table to assess tsunami safety. 108 Table 6.4. Table 6.5. Table 6.6. Table 6.7. Table 6.8. Table 6.9. Table Table Final score of the different alternatives for the objective Tsunami safety. 109 Approximated available water areas on the North of the planned facilities for Meulaboh port. 109 Auxiliary score of the different alternatives for the objective Growth possibilities. 110 Final score of the different alternatives for the objective Growth possibilities. 110 Auxiliary table to calculate the score of the alternatives for the objective Layout adaptability 111 Final score of the different alternatives for the objective Layout adaptability. 111 Final score of the different alternatives for the objective increasing vessel size. 111 Final score of the different alternatives for the objective Minimize downtime due to hydraulic effects. 112 Table Auxiliary table to assess the length of the transport lines. 113 Table Final score of the different alternatives for the objective Minimize the length of the transport lines. 113 Table Final score of the different alternatives for the objective Nautical 114 vii

18 Table Table Table Table Table MASTERPLAN FOR THE PORT OF MEULABOH; EXPANSION PROJECT, Msc Thesis safety. Final score of the different alternatives for the objective Terminal safety. 115 Final score of the different alternatives for the objective Minimize the land facilities area. 115 Approximated occupied water areas by the facilities of Meulaboh port. 116 Final score of the different alternatives for the objective Minimize water area. 116 Final score of the different alternatives for the objective Minimize the interruption of sediment transport. 117 Table Weighted score Layout Table Weighted score Layout Table Weighted score Layout Table Weighted score Layout Table Weighted score Layout Table Ranking of alternatives. 121 Table Layouts optimisation changing characteristics. 122 Table Layouts optimisation costs. 123 Table Layout optimisation final score. 123 Table 7.1. Approach channel dimensions. 129 Table 7.2. Turning area dimensions. 129 Table 7.3. Jetty head dimensions. 131 Table 7.4. Jetty approach bridge dimensions. 132 Table 7.5. Summary of the terminal area distribution. 135 Table 7.6. Summary of breakwater characteristics I. 141 Table 7.7. Summary of breakwater characteristics II. 142 Table 7.8. Port costs classified by the party in charge of them. 150 Table 7.9. Hydraulic structure costs 152 Table Terminal area costs 152 viii

19 List of figures MASTERPLAN FOR THE PORT OF MEULABOH; EXPANSION PROJECT, Msc Thesis 1.1 Scope of this study Location of Meulaboh View of the peninsula of Meulaboh Situation of the port before and after the tsunami Present situation in Meulaboh port jetty Situation of the port after the tsunami Present situation of the port Epicentre of the earthquake Effects produced by the tsunami in Aceh Status of the coast where Meulaboh is located before and after the tsunami Bathymetric sea chart of Meulaboh region after the tsunami Map of Meulaboh Port area after the tsunami Present situation of the surrounding ports Hinterland of Meulaboh Port KMP Tanjung Burang 540 GRT in Ulee Lheue Ferry Terminal KMP Cucut 530 GRT in Malahayati Port Tectonic plates that surround Indonesia Seismic regions with PGA for a return period of 500 years. (Witteveen+Bos report (2006)) Soil profile al Meulaboh port (depth expressed in meters and distances in millimetres) Port functions Location of the expansion of the port SRC Existing Jetty identified in the UNDP map Width distribution for a jetty of 50 m of width designed to be used from both sides Width distribution for a jetty of 30 m of width designed to be used just from one side Elevation of landing area and ship ramp. (Ligteringen (2007)) Wind set up computation. (Witteveen+Bos report (2006)) Required jetty level according to the wave slamming. 66 ix

20 4.9. Under keel clearance factors. (Ligteringen (2007)) Sketch to determine the breakwater width Simplified layout of the Alternative 1. WATER AREA Simplified layout of the Alternative 1. TERMINAL AREA AND QUAYS Simplified layout of the Alternative 2. WATER AREA Simplified layout of the Alternative 2. TERMINAL AREA AND JETTY Simplified layout of the Alternative 3. WATER AREA Simplified layout of the Alternative 3. TERMINAL AREA AND JETTY Simplified layout of the Alternative 4. WATER AREA Simplified layout of the Alternative 4. TERMINAL AREA AND JETTY Simplified layout of the Alternative 5. WATER AREA Simplified layout of the Alternative 5. TERMINAL AREA AND JETTY Influence of value and costs for the system (H.A.J. Ridder (2008)) Balance value/costs (H.A.J. Ridder (2008)) Destroyed jetties by the December 2004 tsunami (The Indian Ocean Tsunami (2007)) Destroyed jetties by the December 2004 Tsunami and its reconstruction Diffraction in breakwaters Port areas from a functional point of view Distribution jetty head cross-section for handling activities Distribution jetty head cross-section for equipments manoeuvring Distribution jetty approach bridge cross-section for normal traffic Distribution jetty approach bridge cross-section for no ferry traffic Distribution jetty approach bridge cross section for no ferry traffic with 3 lanes of trucks Distribution jetty approach bridge cross-section for high ferry traffic Distribution jetty approach bridge cross-section for high ferry traffic Conceptual design of the jetty cross section. 146 x

21 7.10. Protection dune cross-section (Indian Ocean Tsunami (2007)) Enclosing groins for jetty protection (Indian Ocean Tsunami (2007)) Groin field for coast protection and run up reduction (Indian Ocean Tsunami (2007)). 149 List of graphs Graph 4.1. Principal dimensions of general cargo ships, (Ligteringen (2007)). 47 Graph 5.1. Wave diffraction diagram- 90º wave angle, Shore Protection Manual (1984). 84 List of layouts Layout Optimization alternative Layout Optimization alternative Layout Final layout. 137 Layout Final layout. WATER AREA. 138 Layout Final layout. TERMINAL AREA. 139 Layout 7.B.1 Breakwater Cross-Section Model Layout 7.B.2. Breakwater Cross-Section Model Layout 7.B.RH. Breakwater Cross-Section Roundhead. 146 Note: the layouts attached in this report as well as the ones of the annexes are classified by the following nomenclature: Case of port layouts: Layout X.Y.Z. X = number of chapter or annex the layout belongs to (consist of a number for chapters or an A followed by a number for the annexes); Y = number of alternative; and, Z = number of layout, where: 1 = General view; 2 = Water area; and, 3 = Terminal area. In the case of the breakwater cross-sections: xi

22 Layout X.B.Z. X = idem meaning it has for the port layouts; B = means Breakwater; and, Z = number of layout. In the case of the jetty sections the nomenclature is easier. The first characters mean the annex where it is attached and the second one the number of layout. xii

23 1. Introduction 1.1. Introduction Meulaboh Meulaboh (or Moulabouh) is the capital of West Aceh Regency, Indonesia. It is placed in the North of Sumatra, about 245 km South-east of Banda Aceh, the capital of Aceh province. This country, Indonesia, is considered to be a developing country given its economy based on agriculture, export of raw materials and tourism and its deficiencies of infrastructure. In addition, Indonesia, mainly the island of Sumatra, was completely destroyed by the tsunami that took place the 26 December Nowadays, three years later, it is recovering from the natural disaster but most of the facilities it used to have aren t replaced yet The port of Meulaboh The port of Meulaboh, considered as a shallow water port, is situated in the western coast of Sumatra, approximately 135 nautical miles south from the north cape of the island (Ujung Masam Muka). Its facilities were badly damaged in the earthquake and tsunami of 26 December The town had a small general cargo wharf that was only slightly damaged by the tsunami but its capacity was limited because the depth of water was only between 1.5 and 2 meters. The present situation has improved given that a new jetty has been built by the Singaporean Red Cross Problem definition Meulaboh was a township of regional importance on the west coast of Sumatra but the earthquake and tsunami of 26 December 2004, which killed a large percentage of its population, also destroyed nearly all its infrastructures and buildings. The port, which used to act as a regional port, was also damaged. Meulaboh port is considered an important cornerstone for the development of the Aceh province. Its importance has increased since the tsunami occurred given that this region, which has been damaged, can not be self-sufficient. Nowadays, given the features of the existing port facilities, this harbour can not supply the transport necessities of the area. Chapter 1: Introduction 1

24 That means that the temporary facilities the Singaporean Red Cross has built aren t enough to contribute to the regional development of the area. That fact impedes the capacity of recovery of the region Objective The main objective of the project is to plan new port facilities to satisfy the capacity the port needs to supply the transport necessities of its hinterland. For that purpose a general Masterplan for the port will be developed. First, it will be focused on finding a favourable layout for the new facilities that minimize the effect of future tsunamis and, then, on proposing technical designs for civil and marine works of the expansion of the port. To achieve this goal, the following researches and development objectives are formulated: - Collect relevant data (historical, hydraulic, geotechnical, infrastructural data); - Calculate terminal dimensions and berth lengths to develop layout alternatives and selection of the most promising alternatives; - Plan a layout of the land facilities required in the available space for that purpose; - Include recommendations to reduce future tsunami impacts in the port; - Plan a layout of the waterside facilities, taking into account the geotechnical, survey, wave and wind data, and the necessary hydraulic elements: breakwater, wharves, approach channel ; - Make a cost estimate of the expansion of the port; and, - Provide technical proposals for civil and marine works of the expansion project Scope of this study The purpose of the masterplan is to have a blue print for the future expansion of Meulaboh port, utilizing the existing facilities in the present port given that they can be of use in the new layout. This layout should be hydraulic and economic efficient taking into account its boundary conditions such as future expansions of fishery facilities. Despite the fact this study is just a general masterplan; it covers several steps in the masterplan process. These steps include the analysis phase, the generation and layout of alternatives, its cost estimate, the evaluation and selection of these alternatives and Chapter 1: Introduction 2

25 preliminary engineering works. A construction schedule is part of a masterplan but in this case it is out of the scope of this study. This masterplan should consider the tsunami occurrence in the area in order to minimize its effects on the port: so, tsunamis will be taken into account as a design criterion but also as a selection criterion of alternatives. The environmental impact assessment of the port expansion will only be discussed superficially in this study as criterion for the selection of alternatives. Also social impacts and safety aspects will be considered in that way. The last part of the study will consist of technical proposal of a part of the hydraulic structure of the expansion project where some calculations will be done in order to design it. An economic analysis, generation of scenarios, separate study on cargo flow and shipping expectations or optimisation of the proposed layouts will not be carried out during this study. This means that this study is based on a large number of assumptions. In the graphic below the scope of this masterplan study can be observed: Analysis phase -Present situation -Boundary conditions -Cargo flow/ shipping forecast -Layout requirements Generation of alternatives -Layout of landside facilities -Alternatives of layout of offshore structures Cost estimate Selection of the most promising alternative -Evaluation of the alternatives -Final layout of the port -Conceptual design of hydraulic structures Preliminary engineering works -Calculation of a hydraulic structure Cost estimate 1.1. Scope of this study Chapter 1: Introduction 3

26 1.4. Backgrounds MASTERPLAN FOR THE PORT OF MEULABOH; EXPANSION PROJECT, Msc Thesis This Master Thesis is carried out cooperating with the company Witteveen+Bos which accepted the invitation from the United Nations Developed Programme (UNDP) to tender for the design of a suitable reconstruction for the port of Meulaboh. Despite the fact that presently the project is postponed, this study is going to be done as a preliminary study for a future project of the expansion of the port, so it will fulfil the main requirements of the UNDP Parties involved in the project TU Delft This masterplan study is a Master Thesis realized in Delft University of Technology in order to finish my degree in my home university (Universidad Politéctnica de Valencia). It has been carried out in the Hydraulic and Offshore Section of the Faculty of Civil Engineering and Geosciences; under the supervision of Prof. Ir. Ligteringen, who suggested the subject for the project, and Mrs. Alice Clijncke, the immediate supervisor of the thesis who also was a direct link with the company Witteveen+Bos. Also Ir. F.A.M. Soons from Construction Department has participated in the project playing an important role in the MCE and the calculation of the costs Witteveen+Bos This study has been carried out cooperating with the company Witteveen+Bos which has provided the information necessary to develop the project. Mr. Gent Hamoen has been the person from Witteveen+Bos in charge of the project Universidad Politécnica of Valencia The Universidad Politécnica of Valencia is involved in the project as my home university given that it is a thesis of an exchange student in TU Delft. The supervisor from the university is Prof. Medina Graduation committee The graduation committee is formed by 4 people: i. Prof. ir. H. Ligteringen Delft University of Technology ii. A. Clijncke MSc Delft University of Technology / Witteveen+Bos iii. G. Hamoen MSc Witteveen+Bos iv. Ir. F.A.M. Soons Delft University of Technology Chapter 1: Introduction 4

27 1.6. Structure of this report. This report is structured in the same way the process of creating a project is carried out. First of all, in Chapter 2, the problem is presented, introducing the present situation of the Port of Meulaboh. Once the problem is identified, the following task is to identify the relevant boundary conditions; these comprise wave, wind, geotechnical and current conditions which are described in Chapter 3. When the problem and its boundary conditions are determined, next step consists of identifying the requirements the final situation (once the problem has been solve) have to fulfil. In this case these are the layout requirements of the port which are collected in Chapter 4. According to these requirements, in Chapter 5, different layout alternatives that meet these necessities (requirements) of the port will be developed. In order to be sure that the chosen alternative is the most promising one, a multi-criteria evaluation is carried out in Chapter 6. Once the best alternative has been selected (that means the solution of the raised problem has been found) then it has to be developed in more detail. Chapter 7 is focused on the most promising alternative and expounds its technical design: conceptual design for the most important hydraulic structures and a complete design based on calculations for the breakwater. Also a cost estimation of the most promising alternative is carried out in this section of the study. In Chapter 8 the recommendations and conclusions resulted from this study will be included in order to be considered in further studies. At the end of the report some annexes with relevant information or calculations will be added. Chapter 1: Introduction 5

28 Chapter 1: Introduction 6

29 2. Port of Meulaboh present situation 2.1. Introduction This chapter gives a description of the current port of Meulaboh. This comprises descriptions of the basin and land areas of the harbour. The present facilities are also described. This information has been provided by the company Witteveen+Bos and the United Nations Development Programme Description of the harbour The port of Meulaboh, considered as a shallow water port, is situated in the western coast of Sumatra, approximately 135 nautical miles south from the north cape of the island (Ujung Masam Muka) Location of Meulaboh. Given that Meulaboh is a town with considerable importance in the west coast of Sumatra since it is the capital of West Aceh Regency, its port is essential for the development of the region. The port is placed in a bay sheltered by the peninsula where Meulaboh is placed, for that reason big hydraulic structures are not necessary to protect the basin from waves, so the fishing facilities, the ferry terminal and the main wharf of the general cargo terminal were placed separated along the coast, located in different places. Chapter 2: Port of Meulaboh present situation 7

30 2.2. View of the peninsula of Meulaboh. Chapter 2: Port of Meulaboh present situation 8

31 The 26 th December 2004 practically all of the port facilities were destroyed by the earthquake and tsunami which affected the area, and nowadays its capacity has been reduced compared to the one it used to have. The situation of the port facilities after the tsunami was the following one: 2.3. Situation of the port before and after the tsunami. The main wharf was hardly affected by the waves except two piles that were damaged probably by a drifting vessel. Situation of the river limits close the port area. It has deposited sediments all along the coast reducing the water depth. The small general cargo wharf was only slightly damaged but its capacity was greatly reduced because the depth of the water decreased until only meters. The approach to the ferry terminal is badly damaged but the terminal itself is not badly affected. The fishing facilities including the fishing village were virtually all destroyed. All the buildings that surrounded the port were completely destroyed. Land connections in the south of the peninsula, where the port is placed, were also completely damaged. The present situation has improved given that a new jetty has been built by the Singaporean Red Cross, despite the fact no land facilities support this new wharf Present situation in Meulaboh port jetty. The next two pages show the situation of the port facilities after the tsunami and the current situation of them after the intervention of the Singaporean Red Cross respectively. Chapter 2: Port of Meulaboh present situation 9

32 2.5. Situation of the port after the tsunami. Chapter 2: Port of Meulaboh present situation 10

33 OLD JETTY SINGAPOREAN RED CROSS JETTY 2.6. Present situation of the port. Chapter 2: Port of Meulaboh present situation 11

34 The last map was provided by UNDP. In it, it can be observed the remains of the old jetty that used to exist before the tsunami. It must be completely removed for safety reasons Tsunami event 2.7. Epicentre of the earthquake. According to the information shown in the USGS official web site on Sunday, 26 December 2004, the greatest earthquake in 40 years occurred about 150 kilometres off the west coast of northern Sumatra Island in Indonesia. The earthquake generated a disastrous tsunami that caused destruction in 11 countries bordering the Indian Ocean. The great tsunamigenic earthquake occurred on Sunday, 26 December 2004, at 00:58:50 UTC (6:58:50 a.m. local time). The epicentre was at N, E and its focal depth was very shallow (much less than 33 km, possibly about 10) The quake was widely felt in Sumatra, the Nicobar and Andaman Islands, in Malaysia, Myanmar, Singapore, Thailand, Bangladesh and India. Despite the fact that in the picture above a magnitude of the earthquake of 8.7 can be observed, according to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS NEIC (WDCS-D)) the moment magnitude of the earthquake- which is larger than the Richter magnitude and is used by seismologists to compare the energy released by earthquakes- was 9. Such magnitude would make this earthquake to be the fourth largest in the world since and the largest since 1964 Alaska earthquake. The earthquake of December 26, 2004 was extremely damaging and resulted in many deaths. However, most of the destruction and deaths were caused by the catastrophic tsunami it generated. Massive tsunami waves wiped out entire coastal areas across Southeastern Asia, Sri Lanka, India, Thailand, Myanmar and islands in the Andaman Sea and the Maldives in the Indian Ocean. Chapter 2: Port of Meulaboh present situation 12

35 The tsunami waves caused considerable destruction and killed people more than km away, in the Seychelles and in Somalia. As of February 10, 2005, the global death toll was estimated in people; but the demographics in this part of the world are not very good. There are many remote islands in the Nicobar, Andaman, Maldives, and off the African coasts, so there were many unreported deaths. Also all the towns and infrastructures placed in the coastlines of the affected countries were destroyed Effects produced by the tsunami in Aceh. The large tsunami which struck 11 of the countries that border the Indian Ocean was completely surprising for the people living there, but not for the scientists who are aware of the tectonic interactions in the region. Many seismic networks recorded the massive earthquake, but there were no tide gauges or other wave sensors to provide confirmation as to whether a tsunami had been generated. In addition, there was no established communications network or organizational infrastructure to pass a warning of any kind to the people along the coastlines. No tsunami Warning System existed for the Indian Ocean as there is for the Pacific. That fact magnified the consequences of the tsunami in the area. In Indonesia, tsunami waves of up to 10 meters flooded the smaller outlying islands of Sumatra as well as its northern and western coastal areas about 100 km from the earthquake epicentre. The hardest hit was in the northern Aceh province. Nearly all the casualties and damage took place within this province. Very heavy damage occurred as far South as Tapatkuan. The waves also propagated around the northern tip of Sumatra into the Straits of Malacca and struck coastal settlements along the northeast coast as far east as Lhokseumawe. According to the latest official reports (Ministry of Health) more than people were killed and people were displaced in Northern Sumatra. A total of 110 bridges were destroyed, 5 seaports (Meulaboh is one of them) and 2 airports sustained considerable damage, and 82% of all roads were severely damaged. More precisely in Meulaboh, a series of seven waves killed about people and more than people were left homeless. The tsunami also destroyed its port facilities and most parts of the town. The peninsula of Aceh, where Meulaboh is placed was said to be one of the hardest hit by the Tsunami. Chapter 2: Port of Meulaboh present situation 13

36 MASTERPLAN FOR THE PORT OF MEULABOH; EXPANSION PROJECT, Msc Thesis 2.9. Status of the coast where Meulaboh port is located before and after the tsunami Parties involved in the port Nowadays there is no port authority in Meulaboh port and given the precarious status of the harbour, TNI (Tentara Nasional Indonesia), which are the armed forces of the country, are temporary active in the port being in charge of its administration. The current situation of the port makes it difficult to operate. Since the port does not have any land facilities and commodities, there is no permanent company with its head office in the port because there are no facilities to support this kind of activities. However, there are some companies, like KMP which offers ferries that connect Meulaboh and Sinabang, but they can t be considered party of the port because they don t operate their own terminal, they just use the common facilities Port functions and organization Nowadays, in the port 3 kinds of activities coexist: general cargo, ferry and fishing; all them using the same quay, the one of the jetty. The present organization of the port makes it difficult to operate since there are no professional stevedores neither there is a heavy lift crane. Some basic services, like Immigration facilities, have already being re-established by TNI. Chapter 2: Port of Meulaboh present situation 14

37 In the past, Meulaboh port used to be a Service Port, where the handling of the vessels and all the services were provided by the port authority; this form of organization is common in developing countries. Nowadays, given that the scarce services the port supplies are provided temporary by the armed forces, it can also be considered a Service Port. In the future, once the port has been rebuilt, taking into account that the port only has two berths and depending on the number of private companies operating in the port a form of organization for the port will be set. According to the World Bank several institutional models of port organization are possible. It could be that the port continue being a Service Port that would make the port authority responsible for providing services and maintaining equipments and infrastructures, in addition of being the owner of all the facilities (the major ports of India are service ports). Another possibility could be to set a Tool Port in which the port authority is the owner of the port facilities (buildings, infrastructure, equipments ) but the services and maintenance are set in dealership regimen provided by private companies. The best option, since it is the most competitive, would be a Landlord port, which has lot of advantages given that the port authority just ownes the assets and leases them out to private operators; then the port authority provides the hydraulic structure whereas the operators are responsible of terminal facilities Commodities The commodities the port used to operate were basically general cargo and passengers in ferry vessels. Also fish from the fishery facilities was handled in this port Water area The water area, which is considered shallow water since its depth is less than 6 meters, is not sheltered by any structures such as breakwaters. In addition the rivers have deposited sediments along the coast decreasing in a considerable way the depth of the area and therefore the port s capacity. An official sounding report is expected; according to U.S. and TNI, which have conducted a sounding of the harbour, and unconfirmed reports the current draft near the main wharf is approximately 2 to 3 meters. The facilities of the water area consist of a small jetty built by the Singaporean Red Cross as a temporary commercial wharf given that the main wharf was badly damaged during the tsunami. Presently, the fishing area is completely devastated but the ferry terminal is just slightly damaged, although it is useless because its approach bridge is badly affected. Chapter 2: Port of Meulaboh present situation 15

38 2.10. Bathymetric sea chart of Meulaboh region after the tsunami Land area Nowadays there isn t any land facility since all the buildings of the part of the peninsula where the port is placed where destroyed during the tsunami of the 26 th December In addition the road access to the port area is poor Map of Meulaboh Port area after the tsunami General cargo The main wharf for general cargo was practically totally destroyed by the earthquake and tsunami of 26 th December Chapter 2: Port of Meulaboh present situation 16

39 At present there is no heavy lift crane on the temporary jetty. An improvised heavy lift crane of 2MT is provided by a digger at the port Ferry The buildings of the ferry terminal were completely destroyed by the earthquake and tsunami; and although the ferry quay has not been badly damaged, the approach bridge that links up the quay and the terminal has been nearly destroyed (see Figure 2.5) Other port functions The fishing area and all its facilities were also virtually destroyed. Anyway, presently fishing boats can operate in the port using the provisional jetty Land ownership During the months after the tsunami occurred, UNDP began a project to rescue vital documents badly damaged by the tsunami which record land ownership in Meulaboh. Until that moment, it was assumed that all land ownership documentation in the area had been destroyed. In March 2005, the papers of the Land Registry were discovered by local government officials, intact but soaked by floodwater. The discovery was important for the reconstruction process. Despite the fact of that discovery, no official data with respect to land ownership at the project location Meulaboh could be made available by local authorities. The following verbal information was given to the company Witteveen+Bos by a representative of PT. ASDP: the office areas for commercial port are owned by PT. Angkutan Sungai, Danau dan Penyeberangan (PT. ASDP); and, the undeveloped areas are third parties property; the local government will arrange the relocation and compensation. That means that the required land for the development will be available. 2.9 Income and expenses There is no available data about income and expenses of the port nowadays, neither in the past because nearly all the official documents were destroyed during the tsunami. Chapter 2: Port of Meulaboh present situation 17

40 2.10. Surrounding ports Most of the ports on the North and West coast of Aceh were also badly damaged or were destroyed in the earthquake and tsunami of 26 th December 2004 or in the earthquake of 28 th March 2005 (this earthquake didn t affect to Meulaboh port since it was nearly completely destroyed by the previous one). Nowadays, there are four deepwater ports in Aceh and Nias (the province next to Aceh) with potential capacity to take vessels of DWT or greater. They are: Lhokseumawe, Sabang, Sinabang, Gunung Sitoli. These port where just slightly damaged by the earthquake and tsunami of 26 th December 2004; but Sabang and Gunung Sitoli were badly affected by the earthquake of 28 th March Aceh has also a number of shallow water ports (with depths of up to 6 metres) that are in varying state of repair. These ports are: Balohan Port, Malahayati Port, Ulee Lheue Port, Lamno Port, Calang Port, Susoh Port, Tapaktuan Port, Singkil Port, Simeuleu Port, Banyak Port and Nias Port. These ports work as a transport net. Ship routes between them communicate coast towns of Aceh and they can be considered basically complementary instead of working in a competition regime. The service given by these routes is both passenger transport as well as goods transport. The present situation with the ports is summarized in the figure below Present situation of the surrounding ports. (Tsunami Recovery Port Redevelopment Programme (TRPRP)) Chapter 2: Port of Meulaboh present situation 18

41 2.11. Relation with other projects The expansion of Meulaboh port is part of the Tsunami Recovery Port Redevelopment Programme (TRPRP) created by the United Nations Development Program, Badan Rehabilitasi dan Rekonstruksi (BRR) NAD-Nias and the Government of Indonesia. This programme has been designed to be accordance with the overall port redevelopment strategy to rebuilt the ports of Aceh/Nias. The expansion project of Meulaboh is just a small part of the TRPRP, which is related with the development of all the ports of the area but also with the economic development of Sumatra Hinterland of Meulaboh port Hinterland of Meulaboh Hinterland of Meulaboh The distribution of the ports in both sides of the island is due to the mountain mass along the axis of the island that makes difficult the goods travel through it. For that reason the ports usually just supply their surrounding area. The hinterland of the port of Meulaboh is assumed to be basically the West Aceh Regency (its immediate vicinity) since Meulaboh is the capital of this province. Further regions can be supplied with shipping service by other port which have a bigger capacity or are closer to them. So it can be thought that the hinterland has a radio of about 100 km Hinterland of Meulaboh Port. Chapter 2: Port of Meulaboh present situation 19

42 West Aceh Regency, which occupies almost all the surface enclosed by the 100- kilometers radio, is about 2,442 km 2 and about 250,000 lives there according to internet sources but no official data can be found after the tsunami event. Although information about the economy in this hinterland area is not available, it is known that Aceh Province is supported by the oil industry, agriculture and fisheries, tourism and manufacturing industries. Given that no liquid bulk terminal is going to be designed for Meulaboh port, the harbour facilities will be used to export foodstuffs and manufacturing products as well as to facilitate the flow of tourists between the Indonesian islands. This hinterland could only be reached by road since there are no railway infrastructure (according to United Nations Joint Logistic Centre-(UNJLC)) and using Cut Nyak Dien Airport (20 km South of Meulaboh) would not be economical neither effective since Meulaboh Port has a regional function, not a function for the whole Aceh province Vessels characteristics General Cargo Vessels General Cargo vessels are mostly barges with small draught because Meulaboh is considered a shallow water port. A list with the available barges in the market is included in Annex 1. In that list de dimensions in meters of the length, beam and draught are presented for every model of barge indicating also its year of construction, its DWT and the deck load capacity required Ferry Vessels Nowadays, different models of ferry vessels use the ports of Sumatra and all they are classified by BKI (Biro Klasifikasi Indonesia), which is the classification society in Indonesia, since they operate in this area. These boats have some resemblances between them but also some differences. All they are equipped with a ramp at bow or stern (no side ramps). The main differences can be observed in the size of the boats. Their length can vary from 17 to 62 metres whereas their breadth is comprised between 6 and 12 meters. Although the wide range of size (from 200 tons to 1800 tons of Gross Register Tonnage), they have a common characteristic: their draft is small, about 2-3 metres, this is due to the depth restrictions the port has nowadays. All vessels have 2 engines of which power varies from 150 HP to 600 HP and their consumption from 1300 to 4000 litres/24 hours. Chapter 2: Port of Meulaboh present situation 20

43 With regard to navigation devices, all the vessels are equipped with GPS, Compass, Radar, VHF Radio, SSB Radio and chronometers; in addition the biggest ones have an echosounder and Portable Communication. The technical data of those vessels is collected in Annex 1 of this study. The size of the ferry boats operating along the west coast of Aceh, where Meulaboh is placed, is approximately 500 GRT; this kind of ferry sails to connect the ports on the west coast of Aceh and the ports in the islands nearby. The particulars of a 500 GRT ferry are roughly as follows: According to Shibata Fender Design Manual: 500 GRT LOA 56.1 m Breadth 12.3 m Depth 3.7 m Draft 3.0 m Table 2.1. Vessel dimensions according to Shibata Fender Design Manual. According to Technical Standard for Port and Harbour Facilities in Japan: 400 GRT 700 GRT LOA 50.0 m 63.0 m Breadth 11.8 m 13.5 m Draft 3.0 m 3.4 m Table 2.2. Vessel dimensions according to Technical Standard for Port and Harbour Facilities in Japan KMP Tanjung Burang 540 GRT in Ulee Lheue Ferry Terminal KMP Cucut 530 GRT in Malahayati Port. Chapter 2: Port of Meulaboh present situation 21

44 The general cargo design vessel as well as the ferry design vessel will be chose in Chapter 4, where the layout requirements are determined. Chapter 2: Port of Meulaboh present situation 22

45 3. Hydraulic & geotechnical boundary conditions 3.1. Introduction In this section the site conditions that are relevant for the design of elements of the new northern Port of Meulaboh extension are briefly described. A more profound description of the environmental and hydraulic boundary conditions is given in Annex 2. This annex also evaluates the different sources and recordings that were analysed to come to this summary. The information used in this chapter has been provided by the company Witteveen+Bos which, in 2006, calculated and collected in a report with the relevant design data. Other sources of data are mentioned when they are used. All variables have units according to the international SI conventions. Wave and wind directions refer to the direction from which the waves and winds are coming. The direction is given in degrees, measured clockwise with respect to the North. The coordinate system used is Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) and its vertical reference point is the Chart Datum (CD) used by the Singaporean Red Cross Jetty Project (SRCJP) adjacent to the project location Environmental conditions Climate Indonesia has a tropical climate characterized by heavy rainfall, high humidity, high temperature, and low winds; but these winds can vary considerably depending on the season. This phenomenon is known as the tropical monsoon climate. A monsoon is a seasonal prevailing wind which lasts for several months and the monsoon climate is characterized (in addition by its winds) by abundant rainfall like that of the tropical rain forest climate, but it is concentrated in the high-sun season. The climate in Aceh can be subdivided into two seasons, depending on the prevailing wind: the West monsoon and East Monsoon season. The East monsoon season runs from October to March and the West monsoon season from April to September. Chapter 3: Hydraulic and geotechnical boundary conditions 23

46 Wind MASTERPLAN FOR THE PORT OF MEULABOH; EXPANSION PROJECT, Msc Thesis The wind in the project area of Meulaboh port is moderate. In this region, the monsoon causes a very constant wind climate. Wind speeds are below 5 m/s for 80% of the time. The wind direction usually is between 180 and 270 N (West-South). Based on the ARGOSS data the operational wind conditions are determined in Witteveen+Bos report (2006). The table below summarizes the operation wind conditions offshore of Meulaboh. Wind speed (m/s) Percentage of occurrence (%) < < < < < < < Table 3.1. Omni-directional wind speeds according to ARGOSS. With a return period of 100 years, wind speeds of 28.6 m/s can be reached. These winds are more likely to come form the Southwest Temperature According to the report Witteveen+Bos (2006), there is only a slight difference between the East monsoon and West monsoon period regarding air temperature. The average air temperatures are 27.1 C and 27.3 C respectively. The average minimum air temperature for the East and the West monsoon period are 20.1 C and 19.6 C respectively. The average maximum air temperature for the East and the West monsoon period are 31.9 C and 32.4 C respectively Humidity The average humidity for the East monsoon period is approximately 82 % and in the West monsoon period approximately 81 % (Witteveen+Bos report (2006)) Precipitation The average monthly rainfall in the East monsoon period is approximately 80 mm/month, the average number of days rain per month is 7 in this season and the average maximum rainfall in this period is 35 mm/day. Chapter 3: Hydraulic and geotechnical boundary conditions 24

47 For the West monsoon period the average total rainfall is approximately 87 mm/month, the average number of days of rain is 6 days/month and the average maximum rainfall is 39 mm/day Visibility The visibility during bad weather is, based on Witteveen+Bos report (2006), 6 to 10 km. It can slightly vary between East and West monsoon period. The visibility during East monsoon period is 6.3 to 11.1 km whereas during West monsoon period it varies from 6.1 to 10.3 km Water levels According to Witteveen+Bos report (2006), water level fluctuations can be subdivided into: seasonal variations; tide; wind surge; long term sea level rise. Seasonal variations In this case, no seasonal corrections are applied for tides in this region. Tide Water level measurements for a period of 39 hours were executed. Thus, no tidal analyses have been executed. With the 39 hours water level measurements MSL was established. Wind surge No data are available on wind surge, but it can be calculated by knowing the fetch and water depth (See Section of this report). The result of this calculation is approximately 0.3 m for a 100 years return period. Since it is just an estimation and it is calculated for an hypothetic situation (not the present one), it is not taken into account in the water levels. Long term sea level rise due to global warming A possible sea level rise due to global warming effects will not be incorporated in the estimation of the design high water level. Given that the only available data that exists are the tidal data, the tidal levels will be considered to determine the water levels. They are collected in the table below. Chapter 3: Hydraulic and geotechnical boundary conditions 25

48 Level m+cd HAT Highest Astronomical Tide (estimated, to be confirmed) MSL Mean Sea Level LAT (=CD) Lowest Astronomical Tide Table 3.2. Water levels LAT is used as the reference level to indicate the other water levels. Chart Datum= LAT Atmospheric pressure at sea level The sea level pressure data included in Witteveen+Bos report (2006) can be considered constant during the year and its average air pressures are approximately mb Sedimentation and maintenance dredging Factual data on sedimentation and former dredging activities have not been encountered. Anyway, from the geotechnical surveys, it is known that the soil at the location of the wharf is composed of a 12 meters thickness layer of silty sand grey to dark grey medium dense. That gives information about the size of the sediments that can be transported along the coast; it is assumed to be mm (the limit between silt and sand since it is a silty sand); and their wet density which is assumed to be between 1.6 and 1.7 t/m 3. The sedimentation in the area will be analysed further in Chapter 3 and also in 4 and Currents No current measurements have been carried out. Data on currents are not encountered yet Waves The wave conditions in the project area are dominated by swell waves (more than 80% of the time). Swell waves have long wave periods and show little directional spreading (meaning that the wave direction is rather constant throughout the wave field). These long waves (with a wave length of over 200 m) need long distances to change direction. The port is located at the east side of the peninsula and since the swell originates from the south-west the influence of swell waves in the bay is rather limited. Due to refraction and diffraction some wave energy enters the bay but the wave height is much smaller. Chapter 3: Hydraulic and geotechnical boundary conditions 26

49 Normal wave climate The normal wave climates determine the operational conditions for the design of the port. The wave climate in the area is relatively constant due to the relatively constant wind speed and direction caused by the monsoon seasons. Swell waves are dominant during large parts of the year because local high wind speeds do not occur often and thus significant wind waves are absent. Offshore conditions The operational wave climate is dominated by swell from directions between South and South-west. The typical swell wave heights lie between 1.0 m and 3.0 m, the average is 2.1 m. Typical wave periods are between 9 s and 15 s, but swell wave periods can increase up to 21 s. The average peak wave period equals 14.5 s. The main wave direction is 210 N. Hs (m) 180º-195º [%] 195º-225º [%] 225º-255º [%] 255º-285º [%] Total [%] Total [%] Table 3.3. Percentages of time that wave heights in the given direction are reached in the port of Meulaboh according to Witteveen+Bos report (2006). Hs (m) 0s-3s [%] 3s-6s [%] 6s-9s [%] 9s-12s [%] 12s-15s [%] 15s-21s [%] Total [%] Total [%] Table 3.4. Percentages of time that wave heights in the wave period are reached in the port of Meulaboh according to Witteveen+Bos report (2006). Locally generated wind waves with shorter wave periods (between 6s to 9s) are dominant only 6 % of the time and mainly originate from the direction west. This is logical since the local dominant wind direction is also from the west. Near shore conditions In addition to the Normal Wave Climate offshore, it is also necessary to know the effects of the bathymetry and the coast on the swell and the way it arrives to the port area. Wave Chapter 3: Hydraulic and geotechnical boundary conditions 27

50 breaking, refraction and diffraction are taken into account by the near-shore wave conditions which are different from the offshore ones. The operational wave climate near the wharf was determined for the offshore parameters below (based on the analysis of offshore conditions). average swell wave height on model boundary H s = 2.1 m; average swell wave period on model boundary T p = 15 s; average swell wave direction on model boundary 210 N; wind speed and direction, U = 5 m/s, 210 N (direction assumed same as wave direction). water level of +0.7 m LAT = MSL The operational wave conditions are dominated by swell. The wave and wind conditions in this case are not exceeded during 80% of the time. Other combinations will not have a significant influence on the operational conditions, therefore this one case is sufficient to characterise the operational wave climate. According to the software SWAN the results of the near shore simulation are the following ones: 1. Near Cargo Jetty 2. Near Ferry Berth 3. Inside Harbour, Near Embankment Location Water Level (m+lat) Wave Set-up (m) Total water Depth (m) Wave Height. H s (m) Wave Period. T m-1.0 (s) Wave Period. T peak (s) Mean Wave Direction ( N) Peak Wave Direction ( N) Table 3.5. Results of the Normal Wave Climate, generated by SWAN, in 3 different locations next to the wharf collected in Witteveen+Bos report (2006) Extreme wave climate Extreme wave conditions are wave conditions that occur rarely but they are critical for the design of the port. The extreme conditions in this region are caused by extreme local wind speeds that cause a high wind wave field. Swell waves can become relatively high from time to time, but wind waves are higher for the same probability of being exceeded. Offshore conditions The wave height considered for the extreme wave climate depends on the return period determined: Chapter 3: Hydraulic and geotechnical boundary conditions 28

51 Return Period [years] Significant Wave Height [m] Table 3.6. Significant offshore wave heights for different return periods. (Witteveen+Boss report (2006)). The wave direction corresponding with the extreme waves was not separately investigated. The highest observed wave field is for the wave direction 270. This corresponds to the observation that the extreme wind speed is also observed for that direction. Anyway the highest waves near the Meulaboh port result in the directions 120ºN and 180ºN; this is caused because the port has a favourable orientation for waves coming from directions between 180º and 270ºN. The peak wave period corresponding to the extreme wind wave height is approximately 8-10 seconds. Near shore conditions For the same reasons mentioned above, knowing the Extreme Wave Climate next to the wharf is necessary. In this case the extreme near-shore wave climate was determined for the following cases: 1. Extreme conditions for wind direction 120 N: 100 year return period wind speed of 24.5 m/s from the southeast extreme wave height on model boundary H s = 4.5 m; extreme wave period on model boundary T p = 10 s; wave direction on model boundary 120 N (same as wind); design water level of +1.7 m LAT. 2. Extreme conditions for wind direction 180 N: 100 year return period wind speed of 25.5 m/s from the south extreme wave height on model boundary H s = 4.5 m; extreme wave period on model boundary T p = 10 s; wave direction on model boundary 180 N (same as wind); design water level of +1.7 m LAT. 3. Extreme conditions for wind direction 220 N: 100 year return period wind speed of 26.5 m/s from south-west extreme wave height on model boundary H s = 4.5 m; extreme wave period on model boundary T p = 10 s; wave direction on model boundary 220 N (same as wind); design water level of +1.7 m LAT. Chapter 3: Hydraulic and geotechnical boundary conditions 29

52 According to the software SWAN the results of the near shore simulation are the ones collected in the table below. The locations 1, 2 and 3, are the same ones that where used to refer the wave conditions for the Normal Wave Climate: 1) Near the cargo jetty; 2) Near the ferry berth; and, 3) Inside Harbour, near embankment. 100 year Return Period wind conditions 120 N 180 N 220 N Location Water Level (m+lat) Wave Set-up (m) Total water Depth (m) Wave Height. H s (m) Wave Period. T m-1.0 (s) Wave Period. T peak (s) Mean Wave Direction ( N) Peak Wave Direction( N) Table 3.7. Results of the Extreme Wave Climate, generated by SWAN, in 3 different locations next to the wharf included in Witteveen+Bos report (2006). Although the wind set up has not been calculated by SWAN it was calculated later (Section of this study) by an independent computation getting a result of 0.3 m for a 100 years return period. In that case, taking into account the wave height, it is possible that waves break due to the sea bottom is over the breaker depth for that wave height. According to Van der Graaf (2006), the depth at which the waves break is determined by the following formula when it depends on the significant wave height: H s h where: H s = Significant wave height; and, h = Water depth. 0.5 Since the software SWAN considers this criterion, as well as reflection and refraction phenomena, no additional calculations are needed to check if this phenomenon takes place. Chapter 3: Hydraulic and geotechnical boundary conditions 30

53 3.5. Seismic considerations Note: The coefficients presented in this section will not be used in this study since no structures but the hydraulic one are going to be calculated. Anyway, they should be taken into account for a further development of the masterplan. According to USGS official website, Indonesia is surrounded by 4 major tectonic plates, the Pacific, the Eurasian, the Australian and the Philippine plates. All these major tectonic plates ant their subplates are presently active. Major earthquakes and tsunamis can be expected in the semi-enclosed seas along the Indian Ocean side of Indonesia. These major earthquakes in the semi-enclosed seas can generate destructive local tsunamis not only in Indonesia but to other countries bordering the Indian Ocean Tectonic plates that surround Indonesia Seismic regions with PGA for a return period of 500 years. (Witteveen+Bos report (2006)). Chapter 3: Hydraulic and geotechnical boundary conditions 31

54 Since Indonesia is considered a potential area for earthquakes and tsunamis, the area has been subdivided in several regions when it comes to the calculation of earthquake forces on structures. Meulaboh is located in seismic region 5 (see figure 3.2). The peak ground acceleration factor (0.25g) shall be applied for both the marine structures and the buildings and utilities Tsunami generation The main problem in the area is that these seismic movements, given that they occur under the sea, can produce tsunamis. A tsunami is a huge destructive wave usually caused by an earthquake in the seabed and it has a potential destructive force with catastrophic consequences in the areas it affects. The possibilities of a tsunami occurrence in that area are high given its seismic characteristics. For that reason robustness to withstand tsunamis will be part of the consideration of construction types despite the fact damage due to a tsunami will be accepted. More information about Tsunami generation is included in Annex 4 of this study Geotechnical At the project location, onshore and offshore geotechnical surveys have been executed in order to obtain insight in the sub-soils. Soil samples taken during the survey have been tested in a laboratory in order to identify the soil characteristics (strength and stiffness) of typical soil layers. This geotechnical study has been carried out by PT. PETROSOL Geotechnics, Surveys and Engineering Service and collected in PT. Petrosol report (2006) Coast soil The onshore soil conditions can be described by a layer of coral fragment of gravel sized with silty sand, medium dense) with thickness 0 to 10.0 meters. At one location (viz. borehole BH-8) clayey silt some organic, soft to medium stiff (thickness 8.0 meters) has been discovered, on top silty clay few organic, very stiff to hard (thickness 4.0 meters). Chapter 3: Hydraulic and geotechnical boundary conditions 32

55 Sea bottom MASTERPLAN FOR THE PORT OF MEULABOH; EXPANSION PROJECT, Msc Thesis The offshore soil conditions at the location of the wharf and the approach are generally described by a top layer of silty sand grey to dark grey medium dense (thickness 12 meters) on top of clayey silt medium stiff to stiff (thickness 8 meters) on top of silty clay very stiff (thickness 4 meters), these three layers of granular material lay on a base of solid rock (coal/peat, very dense) Soil profile al Meulaboh port (depth expressed in meters and distances in millimetres) Surface levels Land profile: Topography A topographic survey has been executed within the framework of Meulaboh Port reconstruction project, Witteveen+Bos report (2006), in the period June, The boundary of the survey works was determined under supervision of UNDP at the site. The total area surveyed was approximately 5 ha. Two benchmarks are installed prior to the start of the survey. Chapter 3: Hydraulic and geotechnical boundary conditions 33

56 Easting Northing Elevation Remarks BM ,351, ,794,002 MSL m New B.M. BM ,327, ,819,562 MSL m Reference Point (established by SRC) BM ,265, ,777,998 MSL m New B.M. Table 3.8. Benchmarks established for the survey (Witteveen+Bos report (2006)) Sea bottom profile: Bathymetry A bathymetric survey has been executed within the framework of Meulaboh Port reconstruction project, Witteveen+Bos report (2006), in the period June, The bathymetric survey lines in Meulaboh are run in intervals of 25 m in perpendicular to the shore line including three cross lines. The sounding data were logged at approximately 5 m intervals. Manual soundings/measurements using a stick were made in the shoreline area by topographic survey because the water was too shallow for the survey boat. The total area surveyed is 8 ha. All bathymetric soundings and manual measurements have been reduced to LAT, based on the observed tides in this area. Contour lines at 0.5 m interval were plotted on charts of 1:1000 scale. Given that the provided bathymetry does not give information about South of Meulaboh port area, a bathymetry is assumed based on the data available on the North to design the harbour water facilities. All these information is collected in the topographic and bathymetric map Sedimentation There are no data available about the sedimentation or currents in the area. Since this is considered important information because the dredging works are conditioned by it, some assumptions are going to be made in order to have an approximation of the size of the sediments. Given that the top layer is considered to have 12 metres of thickness it can be supposed that the sediments transported by currents and waves will belong to this layer which consists of silty sand with about 0.625mm of diameter; although the size could be bigger, even 2mm. The littoral transport can be considered parallel to the coast from South to North given that the wind and wave direction come from the South-East. Also some circular currents Chapter 3: Hydraulic and geotechnical boundary conditions 34

57 could be induced by the same wave direction since the port is located in a bay; that fact would create a current from North to South changing the direction of the littoral transport. Due to the lack of information about this subject, the simplest assumption, the first one, will be taken into account; so the littoral transport flows from South to North Available of quarry material According to Witteveen+Bos report (2006), various quarry materials are available in the surroundings of Teunom (a town near to Meulaboh) as indicated in the following table. Split could be made available from Banda Aceh. Material Quality Source 1 Armour Rock, 1 ton Good Teunom 2 Armour Rock, 0.40 m Good Teunom 3 Concrete Sand Poor Teunom 4 Gravel Poor Teunom 5 Split Good Banda Aceh Table 3.9. Construction materials available near Meulaboh. The sand and gravel might not meet the requirements for high strength concrete but material with the required characteristics is available in Banda Aceh. Important information about these materials is the density of each one since it is going to be needed when they are used in the construction of hydraulic structures. Given that this datum is not provided it will be assumed to have the values collected in the table below. Material Density (kg/m 3 ) 1 Armour Rock, 1 ton 2,750 2 Armour Rock, 0.40 m 2,750 3 Concrete Sand 1,700 4 Gravel 1,900 Table Density of the construction materials available near Meulaboh. According to CUR 169 (1993), the rock density must be comprised between 2,600 and 3,100 kg/m 3 ; whereas the sand gravel density is about 2,500-2,600 kg/m 3. It can be observed that the rock density adopted value fit in the range for good quality rock, but the value given to gravel is lower than the density good gravel is supposed to have Summary Summarizing, the hydraulic and geotechnical boundary conditions that are going to be taken into account for the port design are the following ones: Chapter 3: Hydraulic and geotechnical boundary conditions 35

58 The wind in Meulaboh area is mild (5 m/s = 9.8 knots) most part of the time (80%) and come from the South-West. The Highest Astronomical Tide level (HAT) is m using as reference level LAT (the Lowest Astronomical Tide level) The Mean Sea Level is considered 0.7 m+ LAT. There is not data available about currents nor sedimentation so some assumption will have to be done in the following chapters about this subject. Normal Wave Climate: H s (m) T m 0-1 (s) Mean Wave Direction (ºN) Water Level (m+lat) Offshore Near GC jetty Near Ferry jetty Inside Harbour Table Normal Wave Climate summary table. Extreme Wave Climate (100 years return period): H s (m) T m 0-1 (s) Mean Wave Direction (ºN) Water Level (m+lat) Offshore Near GC jetty Near Ferry jetty Inside Harbour Table Extreme Wave Climate summary table. The port will be designed to be operative 80% of the time. The most severe conditions in the harbour area are going to be the operational conditions which are not exceeded during 80% of the time. H s (m) T m 0-1 (s) Mean Wave Direction (ºN) Water Level (m+lat) Table Design Operational Wave Climate. The breakwater will be design to stand a 100 year return period swell. Considering the near shore wave conditions (waves referred to the Meulaboh port location) the swell adopted for the port design will be the most harmful (higher wave height since the periods are similar): Chapter 3: Hydraulic and geotechnical boundary conditions 36

59 H s (m) T m 0-1 (s) Mean Wave Direction (ºN) Water Level (m+lat) Table Design Extreme Wave Climate. The port is placed in a potential seismic region (considered of grade 5), so the coefficient 0.25g must be applied for structural calculations. The sea bottom is formed by several layers of sand, silt and granular material. The top layer is composed by silty sand grey to dark grey medium dense (thickness 12 meters). That means that the sediments that can be transported along the coast belong to this layer and will have the same characteristics the sand of this layer has. The currents are assumed to go from South to North parallel to the coast. There is available quarry material that could be used in the construction of the port. Chapter 3: Hydraulic and geotechnical boundary conditions 37

60 Chapter 3: Hydraulic and geotechnical boundary conditions 38

61 4. Layout requirements new port expansion 4.1 Introduction As mentioned in Chapter 2, new port facilities are needed in Meulaboh since the ones it used to have were destroyed by the tsunami. The characteristics of this new port layout will depend basically on the boundary conditions (Chapter 3), but also on the needs and objectives these facilities want to fulfil. In addition of fulfilling the transportation demand, these objectives, which are further explained in Chapter 6, can be summarized in the following list: Improvement of safety against tsunamis; Flexibility in throughput capacity expansion; Effectiveness of handling facilities; Safety; Minimize transportation costs; and, Minimize environmental impact. It is obvious that not all the alternatives planned in this study will fulfil these objectives in the same grade (this is the reason why a MCE is important to identify the best one), but it is important that all of them fulfil some minimum layout requirements, usually related to the safety working conditions and the demand necessities Port requirements In this part of the study the minimum requirements for the new port layout are described. These requirements depend on the port functions. Due to the lack of information they will be based on the development of some assumptions in order to set the demand level. In the same manner a shipping forecast will be made based on the models of vessels available. Both, throughputs as well as shipping forecast will be used as input values for a simulation study. As it has been mentioned before, the port requirements depend directly on the port functions. Desired Meulaboh port functions are collected in the next diagram: Chapter 4: Layout requirements new port expansion 39

62 MEULABOH PORT SECONDARY FUNCTIONS MAIN FUNCTIONS Goods Transportation Commodities services Facilities (quay, storage areas) Handling (equipments) Intermodal transportation (parking areas) Ships services Signage Port access Mooring Port administration Passengers Transportation Passenger services Road access Parking area Terminal building Quay access (gangway linking the quay and the terminal building) 4.1. Port functions The capacity of these functions will involve the functional port requirements. These port requirements will be set during this chapter and will be focused on fulfilling the port functions for the design vessel. First of all, the kind of commodities the harbour will handle are identified, and its throughput and the port shipping forecast (dimension of the design vessel) must be determined in order to set the input values for determining functional requirements. Then the location of the port facilities and its layout can be considered taking into account the boundary conditions the selected site involves (for example, the existence of structures). Once these functional requirements have been determined it is possible to transform them into minimum dimensions for the port facilities; determining in this way the required number of berths and quay length, the terminal area, the elevation levels, the water areas Other requirements, like seismic requirements are also included in this section of the report. Notice that these dimensions are also based on the information collected in Chapter 3 of this study since, in addition to the functional requirements; the hydraulic and geotechnical boundary conditions also condition the port facilities layout and design. Chapter 4: Layout requirements new port expansion 40

63 4.3. Commodities The main commodities that are part of the masterplan study are general cargo and ferry General cargo General cargo terminals are the traditional port area for transfer and storage of commercial goods. Before the tsunami, Meulaboh port had a general cargo wharf to supply the demand of its hinterland, but it is not operative anymore. Nowadays, new facilities to handle and store goods are needed. Despite the fact that general cargo as a way of transport of goods, it is being replaced by the containerised transports which are faster to handle. Nowadays, general cargo terminals maintain their function for specific commodities which are not containerized and in certain conditions, like small ports of which its container throughput is not enough to plan a container terminal. The case of Meulaboh port is the second one; it is just a regional port without throughputs enough to justify the construction of a container terminal Ferry A ferry is a form of transport by boat or ship which carries passengers and sometimes their vehicles. Ferries are also used to carry trucks and even railroad cars. Most ferries operate on regular, frequent, return services. In islands like Sumatra, ferries form part of the public transport system since Indonesia is an archipelago and most of its important cities are at the coast. Meulaboh port, before the tsunami disaster, used to offer ferry trips which link West Aceh Regency with other parts of the country. These links need to be restored by the construction of a new ferry terminal Cargo flow Throughput A market analysis and cargo flow investigation study reaches beyond the scope of this study. For that reason several assumptions will be made in order to be able to plan the facilities with the suitable dimension according to the expected demand. These assumptions will be based on the available data collected in Section 2 of this study and in its Annex 1. Chapter 4: Layout requirements new port expansion 41

64 Future expansions of the port of Meulaboh, in order to supply the future demand, will be considered as boundary conditions of the masterplan. For that purpose 5 hectares of land will be kept back for the future development of the port, according to the UNDP requirements. That involves that the future size of the port will be 3 times bigger than it is being planned in this moment. Since there is no information available about the port current imports and exports, neither in the past, and the economic growth of Meulaboh is known, it is not possible to check if this expansion is in accordance with the future real situation. Anyway, the final throughput once the expansion has been carried out is calculated in the next point of this section General cargo Since there is no data available about the past throughput of Meulaboh port, neither about the present situation, the general cargo flow will be based on the next assumption: One of the UNDP requirements is to construct 2.5 hectares for the new port expansion. In order to have an order of magnitude of the throughput of Meulaboh port; it is going to be assumed that 1.25 of those 2.5 hectares (50% of the area) are going to be used just storage facilities. Then, assuming normal values for the coefficients and using the 1.25 hectares as inputs, the annual throughput can be determined. The formula which is going to be used is the following one: O ts = f1 f 2 Cts td m h ρ 365 ts in which: O ts = required floor area for a transit shed and open storage in meters C ts = fraction of total annual throughput C s which passes the transit shed; t d = average dwell time of the cargo in days; ρ = average relative density of the cargo as stowed in the ship; h = average staking height in the storage; f 1 = proportion gross/net surface in connection with traffic lanes for FLT s, etc; f 2 = bulking factor due to stripping and separately stacking of special consignments, damaged goods, etc; and, m ts = average rate of occupation of the transit shed or storage (Є[0.65, 0.75]). According to the method explained in Ligteringen (2007). Notice that although capacity needs a 3D space, it is converted to an area using the average staking height in the storage. Chapter 4: Layout requirements new port expansion 42

65 Replacing the coefficients by the values below (also, based on the data from Ligteringen (2007)): O ts = 12,500 m; t d = 15 days; ρ = 0.6 t/m 3 ; h = 2 m; f 1 = 1.5; f 2 = 1.2; and, m ts = 0.7. Notice that an average dwell time of cargo of 15 days is higher than in other ports (about 10 days). The high value of this assumption is due to the lack of effectiveness of Meulaboh port. and, working out the value of C ts, the result is: C ts = 141,944.4 t/year Assuming that all the good stay for a while in the transit shed, the C ts = C s. Since it is just an approximation, it is going to be considered from this point on; it is going to be work with the value: C s = 142,000 t/year This approximation is based on a large number of assumptions, so it will be considered just a way of planning facilities, no as the real throughput of Meulaboh port. If the same criteria are considered for the 5 hectares expansion, that would involve an increase of the throughput of: C s = 284,000 t/year So, when the expansion of the port is finished, the harbour will be prepared for an annual throughput of 426,000 t/year. Note: the assumption realized in this point should be checked in further studies comparing it with past data of Meulaboh port. Also a statistic analysis could be carried out to verify this assumption if there were enough available data about Meulaboh hinterland (inhabitants, industry, productivity, demand ). Chapter 4: Layout requirements new port expansion 43

66 Ferry MASTERPLAN FOR THE PORT OF MEULABOH; EXPANSION PROJECT, Msc Thesis Nowadays, according to the information found in the website which provides official information about the transport infrastructure and public transport, there is a daily ferry that operates the route Meulaboh Sinabang. There is no more data available about the past or present ferry schedules, so for the planning can be assumed 1 departure and 1 arrival (1 call) per day in order to determine the capacity of the terminal. The size of that ferries (design ship) is determined in the Section 4.5. Since that section says that the design vessel capacity in 500 GRT (Gross Register Tonnage) and it is supposed to use the port 1 call per day during 365 days per year, an approximation of the annual throughput of the ferry terminal can be estimated. But if her capacity wants to be known in terms of passengers since it is more relevant to plan the terminal buildings, gangways and parking areas; knowing that a vessel of this size can transport about 450 people, the passenger flow per year is: C s = 450 passengers/ship* 2 ships/day * 365 days/year = 328,500 passengers/year Notice that 1 call/day means 2 ships/day if it wants to be expressed in passengers terms because the ships is arriving with 450 passengers and departing with other 450 passengers. It is also important to take into account the number of vehicles (2- wheel vehicles and 4- wheel vehicles) that use the terminal in order to plan the access ways and the parking areas. If it is supposed that a vessel with that dimensions can transport 50 vehicles: C s = 50 vehicles/ship* 2 ships/day * 365 days/year = 36,500 vehicles/year Anyway, for this kind of transport, in order to plan the facilities of the ferry terminal it is more advantageous to express the daily throughputs instead of the annual ones since the passengers and their vehicles usually do not stay in a port longer than a day. C s = 900 passengers/day C s = 100 vehicles/day These magnitudes will be considered to design the ferry terminal since no more data is available. They will be assumed as the maximum capacity the port has to supply. Chapter 4: Layout requirements new port expansion 44

67 Other commodities Other commodities like fishing, which are also present in Meulaboh port, will not be planned in this study and will just be considered as boundary conditions for the masterplan Summary The throughputs calculated in the previous paragraphs can be summarized in the table below. C s General Cargo Ferry 142,000 t/year 900 passengers/day 100 vehicles/day Table 4.1. Cargo flow summary. These throughputs will be considered the demand the port has to accomodate and, then, the harbour will be calculated to fulfil this condition. It is recommended to check this information in further studies Shipping forecast Numbers of vessels and vessel dimensions partly determine the development of the port expansion. A shipping forecast can be done based on the available vessels in the market and in the expected throughputs Vessel sizes Important dimensions are the length over all (LOA), draught and beam; they influence the port layout in the next way: The length governs the length and layout of single berth terminals, the length of the quays. The length also influences the width and bends of channels and the size of turning areas. Beam or breadth governs the reach of cargo handling equipment and influences the width of the channels and basins. Draught governs the water depth along the berths, in channels and basins. Chapter 4: Layout requirements new port expansion 45

68 In addition, the vessel size distribution has a large influence on the capacity of the new facilities. One of the requirements of the UNDP is that the expansion of the port of Meulaboh is able to accommodate 5000 DWT vessels; so the port is going to be designed to fulfil this condition. General cargo vessels A list of commercial general cargo vessels was given in the Section of this study and completed in the Annex 1. From that list, taking into account that the size of the vessel has to be 5000 DWT, the features for the design vessel have been taken out. Type of Vessel Length Over All Breadth Draught 5,000 DWT 76.5 m m 4.87 m Table 4.2. Characteristics of the design general cargo vessel. Notice that the features correspond to a barge not to a vessel given that the characteristics have been taken out from a list of barges available in the Indonesian market. Ferries The ferry port facilities will have to be able to accommodate 500 GRT passenger vessels. In the table below the main dimensions of these vessels are given. The dimensions are the ones generally adopted for Indonesian ports and are based on the information given in the Point of this study. Type of Vessel Length Over All Breadth Draught 500 GRT 51 m 10.2 m 4.0 m Table 4.3. Characteristics of the design ferry vessel Future development of the vessels General cargo vessels The actual general cargo vessels are in the range of 5,000 to 25,000 DWT. The relatively small size of these ships is due to the fact that nowadays the transport of general cargo is being replaced by the containerised goods since their handling is faster. For that reason the general cargo flow is not growing as fast as other kinds of commodities so their size of ships is being more or less stable. In addition, given that the design general cargo vessel considered in this study is just 5,000 DWT, there are presently in the market lot of available models of ships to transport this kind of commodities that would not be able to call in Meulaboh port for size reasons. For that reason it does not make sense take care about the future size evolution of the vessels. Chapter 4: Layout requirements new port expansion 46

69 Anyway, it has to be mention that comparing the dimensions of the design vessel with the graphic below (Ligteringen (2007)) it can be observed that our design vessel varies considerable from the dimensions a 5,000 DWT vessel usually has. That can be due to the fact that in the Indonesia area barges are usually used instead of ships. Graph 4.1. Principal dimensions of general cargo ships (Ligteringen (2007)). Barges have the advantage that their draught is smaller so they can operate in shallow water ports (with depth less than 6 meters) like Sumatra ports. To compensate their lack of capacity due to their small draught; their beam is bigger. Chapter 4: Layout requirements new port expansion 47

70 For that reason, Meulaboh port would be able to accommodate bigger vessels if its deep was larger. That means that the berths dimensions are designed to be adapted easily to ships (instead of barges) with greater capacity (larger draft and larger length) just carrying out dredging works. The facilities bearing capacity should be checked before carrying out this adaptation given that bigger vessels usually involve higher loads on the docks due to the required larger equipments and storage areas. Ferry vessels The ferries in the port of Meulaboh are small if they are compared with the models available in the market. Anyway it will not be a problem since the big ferries are not going to call in Meulaboh port for the time being Location and Layout Location of the port expansion The main characteristics the port location should fulfil are: Being in a sheltered water area; Being in an area with the required depth to accommodate the design vessel; and Land area surroundings should be able to receive the terminal facilities, so it is preferable that the area assigned for the terminal is not being urbanized. Port NORTH 4.2. Location of the expansion of the port. Chapter 4: Layout requirements new port expansion 48

71 The future port expansion is projected along the eastern coast of the southern part of the peninsula nearly at the same position where the Dermaga Ferry (or ferry jetty ) is shown in the figure below. The approximate position is North 04 o 6 49 and East 96 o The site that has been identified to be the most suitable location for the future ferry port facilities is located just north of the destroyed ferry jetty. The remains of the old ferry jetty are still present whereas certain parts are more or less intact and visible above the sea water while also various parts of the jetty, but especially of the trestle, are scattered on the seabed. This location has been chosen as the optimum site according to the criteria described in Planning and Design of Port and Marine Terminals (1983). The site is in a bay which means that is naturally protected from the swell from the ocean. The bay is just affected by a small range of wave direction that comes from the South-east. In addition, the cape on the North of the site protects the port from currents and sedimentation coming from North to South. For those reasons the harbour will just need a protection structure on the South to create a sheltered water area. Another advantage of that location is that the adjacent land to the water area is available since there are no buildings or infrastructures that restrict the area for the land facilities. In addition, in this location, the existing jetty built by the Singaporean Red Cross can be used as a part of the port. Destroyed Ferry Jetty SRC Existing Jetty 4.3. SRC Existing Jetty identified in the UNDP map. Chapter 4: Layout requirements new port expansion 49

72 The same location for the port was chosen by UNDP which provided the map above was provided with a proposed layout in which the existing jetty was forming part of the new port structure. The only technical information about the jetty is its deck dimensions which can be determined from the map and are 14mx145m. No further information about that jetty has been provided, but it is known it is well-conserved and can be used for that purpose. Also a site on the North of the cape has been considered but it has the following disadvantages compared with the previous one: This area has less depth than the one considered above; A river flows into this location. That fact would be an advantage if inland navigation by barges would be possible but it is not because the river is too shallow. Moreover, due to the river, probably sedimentation takes place. That fact would involve larger maintenance dredging works; and, The land area surrounding the water area is partially built so the terminal facilities would be conditioned by them in case those buildings are not removed. A location in the other part of the bay (in its East coast) has also been considered but it has two important disadvantages: Being further from Meulaboh city centre; and, Being more exposed to waves. That means that larger protection structures would be needed to protect the port facilities. A location outside the bay (in the coast exposed directly to the ocean conditions) has not been taken into account because it is considered disadvantageous compared with the possibility of building the port in a more sheltered area. In addition, sedimentation due to maritime sediments is considered in all the alternatives. Currents are assumed to come parallel to the coast from South to North given that they are produced by waves which their main direction is 170 N. The sediment transport is supposed to have the same direction. For that reason a location in the north of the bay will suffer much more sedimentation than a location in the cape since sediments are transported to the North where the currents velocity will decrease placing them. This problem added to the siltation due to the river sediments involve larger maintenance dredging works than the ones required by other locations. The main disadvantage of the preferred location has is the fact it is in a peninsula 400 meters wide. That means that the port is more exposed to the tsunami run up coming from both sides of the coast instead of just one. Anyway since the port facilities must be located on the coast, they would be affected by a new tsunami wherever they are. Further, Chapter 4: Layout requirements new port expansion 50

73 in this study (Chapter 7), mitigation and protection measures against this kind of phenomena have been taken into account. Once the site for the location has been chosen, it is important to identify the conditions for the most suitable place for the ferry and general cargo terminal separately Location and alignment of the ferry terminal In a ferry terminal, the transit of goods and passengers is done by ramps and gangways. The location of the terminal has to be protected from waves and currents. For that purpose, the location of the quay for mooring ferry vessels should preferable be in sheltered water. Another option is to orientate the ferry terminal so its position minimizes the influence of the swell. To determine the location of the ferry berth it is important to identify the position of the ramp. The vessels that will call Meulaboh port (Section of this study) have stern (or bow) ramp, not quarter or side ramp, so the vessels will need a quay with a platform that let the ship be loaded and unloaded by those sides. Given that swell waves are dominant throughout the year, the orientation of the ferry berth should be optimal to prevent problems and down time of the passenger terminal. Ships berthing in line with the wave direction will not be hindered much by waves, provided that the wave height is not too large. The situation becomes more critical when waves (especially long swell waves) hit the ship from the side since this causes the ship to roll. The orientation should be as much in line as possible with the expected dominant near-shore wave direction. Based on the data collected in Section 3 of this study it can be affirmed that the offshore wave direction (swell) is between 225 and 180 for about 90% of the time. In the nearshore area, near the ferry terminal, the wave direction appears to be between 160 and 170 N (see Location 2 in Table 3.5.) for average swell conditions, but also during more extreme conditions. The offshore waves refract towards the coastline and therefore have an average direction that is pointed more towards the coast than expected on basis of the wind direction. Based on the study so far it is advised to use an orientation between N for the ferry berth since that is expected to be the most frequently occurring near shore wave direction. In addition, maybe the swell conditions are not calm enough and some works are needed to protect the area where the ferry terminal is going to be placed. Fortunately, the prevailing wind come from the South-West and these winds are considered mild 80% of the time, so the best orientation for the ferry berth can be easily determined since just the wave direction has to be considered. Chapter 4: Layout requirements new port expansion 51

74 Location of the general cargo berths For the general cargo terminal, an expansion of the existing jetty can be used as a starting point structure, but it will have to be adapted to the general cargo terminal requirements which are briefly described in the following paragraphs. Despite the fact that loading and unloading of general cargo vessels can be executed in a location more exposed to the swell than the ferries, the location chosen for that terminal will be preferably in sheltered water to avoid downtime by weather conditions. In case no structures such as a breakwater are built in order to protect the berths from the swell, then the orientation of the quay will play an important role in the port design. In the same way the wave direction has been considered for the position of the ferry terminal, it can be taken into account for the general cargo berth. In the near-shore area, near the ferry terminal, the wave direction appears to be about 170 N (see Location 1 in Table 3.5.) for average swell conditions and also during extreme conditions. The prevailing wind direction is about 180ºN-220ºN, so it has a small angle with to the wave direction; in addition winds in the area are mild so their influence is small compared to the swell. Based on the considerations above it is recommended to use an angle of 170 N for the general cargo berth since that is expected to be the most frequently occurring near shore wave direction Functions of the existing port in the expansion plans Functions of the jetty The present facilities in Meulaboh port will also play a role within the port expansion plans. The existing jetty built by the Singaporean Red Cross will be part of the new layout. This jetty was initially built as a temporary commercial wharf to supply the maritime transport demand in Meulaboh area since the main wharf of the port had been badly damaged during the tsunami. It was also used to make the humanitarian help arrive to the region easily by sea. In this study of a masterplan, a commercial general cargo facility will be planned. This new facility will replace and improve the functions of the jetty which will involve an important boundary condition for the port layout. Chapter 4: Layout requirements new port expansion 52

75 Since the structure of the jetty is still well-conserved it can be used as starting point of the new development of the port. In this way, there is a reduction of costs caused by 2 reasons: Since the location considered optimum for the port is the one where the jetty is placed; no money is wasted on removing the existing structure; and, Given that an existing structure is used for the port, it has not to be built. So, taking into account the advantages that using the jetty involves, this structure is used as starting point to develop the new general cargo facility, which will be an extension of the existing temporary one. The function the existing jetty will have in the new layout will depend on the design of each layout. It can be used like an approach bridge to a new jetty or as it is. Since nowadays the jetty is considered a temporary structure, it should be checked that its bearing capacity is suitable for its function according to the new facilities that are going to be planned plan. If its bearing capacity is not enough it should be reinforced Removal, renewal and adaptation of some facilities In Meulaboh port, the unique structure that exists nowadays, both in the land area as well as in the water area, is the jetty built by the Singaporean Red Cross. As it has been argued in the section before, this jetty will be adapted and extended in order to be used in the construction of the new general cargo wharf. For safety reasons it is important to remove the remains of the old ferry jetty that are still present in the UNDP map (figure 4.3. of this study). Since there are not any more facilities in the port, no removal or renewal of them has to be done in order to reach the new layout of the port Number of berths and quay length Introduction In this section, the required number of berths and cranes to reach the required throughput is determined. The available data will be the starting point of the calculation of the number of berths and the berth length. Because the calculations are also based on a large number of assumptions, the method used to determine these dimensions does not have to be very precise. Chapter 4: Layout requirements new port expansion 53

76 Queuing theory has not been used to optimize the port facilities (find the optimum berth length given an acceptable waiting time) but it should be subject of a further study once data from the transport companies in the area, and more precisely in the port, have been obtained Number of berths General cargo The assumptions made in Section where general cargo throughput is estimated led to the next result: Throughput of Meulaboh port: 142,000 t/year Considering that not all the ships that operate in the port of Meulaboh are as big as the design vessel and they are not always completely loaded and unloaded in this port, the following operations will be carried out to determine the number of berths. The number of berths depends on the operating time. If the average call size is considered to be 750 ton, then one vessel would call the port every second day: t 1ship 142, 000 year 750t = 190 ships year That means that at least a ship will call in Meulaboh every second days. In this case, the operating time would be: Ship DWT = 37.5 hr Berth Ship gangs ton 2 10 Berth hr gang day 1shift 2shifts 8hours = 2.4 days So, in that case, more than one berth will be required since the operating time is longer than the interval between ships that call to the port, and the waiting time is becoming higher. Notice that the operating time is calculated for days which last 16 hours, this is due to there are just two shifts of 8 hours each one per day. In order to calculate in a more accurate way the number of berths, the method explained in Ligteringen (2007), will be used. This method consists of calculating the capacity of a berth. Chapter 4: Layout requirements new port expansion 54

77 The throughput of a GC berth is calculated from the average productivity of a gang, the number of gangs and the number of effective working hours in a year. in which: cb = p Nb tn mb c b = throughput of a berth (t/year) p = average gang productivity (t/year) N b = number of gangs per ship t n = number of operational hours per day m b = berth occupancy rate Adopting typical values for the parameters of the formula: p = 10 t/hour (for conventional general cargo breakbulk) N b = 2 (since the size of the ships that call in Meulaboh is small) t n = 8 hours/shift*2 shift/day*300 days/year = 4800 hours/year m b = 0.8 Notice that the berth occupancy rate is higher than the one accepted for other commodities like containerized cargo given that the waiting time for a general cargo vessel can be higher because her service time is much longer. The productivity of a berth is: c b = 76,800 t/year In order to supply the throughput calculated in Section , the required number of berths would be: C n = c s b 142,000 n = = 1.8 berths 76,800 According to this estimation, just 2 berths will be required to supply Meulaboh throughput. Since it has been supposed that 2 gangs are going to work in each berth and every gang has to be provided with a crane, a total of 4 cranes will be needed. Chapter 4: Layout requirements new port expansion 55

78 For the future expansion (with 426,000 t/year) 6 general cargo berths will be required, that will involve 12 gangs with their own cranes, in total 12 cranes. Ferry The number of berths of a ferry terminal depends on the number of vessels to be handled simultaneously. There will just be one arrival and one departure per day (1 call per day), that means one ship per day, then, only one berth is required for the ferry terminal. Sometimes the number of berths is determined by the large variation range of the tides since several docks are needed with different height is order to accommodate vessels depending on the sea conditions. In Meulaboh port, the tidal variation is less than 1.5 m so vessels by themselves correct these small changes in the sea level Berth length Knowing the number of berths required for each one of the commodities, the required berth length is determined. The berths lengths for general cargo and for ferry are calculated separately: General cargo According to Ligteringen (2007): For a single berth the quay length is determined by the length of the largest vessel frequently calling in the port (the design vessel), increased with 15 m extra length fore and aft for the mooring lines. For multiple berths in a straight continuous quay front the quay length is based on the average vessel length, as follows: L = 1.1 n ( L + 15) + 15 q This allows for a berthing gap of 15 m between the ships moored next to each other and an additional 15 m at the two outer berths. The factor 1.1 follows from a study carried out by UNCTAD. [ ] [ ] It is shown that with an average berth length equal to 110% of the average berth length+ berthing gap, no additional waiting time occurs. Considering that the number of berths required is 2 and they are planned to accommodate the design ship: L = ( ) + 15 = m q Chapter 4: Layout requirements new port expansion 56 s

79 Quay necessary quay length is m. If the berths are not planned in a line, then the minimum length each one has to have is: Lq = L + max 15 L = = 93m For separated berths the required length is 93 m. q Ferry The berth length of a ferry terminal does not have to cover all the full length of the ship, in fact, the quay length depends on the shape of the ferry berth, and the shape depends on the extent the berth is exposed to the swell. The necessary length for a ferry berth is the one required to accommodate the ramp for the vehicles and the gangway for the passengers. Since the ramp of the design ferry vessel is placed in her bow or stern (according to Section of this study) and the beam of this ship is 10.2 meters, the required quay length could be considered 15 meters. Despite the fact that the required quay length is short, it is important to notice that the ship has to be moored, for that reason mooring and breasting dolphins have to be placed beyond the quay length itself. Mooring dolphins must be at sufficient intermediate distance to moor the vessel properly. Also breasting dolphins must be suitably separated for the length of the ships. The function of mooring dolphins is to fasten the transverse mooring lines (breast and stern lines). These mooring lines have a different slope depending where they are placed. Mooring lines fore and aft, which restrain the lateral movements of the vessel, will have a maximum angle of 15º in the horizontal plane with the normal of the ship. Fulfilling these conditions is possible by having sufficient length of line. Therefore the mooring dolphins will be positioned outside the quay length and behind the breasting dolphins at a distance of about 10 meters. Breasting dolphins, which function is to absorb the kinetic energy of the berthing ship and fasten spring lines of the vessel, can be easily planned for small variations in the vessel size. In this case 2 breasting dolphins will be sufficient, each at about 1/3 L s from bow to stern; the spring lines (situated in the middle of the ship) the maximum angle is 10º with the longitudinal axis. Chapter 4: Layout requirements new port expansion 57

80 Another option can be a fixed or floating landing area that allows the jetty to be moored in the existing jetty avoiding using dolphins which are quite expensive. This possibility will be considered during the optimisation of the most promising alternative (Chapter 6) Quay width It is important to design the quay width in an efficient way; that means that this dimension has to be enough to supply an area able to let the equipments and goods travel without interruption. The width has to be reconsidered if the berth is going to be used from both sides. In case of a jetty, then the width should be twice the width needed to use just one side. If an expansion of the port is going to be carried out in the future, the possibility of using both sides must be considered when the berth is being built to avoid having to increase the width later. General Cargo For a general cargo berth, taking into account the equipment described in the previous section, a minimum width of 30 m is required to use it from one side (Ligteringen 2007). If the berth is going to be used from both sides (or to be able to adapt it easily for future expansions) then 50 m width will be necessary (not 60 m because the road for the transportation of goods can be placed in the middle of the jetty and be used by the both quays) Width distribution for a jetty of 50 m of width designed to be used from both sides. Chapter 4: Layout requirements new port expansion 58

81 4.5. Width distribution for a jetty of 30 m of width designed to be used just from one side. Ferry The width of a ferry berth must allow for the separate access for passengers and vehicles and also space enough for the required manoeuvres that take place while the ship is being loaded and unloaded. For that purposes, a width of 15 m will be sufficient Summary The dimensions estimated for the berths and quays for Meulaboh port are collected in the following table: General Cargo Terminal Ferry Terminal Number of Berths 2 1 Number of Gangs and Derricks 2*2 - Quay Length (m) Table 4.4. Summary of characteristics of the general cargo and the ferry berths Terminal area Once the number of berths and the quay length have been determined, it is the time to design the terminal area and its facilities General cargo Usually the loading and unloading capacities exceed the rate at which goods can be delivered or removed from the port so it is necessary to plan a terminal for this kind of commodities. Chapter 4: Layout requirements new port expansion 59

82 The terminal logistics consist of 4 steps: transport ship-quay, transport quay-transit shed, storage and hinterland connections. These 4 parts of the general cargo terminal are going to be planned according to the characteristics of Meulaboh port. Transport ship-quay The loading and unloading operation is going to be carried out by derricks (see Section 4.8.). More precisely 2 small mobile cranes on pneumatic tyres are installed in the every dock. That means 4 cranes in the port. Transport quay- transit storage Goods will be transported by a combination of forklift trucks (FLT) and tractor + trailer since the distance they are going to travel is over 100 m. Per gang at the quay (2 in our case) 2 FLTs, 2 tractors, and 4 trailers will be needed. Finally, the required equipment is: Number of Gangs/Berth Equipment/Gang Total Berths FLT Tractor Trailer Table 4.5. Summary of equipment for the general cargo terminal. Storage It is of vital importance to plan the storage area with adequate dimensions in order to have enough place for the all the goods that stay in the port for a period of time. The method used to calculate the area required is the same used to estimate the port throughput in Section of this study. O ts = f1 f 2 Cts td m h ρ 365 ts in which the values assumed for the parameters are also the ones adopted in that section: O ts = required floor area for a transit shed in meters C ts = t/year (assuming all the goods stay in the storage for a while); t d = 15 days; ρ = 0.6 t/m 3 ; h = 2; f 1 = 1.5; f 2 = 1.2; and, m ts = 0.7. Obtaining a required floor area for transit shed: Chapter 4: Layout requirements new port expansion 60

83 O ts = m 2 This step could be ignored since the result obtained is the assumption it has been started from. Hinterland connections Trucks are allowed inside the storage area. Internal roads communicate the transit shed and warehouses with the outside part of the port. There is no hinterland transportation with barges and rail. The terminal also has to be provided with warehouses, truck park, car park, offices and gates Ferry The most characteristic element of a ferry terminal is the ramp which connects the vessel with the landing area. It also needs to have mooring dolphins and a fendering system that allows a quick berthing and unberthing manoeuvre. The layout of the terminal depends on the wave condition of the location. Meulaboh port is located in an area exposed to waves since there is no enclosed basin for the harbour. Then, a sheltered area should be created for the ferry berth and reduce the movements of the vessel during loading and unloading. It is important to consider that in a ferry terminal the road traffic and the passengers flow must be separated, so, at least, two the different ways to access the vessel have to be planned (see jetty cross sections in Chapter 7). These ways have to take into account the characteristic of the flow which is going to use them. The roads and the parking area inside the terminal need to have enough capacity for a smooth flow of vehicles considering space kept back for parking area. These facilities will be conditioned by the number of berths (in this case is just one), the capacity of the ferries and the geometry of the land area. The terminal also has to be provided with a building for passengers. It needs to accommodate facilities like tickets offices, a café or a restaurant, waiting areas, etc. This building will also serve as a link between the terminal and the ship since passengers will embark and disembark from it. Ramp The ramp is an important part of the ferry terminal since it determines the berth. At the same time, the ramp is also determined by the vessel size, tidal variation and the difference in elevation of the fully loaded and the unloaded vessel. Chapter 4: Layout requirements new port expansion 61

84 Basically, depending on the maximum tidal variation, two kinds of ramps can be distinguished. In the next section (Point ) the differences in water levels due to tides are shown Elevation of landing area and ship ramp. (Ligteringen (2007)). The largest variation due to the tide is 1.4 m (see Section ), then the required type of ramp allows a fixed landing area with a maximum slope of 1:8. So, given that the design ship is quite small and can be assumed that it reaches in loaded condition between 0.25 m and 1.75 m above the water level, a ramp with the features of the picture above can be used Future expansion According to one of the UNDP requirements 5 hectares have to be kept back for the future expansion of the terminal area in order to adapt the port to new requirements. Also available water areas for the port expansion must be taken into account in order to place the new berths built to supply the expected increasing demand Elevation levels Design water level The design water level is needed for the calculation of the land level and the breakwater design. The 100-year design water level (based on the extreme conditions) in the port of Meulaboh is computed by adding up the following components: - high tide (HAT) - wind set up Chapter 4: Layout requirements new port expansion 62

85 - storm surge - wave set up MASTERPLAN FOR THE PORT OF MEULABOH; EXPANSION PROJECT, Msc Thesis According to Witteveen+Bos report (2006), the following results are obtained. Tidal levels In this note LAT is used as the reference level. Tidal levels are estimated on basis of a survey that was executed in the framework of this project. The table below shows the tidal range. Level m+cd HAT Highest Astronomical Tide (estimated, to be confirmed) MSL Mean Sea Level LAT (=CD) Lowest Astronomical Tide Table 4.6. Water levels (Normal Wave Climate). LAT is used as the reference level to indicate the other water levels. Chart Datum= LAT Since it has a large influence en the design water level, for further studies, it is important to check that the HAT is 1.4 m. Wind set up The foreshore of Meulaboh is not very deep. From the coastline to the 100 m depth contour is approximately 45 km. In this zone wind set up occurs during severe winds from the south-west. The effective fetch for wind set up is derived from the observed offshore wave heights. It is estimated that the effective fetch is about 90 km Wind set up computation. (Witteveen+Bos report (2006)). A 100 year return period wind speed of 27 m/s (directional) in combination with a fetch of 90 km and a water depth of 100 m, and a shallow near shore zone of 7.5 m deep and 5.0 km wide, results in a total wind set up of 0.3 m. Chapter 4: Layout requirements new port expansion 63

86 Storm surge Storm surge is the rise of water level due to a storm depression. The decline in air pressure causes the mean water level to rise. Due to the absence of strong storm depressions in this area the storm surge is negligible. The storm surge is calculated as: za = 0.01 (1013 pa ) in which: z a = static rise of MSL; p a = atmospheric pressure at sea level. Knowing that the atmospheric pressure at sea level is mb (Section of this study), the value of the static rise of MSL is: z a = m. Notice that the magnitude of the water elevation due to a storm surge is not relevant. Wave set up Wave set up was computed by the SWAN model. Tables A.2.4., A.2.5. and A.2.6. show the results of these computations. The maximum wave set up equals 0.1m. Design water level With the previous calculation, the 100-year return period design water level can be found: - HAT = 1.4 m (estimated); - wind set up = 0.3 m; - storm surge = m; and, - wave set up = 0.1 m. The design water level for a 100-year return period is considered to be +1.9 m LAT. It is also important to consider the operational conditions near the quay since they will occur most of the time. The design water level for average swell conditions is +0.7 m LAT. This water level has been obtained directly form SWAN simulations (Witteveen+Bos report (2006)) Design land level The design land level for the port is based on overtopping criteria. Overtopping is the amount of water that enters the quay or overtops an embankment during a storm. Depending on how well protected quay or embankment is a certain amount of overtopping can be allowed. In order to prevent too much water on the port area, the land level should be sufficiently high. The wave conditions near the embankment are: Chapter 4: Layout requirements new port expansion 64

87 Extreme Conditions (120 N) Average Swell Conditions Design water level (m + LAT) Total water depth (m) Wave height. H s (m) Wave period. T m-1.0 (s) Table 4.7. Embankment design conditions. (Witteveen+Bos report (2006)). It is further assumed that: - 10 l/s/m overtopping is acceptable for the quay wall or embankment - the embankment is constructed of rock - angle of wave incidence is 45 (conservative assumption, in reality probably larger) Notice that with this overtopping ratio no person will be able to stay near the quay, although it is considered because this quantity of water will not damage the facilities. This criterion is chosen in that way because the design land level is based on the extreme conditions to avoid to be damaged by them but not to operate while they are occurring. Under these assumptions, the recommended port / reclamation level based on the extreme conditions are: 1:2 slope +4.0m LAT 1:3 slope +3.8m LAT Obviously, hydraulic structures are necessary in order to reduce the wave height near the quay. If some structures are built in order to create sheltered water, like a breakwater, then the wave height will decrease considerably. Extreme Conditions (120 N) Operational Conditions Design water level (m + LAT) Total water depth (m) Wave height. H s (m) Wave period. T m-1.0 (s) Table 4.8. Embankment design conditions considering protection structures. It can be considered that the waves in the protected area reach 0.8 m of height, which is an acceptable height to operate in a port. In that case, the design land level can be reduced until about +2.5 m LAT. This land level is better for the ships because otherwise the level difference between land and water is too large. This new average wave height considered in the basin will depend on the length of the protection structure but also on its crest level and its permeability. Chapter 4: Layout requirements new port expansion 65

88 Nowadays, the present land level of the port is between 1.5 and 2 m so it should be increased in order to reach the required one Hydraulic facilities level Quay walls The quay wall should be high enough to avoid damage due to wave overtopping and to be operative most of the time. In addition, they have to have continuity from the landside so, under the same assumptions considered for the design land level; their height will have a +2.5 m LAT. Note: There is not any formula in the Overtopping Manual (2007), to calculate the overtopping in jetties (open berth quay) since no run-up takes place because water can flow under the dock. For that reason the jetty level is considered separately. Jetty level The jetty level is not based on the overtopping but on the wave slamming. It has to be located over the maximum water level for the design storm added to the wave height. In order to avoid the jetty level to be too high just a percentage of the wave height for the Design Extreme Wave Climate will be used for the calculations. In this case, the 70% of the wave height will be considered. The required jetty level is: 3m Jettylevel = 1.9m + 70% = 2.95m 2 To clarify this operation the situation is represented in the figure below Required jetty level according to the wave slamming According to the calculations carried out in this section, the required jetty level will be +3.0 m LAT. Chapter 4: Layout requirements new port expansion 66

89 Notice that to reach this level; the approach bridge will have a gentle slope given that the land level is just +2.5 m LAT. The different of height is 0.5 m and the distance between the jetty and the coastline is about 160 m, so the slope will be about 3 which is considered adequate for the equipments that have to travel along the bridge Water areas in the port All the knowledge required to design the water areas of Meulaboh port has been obtained from the book Ligteringen (2007). Other sources used are referenced in their respective sections. This book collects points from PIANC guides that will also be used in the calculation of the water areas Access channel The access channel links the harbour with the open sea. The location of this channel will have an effect on the wave, current and wind conditions met by the ships in the channel. Given that Meulaboh s wave climate a properly lined out access channel remains important. In addition, the size of the channel determines the quantity of dredged material. In the case of Meulaboh port, this is of minor importance since the access channel has not to be very long either very depth. Inside the port, a channel with small width will be also dredged. Alignment The following (sometimes conflicting) requirements apply to the alignment of an approach channel: The shortest possible length taking into account wave, wind and current conditions; Minimum cross-currents and cross-wind; Small angle with dominant wave direction; and, Minimise number of bends and avoid bends close to the port entrance. The length of straight channel needed before the actual entrance depends on current, wave and wind conditions. [ ] As long as the ships have no tug assistance (which is usually the case for the part of the approach channel outside the breakwaters) the radius of bends depends on the manoeuvrability of the design ship. Chapter 4: Layout requirements new port expansion 67

90 Taking into account these recommendations, the entrance channel of Meulaboh port will be as straight as possible and South-west orientated since this is the main wind and wave direction and it is preferably to be a small angle between the access channel and the prevailing direction (about 170º, see Table 3.5.), avoiding lying perpendicular. There is no preferred alignment of the access channel concerning the soil and dredgability of the soil. Channel depth The depth of the approach channels depends on a number of factors (see figure below): Draught of the design ship, i.e. the ship with the largest draught, which may enter the port fully loaded (larger ships must be lightered before they can enter); Other ship- related factors such as squat (sinkage due to the ship s speed) and trim (unevenness keel due to loading conditions) and the vertical response to waves; Water level, mostly related to tidal levels. But very long waves and tsunami waves must be taken into account when they occur frequently. Channel bottom factors, including the variation in the dredged level, the effects of re-siltation after maintenance dredging Under keel clearance factors. (Ligteringen (2007)). Chapter 4: Layout requirements new port expansion 68

91 In a preliminary assessment of the channel depth (in the absence of reliable information on waves and ship response) all these factors may be lumped together into one depth / draught ratio taken as 1.1 in sheltered water, 1.3 in waves up to one meter height and 1.5 in higher waves. While such high values may be justified for large ships in long waves (higher response), in North Sea conditions they will lead to considerable over design. A better method is to determine the various factors formula separately and to improve the calculation as more reliable data come available. In formula: in which: d D T + s + r + m = max d = guaranteed depth (with respect to a specified reference level); D = draught design ship; T = tidal elevation above reference level, below which no entrance is allowed; s max = maximum sinkage (fore or alt) due to squat and trim; r = vertical motion due to wave response; and, m = remaining safety margin or net under keel clearance. In this case the available data is the following one: The largest draught is conditioned by the general cargo design vessel. This vessel has a draught of about 4.9 m whereas the ferries just have a draught of 4 m. The s max and r values have been calculated according to Approach Channels, A Guide for Design (PIANC, 1997), and the results obtained are: CBS Vk s max = = 0.20 m 30 For the calculation of S max it has been considered that the velocity of the ships inside the port is reduced until 4 knots. r = H s 2 = 0.85 m Because the operational H s is considered to be about 1.7 m in the port area. In addition the remaining safety margin (m) adopted will be 0.5 m according to Ligteringen (2007). and, working out the value of d the result obtained is: d = = 6.55 m respect to the Lowest Astronomical Tide (LAT) level. Chapter 4: Layout requirements new port expansion 69

92 This value will also be considered for the general cargo basin although it could be reduced because the basin area is sheltered and the maximum wave height allowed there is 1 m (see Section ). The required depth for the general cargo basin would be:\ r = H s 2 = 0.5 m d = = 6.20 m Since the difference is just 30 cm, in order to simplify the dredging works it will be considered that the depth is the same as the channel depth. Channel width Given that the importance of Meulaboh port is just regional and their traffic intensity is relatively small. Based on that reason the channel will be just a one-way channel. The PIANC Working Group has developed a method for concept design which accounts aspects like the sinusoidal track a sailing ship makes, the effects on the wind, currents and waves, the kind of channel bank and the type of cargo. This method, collected in Approach Channels, A Guide for a Design (PIANC, 1997), is the following one: For straight sections the channel width is described by the following equation: n = WBM + i=1 W W + W + W i Br Bg The numerical values of each of the parameters are shown in the tables below, which have been obtained from the PIANC report mentioned above. Table 4.9. Additional widths for bank clearance (PIANC, (1997)). Chapter 4: Layout requirements new port expansion 70

93 Table Additional widths for straight channel sections (PIANC, (1997)). Table Influence of basic manoeuvring lane in channel width (PIANC, (1997)). In which the parameters T is the draft. Replacing the parameters by their numerical value according to the data collected in the Section 4 of this chapter and using the medium values for lacks of information: W = 1.5*B + (0.0*B + 0.0*B + 0.2*B + 0.0*B + 1.0*B + 0.2*B + 0.1*B + 0.1*B+ 0.5*B) + 2*0.5*B W = 4.3*B Chapter 4: Layout requirements new port expansion 71

94 Knowing the value of B of the design ship (it is m), the result of the width required is: W = m If the access channel to the ferry berth is a different one, it does not have to be as wide as the one for general cargo vessels because the breadth (B) of the design ferry is smaller (just 10.2m); so the necessary width would be: W = 43.8 m The width required inside the sheltered water area of the port, according to the values of the previous tables, will be smaller than the one calculated above. W = 1.5*B + (0.0*B + 0.0*B + 0.1*B + 0.0*B + 0.0*B + 0.2*B + 0.1*B + 0.2*B+ 0.4*B) + 2*0.5*B W = 3.6*B Then for the general cargo vessel the minimum width of the access channel in sheltered water will be: And for ferries: W = 87.8 m W = 36.7 m Channel length The length of the approach channel depends on the stopping distance of the vessels. The ships must be able to stop in a safe way along the access channel. The stopping distance depends is affected by: The size of the vessel and the relation propulsive power-distance (=mass) The speed at which the vessel enters the port The stopping procedure As concerns size, the radio propulsive power-mass of the vessel is inversely proportional to the ship size. In consequence, the power available for decelerating (or accelerating) decreases in a relative sense with the ship size. [ ] This means that the distance s, required for stopping from a give speed, expressed as a function of the ship s length L, varies considerably and increases and decreases with increasing ship size. For example, a 10,000 dwt general cargo vessel is able to stop from a cruising speed of 16 knots in a minimum distance of about 5 to 7 L, [ ] Chapter 4: Layout requirements new port expansion 72

95 Taking into account the previous considerations; since the ships that will call Meulaboh are not very big (5,000 DWT), if its approaching speed is considered 5kn, 2L of channel length will be enough. Channel length = 2L = = 153 m. This length is just an approximation because the length of the channel is the one that has to be dredged to link the turning area with the open sea, so it will depend on the bathymetry Harbour basin Berth Basin Depth (m) General cargo 6.55 Ferry 5.20 Table Basins depth. For general cargo, since the turning areas are placed in front of the G.C basins the required depth for those basins will be the same as the turning circles. The ferry basin depth is calculated with the same formula the approach channel depth was calculated but considering the ferry draught and the maximum wave height allowed in this area: 0.8 m (see Section ). r = H s 2 = 0.4 m d = = 5.20 m Obtained the result collected in the table above. The basins of the port of Meulaboh are going to be designed as non-enclosed basins. Turning areas The criterion to be considered is that the width of the turning basin should at least be 2*L s, this is specially important when there is no tug assistance Then, given that the Length Over All (LOA) of the most restrictive design vessel (the general cargo vessel) is 76.5 m, the minimum turning area diameter should be: W basin = 2*L s = 2*76.5 = 153 m Chapter 4: Layout requirements new port expansion 73

96 Even for non-enclosed areas it is important to consider the turning areas in the layout since they determine the minimum distance to other structures as well as the required dredging works. Maximum wave height in basin According to (Coastal and Port Engineering (1987)), it is important to determine the maximum wave height in the water area of the port to determine the optimum design of the protection structures layout by considering the motions of moored ships and their impact on (un)loading operations and to determine the design land level. Considering the operational limits included in Criteria for Movements of Moored Ships in Harbours (PIANC, 1995): Table Recommended motion criteria for safe working conditions, (PIANC, (1995)). The maximum wave height accepted in the ferry quays is 0.8 m given that 0.8 m is the maximum heave recommended for ferries with bow/stern ramp. For the same reason, for general cargo vessel the maximum wave height is 1.0 m. Then the maximum weight height accepted in the quays for safe working conditions is 0.8 m. The maximum wave height in the turning areas can be considered higher since the boats are not moored and they do not have to be handled, it is just a manoeuvring area. Port basin resonance In case the period of the incident waves equals or approximates the natural period of oscillation of a harbour basin, resonance phenomena can be expected. This may lead to Chapter 4: Layout requirements new port expansion 74

97 locally much greater wave heights and, consequently, to more severe problems for ships and berths. If a harbour basin has a more or less uniform depth and rectangular shape, the natural periods of oscillation T n are as follows: Closed basins T n 2 LB 1 =, with n= 1, 2... n gd Open basins T n 4 LB 1 =, with n= 1, 2 (1 + 2 n) gd The closed basin condition would apply to basins with a very narrow entrance and to transverse oscillations. In which: L B = is the length of the basin; g = is the acceleration of the gravity force; D = depth of the basin Since these formulas are for very specific shapes of basins they give an approximation of the natural periods of the basins. If the basin of Meulaboh port is considered to be an open rectangular basin with L B = 210 m and D = 7.35 m, then, its main (n=1) natural period will be: Tn = = 33s ( ) The occurrence of long waves with periods from 30 to 300s and long peak period swell between 10 and 16s, can occur along the borders of oceans, location where Meulaboh port is (notice that the T p in the area varies from 9 to 15), causing resonance. During the design of the harbour basin it will be taken into account that avoiding regular shapes in the design, basin resonance can be avoided Seismic requirements According to Section 3.5. of this study the following seismic considerations have to be taken into account. Chapter 4: Layout requirements new port expansion 75

98 A peak ground acceleration factor of 0.25*g shall be applied for both the marine structures and the buildings and utilities. According to Witteveen+Bos report (2006), in addition to the peak ground acceleration, the coefficient of importance shall be selected. For a wharf a factor of 1.2 will be applied. For all other structures a coefficient of importance of 1.0 will be applied. For buildings 50% reduction of all design live load is prescribed. For the berthing facility 25% of the uniformly distributed live load under the normal condition will be applied since the average load will be significantly lower than the design load for the ultimate limit state. The loads due to handling equipment (concentrated load) on the berthing facility shall not be reduced Summary The main conclusions resulted from the analysis of the present situation of the port and the hydraulic and geotechnical conditions are collected in this section. The port will be located where the existing jetty (built by the Singaporean Red Cross) is placed. The preferable orientation of the berths will be 170ºN, although other orientations are possible. The existing jetty will be used as a part of the new layout of Meulaboh port. The old jetty destroyed by the tsunami must be removed. Two general cargo berths are needed to supply the assumed throughputs. Its total length when they are in a line is 216 m; if they are separated, the minimum length for each one is 91.5 m. Basins depth: Berth Basin Depth (m) General cargo 6.55 Ferry 5.20 Table Basins depth summary table. Just 1 ferry berth is needed. The required length for the ferry berth is about 15 m. Chapter 4: Layout requirements new port expansion 76

99 The general cargo width for a berth used just from one side is 30 m. If the berth wants to be used from both sides, the required width is 50 m. The ferry required width is about 15 m. General Cargo Terminal Ferry Terminal Number of Berths 2 1 Number of Gangs and Derricks 2*2 - Quay Length (m) Quay width (m) Berths in a line Berths separated 2* side used 30 Both sides used Table Berth dimensions summary table. The terminal area will occupy 2.5 hectares (another 5 hectares will be keep back for a future expansion) of which 12,500 m 2 are planned for storage areas. A protection structure is required in order to create a sheltered water area. The design water level considered is +0.7 m above LAT. The design land level considered in the layouts will be +2.5 m LAT. The design quay level will be +3.0 m LAT. The approach channel characteristics are collected in the table above: Alignment 170º N Depth m LAT m Width m Length 153 m Table Approach channel summary table. The minimum diameter required for the non-sheltered turning areas is 153 m. The maximum wave height at quay according to operational limits is 0.8 m for the ferry basin and 1 m for the general cargo basin. Chapter 4: Layout requirements new port expansion 77

100 Chapter 4: Layout requirements new port expansion 78

101 5. New harbour layout 5.1. Introduction One of the objectives of this masterplan is to develop a favourable layout for the expansion of the port of Meulaboh. In this section several new harbour layouts alternatives will be proposed and discussed. The alternatives are based on the information collected in the previous chapters and all of them fulfil the layout requirements collected in Chapter 4 which are considered minimum requirements. First of all general considerations are described in order to show different kinds of layouts. Then, a reduced number of layouts will be generated and described. Since the main criteria for the development of the layouts will be geometrical considerations, they will be described carefully in this chapter. The layouts discussed in this chapter are shown on larger scale in Annex 3 of this study Layout requirements The minimum layout requirements that were set in the previous and will be fulfilled by all the alternatives proposed are summarized in the following table. General cargo berths Ferry berth Number 2 Length At one line 216 m Separated 93 m Width From 1 side 30 m From 2 sides 50 m Level Quay +2.5 m LAT Jetty m LAT Basin depth m LAT Alignment 170 N Length 15 m Width 15 m Level Same as GC berth Basin depth m LAT Alignment 170 N Chapter 5: New harbour layouts 79

102 Approach channel Alignment 170 N Length 153 m Width m Depth m LAT Turning area diameter 153 m Max. wave height basins GC 1 m Ferry 0.8 m Table 5.1. Layout requirements summary General considerations First of all, a general layout has to be considered. Different options can be developed. The following ones are those that will be taken into account during this study: Placing the quays along the coast; and, Placing the quays in a jetty. The possibility of building the general cargo berth and the ferry berth together or separated has to be considered. If the berths are placed separately, then it is possible to combine the options above, for example, ferry berths placed in a jetty and general cargo berths in the coastline or vice versa. It is important to take into account the construction of hydraulic structures in order to provide wave protection to the port. Taking into account the main wave direction in the area where the port is located, studied in Chapter 3 of this study, the hydraulic structure must protect the port facilities from swell with longer wave length, that comes from the South-East (approximately 170ºN), which the direction with higher waves; the waves from other directions have a very small influence on the area. For that reason the breakwater will be place on the south of the port. The structure considered to create sheltered water will be a breakwater or a caisson dike. According to Planning and design of Ports and Marine Terminals (1983), given that the significant wave height of the design storm (H s ) is about 3 m and the water depth (D) is less than 20 m, then, the best solution is a Sloping Face Breakwater. In addition, this kind of breakwaters can be considered more economical than caisson ones and does not need further studies to know how to deal with the reflection. Once the type of breakwater has been chosen, then it is important to determine the shape and characteristics it is going to have. Generally, they can be differentiated in two main kinds: Land connected; or, Separated from the land. Chapter 5: New harbour layouts 80

103 The length of the structure will depend on the distance existing between that structure and the water area that is protected as well as the size of this area. The breakwater length will be calculated using the diffraction theory collected in the Shore Protection Manual (1984). The protected area will include the mooring area and the turning area (the breakwater should be far enough to allow ships manoeuvre). In fact, the breakwaters shown in the layouts are just a draft to show the approximated position. Once the most promising alternative has been chosen, then the hydraulic structure will be calculated and designed, determining its dimensions and the materials used to build it. Anyway some simple criteria will be taking into account to determine its length and its location in the layouts. These first considerations about the breakwater design are: The distance between the breakwater and the quays should be enough to allow the ships stop. Since there is no tug assistance in this port, it is important that the area where the vessels have to stop is sheltered (behind the protection structures), to avoid waves hinder this task. The turning areas must be protected from waves because the ships manoeuvres will be carried out in this area. So the breakwater has to be long enough to protect the quays, but also their turning circles. It is considered that the sheltered area by a breakwater is not all the area behind the structure, the diffraction phenomenon will be taken into account applying the diffraction diagrams by Wiegel (1962) included in the Shore Protection Manual (1984). So the length of the breakwater will be determined by the size of the area that have to be protected and the maximum wave height allowed inside these areas. Then simple calculations are carried out for each alternative in order to have a preliminary sketch for the layouts included in this chapter. Once the hydraulic structure has been designed, the access channel must be determined. Its orientation must be as parallel as possible to the wave direction. The dimensions (width, depth and length) of the approach channel were determined in the layout requirements (Chapter 4). The existing jetty will have different functions depending on the alternative. The orientation of the different berths was described in Section 4.6. of this report. Another important point is to consider the possibilities of a future expansion. Available land and water areas that could be used to built new facilities and structures for the port are also part of the design of the alternatives since they are a requirement. The areas kept back with that purpose will also be indicated in the layouts. Chapter 5: New harbour layouts 81

104 The design of the terminal area is indicative. All the alternatives have 2.5 hectares for the terminal area, where storages, park areas, roads and building are placed; and 5 hectares more kept back for a future expansion. The designs of the different alternatives vary because they have to be adapted to the water facilities, but all of them consist of in the same elements with approximately the same size. The terminal area, as well as the water area, will be designed in detail in further chapters for the alternative chosen as the most promising one. In this chapter no detailed measurements are included but they are shown in the layouts of Annex 3 and in Chapter Preliminary calculations for the breakwater Breakwater width The breakwater section depends basically on the depth and on the significant wave height considered for the breakwater design. The breakwater have to be able to stand the design storm for a 100 years return period, that means that the structure will be designed according to the Extreme Wave Climate (Hs=3 m and T=8.5 s). Since this is just a preliminary design to include the breakwater in the layouts, the way of calculating the section will be reduced to the depth of the sea bottom. Further calculations in order to design the breakwater will be carried out later (Annex 6). For the preliminary design of the breakwater layouts, it is assumed a sloping face breakwater without superstructure. The side slopes considered for those preliminary designs will be 1:2, which means that for each meter of depth 2 meters of width are required. Setting a crest width of about 5 meters and assuming that the required crest level will be reached by the superstructure the sketch would be the following one Sketch to determine the breakwater width. Chapter 5: New harbour layouts 82

105 Then the equation to determine its width would be: Breakwater width = (2 d) Where d, as it can observed in the sketch is the depth. According to that formula the extreme of the breakwater which is the wider part because it is in deeper water (about 9 m) would be 41 m. Notice that the width varies with the depth of the water where the breakwater is placed. This effect is also included in the layouts considering a linear variation. No freeboard has been considered Breakwater length The magnitude of the operational down time resulting from inclement wave conditions in harbours as well as the manoeuvring safety in the water areas depends on the breakwater length providing shelter. For that reason, the breakwater length is based on the Normal Wave Climate (Operational conditions: Hs=1.7 m and T=14.9 s) Although the wave height behind the breakwater also depends on the reflection, transmission and overtopping, it is considered, for this preliminary design, this wave height is just due to the diffraction that takes place in the breakwater extreme. In order to determine an approximate length for the breakwater the diffraction diagrams included in the Shore Protection Manual (1984) for each one of the layouts. For these calculations a maximum wave height of 0.8 m (H) will be assumed for the sheltered area (according to Section ); and taking into account that the significant wave height is 1.7 m (H 1 ), the coefficient K, due to its definition, is: H K ' = =0.47. H1 When the most restrictive point belong to the general cargo basin (like in Layout 4), then the maximum wave height considered for the breakwater length is 1 m (H) obtaining: H K ' = =0.58. H 1 Since the breakwater is going to be planned perpendicular to the main wave direction (which has already been affected by refraction, reflection and breaking phenomena by the software SWAN) the diagram which is going to be used is the one for 90º of direction of wave approach (Figure 2-33 of the Shore Protection Manual). Chapter 5: New harbour layouts 83

106 Graph 5.1. Wave diffraction diagram- 90º wave angle, Shore Protection Manual. With this diagram the breakwater length for the different layouts has been determined. The obtained results are shown in the layouts (Annex 3) 5.5. Layouts The following layouts are based on the information included in Chapter 4 of this study where the requirements for the port expansion are collected. The main characteristics of the layouts are shown in the table below. Type of breakwater Location of the quay Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5 LC LC SB LC SB Coastline Jetty Jetty Jetty Jetty Table 5.2. Layouts classification according to their main characteristics. Chapter 5: New harbour layouts 84

107 Where: LC = Land connected breakwater; and, SB = Single breakwater (non-connected). Note: In this chapter, the layouts presented are simplified since the big amount of information that they contain would make them illegible in this size. Complete layouts (including legends, text, scales and dimensions) are included in Annex 3. Note 2: The North in these layouts is oriented towards the top of the page and its dimensions are in mm Alternative 1 Alternative 1 consists of a quay placed at the coastline. Another one is perpendicular to the first one consisting of an extension of the existing jetty. The ferry berth is placed on the North of the general cargo berth built on the jetty. It is obvious that the hydraulic structure must be land connected since the port facilities are placed on the coast. Then, in order to shelter the port water area a land connected breakwater will be built on the south of the quays. This kind of breakwater is advantageous because it can be built by land based equipments. This alternative has the advantage that less works to build the quay are needed. But, on the other hand, the amount of material dredged from the sea bottom in the port area would be larger because the current depth next to the coastline (about 1 m) must be increased to achieve 6.55 m according to the calculations carried out in Section This alternative would also require more dredging maintenance works. Notice that the berths designed, of which length are 152 m and 126 m, are larger than the one needed to accommodate the design vessel (about 108 m per berth), that is possible because the investment required to build a larger berth when it is placed on the coast is very small compared to the one required to build a larger jetty. The turning area links the general cargo and ferry basins which are separated. The approach channel (which leads to the turning circle) has the same orientation the waves have. Given that the bathymetry of the area, the approach channel does not have to be dredge to reach the required depth. Just the Northwest part of the turning area needs dredging works which will depend on the expansion layout. Both, the general cargo basin as well as the ferry basin will be dredged to achieve their respective depths. Chapter 5: New harbour layouts 85

108 On the North of the planned facilities, there is a sheltered area where an extension of the water structures could be carried out in the future if it was necessary after carrying out the required dredging works. Both, a quay placed in a jetty as well as one placed at the coastline could be possible. This area could also be used to place fishing facilities. For the terminal extension a 5 hectares area has been kept back just behind the planned land facilities. This alternative, which is the only one of which quay is placed on the shoreline, in addition of fulfilling the minimum requirements collected in Chapter 4, reduces the water area occupied by the port facilities and maximizes the available area on the North of the port for future expansions. Another advantage this alternative has, compared to the others, is a higher effectiveness of the handling facilities due to its shorter transport lines and its downtime due to hydraulic effects is less because it is in shallower water. Berths Description At the coastline Length 152 m +126 m Breakwater Description Land-connected Length 260 m Dredging works 200,000 m 3 Available water area for future expansions 115,000 m 2 Table 5.3. Summary of the main characteristics of Alternative 1. A simplification of the layout is included in the next pages. Chapter 5: New harbour layouts 86

109 5.2. Simplified layout of the Alternative 1. WATER AREA. Chapter 5: New harbour layouts 87

110 5.3. Simplified layout of the Alternative 1. TERMINAL AREA AND QUAYS. Chapter 5: New harbour layouts 88

111 Alternative 2 Alternative 2 consist of one jetty that is built using the existing one as approaching. At this jetty head the berths for general cargo and ferry are placed. The general cargo berths are built in one line, that means that larger ships can be accommodate easily using both berths simultaneously. The ferry berth is placed also in the same line as the general cargo berths. The hydraulic structure is a land connected breakwater on the south of the jetty like in the previous alternative but larger because in this case the water port facilities that have to be protected are placed further from the coast. The approach channel is oriented according to the main wave direction and the turning area is placed just in front of the general cargo berths. Dredging works are just required in the Northwest part of the turning circle and in the general cargo and ferry basins. In this alternative, two different sheltered areas can be recognized. One is placed between the breakwater and the jetty corridor and the other one is on the North of the jetty. The first area could be used to moor some small ships used in the port like tug boats or salvage vessels. The second area, much bigger than the previous one is suitable for a future expansion of the water facilities of the port (another new jetty could be located there) or to place the fishing facilities. Both areas would need dredging works before using them. The main advantage of this alternative is that since the quay is located in a jetty far from the coast less dredging works needed to reach the necessary depth. In addition of cost reduction, this alternative can be considered to have higher adaptability for larger vessels. Berths Description On a T-jetty Length 216 m Breakwater Description Land-connected Length 297 m Dredging works 23,000 m 3 Available water area for future expansions 86,000 m 2 Table 5.4. Summary of the main characteristics of Alternative 2. Simplified layouts are included in the following pages. Chapter 5: New harbour layouts 89

112 5.4. Simplified layout of the Alternative 2. WATER AREA. Chapter 5: New harbour layouts 90

113 5.5. Simplified layout of the Alternative 2. TERMINAL AREA AND JETTY. Chapter 5: New harbour layouts 91

114 Alternative 3 This alternative also consist of one jetty, an expansion of the existing one which is used as the corridor of the new jetty, where ferry and general cargo berths are located like in Alternative 2. The main difference compared to the previous one is that the breakwater of this one is not connected with the coast. This kind of breakwater needs to be built by sea based equipment instead of land based equipment. The rest of water facilities are planned exactly like in Alternative 2. The available area for a future expansion of the water facilities of the port in this alternative are much more reduced than the ones of the previous proposals. Since the breakwater is not connected with the land, the sheltered area on the South of the jetty that could be used in Alternative 2 disappears, whereas the area on the North is not protected. In case this area wants to be suitable to place the fishing facilities or for a future expansion of the water facilities of the commercial port it would require protection works. This alternative have the same advantages Alternative 2 used to have, the difference resides in the kind of coastal protection structure. Without evaluating it is not possible to identify which alternative can be considered better so both are proposed. Berths Description On a T-jetty Length 216 m Breakwater Description Detached Length 130 m Dredging works 23,000 m 3 Available water area for future expansions 86,000 m 2 Table 5.5. Summary of the main characteristics of Alternative 3. Simplified layouts are included in the next pages. Chapter 5: New harbour layouts 92

115 5.6. Simplified layout of the Alternative 3. WATER AREA. Chapter 5: New harbour layouts 93

116 5.7. Simplified layout of the Alternative 3. TERMINAL AREA AND JETTY. Chapter 5: New harbour layouts 94

117 Alternative 4 The most important difference that can be noticed if this alternative is compared to the third one is that the jetty head has an L-shape instead of the traditional platform of T- shape jetty. In this layout also the existing jetty is used as the corridor of the new one. This fact makes that a long breakwater (longer than in other alternatives) is needed to protect the South berth from the swell. A land connected breakwater is planned for this alternative. Just a turning area is placed in the entrance of the port connected with the sea by an approach channel nearly parallel to the main wave direction in the area. In that case the approach channel and the turning area are deep enough so they do not require dredging works. In this alternative 3 basins can be identified instead of 2 (2 basins for general cargo because they are separated and another one for the ferry berth). The 3 basins need some dredging works to achieve the depth calculated in Chapter 4. The sheltered areas available for a port expansion are the same exposed in Alternative 2. Although the berths in this alternative are also placed on a jetty, this structure is quite different from the T-jetties planned for the other layouts. First of all, it has to be mention that the water area occupied by the port facilities is larger than it is the previous layouts, but also the water area available for future expansions is bigger. In addition, being further from the coast involves an existing deeper seabed, so less dredging works are required. Another advantage it offers is high flexibility in throughput capacity expansion for the following 3 reasons: the mentioned large water area available, the fact that its quay is wider and larger handling equipments can be placed on wider quays, and larger vessels can be accommodated due to the berth length. The berths alignment is not important, although they are nearly perpendicular to the main wind direction, because wind in this area is considered mild. Berths Description On a jetty Length 135m + 100m Breakwater Description Land-connected Length 346 m Dredging works 8,400 m 3 Available water area for future expansions 106,000 m 2 Table 5.6. Summary of the main characteristics of Alternative 4. Simplified layouts are included in the next pages. Chapter 5: New harbour layouts 95

118 5.8. Simplified layout of the Alternative 4. WATER AREA. Chapter 5: New harbour layouts 96

119 5.9. Simplified layout of the Alternative 4. TERMINAL AREA AND JETTY. Chapter 5: New harbour layouts 97

120 Alternative 5 Alternative 5 is the most complex one since it consists of 2 jetties because the berths for general cargo and ferry are separated. The existing jetty is improved to work as the corridor to the first jetty which accommodates general cargo vessel, and a new smaller one, is built on the north of the GC cargo jetty for the ferry berth. In this alternative, the hydraulic structure will be a detached breakwater which length will be similar to the one used in Alternative 3 but longer. The situation and alignment of the approach channel and the turning areas in this layout are similar to the situation and alignment of Alternatives 2 and 3. About the basins they need to be dredged as well as the link between them. For future expansions of the water port facilities the area on the North of the ferry jetty can be considered. This area has the disadvantage of being very small. Another sheltered area can be identified in the layout, it is the one comprised between the two jetties and it can be used to moor small ships that are used to provide services to the port and belong to it, like tug or salvage vessels. Dredging works would be required. The main advantage that can be identified in this alternative is that the traffic from general cargo and ferry are in separated corridors so they don t hinder each other. Also the layout adaptability increases with this new distribution of the facilities. Berths Description 2 jetties Length (GC jetty) 216 m Breakwater Description Detached Length 149 m Dredging works 33,000 m 3 Available water area for future expansions 37,000 m 2 Table 5.7. Summary of the main characteristics of Alternative 5. Simplified layouts are included in the next pages. Chapter 5: New harbour layouts 98

121 5.10. Simplified layout of the Alternative 5. WATER AREA. Chapter 5: New harbour layouts 99

122 5.11. Simplified layout of the Alternative 5. TERMINAL AREA AND JETTY. Chapter 5: New harbour layouts 100

123 6. Selection of the most promising alternative 6.1. Introduction In this chapter the layouts proposed in the previous one are evaluated. For that purpose, as it was mentioned before, a Multi-Criteria Evaluation is used given that different criteria are taken into account in order to define the most promising alternative. The evaluation of the alternatives will be carried out separately according to the layouts developed in Annex 3 of this report. The cost estimation is described in detail in Annex Simplifications and assumptions The layouts discussed in this section are the ones shown in the previous chapter. Since they are just 5 and practically with the same location, no simplifications of the possible location of the port facilities are needed. The main simplifications are going to be carried out in order to estimate the cost of each alternative and how each of them fulfil the objectives below since no detailed studies or models are going to be developed to give an approximation of these criteria Jetty type In addition to the features designed in the layouts, to identify the most promising alternative it is important to determine the type of jetty that is going to be built. Defining if the jetty is a pile structure or a caisson dam was not necessary to design the layouts in the previous chapter, but it is in this phase of the study since it determines its capacity to resist tsunami impacts as well as the growth possibilities are evaluated (available sheltered water areas for future expansions). The cost estimation is also influenced by this factor. Although, this point would be subject of further studies in which a study of the most promising alternative would be carried out to identify the best option according to a list of criteria; it is necessary to adopt one of these alternatives of jetty to continue with the masterplan. The adopted type is the pile structure jetty, and this option has been selected because Indonesian contractors can build this kind of structure since it has already been built in Malahayati (Indonesia). Chapter 6: Selection of the most promising alternative 101

124 6.3. Multi criteria evaluation The layout alternatives develop in Chapter 5 will be assessed by Multi Criteria Evaluation (MCE). A MCE is a decision making tool developed for complex problems. It is particularly applicable to cases where a single criterion approach, such a cost-benefit, is not enough. The Multi Criteria Evaluation will be used to assess the alternatives by a number of unequal validated criteria Objectives To specify clear objectives is essential to carry out a MCE. The main objectives for the expansion of the Port of Meulaboh are summarized in the following list: Improvement of safety against tsunamis Flexibility in throughput capacity expansion Effectiveness of handling facilities Safety Minimize transportation costs Minimize environmental impact Despite the fact costs are not one of the design objectives of the port, since Meulaboh is considered a developing country and the port is going to be financed by the UNDP and the World Bank, it is an important aspect of the port system to take into account; so it will be included in the MCE. Considering costs the designer will try to look for the balance of values/costs for a system conditioned by its boundary conditions. It will be tried to maximize the value of the alternative (the level they fulfil the objectives) whereas the costs will be tried to be as low as possible. Therefore, a cost estimate of each alternative will be carried out Influence of value and costs for the system (H.A.J. Ridder (2008)) Chapter 6: Selection of the most promising alternative 102

125 6.2. Balance value/costs (H.A.J. Ridder (2008)) In addition to the cost estimation, the value achieved by each alternative has to be obtained. It will depend on the level of achievement of the objectives above of which importance will be discussed in the next pages. Improvement of safety against tsunami is an important criterion if it is considered that the port is situated in an area where tsunamis had happened in the past and they can happen in the future. Then, the tsunami occurrence will be taken into account in order to minimize the effect of that kind of phenomena in the port. The sensitivity of the layouts to be affected by tsunamis will be assessed. Flexibility in throughput capacity expresses not only the possibility of the layout alternative to expand in size, but also to adapt when the relative position of commodities and their throughputs changes. Then, two criteria are given: flexibility of the terminal area and flexibility of the water area. Also the possibility of serving for bigger ships in the future can be considered. - The possibility to expand the port (growth possibilities); - The possibility to adapt the port to new requirements (layout adaptability); and, - The possibility of serving for larger ships (increasing vessel size). Talking about the objective of effectiveness of handling facilities, it has to be mention that it is not a main objective of the port expansion but it is including in the Multi Criteria Evaluation since a layout with better efficiency will be preferred. For that reason the following subjects will be evaluated and they will try to be optimised by minimizing their value: - Downtime due to hydraulic effects such as wave penetration and currents; and, - Length of transport lines and distances of the berths to storage areas. Chapter 6: Selection of the most promising alternative 103

126 Safety is an important subject in a port layout so it has to be considered as a criterion in the MCE. Safety can be subdivided in: - Nautical safety; and, - Terminal safety. Reducing transportation costs inside a port can be considered included in the effectiveness of handling facilities and in the cost analysis of the port (because the transportation costs will also depend on the initial investment given that it has to be paid off). The reduction of environmental impacts caused by the port can be divided in the objectives below. - Minimize area occupied by land facilities; - Minimize water area occupied by the port; and, - Minimize interruption of sediment transport (considered depending on the works built). It is assumed that the difference between the considered layouts has no influence on the urban areas. No schedule criteria (minimize the building time) will be taken into account in this study since the drafts do not have the level of detail required to consider it. It should be subject of further studies Criteria evaluation Criteria for the MCE are evaluated in the table below. According to Real Estate and Finance lecture notes (2007), to determinate the weights of each criterion the following method can be used: Once the objectives have been identified and fixed as evaluation criteria, then, a matrix is made. The objectives form the rows of the matrix whereas in columns the same criteria can be found but considered as impacts instead objectives. Then the boxes must be filled considering the effect that would have reaching one of the objectives placed in columns (considered as impacts) if on the objectives that wants to be achieved (rows). To quantify if the effect is positive, negative or none, a score is given to them according to the list below. - 0: Has effects that are opposite to the objectives; - 1: Hardly any positive or negative influence; Chapter 6: Selection of the most promising alternative 104

127 - 2: Has a positive effect on achieving the objectives; and, - 3: Meets the objectives. When this task has been finished, the score of each objective is summarized and adjusted by dividing it by the total amount of the score of all the objectives. By this method a weighted score for each objective is obtained. CRITERIA Objectives Impact Tsunami safety Growth possibilities Layout adaptability Increasing vessel size Downtime hydraulic effects Length of transport lines Nautical safety Terminal safety Area Land Facilities Water area Sediment transport TOTAL Weighted score [%] Tsunami safety % Growth possibilities % Layout adaptability % Increasing vessel size % Downtime hydraulic effects % Length of transport lines % Nautical safety % Terminal safety % Area Land Facilities % Water area % Sediment transport % TOTAL Table 6.1. Weighted scored criteria. These percentages represent the importance is going to be given to each objective when different layouts are compared in the Multi-Criteria Evaluation Comparison of alternatives Given that the scope of this study, the comparison of alternatives is going to be carried out in a qualitative way. For that purpose numbers from 0 to 3 are going to be used according to the same meaning they had when they were used to determine the weighs of the different criteria. - 0: Has effects that are opposite to the objectives; - 1: Hardly any positive or negative influence; Chapter 6: Selection of the most promising alternative 105

128 - 2: Has a positive effect on achieving the objectives; and, - 3: Meets the objectives. For example, if an alternative has a positive effect on achieving the objective it is been assess, then, this alternative will get 2 point of score Cost estimation A cost estimation of all the layout alternatives has been done in Annex 5. In this evaluation, technical civil and marine designs have been proposed in order to determine the project cost for all the proposed layout combinations. During the cost estimation, the elements that were considered for the costs estimate were: Breakwater; Berths; and, Dredging works. The land side facilities of the port as well as the safety facilities are not considered since they are going to be nearly the same for all the layouts and. This simplification is possible since the main differences between the alternatives reside in the water area of the layouts. These cost estimations, which could be considered costs sketches given that their degree of accuracy, are not based on unit prices but prices per unit of structure (for example: price of a meter of jetty). Obviously, these costs are not suitable for the tendering phase because its bandwidth is very large. The simplifications assumed are further explained in Annex 5. Once the most promising alternative has been selected, then its cost estimation will be carried out again as a part of the masterplan. The cost estimates for the MCE are collected in the following table: Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5 Cost (M ) Table 6.2. Costs of the different alternatives Tsunami safety Tsunami safety is talking about structural safety. That means that the structures have to stand the forces caused by a tsunami. In order to be able to understand better how this kind of phenomena works and prevent or reduce the consequences they cause in Annex 4 the mechanism of tsunami generation is described. Chapter 6: Selection of the most promising alternative 106

129 According to the information collected in this annex, simulation and numerical models would be required to assess the quantity of damage induced by a tsunami in the different alternatives, but the information and tools available for this study are not enough to carry them out. Therefore, the contribution of the most important structures to the tsunami safety is going to be assessed in a qualitative way, basing the evaluation on 3 main aspects: - The coastal protection structures; - The robustness of the hydraulic structures; and - The distance between the terminal area and the coast. An important point to take into account is the sheltered water area and how it is protected. Bigger hydraulic structures give a stronger and wider protection than smaller ones to the water facilities and to their adjacent land. For that reason the shape and the length of the breakwater must be taken into account because it can mitigate the effects of a tsunami. For example it is obvious that land connected breakwaters protect the approach bridge of the jetty much better than non-connected ones. The robustness of the hydraulic structures is a point to be considered since thinner structures can be thought to be weaker to stand the stress produced by big waves and the impact of debris. According to the Indian Ocean Tsunami (2007), quay walls, considered massive structures leaned on a big amount of land are much more resistant than jetties. In this document it is shown how the slabs of the jetty decks could not stand the pressure generated by waves and blew up. In addition pile jetty structures are considered weaker to stand the impacts caused by ships pushed against them by the tsunami waves and run up. For at reason a jetty can be considered less resistant than a quay placed on the coast Destroyed jetties by the December 2004 Tsunami. (The Indian Ocean Tsunami (2007)) Destroyed jetties by the December 2004 Tsunami and its reconstruction works. Chapter 6: Selection of the most promising alternative 107

130 Notice that this level of damage was not suffered by massive quay wall structures. The anchorage of the slabs to avoid them to be lift up by the water pressures generated by another tsunami will be subject of further studies since the damage caused on beams and piles can be higher if they are fixed to them. Also can be considered land facilities location. The distance to the coast is important since as much further they are from the coastline more protected they are. Despite the fact the terminal area is in surrounding the water area some differences can be observed both in the terminal area as well as in the future terminal area planned. The depth of water that exist immediately next to the terminal area is not an important factor compared with the length the tsunami waves have travelled; so it will not be taken into account in the assessment of this criterion. In the terminal area some mitigation and protective measures can be considered like building terminal buildings high enough to receive and keep safe people in the port during a tsunami. Also having a disaster plan and planning an evacuation route should be considered. Unfortunately all this considerations don t make any difference that could be assessed in the layouts because they will be adopted by any of them. Considering the criteria explained above, an additional small table will be needed to assess the tsunami safety of the different layouts: Big and Land Connected Breakwaters Robustness of the hydraulic structures Terminal Area Far from the Coast** TOTAL Alternative Alternative Alternative Alternative Alternative Table 6.3. Auxiliary table to assess tsunami safety. **See Figures 5.3., 5.5., 5.7., 5.9. and In which: - 0: The alternative does not fulfil the requirement. - 1: The alternative fulfils the requirement. As it can be observed in the table, since it has been decided to build a pile structure jetty, the only alternative of which robustness could be considered good to stand tsunami effects would be the first one. Chapter 6: Selection of the most promising alternative 108

131 From the previous table it can be deduced that the hydraulic structures of Alternative 1 are considered to be safer to stand big waves effects than the rest of the alternatives; but, the terminal area of the rest of the alternatives is considered to be better protected from tsunamis. So, the final score for each alternative is: Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5 Score Table 6.4. Final score of the different alternatives for the objective Tsunami safety Growth possibilities Since the land area where the port is placed was completely destroyed during the 2004 tsunami, the area that surrounds the port facilities is available (there are not constructions in it) and 5 hectares can be kept back for the future expansion of the port terminal for all the alternatives. So this criterion is of minor importance for the evaluation and it will not affect the final result because all they have the same possibilities. But if the place to build new berths for the port is considered, then the free land along the coast is important to be know. For the four first alternatives (Alternatives 1, 2, 3 and 4) it is possible to build new berth on the North of the existing facilities because there is a water area large enough for a new jetty or even for a berth on the coast (in the case of Alternative 1). However, Alternative 5 has already nearly occupied the whole coastline with its two jetties so it will not be possible to build easily an expansion of the hydraulic structures in this part of the port. Water area on the North of the Port (m 2 ) Alternative 1 115,000 Alternative 2 86,000 Alternative 3 86,000 Alternative 4 106,000 Alternative 5 37,000 Table 6.5. Approximated available water areas on the North of the planned facilities for Meulaboh port. To assess this criterion 3 levels of growth possibilities will be set: - Level 0: there is no free water area for a future expansion (Alternative 5); - Level 1: there is a middle water area available for a future expansion (Alternatives 2 and 3); and - Level 2: there is a large water area available for a future expansion (Alternatives 1 and 4). Chapter 6: Selection of the most promising alternative 109

132 Then, according to these levels the following score will be assigned: Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5 Score Table 6.6. Auxiliary score of the different alternatives for the objective Growth possibilities. Notice that dredging works will be required in these areas in order to reach the required depth when the expansion needs to be carried out. These dredging works will depend on the final design of the expansion and they are not subject of this masterplan. In addition, the fact that these available water areas for future expansions are sheltered is comparative advantage because if they want to be used no additional protection works have to be carried out. For that reason it could be said that the alternatives (Alternatives 1, 2, and 4) with a land connected breakwater are more advantageous to expand the port and are rewarded with and additional point. Taking into account the last paragraphs, the score for the different layouts would be: Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5 Score Table 6.7. Final score of the different alternatives for the objective Growth possibilities. It is recommended for further studies to assess in this section the structural measures required for a future expansion in addition to the available water area Layout adaptability The layout adaptability to new port requirements means the capacity of the port facilities to be adapted to new kinds of commodities which usually implies different kinds of vessels and handling equipments. The layout adaptability depends basically on the design of the quays (size and shape). Bigger quays (wider and longer) make easy the accommodation of other kind of ships and handling equipments. The width of all the quays is practically the same, but in Alternative 4 which is 50 m instead of 30 m. In addition, the layouts which berths are in one line will be better to adapt the port to new requirements because, if it was necessary, they could act like just one berth. Also having different corridors for different flows, like in Alternative 5, is advantageous when other commodities want to be handled in the same quays. Chapter 6: Selection of the most promising alternative 110

133 Quay Width Berths in Different TOTAL one line corridors Alternative Alternative Alternative Alternative Alternative Table 6.8. Auxiliary table to calculate the score of the alternatives for the objective Layout adaptability. Then the scores for the layouts could be the following ones: Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5 Score Table 6.9. Final score of the different alternatives for the objective Layout adaptability Increasing vessel size Increasing vessel size is the capacity the layout has to be adapted to bigger vessels. It is the same concept it was used for the layout adaptability but for lager vessels instead of different kinds of commodities. The size of the vessel that can be accommodated in a port basically depends on the quay length, the diameter of the turning areas and the depth of that harbour. The most restrictive alternative in that aspect is Alternative 1 because, although the quay length would be enough, the general cargo berths are enclosed by themselves and the breakwater, so the turning area has a determined size. In addition, since these berths are placed in the coast, the necessary depth has to be reached by dredging woks and given that the cost of these works is high, the depth they have is the one calculated for the design vessel (no larger vessels); so new dredging works would be necessary in order to accommodate bigger vessels. The rest of the alternatives are more flexible talking about accommodating larger vessels because their berths are not enclosed (so their turning areas are not limited by structures) and in addition they are located on a jetty (deeper). It could even be said that they have a high adaptability for larger vessels because the quay length is enough in all the cases and the necessary amount of dredging, since the berths are in a jetty, would be small because of the depth where they are placed. According to the arguments above, the score is: Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5 Score Table Final score of the different alternatives for the objective increasing vessel size. Chapter 6: Selection of the most promising alternative 111

134 Minimize downtime due to hydraulic effects The downtime due to hydraulic effects is the time a ship, once it has already been moored at a berth, can not be handled because of the wave conditions inside the basin. It is supposed that all the layouts are designed to be used a minimum number of hours per year during the operational conditions (80% of the time) collected in Chapter 3 of this study; and it is not possible to carry out an accurate assessment by simulation model to determine the downtime due to hydraulic effects of each alternative because these structures have not been calculated yet and the parameters to define them, collected in Chapter 4 (like the quay walls), are the same for all the alternatives. Anyway, it can be assumed that as much bigger are the protecting works, the breakwater, less will be the downtime due to hydraulic effects when greater than the design conditions take place. So alternatives with a land connected breakwater will have an extra-score because they are less affected extreme conditions Diffraction in breakwaters Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5 Score Table Final score of the different alternatives for the objective Minimize downtime due to hydraulic effects Minimize the length of the transport lines The length of the transport lines determines the time that goods and passengers will need to travel in the berths before arriving to their destination (the berth, the storage area or the terminal building) and also the required equipments to travel that distances and the energy they will spend during the port operation; for this reason it is important that this length is as short as possible (less equipments will be required). Chapter 6: Selection of the most promising alternative 112

135 Since the destination of the goods is not clear because there are different storage areas in each alternative, it will be only taken into account the maximum distance they have to travel on the berths (not in the terminal). Another reason to not considering the distances goods have to travel in the terminal is because, there, the distances are very similar for the different layouts so it would not mean a big difference. Max. distance for goods (m) Max. distance for passengers (m) Alternative Alternative Alternative Alternative Alternative Table Auxiliary table to assess the length of the transport lines. If it is given more importance to the distance the goods have to travel than the passengers because the traffic of commodities is more intense, and in addition it involves energy consumption. As a result of comparing the distances shown in the table above, the following score have been obtained: Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5 Score Table Final score of the different alternatives for the objective minimize the length of the transport lines Nautical safety Nautical safety can be defined as the safety relating to navigation or involving ships or shipping navigation; so it depends on the water areas. The nautical safety inside a harbour involves the ship arrival and departure and the port water areas sailed by the ship during these actions: the approach channel, the turning area and the basin. The existence of nautical signs plays an essential role in nautical safety; but also the distribution and the size of them is important to ensure safety for the vessels that call in the port. It is obvious that all the alternatives will be safe enough to avoid accidents take place in the port area, but some of them can even be considered that their design is safer than the others. The criteria that can identify a safer layout are the following ones. Larger sheltered water area; Larger turning areas; Type of basin; Approach channel alignment. Since the approach channel is almost parallel to the main wave direction in all the alternatives, it can not be considered a criterion to determine which alternative is better Chapter 6: Selection of the most promising alternative 113

136 talking about nautical safety. The size of the turning areas is also the same in all the alternatives so it is out of this criterion too. In order to make assess the different alternatives 3 levels of nautical safety will be set: - Level 3: Alternative 2 and 3, which have open basins and larger sheltered water areas; - Level 2: Alternative 3 and 4, which have open basins; and - Level 1: Alternatives 1, of which basins in nearly enclosed. This levels are collected in the table below. Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5 Score Table Final score of the different alternatives for the objective Nautical safety Terminal safety As the nautical safety is the safety in the water area, the terminal safety means the safety in the land areas of the port while port operations take place. Since the terminal area of the different layouts are very similar and all them are supposed to fulfil all the conditions to be safe, this aspect is going to be assessed just taking into account the approaching bridge of the different jetties; their width and the traffic they support. Alternative 1 doest not have a conventional jetty; in fact it is just a berth where the general cargo commodities are handled wider than it was supposed to be (40 m instead of just 30 m) because in its North side a corridor for the ferry vehicles and passengers (with their own gangway) is placed. It would be convenient that this corridor was separated from the ferry berth to avoid those cranes and trailers use the same space cars and motorbikes use. Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 have a corridor which is 15 m wide where the flow of goods, vehicles and passengers coexist. In fact there is a 1.5 m passenger gangway to separate the passengers traffic from the rolled traffic; then there are 13.5 m free for the vehicles and trailers. These traffics can not be separated because the approaching bridge is not wide enough to plan separated roads. In Alternative 5 the flows are completely separated because there are 2 separate jetties, one for the general cargo ships and another one for the ferry vessels. The approaching bridge of the ferry jetty, of which width is 8 m, is divided in a 1.5 m gangway for passengers and a road for the vehicles; whereas the commodities have their own corridor in the GC jetty and they do not interfere with the other kinds of traffic. Taking into account these characteristics it can be affirmed to be the safer layout in this aspect. Chapter 6: Selection of the most promising alternative 114

137 Then, according to the descriptions above 3 different levels of terminal safety can be set: - Level 3: Alternative 5, which has to different corridors; - Level 2: Alternative 1, of which the corridor where the goods travel is wider since it is a quay at the coastline; and - Level 1: Alternatives 2, 3 and 4, where the goods travel along a 15 m wide corridor. Although, all the terminals planned can be considered safe, the final score for this criterion is: Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5 Score Table Final score of the different alternatives for the objective Terminal safety Minimize land facilities area The area occupied by the land facilities is the same in all the possible layouts; 2.5 hectares. But if it is considered that as much closer to the coast more damaging occupying the land is, then some differences can be observed between the alternatives. Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 have practically the same terminal distribution and the space their land facilities occupy is further from the coast than Alternative 1 and 5 because their quays are not placed in a single jetty so their land area need to be along the coastline. Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5 Score Table Final score of the different alternatives for the objective Minimize the land facilities area Minimize water area Environmentally talking, the water area occupied by the port facilities is important to be as small as possible in order to affect less the maritime environment. For that reason the Alternative 1 which does not have a T-jetty needs less water area than the others. It is followed by Alternatives 2 and 3 in which the jetty is placed closer to the coast than the other ones. The alternatives which occupy a larger area are 4 and 5. The jetty of the Alternative 4 is placed far from the coast since its head is not perpendicular to the bridge, it is perpendicular; and Alternative 5 consist of 2 jetties instead of one, so they are the worse ones talking about this criteria. Chapter 6: Selection of the most promising alternative 115

138 The approximated water areas (including the protection structures) are collected in the following table: Water Area occupied by port facilities (m 2 ) Alternative 1 145,000 Alternative 2 205,000 Alternative 3 195,000 Alternative 4 245,000 Alternative 5 250,000 Table Approximated occupied water areas by the facilities of Meulaboh port. A score of 2 is given to the alternatives which occupied area is less than 150,000 m 2 (Alternative 1) whereas that for alternatives of which water area is comprised between 150,000 m 2 and 225,000 m 2 the score is just 1. For alternatives which area is over 225,000 m 2 no score is given. Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5 Score Table Final score of the different alternatives for the objective Minimize water area. The damage caused by the breakwater is not considered in this point, but in the following one where the interruption of the sediment transport is evaluated Continuity of sediment transport It is obvious that all the alternatives interrupt the sediment transport since artificial structures are placed on the coast changing its morphology, but some of them are more harmful for the coast environment than the others. Since there is not available data about currents or sediment transport in the area where the port is placed (see Chapter 3), it is impossible to make a quantitative assessment of the sedimentation situation if the port is built. Anyway it can be supposed it is parallel to the coast so any structure perpendicular to it is an obstacle for the sediment transport. The direction of the sediments (from North to South or vice versa) is just important to determine where erosion and accretion are going to take place. The alternatives which are more damaging talking about the sediment transport are the ones with the longest breakwater. In addition, if these breakwaters are land connected the situation is even worse because they have larger influence on the coast morphology from the first moment. Then, in this case, the most damaging alternatives are Alternative 1, 2 and 4. Chapter 6: Selection of the most promising alternative 116

139 Alternatives 3 and 5 would have less influence on the environment since their breakwater is shorter. The permeability of the approach bridge of the jetty also plays an important role in the interruption of the sediment transport; but if it is considered to be the same in all the alternatives it don t have to be taken into account. If it was completely impermeable (in a caisson dam jetty) the situation would be different to the one described above; but an impermeable jetty is not going to be built, since it has been decided to consider in this study a pile structure one. In addition an impermeable jetty would be unnecessarily damaging for the environment. Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5 Score Table Final score of the different alternatives for the objective Minimize the interruption of sediment transport. Note: the influence of the sediment transport on the maintenance dredging works is mentioned in the cost estimation section Evaluation Layout 1 Value According to the assessment carried out in the previous section and considering the weights calculated in Section and the costs estimation described in Annex 5, the final score of Alternative 1 is summarized in the following table: Note: the following tables result from arranging the values obtained in the previous 15 tables in 5 different ones which collect the values for the different criteria separating them according to the alternative they belong to. For example, in the next table, all the values obtained for the different criteria along this chapter for Alternative 1 has been included. In that way, the value of the criterion Growth possibilities for Alternative 1, which was in the first row of Table 6.7., arranged according alternatives instead of criteria occupies the second row since it corresponds to the second criteria. ALTERNATIVE 1 Tsunami safety Growth possibilities Layout adaptability Increasing vessel size Downtime hydraulic effects VALUE WEIGHT (%) WEIGHTED SCORE 0,32 0,27 0,04 0 0,38 0,25 0,13 0,14 0 0,14 0 1,66 Table Weighted score Layout 1. Chapter 6: Selection of the most promising alternative 117 Length of transport lines Nautical safety The final value of Layout 1 is: 1.66 Terminal safety Area Land Facilities Water area Sediment transport TOTAL

140 Cost estimation The considered costs of Layout 1 are: 11,100,050 Note: The cost estimation used for the cost evaluation is just a rough estimate of the cost of the hydraulic structures of the port so it will not be use for the tendering phase in any case. The cost estimation is carried out in Annex 5. Final score The final score is obtained dividing the alternative by the cost estimation: Value 1.66 Cost = = The final score of Layout 1 is: Evaluation Layout 2 Value According to the assessment carried out in the previous section and considering the weights calculated in Section and the costs estimation described in Annex 5, the final score of Alternative 2 is summarized in the table below: ALTERNATIVE 2 Tsunami safety Growth possibilities Layout adaptability Increasing vessel size Downtime hydraulic effects Length of transport lines Nautical safety Terminal safety Area Land Facilities Water area Sediment transport VALUE WEIGHT (%) WEIGHTED SCORE 0,32 0,18 0,04 0,11 0,38 0,13 0,38 0,07 0,14 0,07 0 1,80 Table Weighted score Layout 2 The final value of Layout 2 is: 1.80 Cost estimation The considered costs of Layout 2 are: 7,082,940 Note: The cost estimation used for the cost evaluation is just a rough estimate of the cost of the hydraulic structures of the port so it will not be use for the tendering phase in any case. The cost estimation is carried out in Annex 5. Final score Value 1.80 Cost = 7.08 = TOTAL Chapter 6: Selection of the most promising alternative 118

141 The final score of Layout 2 is: Evaluation Layout 3 Value According to the assessment carried out in the previous section and considering the weights calculated in Section and the costs estimation described in Annex 5, the final score of Alternative 3 is summarized in the table below: ALTERNATIVE 3 Tsunami safety Growth possibilities Layout adaptability Increasing vessel size Downtime hydraulic effects VALUE WEIGHT (%) WEIGHTED SCORE 0,16 0,09 0,04 0,11 0,25 0,13 0,25 0,07 0,14 0,07 0,09 1,39 Table Weighted score Layout 3. Length of transport lines The final value of Layout 3 is: 1.39 Nautical safety Terminal safety Area Land Facilities Cost estimation The considered costs of Layout 3 are: 5,831,440 Note: The cost estimation used for the cost evaluation is just a rough estimate of the cost of the hydraulic structures of the port so it will not be use for the tendering phase in any case. The cost estimation is carried out in Annex 5. Final score Value 1.39 Cost = 5.83 = The final score of Layout 3 is: Water area Sediment transport TOTAL 6.8. Evaluation Layout 4 Value According to the assessment carried out in the previous section and considering the weights calculated in Section and the costs estimation described in Annex 5, the final score of Alternative 4 is summarized in the table below: Chapter 6: Selection of the most promising alternative 119

142 ALTERNATIVE 4 Tsunami safety Growth possibilities Layout adaptability Increasing vessel size Downtime hydraulic effects Length of transport lines Nautical safety Terminal safety Area Land Facilities Water area Sediment transport VALUE WEIGHT (%) WEIGHTED SCORE 0,32 0,27 0,04 0,07 0,38 0 0,38 0,07 0, ,66 Table Weighted score Layout 4. The final value of Layout 4 is: 1.66 Cost estimation The considered costs of Layout 4 are: 7,897,303 Note: The cost estimation used for the cost evaluation is just a rough estimate of the cost of the hydraulic structures of the port so it will not be use for the tendering phase in any case. The cost estimation is carried out in Annex 5. Final score Value 1.66 Cost = 7.90 = The final score of Layout 4 is: TOTAL 6.9. Evaluation Layout 5 Score According to the assessment carried out in the previous section and considering the weights calculated in Section and the costs estimation described in Annex 5, the final score of Alternative 5 is summarized in the following table: ALTERNATIVE 5 Tsunami safety Growth possibilities Layout adaptability Increasing vessel size Downtime hydraulic effects Length of transport lines Nautical safety Terminal safety Area Land Facilities Water area Sediment transport VALUE WEIGHT (%) WEIGHTED SCORE 0 0 0,07 0,11 0,25 0,13 0,25 0, ,09 1,11 Table Weighted score Layout 5. The final value of Layout 5 is: 1.11 TOTAL Chapter 6: Selection of the most promising alternative 120

143 Cost estimation The considered costs of Layout 5 are: 7,986,500 Note: The cost estimation used for the cost evaluation is just a rough estimate of the cost of the hydraulic structures of the port so it will not be use for the tendering phase in any case. The cost estimation is carried out in Annex 5. Final score Value 1.11 Cost = 7.99 = The final score of Layout 5 is: Final ranking The table below summarizes the classification of the alternatives according to their value, their cost and their ratio value/cost. ALTERNATIVE VALUE COST VALUE/COST p p p Alternative Alternative Alternative Alternative Alternative Table Ranking of alternatives. p_ position in the ranking Organizing the alternative according to which degree of satisfaction of the objectives the ranking would be the one collected under the title VALUE where Alternative 2 is shown as the best one in this aspect. Notice that Alternative 1 and Alternative 4 have the same degree of satisfaction but they reach it for different reasons. If the alternatives were ordered by their cost in increasing order the ranking would be the one under the title COST. In this ranking Alternative 2 occupies the first position. But, as it was explained in previous at the beginning of this chapter, the selection of the most promising alternative can not be based only on the alternatives value or in their price. For that reason a final score for each alternative have been obtained. This value takes into account both, the cost and the value, and offers a new ranking. Chapter 6: Selection of the most promising alternative 121

144 Alternative 2 is considered the best one but score difference with the second one in the ranking can be considered insignificant given that it depends on a large number of assumptions. Notice that Alternative 3 is approximately 1,300,000 cheaper than Alternative 2 but its value is about 25% worse. That makes that in the final balance Alternative 2 obtains a higher score. Considering that the cost estimate is just an approximation and a small part of the final cost of the project given that lot of aspects of the port has been neglected to calculate it (see Annex 5), it is selected Alternative 2 as the most promising alternative. Alternative 4 has the third position in the ranking but far enough for the firsts positions to not consider it. Alternatives 1 and 5 are considered the worse ones and it score is far from the highest one, this is due to their high cost and their poor value according to the chosen criteria. These alternatives do not fulfil the expectations considered for the layout so, like Alternative 4, they are not going to be developed in detail Layout optimisation A layout optimisation was planned for the most promising alternative. Since the difference between Alternative 2 and Alternative 3 is rather small the optimisation will be carried out for both of them and then they will be assessed again to check which one is the best one. This optimisation consists of avoiding the use of mooring dolphins which usually are quite expensive placing the ferry berth behind the jetty. This is possible increasing the dredging area and building a fixed landing area (see Section ). Under the assumption the harbour terminal is going to be optimised in that way, the breakwater length and dredging works resulted from that optimisation has been calculated: Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Breakwater Length (m) Dredging works (m 3 ) 60,000 60,000 Table Layouts optimisation changing characteristics. The breakwater length in this case has been calculated using the same method it was used in Chapter 5 but considering the maximum wave height for general cargo vessels instead for ferries which gives a larger diffraction coefficient. In Alternative 3, the west part of the breakwater is lengthened because this extreme is restricted by the maximum wave allowed in the ferry basin which, in addition, is located further west. Chapter 6: Selection of the most promising alternative 122

145 The dredging works have increases because the new ferry berth is placed in shallower water that needs to be dredged to reach the required depth. In addition of avoiding using mooring dolphins, given that this estimation reduces the breakwater length in the Alternative 2, the approach channel can be even more parallel to the main wave direction. Notice that the dredging works are the same for both alternatives, whereas Alternative 2 has decreased its length in 30 meters but Alternative 3 length is the same. After these changes the alternative cost estimate are re-calculated using the same prices and assumptions adopted in Annex 5: Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Cost ( ) 6,871,500 6,125,500 Table Layouts optimisation costs. Note: the cost estimate in Alternative 3 is higher that is was without the optimization because the mooring dolphins price was not included in that estimation. Since the values of the alternatives have not changed with this optimization, the final score for them is: Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Cost (M ) Value Final Score Table Layout optimisation final score. Once the alternatives have been optimized, it becomes clearer that Alternative 2 is better than Alternative 3; so Alternative 2 is going to be chosen as the most promising one Layout drafts The final layouts after the optimisation are the ones attached in the following pages: Note: just the Water Area map has been included since the modifications have taken place in that area. Chapter 6: Selection of the most promising alternative 123

146

147 The next layouts are included here in DIN-A3: Layout Layout Chapter 7: Most promising alternative 125

148 Chapter 7: Most promising alternative 126

149 7. Most promising alternative 7.1. Introduction As a consequence of the Multi Criteria Evaluation carried out in the previous chapter, Alternative 2 has been considered the most promising alternative; so it is going to be the one which will be developed in more detail in this chapter of the study Layout description Introduction In this section the layout will be described but according to the user point of view. In this case, the users are the ships that come into the port to be loaded or unloaded. The following functional areas can be easily identified in the port: Approaching area; Manoeuvring area; Berthing area; Handling area; and, Terminal area. The approaching area, manoeuvring area and berthing area can be considered part of the port water areas; whereas the handling area and the terminal area are part of the harbour land facilities. Although it has been mentioned that the user of the port are the ships, it would be more correct to say that the vessels are the users of the water area of the harbour. Then the users of the land area are the commodities or the passengers that are transported by those ships. The change of user takes place on the quay where the handling equipments load and unload the ships. The terminal area, in addition of providing some physic services to the commodities like storage or intermodal transportation, also provides administration services to the commodities as well as to the ships. In the figure included in next page these areas are identified for Meulaboh port case. In addition, the coastal protection structure is also pointed. Chapter 7: Most promising alternative 127

150 TERMINAL AREA HANDLING AREA BERTHING AREAS BREAKWATER MANOEUVRING AREA NORTH APPROACHING AREA 7.1. Port areas from a functional point of view. Chapter 7: Most promising alternative 128

151 Then, the description of the port facilities is done following the order a ship meets the different areas when she arrives to the port. It could also be done in the direction of a departure (from the terminal towards the water area) Water area Approach channel The alignment of the approach channel, 155 N, is nearly parallel to the main wave direction (170 N). It was completely parallel in the layouts considered in the first layouts, but after calculating the breakwater it had to be turned towards the East because the breakwater roundhead was inside the area kept back for the approach channel. No dredging works are required for the approaching area. It will be signed according to the Indonesian signage system. The approach channel dimensions were calculated in Chapter 4 and they are: Alignment 155º N Depth m LAT Width m Length 153 m Table 7.1. Approach channel dimensions. Turning area The approach channel leads directly to a single turning area placed in front of the general cargo berths. This turning area designed for manoeuvring has a diameter of 153 m and its depth is the same as the approach channel depth. To reach this depth dredging works are required in the North-west part of the turning circle. Diameter 153 Depth m LAT Table 7.2. Turning area dimensions. Berthing area The berthing area is placed in a non-enclosed basin (since it is just sheltered from the South a single breakwater), and it is linked to the turning area (same depth to make possible that the ships arrive to the quay). The berthing area is characterized by a T-shape jetty and can be divided in two parts: the general cargo berths and the ferry berth, both of them placed on the jetty. The general cargo quay consists of 2 berths in one line which are 216 m long in total. That fact involves that 2 vessel with the design vessel size or smaller can be moored at the same time. The required depth for this area is also 6.55 m, so some dredging works will be carried out basically in front the berth placed on the North. Chapter 7: Most promising alternative 129

152 The ferry berth is placed in the back part of the jetty where a fixed landing platform with a ramp is built to accommodate ferry vessels (which have stern or bow ramp). The dimensions of this berth have been modified compared to the ones considered in previous chapters. Instead of being just a squared landing area (15mx15m), it has been lengthened (15mx38m) linking it with the approach bridge of the jetty (see Layouts). Increasing the ferry platform in this way, the traffic caused by general cargo commodities and the cars and passengers flow do not disturb each other in the jetty head. In addition, this modification reduces the gangway length. For the ferry berth a large amount of dredging works are required because, although the necessary depth is just 5.20 m, the ferry basin also has to be linked to the turning area. The total amount of dredging works required for the port water areas in order to make them deep enough to accommodate the design vessel is about 65,000 m3 (including the dredging works for the manoeuvring areas) Land area Handling area: Jetty The ships moored at the berths are handled from the jetty head where the handling equipments are place. The jetty head is a platform supported by piles of which length is the quay length and its width is 30 m. It is almost perpendicular to the approach bridge forming a T-jetty. The required handling equipments that will be placed on the quay were calculated in Chapter 7 and they are collected in Table The jetty width is enough for the handling facilities Distribution jetty head cross-section for handling activities. Chapter 7: Most promising alternative 130

153 7.3. Distribution jetty head cross-section for equipments manoeuvring. Notice that the equipments used to show the cross-section is wide enough for receive the handling facilities are not port equipments. Anyway it gives an approximation of the width distribution because their dimensions are practically the same. The dimensions of the jetty head are: Length 216 m Width 30 m Level 3.0 m + LAT Direction 170 N Table 7.3. Jetty head dimensions. Notice that for the ferry berth an extra platform is added in the back side of the jetty. The dimensions of this platform have been described above and they are also shown in the layouts. The commodities unloaded or those which have to be loaded travel from the berth to the terminal are or vice-versa by the jetty approach bridge which links the jetty head with the shoreline. As it has been planned the approach bridge is built improving the existing jetty built by the SRC. It will be lengthened and widened to reach the required dimensions to act as corridor for commodities and passengers as well as reinforced to stand the new loads The final approach bridge dimensions are: Chapter 7: Most promising alternative 131

154 Length Width Level 160 m 15 m 3.0 m + LAT Table 7.4. Jetty approach bridge dimensions. Given that to the berths arrive different kind of ships, general cargo vessels and ferries; the jetty approach bridge is used by several kinds of traffic. The passengers flow parallel to the road traffic but in a separated gangway which width is 1.5 m. Road traffic composed by forklift trucks, trailers + tractors, cars and motorbikes coexist using 13.5 meters left. The 3.5 m closer to the passengers gangway are assigned for cars and motorbikes whereas the other 10 m are for the commodities traffic. Notice that only one ferry per day will call in Meulaboh port, so the rest of the time the lane set aside for the traffic caused by the ferries can be used by the general cargo equipments if it was necessary Distribution jetty approach bridge cross-section for normal traffic Distribution jetty approach bridge cross-section for no ferry traffic. Chapter 7: Most promising alternative 132

155 It is possible that a third lane of truck traffic can be added when no ferry traffic is taking place. The safety of this option should be checked before taking it into account Distribution jetty approach bridge cross-section for no ferry traffic with 3 truck lanes Distribution jetty approach bridge cross-section for high ferry traffic. If the terminal trucks are larger than the ones included in the picture it is possible that just one truck can run in high ferry traffic states if preference is given the ferry flow. If preference is given to the commodities flow, the situation will be the same as in figure 7.4. It is remarkable the high adaptability the approach bridge offers. About m2 of water area have been kept back for future expansions of the existing water area. Terminal area Although planning the terminal area is not part of the scope of this study, a rough development has been carried out. Chapter 7: Most promising alternative 133

156 The terminal area is placed in the surrounding area of the existing jetty. The land facilities occupy a total area of 2.5 hectares which are divided in the following parts: Open storage 1; Open storage 2; Shed 1; Passenger terminal building; Car parking area; Truck parking area; Port offices; Water and energy facilities and others; and, Roads and ways. The storage area of the port is placed on the South. They are divided in 3 different storages; two of them open storages and one shed. The biggest storage, situated on the west, occupies a surface of 5,430 m 2 ; whereas the other one which is placed next to the jetty entrance just occupies 3,475 m 2. The shed which is next to the second open storage is 3,760 m 2 big. The addition of the surfaces occupied by the three storage areas means about 12,665 m 2 which fulfils the assumption of 12,500 m 2 of storage assumed in Chapter 4 of this study. On the North of the main road, which divides the port in two parts (one for storages and another one for the rest of the facilities) and leads directly to the jetty, the facilities for passengers are built. The passenger terminal building is placed on the shoreline, close to the jetty to facilitate the access to the gangway for the passengers. The area planned for it is about 750 m 2. Just behind the terminal building, a 1,000 m 2 car parking area is placed; this location has the advantage of being close to the terminal building where passengers have to go after leaving their vehicles or before taking them. There is also a quick access between the parking area and the jetty by a straight road for the vehicles which are going to be loaded on the ferry. Also on the North part of the terminal area but on the west side the truck parking area can be found. It will be assigned for parking the equipments used to load and unload ships but also the lorries which bring and take the goods from the port. For that purpose an area of 1,750 m 2 is planned. For the port offices a plot of 2500 m 2 is kept back. It is placed in the main road of the port but also closer to the land entrance of the terminal area. In that area the buildings for the port offices are located but also the immigration offices and the rest of the buildings to provide all the services a port of this features is supposed to provide, such as service to the boat, service to the commodities, land transport services and other kind of services. Some land will be used also to create a parking area for the working personal of the harbour. Chapter 7: Most promising alternative 134

157 The area most on the North part of the port will be assigned for the water and energy facilities. Its 2160m 2 will be distributed to receive an electrical generator and a water tank with its corresponding pumping equipment. Also the facilities to store and treat the waste created by the port will be included in that area. Summarizing: Area (m 2 ) Open storage 1 5,430 Open storage 2 3,475 Shed 1 3,760 Passenger terminal building 750 Car parking area 1,000 Truck parking area 1,750 Port offices 2,500 Water and energy facilities and others 2,160 TOTAL 20,825 Table 7.5. Summary of the terminal area distribution. The area left until reach 2.5 hectares is occupied by the roads to accede to the port and the different areas of it. The main road, which connects the port with the road net of the country, is planned parallel to the coastline. This road meets perpendicularly with another one that leads directly to the jetty. In addition to these 2 roads a small net of them provides access to all the parts of the port. Nearly 5 hectares are kept back for a future expansion of the landside facilities of Meulaboh port. This area is placed next to the terminal area planned in that study in order to give the adequate accessibility to new facilities and to avoid that goods and equipments have to travel long distances inside the port Coastal protection works Although the coastal protection works do not interact with the ships operations their function is essential given that without them it is possible that no operation could take place in the port. Meulaboh port facilities are sheltered by a land-connected breakwater situated on the South of the port. It is a rubble mound breakwater with no superstructure. The breakwater axis can be divided in 2 stretches separated by a mild change of orientation. The first stretch o the breakwater (the west one) is perpendicular to the shore line whereas the second one is curved to the North to position the breakwater perpendicular to the main wave direction (170 ) in that area. The characteristics of this structure, which are calculated in Annex 6, are collected in the next section of this chapter. Chapter 7: Most promising alternative 135

158 7.2.5 Layouts The layouts included in this section are similar to the ones included in Annex 3, but in this case some modifications have been included as a consequence of the breakwater design carried out in Annex 5 and the layout optimisation proposed in Chapter 6. Notice that, in these layouts, the breakwater is not an idealization of the structure but the breakwater plan view. Chapter 7: Most promising alternative 136

159 Layout Layout Layout The next layouts are included here in DIN-A3: Chapter 7: Most promising alternative 137

160 Chapter 7: Most promising alternative 139

161 7.3. Technical design Introduction The technical design of the port structures must be carried out in the masterplan. The scope of this study just reaches the design of the port protection structures. In this case, this protection structures will be a rubble mound breakwater Coastal protection: Breakwater The most suitable structure for the coastal protection works according to the site boundary conditions a rubble mound breakwater will be designed. The breakwater design consists of determining the breakwater length and its cross-section to obtain the desired water conditions in the area protected by the structure. Since the design of the hydraulic structures forms part of the scope of this study, in Annex 6 the breakwater parameters have been defined. The calculation of these parameters have been realized using the Van der Meer formula (1987) based on the data and requirements included in Chapter 3 and Chapter 4 respectively. The breakwater length was determined in Chapter 5 according to the diffraction diagrams of the Shore Protection Manual (1984) and corrected to adapt it to the layout optimization in Chapter 6. These calculations are carried out assuming that not transmission takes place through the breakwater, the cross-section of the structure has to be designed. Afterwards, once the breakwater section is calculated, this assumption will be checked and its length corrected according to the obtained transmission coefficient. For the calculation of the breakwater sections Van der Meer formula was chosen because the location where it is placed is affected by diffracted waves. Since the breakwater is perpendicular to the shoreline, the depth varies along it as well as the wave height due to the shoaling and refraction phenomena. Different breakwater cross-sections have been planned. Two different cross-section models have been designed for the breakwater trunk and another one for the roundhead. In A nnex 6, these cross-sections are shown every 50 m adapted to the depth in this particular point of the breakwater axis. In addition a special section is designed for the breakwater extreme. Cross-section model 1 will designed for the length comprised between the bathymetry lines -9 m and -5m. Cross-section model 2 is designed for shallower water, from bathymetry line -5 m to the coast line. The roundhead cross-section is obviously for the extreme of the breakwater. The figure below shows the plan view of the breakwater where the distribution of the cross-section models is collected. Chapter 7: Most promising alternative 140

162 Cross-Section Model 2 Cross-Section Model 1 Roundhead Section 7.8. Distribution jetty approach bridge cross-section for high ferry traffic. For every cross-section model the following parameters are determined: Side slopes; Armour units sizes and armour layer thickness; Inner slope; Crest width; Crest elevation; First under-layer armour size; Size lee side armour units and layer thickness; Top level for main armour layer; Bottom level for main armour layer; Dimensions and rock size for toe berm; Filter; Top level of filter layer; Core material requirements; Core level; and, Scour protection. The following table summarizes briefly the breakwater characteristics which are widely collected in the annex: Length (m) 267 West Stretch (perpendicular to the coastline) (m) East Stretch (perpendicular to the main wave direction 170ºN-.) (m) 118 Table 7.6. Summary of breakwater characteristics I. Chapter 7: Most promising alternative 141

163 Cross-Sections Cross-Section Model 1 Cross-Section Model 2 Roundhead Section Slope 1:3 1:3 1:3 Armour layer units Mass (t) Dn50 (m) Armour layer thickness (m) Inner slope 1:2 1:2 1:3 Crest width (m) Crest elevation (m) LAT LAT LAT First under-layer Mass (kg) units Dn50 (m) Lee side armour Mass (kg) units Dn50 (m) Lee side thickness (m) Armour Top level (m) LAT LAT LAT layer Bottom level (m) LAT LAT LAT Toe berm depth (m) -6 + LAT LAT Toe berm width (m) Toe berm thickness (m) 2.05 (n=5) (n=6) Geotextile pore (m) 1*10-6 1*10-6 1*10-6 Geotextile permeability (m/s) 5*10-3 5*10-3 5*10-3 Geotextile Bottom level (m) Seabed Seabed Seabed Core material Mass (kg) Dn50 (m) Core level (m) LAT LAT LAT Scour protection Sea Lee units Mass (t) Dn50 (m) Scour protection thickness (m) Scour protection width (m) Scour protection front slope 1:2 1:2 1:2 Table 7.7. Summary of breakwater characteristics II. To illustrate the design, the larger Cross-Section Model 1 and Model 2 of the breakwater are included in the next pages. Chapter 7: Most promising alternative 142

164 Chapter 7: Most promising alternative 143

165 Layout 7.B.1. Layout 7.B.2. Layout 7.B.RH. The next layouts are included here in DIN-A3: Chapter 7: Most promising alternative 144

166 Chapter 7: Most promising alternative 145

167 Jetty conceptual design Although the design of the jetty is not part of this study a conceptual design has been carried out in Annex 7 in order to define the structure for the cost estimation. As it was mentioned in Chapter 6, the jetty consists of a pile structure able to stand the loads generated by the general cargo commodities and the handling equipments. The main indicative dimensions of this structure are collected in Annex 7 in several layouts like the one below Conceptual design of the jetty cross section. Notice that the calculations carried out in this annex are just tentative and they can not be considered the final design of the jetty structure. For these rough calculation just vertical loads has been considered without taking into account horizontal loads that ships motions induce on the structures. In order to avoid the jetty is dimensioned for smaller loads than the ones it is going to suffer, safety coefficients has been used. For further studies where the jetty is designed in detail all the different combinations of vertical and horizontal loads should be considered Tsunami mitigation measures and recommendations According to UNESCO official website, in June 2006 the Indian Ocean Tsunami Warning System became active following the leadership of that organization after it was agreed to in a United Nations conference in January It was created promoted by the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami since many experts in tsunamis claimed that the catastrophe could have been mitigated if there had been an effective warning system in place. Chapter 7: Most promising alternative 146

168 The tsunami warning system is supposed to provide warning to inhabitants of nations bordering the Indian Ocean of approaching Tsunamis. The system consists of 25 seismographic stations relaying information to 26 national tsunami information centres, as well as 3 deep-ocean sensors. Nowadays the governments of those 26 countries are trying to coordinate themselves to make the system more effective. An early warning system, like the one described above is considered the most effective way of mitigating the impact of a tsunami, but, according to the Indian Ocean Tsunami (2007), there are also some considerations in the structures constructions that can reduce the damage caused by tsunami waves not only in people but also in those structures. Based on the information collected in Indian Ocean Tsunami (2007), the following measures could also be taken into account in order to mitigate the damage caused by a tsunami in Meulaboh port: Designing structures with stronger anchorage using deeper foundations according to the soil detected in the geotechnical study. They must be able not only to resist the seismic effects but also the forces induced by a tsunami. Avoiding the use of precast slab strips of concrete in docks. In case of using them, they have to be properly anchored to avoid they suffer from uplift caused by water pressure but without damaging the rest of the jetty structure as a consequence of this anchorage forces. Planning an area where ships can be moored during the tsunami which avoids them to get into impact the terminal area facilities due to the tsunami run-up. This area could be on the North of the planned facilities while it is not used for a future expansion. Notice that preparing this area for mooring ships would require extra dredging works not considered in this study. Building engineered reinforced concrete buildings in the terminal area because they are more resistant against both water pressures as well as debris impact. Building high terminal buildings (at least one) which are useful as refuge in case of a Tsunami alarm. Providing the buildings (at least the one considered as a refuge in case of tsunami) with a landing strip for helicopters just in case people need to be evacuated. Determine the approximate run-up caused by a tsunami and place important equipments and archives for the port in floors over the calculated run-up. This measure would avoid the destruction of important documents or expensive administrative equipments (like computers, net servers ) and the information they contain. Chapter 7: Most promising alternative 147

169 Anchoring storage water tanks to resist water pressures given that they are light structures that can be easily uprooted. Power station, warehouses, oil and other storage tanks located along the coastline can be considered critical structures. They must be identified and reinforced in an appropriate way to stand tsunami effects. In addition to the mitigation measures some protection measures, also proposed in Indian Ocean Tsunami (2007) could be develop in order to protect the coast and the facilities placed along them: Creating a groin field on the South of the port which reduces the inundation and damage on the landward side of this stretch of coast. (see Figure 7.12.) Notice that the port is placed in an area that was totally destroyed by the previous tsunami because it is a flat peninsula of which width is about 400 m. Maybe placing a groin field in the Indic coast of the peninsula at the same latitude the port is located could mitigate the strength of the tsunami waves coming from the Indic coast reach the port. Creating beaches in that area would be also a good solution to combat the seawater ingress into land as well as to mitigate the usual erosion produced by a tsunami. This measure is preferable just for the Indic coast of the peninsula because creating beaches next to Meulaboh port could cause sedimentation problems in the port area decreasing its depth. Sand dunes and dense plantations placed close to the Indic coast of the peninsula could mitigate the effect of the run-up coming from this side on the port. Notice that they can not be very big given that they are limited by the peninsula width. (see Figure 7.10.) Enclose the jetty by groins separated about 1 km. (see Figure 7.11.) Construct sea walls with high crest level (about 4.5 m). Then mitigation and protection measures are also based on the report Prevention/Protection and Mitigation from Risk of Tsunami Disasters (2005) Protection dune cross-section (Indian Ocean Tsunami (2007)). Chapter 7: Most promising alternative 148

170 7.11. Enclosing groins for jetty protection (Indian Ocean Tsunami (2007)) Groin field for coast protection and run up reduction (Indian Ocean Tsunami (2007)). Before considering the application of these measures an economical and feasibility study should be carried out in order to determine if they are viable and the benefits they will supposed Cost estimation Introduction The costs carried out in this section will just be the ones that the port authority will have to defray. Assuming that the port organization is a Landlord port (since it is the most competitive organization) the total cost of the port facilities will be shared by the port authority and the private operators. The port authority will be responsible for the construction of the port infrastructure where as private operator will build the superstructures needed for the terminal exploitation. Chapter 7: Most promising alternative 149