GHD Aecom Basis of Design

Basis of Design
Document Ref: AGH-CEP0-DE-REP-0005
Basis of Design
In May 2016 the Special Minister of State asked Infrastructure Victoria to provide advice on
the future capacity of Victoria’s commercial ports. Specifically, the Minister has asked for
advice on when the need for a second container port is likely to arise and which variables
may alter this timeline. The Minister has also asked for advice on where a second container
port would ideally be located and under what conditions, including the suitability of, and
barriers to investing in, sites at the Port of Hastings and the Bay West location.
In undertaking this task, Infrastructure Victoria reviewed work that was completed as part of
the Port of Hastings development project before it was cancelled in 2014. This document
forms part of the initial work undertaken for the proposed port development at Hastings.
Infrastructure Victoria considers that much of the previous Hastings work, although
preliminary in nature, is relevant and suitable for informing a strategic assessment.
Therefore, Infrastructure Victoria has made the reports previously commissioned for the
development project part of the evidence base on which Infrastructure Victoria will use in
providing the Minister with advice.
The opinions, conclusions and any recommendations in this document are based on
conditions encountered and information reviewed at the date of preparation of the document
and for the purposes of the Port of Hastings Development Project.
Infrastructure Victoria and its consultants have used the information contained in these
reports as an input but have not wholly relied on all the information presented in these
reports.
DRAFT
Port of Hastings Development Project – Design and Engineering
Basis of Design
Client: Port of Hastings Development Authority

ABN: 33 737 350 749
Prepared by the AECOM + GHD Joint Venture

AECOM Australia Pty Ltd
Level 9, 8 Exhibition Street, Melbourne VIC 3000, Australia
T +61 3 9653 1234 F +61 3 9654 7117 www.aecom.com
+
GHD Pty Ltd
Level 8, 180 Lonsdale Street, Melbourne VIC 3000, Australia
T +61 3 8687 8000 F +61 3 8687 8111 www.ghd.com
JV ABN: 57 194 323 595
The AECOM + GHD Joint Venture in Australia and New Zealand are certified to the latest version of ISO9001, ISO14001, AS/NZS4801 and
OHSAS18001.
© AECOM + GHD Joint Venture. All rights reserved.
This Report has been prepared by the AECOM + GHD Joint Venture for the Port of Hastings Development Authority and may only be used
and relied on by the Port of Hastings Development Authority for the purpose agreed between the AECOM + GHD Joint Venture and the
Port of Hastings Development Authority as set out in this Report.
The AECOM + GHD Joint Venture otherwise disclaims responsibility to any person other than the Port of Hastings Development Authority
arising in connection with this Report. The AECOM + GHD Joint Venture also excludes implied warranties and conditions, to the extent
legally permissible.
The services undertaken by the AECOM + GHD Joint Venture in connection with preparing this Report were limited to those specifically
detailed in the Report and are subject to the scope limitations set out in the Report.
The opinions, conclusions and any recommendations in this Report are based on conditions encountered and information reviewed at the
date of preparation of the Report. The AECOM + GHD Joint Venture has no responsibility or obligation to update this Report to account for
events or changes occurring subsequent to the date that the Report was prepared.
The opinions, conclusions and any recommendations in this Report are based on assumptions made by the AECOM + GHD Joint Venture
described in this Report. The AECOM + GHD Joint Venture disclaims liability arising from any of the assumptions being incorrect.

Basis of Design
15-May-15
DRAFT
Quality Information
Project Port of Hastings Development Project – Design and Engineering
Document Basis of Design
Ref AGH-CEP0-DE-REP-0005
Date 15-May-15
Prepared by Ben Gray, Andrew McArthur, Stephen Martin & Ian Cookson
Reviewed by Venket Naidu, Richard Clarke & Peter Fountain
Revision History
Authorised
Revision
Revision Details
Date
Name/Position Signature
A 24-Sep-14 Draft Peter Fountain Peter Fountain *

Project Director
B 5-Dec-14 Second Working Draft Peter Fountain Peter Fountain *
Project Director
C 27-Feb-15 Incorporating TAG comments Richard Clarke Richard Clarke *
Technical Manager
0 15-May-15 Final Working Draft Peter Fountain Peter Fountain *
Project Director

Basis of Design
15-May-15
Table of Contents
1.0 Introduction 1
1.1 Background 1
1.2 Purpose of this Document 1
1.2.1 Status of this Document 1
1.3 Guiding Principles for Port Planning and Design 2
1.3.1 Functionality 2
1.3.2 Sustainability 2
1.3.3 Environmental 2
1.3.4 Durability 2
1.3.5 Serviceability 3
1.3.6 Safety in Design 3
1.3.7 Constructability 3
1.3.8 Future Proofing 3
2.0 Existing Conditions 4
2.1 General 4
2.2 Survey Data 4
2.2.1 Datum 4
2.2.2 Bathymetry 4
2.2.3 Topography 4
2.2.4 Cadastral and Planning 4
2.3 Ground Conditions 6
2.3.1 Regional Setting 6
2.3.2 Generalised Stratigraphy 8
2.3.3 Acid Sulphate Soils (ASS) 8
2.3.4 Contamination 8
2.3.5 Groundwater 8
2.4 Metocean 9
2.4.1 Available Data 9
2.4.2 Tidal Planes 9
2.4.3 Extreme Water Levels 9
2.4.4 Winds 10
2.4.5 Waves 12
2.4.6 Currents 13
2.4.7 Coastal Processes 14
2.4.8 Rainfall 14
2.4.9 Visibility 14
2.4.10 Temperature 14
2.5 Existing Port Infrastructure 15
2.5.1 The Port 15
2.5.2 Special Use Zone 15
2.5.3 Channels, Anchorages, Berth Pockets and Navigational Aids 17
2.5.4 Port Terminal Infrastructure 19
2.5.5 Pipelines 19
2.5.6 Utilities 19
2.5.7 Drainage Networks 21
2.5.8 Transport Networks 21
3.0 Planning Parameters and Operational Criteria 22
3.1 Vessel Navigation and Marine Operations 22
3.1.1 Design Vessels 22
3.1.2 Vessel Operations 24
3.1.3 Navigational Channels 26
3.2 Container Terminal 27
Basis of Design
15-May-15
3.2.1 Cargo Types and Trade Forecast 27
3.2.2 Planning Parameters 28
3.3 Other Terminals 29
3.3.1 Bass Strait Trade 29
3.4 Road and Rail Infrastructure 29
3.4.1 Roads 29
3.4.2 Rail 30
3.5 Port Services 31
3.5.1 Port Administration 31
3.5.2 Harbourmaster 31
3.5.3 Pilot 31
3.5.4 Line Boats 31
3.5.5 Tugs 31
3.5.6 Security 32
3.5.7 Customs 32
3.5.8 Quarantine 32
3.5.9 Pollution Control Services 32
3.5.10 Vessel Servicing and Repair 32
3.5.11 Survey / Maintenance 32
3.5.12 Fire Services and Emergency Response 32
3.5.13 Bunkering 32
3.6 Port Precinct 32
3.6.1 Empty Container Facilities (ECF) 32
3.6.2 Port User Facilities 32
3.7 Port Environs 32
4.0 Engineering Design Criteria 35
4.1 General Requirements 35
4.1.1 Design Standards, Codes & Guidance 35
4.1.2 Design Life 37
4.1.3 Stability Criteria 38
4.2 Dredging 39
4.2.1 General 39
4.2.2 Criteria for Dredged Slopes 39
4.2.3 Tolerances and Limits 39
4.3 Reclamations and Edge Structures 39
4.3.1 Environmental Loads 39
4.3.2 Live Loading 39
4.3.3 Seismic Design Criteria 39
4.3.5 Revetments 41
4.4 Dredge Spoil Disposal and Containment Structures 42
4.5 Onshore Earthworks 42
4.6 Berth Structures 42
4.6.1 Loads 42
4.6.2 Serviceability Criteria 45
4.6.3 Deck Level 45
4.6.4 Earth Retaining Structures 45
4.6.5 Scour Protection 45
4.6.7 Fenders 46
4.7 Terminal Pavements and Foundations 46
4.7.1 Standards 46
4.7.2 Loads 46
4.7.3 Grading and Settlement 46
4.7.4 Pavement Subgrade Conditions 47
Basis of Design
15-May-15
4.7.5 Pavement Types 47
4.7.6 Differential Settlement Criteria 47
4.8 Terminal Structures and Buildings (if required) 47
4.9 Terminal Utility Services 47
4.9.1 Stormwater 47
4.9.2 Potable Water 48
4.9.3 Sewerage 48
4.9.4 Electrical 48
4.9.5 Lighting 49
4.9.6 Communications and Security 49
4.9.7 Fire Fighting Systems 49
4.9.8 Bunker Facility (if required) 49
4.10 Port Services Infrastructure 49
4.11 Security 50
4.12 Navigation Aids 50
4.13 Terminal Access Roads and Bridges 50
4.13.1 Outside the SUZ 1 50
4.13.2 Geometric Road Design Criteria in the SUZ1 50
4.13.3 Pavements 51
4.13.4 SubSurface Drainage 51
4.14 Terminal Rail Access and Sidings 51
4.14.1 Geometric Design Criteria 51
4.15 Port Precinct Infrastructure 52
4.16 Port Environs Infrastructure 52
Appendix A Glossary 53
Appendix B References 56

Basis of Design
15-May-15
1.0 Introduction
1.1 Background
The Victorian Government has identified the Port of Hastings as the suitable site for additional capacity for
international container trade as the Port of Melbourne reaches capacity, expected by early to mid-2020s. The
Port of Hastings will initially complement the Port of Melbourne, then compete with the Port of Melbourne and
eventually replace the container related business at the Port of Melbourne.
The Victorian Government established the Port of Hastings Development Authority on 1 January 2012 as the
first key step in fast tracking the development of Hastings as a future container port with the aim of providing
increased capacity and competition in the container ports sector.
The Authority’s objectives for the Project are to:
 Make a positive contribution to Victorian and national economic growth and productivity over the long
term;
 Create a commercially viable container Port which services the long term needs of Victoria;
 Deliver a world-class competitive Port which is attractive to shipping lines and supply chain owners and
operators;
 Achieve a minimum port capacity of nine million TEU by 2060 (the first stage operational in mid 2020s)
which is integrated into the Victorian freight network;
 Construct, operate and maintain a safe and sustainable port;
 Optimise benefits and manage impacts of the Project on the community, existing customers and the
environment; and
 Maximise whole-of-life value for money for government.
1.2 Purpose of this Document

The objective of the Design and Engineering (D&E) Work Stream services is to undertake a range of technical
assessments, as well as provide ongoing advice and guidance to the Authority to assist the Authority to:
 Complete applicable environmental impact assessments and approvals requirements for Victorian and
Commonwealth decision-makers.
 Produce a Business Case for the Project to inform a final development decision for the Victorian
Government.
This document outlines the criteria and rationale to be used for the development of port layout options,
engineering solutions, preliminary design and capital/operating cost estimates as required to inform the
above scope of work.
1.2.1 Status of this Document
This revision of the document is based on Part 1 studies as at the end of September 2014. The document is not
complete, and will need to be updated as associated work stream studies are progressed.
These further studies include:
 articulation of the port vision to confirm project objectives,
 trade demand studies (forecasting) to confirm trade types and volumes,
 vessel fleet forecasting studies,
 consultations with the Harbourmaster and the Port Phillip Sea Pilots regarding vessel and channel
operations,

Basis of Design
15-May-15 1
 consultation with industry regarding terminal functional requirements,
 traffic modelling and ‘Concept of Rail Operations’ studies to confirm road and rail mode share and
operational requirements,
 environmental studies to confirm baseline data and environmental management requirements,
 hydrodynamic studies to confirm met-ocean criteria and assumptions and
 dredge material management studies.
Consequently, this is a live document. It is incumbent on the user to ensure they use the current revision,
which will be accessible to authorised users as a “controlled document”.
1.3 Guiding Principles for Port Planning and Design

This section summarises the design principles of the project and the various components forming part of the
Design and Engineering work package.
The following sections are placeholders until the port vision work is undertaken.
1.3.1 Functionality
Planning and design is required to:
 enable development of a commercially viable, efficient and internationally competitive port.
 satisfy environmental, safety and operational criteria;
 provide appropriate berth lengths and terminal areas in stages to satisfy future operational and
commercial needs;
 provide flexibility for a range of possible terminal operating systems and different degrees of
sophistication and automation
 provide adequate landside road and rail ‘transport connectivity’ to meet projected demands;
 provide safe and cost effective approach channels with flexibility for further development as trade and
vessel trends dictate;
 provide land for port centric logistics operations to optimise distribution within the state of Victoria and
beyond.
In addition the importance level of the infrastructure such as the wharf structure will need to be decided to
inform the design standards adopted in relation to environmental return periods and performance. Post
Disaster Structures or Exceptional Structure classifications will need to be considered.
1.3.2 Sustainability
Planning and design of the port will be in accordance with sustainability principles outlined in the Sustainability
and Durability Principles Summary Report (Reference 7). This includes adaptability to future climate change
and to reduce energy demand and harmful emissions.
1.3.3 Environmental
The planning and design outcomes will need to support the environmental values of Western Port. Specifically,
the planning will consider the findings of numerical modelling ‘sensitivity tests’, ecological conceptual models,
risk analyses and multi-criteria assessments that are being undertaken concurrently by the Environment and
Social workstream.
1.3.4 Durability
The basis of design includes parameters that specify ‘design life’ and ‘durability’ requirements for the future
assets of the port. These are intended to support the development of a sustainable design, construction and
operational practice, adopting a whole-of-life-cycle approach, with minimal future disruption due to
maintenance.
Basis of Design
15-May-15 2
1.3.5 Serviceability
Future settlement and movement design parameters are required for ongoing serviceability of berth
structures, pavements and foundations. These will recognise the requirements for terminal operations for a
range of operating systems. These parameters also need to recognise the realities of the site ground conditions
and the economical and practical limits of ground improvement achievable in cost-effective and timely
terminal development. Residual settlements will need to be catered for in the engineering designs without
undue cost or long term loss of functionality or unacceptable maintenance and operational disruption.
The need to minimise other types of maintenance disruption is an important performance objective that needs
to underpin the port designs.
1.3.6 Safety in Design
Safety in design (SiD) is a process aimed at preventing incidents, injuries and disease by considering hazards
and enhancing safety to the extent possible during a project design phase. This process considers all stages of
the asset life, ie construction, operation, expansion, maintenance and demolition.
For this project, it is recognised that the identification of critical health and safety related risks that may affect
the project development is of prime importance. This as a minimum shall consider geotechnical risks, ground
contamination, future emissions, operational scenarios, vessel movements and hazard classes and land use
planning.
1.3.7 Constructability
Consideration of construction issues, methods, staging and program requirements will be necessary to ensure
the facility is cost effective, planned with a realistic schedule and expandable when required and in a timely
and efficient manner.
1.3.8 Future Proofing
Planning and design need to provide flexibility to accommodate continuing change including:
 Existing port operations
 trade characteristics
 vessel sizes and cargo exchange
 terminal operating systems
 levels of terminal automation
 growth in rail share
 further evolution and enforcement of sustainability principles
 climate change including sea level rise.

Basis of Design
15-May-15 3
2.0 Existing Conditions
2.1 General
This section summarises the existing conditions within the port development area, port precincts and port
environs.
Further information of the existing condition can be found on the Port of Hastings Webmap
(https://projectmap.ghd.com/pohda/) developed by the Authority for this project. This website will be
updated as the project progresses with more relevant information.
Extensive references in this section are made to the Port of Hastings 2013 Descriptive Report (Reference 3).
This was prepared as an overview of the existing knowledge base and geographical context for the Port of
Hastings.
2.2 Survey Data

2.2.1 Datum
Horizontal datum for the project is Geocentric Datum of Australia 1994 (GDA94), and projected to Map Grid of
Australia, Universal Transverse Mercator Zone 55 (MGA z55).
Chart Datum (CD) at Stony Point has been adopted as the vertical datum for the marine and terminal
infrastructure. For the port precincts and port environs, Australian Height Datum (AHD) has been adopted as
the vertical datum. Chart Datum at Stony Point is recorded as being 1.69 m below Australian Height Datum
(AHD), (Victorian Tide Tables, 2014).
It should be noted that tidal monitoring at Long Island Point is ongoing and the development of a project
datum for Long Island Point is expected at a future stage of the project. This is being undertaken by the
Hydrodynamic work stream. The project datum will be adopted when it is established.
2.2.2 Bathymetry
The bathymetry data is sourced from Spatial Information Infrastructure, Department of Sustainability and
Environment, in particular the Coastal 2.5m resolution DEM and reduced to Lowest Astronomical Tide (LAT) for
Stony Point, which is approximately the same as chart datum. This is available on the Port of Hastings Webmap
(https://projectmap.ghd.com/pohda/). Further work is planned to be undertaken to fill in the missing gaps
within this data set.
Relevant navigation charts include:
AUS 150 – Western Port (Edition No. 2 dated 4 Jun 2010)
AUS 151 – Western Port – Entrance and North Arm (Edition No. 2 dated 4 Jun 2010)
AUS 152 – Western Port – Hastings Bight, Hanns Inlet, Rutherford Inlet and Crib Point (Edition No. 2 dated 4 Jun
2010)
2.2.3 Topography
The topography of Western Port is described in the Port of Hastings 2013 Descriptive Report. Terrestrial
elevation data and feature survey has been compiled for the SUZ1 area as described in the report from
Watsons (Reference 5).
2.2.4 Cadastral and Planning
The Planning Zones affecting the Port of Hastings Site are shown in Figure 2-1. Further information including
cadastral parcels and planning overlays, are shown on the Port of Hastings Webmap
(https://projectmap.ghd.com/pohda/) and in the Port of Hastings 2013 Descriptive Report (Reference 3).
Planning zones, overlays and cadastral parcels are sourced from the Department of Environment and Primary
Industry.

Basis of Design
15-May-15 4
Figure 2-1. Planning zones over and surrounding the Port of Hastings

Basis of Design
15-May-15 5
2.3 Ground Conditions
This section provides a brief summary of the geology of the project area. Details of the geotechnical conditions
across the site are provided in the Geotechnical Interpretative Report (Reference 8) and an associated three
dimensional ground model.
2.3.1 Regional Setting
Near surface materials across Western Port comprise shallow marine deposits underlain by widespread non-
marine sands, sandy clays and minor gravels deposited from the Miocene to the early Pleistocene. There are
extensive deposits of now stabilized dune sands that were active during Pleistocene glacial times of low sea
level. The most recent marine submergence occurred in the last 6,000 years during the Holocene post-glacial
rise in sea level. The northern and north eastern margin of the bay was an extensive and low-lying freshwater
wetland, now almost completely drained. Extensive stands of mangrove and salt marsh fringe much of the
coastline of the bay and the islands. The geology and morphology of Western Port is shown in Figure 2-2.

Basis of Design
15-May-15 6
Figure 2-2. Surface Geology and Faults of Western Port

Basis of Design
15-May-15 7
2.3.2 Generalised Stratigraphy
The stratigraphy of the western side of Western Port (which encompasses the Project site) consists of:
 Anthropogenic deposits comprising terrestrial fill, and land reclamation fill at the BlueScope Steel wharf
and the Old Tyabb reclamation
 Quaternary deposits including onshore dune sands, alluvium, and swamp and lagoon sediments, and
offshore soft and loose marine deposits overlying the Baxter Formation
 Baxter Formation which disconfomably overlies the Sherwood Formation and elsewhere disconformably
overlies the Older Volcanics and unconformably overlies the Silurian rock.
 Sherwood Formation also overlying the Older Volcanics or the Silurian rock, and the Yallock Formation.
 Yallock Formation encountered at depth overlying the Older Volcanics and the Silurian rocks
 Older Volcanics weathered basalt present to the south of French Island and Stoney Point in the Western
Channel and Anchorage
 Silurian marine sedimentary basement rock underlying the area
Quaternary dune sands comprising local thin deposits of loose to dense silty sands and sands are locally
present in the terrestrial SUZ1 area. Quaternary alluvium is inferred to be locally present in terrestrial areas.
Quaternary marine deposits are present at seabed comprising thin layers (generally < 1 to 4 m thick) of loose
sand and very soft to firm clays and silts of low to high plasticity. Undifferentiated Quaternary, interpreted to
be derived from reworking of underlying Tertiary deposits, is locally present in offshore areas which comprise
similar materials to the underlying Baxter Formation but also contain shell fragments and were of lower
strength.
Baxter Formation is extensively present at shallow depth across the terrestrial and marine areas of the
proposed Port Area, comprising variable interbedded sands, silts and clays which are typically relatively
competent. Cemented layers are present within the unit, with occasional layers of extremely low to high
strength rock reported. Sherwood Formation occurs at depth across the terrestrial and marine areas and
generally comprises low to intermediate plasticity silts and high plasticity clays. Cemented layers are common
within this unit.
Older Volcanics are present near surface between The Nobbies and Sandy Point as a variably weathered
material ranging from fresh rock to extremely weathered boulders and cobbles in a clay matrix. Highly to
moderately weathered basalt rock of extremely low to very high strength was encountered in the Western
Channel and gravelly clay and extremely to moderately weathered basalt of medium to high strength was
encountered in the Anchorage area during the 2013/2014 investigation.
Silurian Sandstone and Siltstones are present as a variably weathered basement rock and have been
encountered in the Port Area south of the BlueScope wharf at depths ranging from 22 m to 47 m below sea
bed.
2.3.3 Acid Sulphate Soils (ASS)
Criteria relevant to ASS are yet to be defined. They are part of the Environmental work streams’ scope.
2.3.4 Contamination
Contamination criteria are yet to be defined. They are part of the Environmental and Hydrodynamic work
streams’ scope.
2.3.5 Groundwater
Criteria relevant to groundwater are yet to be defined. They are part of the Environmental work streams’
scope.

Basis of Design
15-May-15 8
2.4 Metocean
2.4.1 Available Data
The Port of Hastings 2013 Description Report – Hydrodynamics Report (Reference 1) provides background
information on the metocean environment and the coastal process in Western Port. Further investigations are
currently being undertaken by the Hydrodynamics work stream to update, and provide further information
suitable for the development of conceptual options.
2.4.2 Tidal Planes
Tides within Western Port are semi-diurnal with a strong lunar semi-diurnal component. The tidal range
increases with distance from the entrance to the Western Channel, similarly to the tidal lag. The difference in
tidal range between Flinders and Tooradin is approximately 0.8 m, with tidal lag about two hours between the
same locations. There is a reported tidal amplification and lag within Western Port. The tidal range at Tooradin
is greater than at Stony Point. There are occasions when the water level at Stony Point is lower than that at
Tooradin, but none where it exceeds the value at Tooradin (Reference 10). Table 2-1 summarises the tide levels
for Stony Point, however it should be noted that the historical tide records at Stony Point have not accurately
recorded the high tide levels. These tidal planes will be reviewed following analysis of tidal monitoring data at
Long Island Point by the Hydrodynamic workstream.
Table 2-1. Tide levels for Western Port (Stony Point) (PoMC Victorian tide tables, 2014)
Tidal level Height (m AHD) Height (m CD)

Highest recorded tide (06/06/88) 2.09 3.78
Highest astronomical tide (HAT) 1.72 3.31
Mean High Water Spring (MHWS) 1.15 2.84
Mean High Water Neap (MHWN) 0.70 2.39
Mean Sea Level (MSL) 0.035 1.725
Australian Height Datum 0.00 1.69
Mean Low Water Neap (MLWN) -0.63 1.06
Mean Low Water Spring (MLWS) -1.08 0.61
Lowest astronomical tide (LAT) -1.69 0.00
Lowest recorded tide (27/11/03) -1.975 -0.285
The full set of 9 tidal constants is still to be defined by the Hydrodynamic workstream.
2.4.3 Extreme Water Levels
In the absence of detailed extreme water level calculations by the Hydrodynamic team (yet to be completed at
the time of writing), the parameters in Table 2-2, Table 2-3 and Table 2-4 will be adopted for the preliminary
planning purposes. The parameters in Table 2-2 and Table 2-3 reflect sea level rise, storm surge and tide levels
for the IPCC 2007 A1FI scenario in combination with a ‘high’ wind speed scenario. The storm tide figures in
Table 2-3 include a joint probability assessment of climate change and surge effects.
Table 2-2: Climate change scenarios and sea level rise – Victoria (CSIRO, 2009)
2030 2070 2100

Sea level rise (m) 0.15 0.47 0.82
Wind speed increase (%) 4 13 19

Basis of Design
15-May-15 9
Table 2-3: Storm surge in metres and storm tide height in metres relative to MSL – Stony Point, Vic (CSIRO, 2009)
Return 2030 2070 2100

Current climate
Period 1 2 1 2 1 2
10 0.74 ±0.05 0.89 0.95 1.21 1.4 1.56 1.84
Storm Surge
20 0.77 ±0.05 0.92 0.98 1.24 1.44 1.59 1.88

(m)
50 0.8 ±0.06 0.95 1.01 1.27 1.48 1.62 1.92

100 0.82 ±0.06 0.97 1.04 1.29 1.5 1.64 1.95
10 1.62 ±0.19 1.77 1.83 2.09 2.25 2.44 2.68
Storm Tide (m
to MSL)
20 1.79 ±0.20 1.94 2.00 2.26 2.4 2.61 2.85

50 1.94 ±0.21 2.09 2.17 2.41 2.61 2.76 3.00
100 2.08 ±0.22 2.23 2.3 2.55 2.73 2.9 3.14
Notes:
1. Climate change scenario 1 - IPCC 2007 A1FI scenario - Hunter (2009)
2. Climate change scenario 2 - IPCC 2007 A1FI scenario in combination with ‘high’ wind speed scenario
3. It is noted that the Victorian Coastal Strategy 2014 (Reference 11) recommends allowance for 0.8m
sea level rise by 2100.
Based on storm tide information in Table 2-3 the storm tide levels relative to Chart Datum for use in design are
given in Table 2-4. In the absence of detailed wave / tide joint probability analysis by the Hydrodynamics team
the 1:100 year ARI event in 2100 will be used to define platform levels, and the 1:50 year ARI event in 2100 will
be used to derive wave overtopping volumes and determine seawall crest levels.
Table 2-4 Storm sea levels in metres CD based on Table 2-3
Return 2030 2070 2100

Current climate
Period 1 2 1 2 1 2
10 3.35 ±0.19 3.5 3.56 3.82 3.98 4.17 4.41
Storm Tide
20 3.52 ±0.20 3.67 3.73 3.99 4.13 4.34 4.58

(CD)
50 3.67 ±0.21 3.82 3.9 4.14 4.34 4.49 4.73

100 3.81 ±0.22 3.96 4.03 4.28 4.46 4.63 4.87
2.4.4 Winds
2.4.4.1 Normal Winds
The wind climate around Western Port has been assessed using Bureau of Meteorology (BoM) wind data from
the anemometers at Rhyll and Cerberus, with some additional wind data taken from Long Island Point and the
tide gauge at Stony Point (refer to Table 2-4). The data for Cerberus contained many zero values indicating
calm periods and these have been removed from the wind rose to more accurately reflect the directional
distribution. This data is still to be updated by the Hydrodynamic work stream.
The seasonal wind roses are presented in the Port of Hastings 2013 Description Report – Hydrodynamics
Report (Reference 1).

Basis of Design
15-May-15 10
(a) (b)
(c) (d)
Figure 2-3. (a) Cerberus (b) Rhyll (c) Stony Point data (d) Long Island Point - wind speed (m/s) against direction 2000-2013
2.4.4.2 Extreme Winds

Extreme winds based on AS1170 Part 2 are tabulated in Table 2-5. These are based on the following:
 Annual Probability of Exceedance: 1/1000 (Design life 100yrs, Importance Level 2*)
 Regional Wind Speed: Vr = 46.5m/s (3 second gust)
 Terrain Category: 2**
 Terrain/Height Multiplier: Mz cat = 1.00 ***
a) Importance Level refers to consequence of failure as defined by AS1170.0:2002 – Structural Design
Actions – General Principles. Note that AS1170 Part 2 cites more onerous design criteria for structures
with special post disaster functions (Importance Level 4).
b) Terrain Category 1 refers to exposed open terrain with few or no obstructions and water surfaces at
serviceability wind speeds

Basis of Design
15-May-15 11
c) Terrain Category 2 refers to water surfaces, open terrain, grassland with few, well-scattered
obstructions having heights generally from 1.5m to 10m.
d) Wind speeds have been adjusted corresponding to a structure height of 10m. Wind speeds do not
incorporate any factored increase to reflect future climate change predictions.
Allowance for Terrain Category 1 wind speeds shall be made for structures in exposed areas of the terminal
such as the berth and structures adjacent to open areas of land and water for normal and extreme conditions.
Table 2-5 Extreme Wind Speeds (Terrain Category 1)
Site Wind Speed (3 Second Gust) m/s

Wind Return Period
Direction
1 Year 5 Years 25 Years 100 Years 250 Years 500 Years 1000 Years
North 29.1 35.9 41.8 46.1 48.6 50.4 52.0
North East 24.8 30.6 35.5 39.2 41.3 42.8 44.2
East 23.3 28.8 33.4 36.9 38.9 40.3 41.6
South East 23.3 28.8 33.4 36.9 38.9 40.3 41.6
South 24.8 30.6 35.5 39.2 41.3 42.8 44.2
South West 26.2 32.4 37.6 41.5 43.7 45.3 46.8
West 29.1 35.9 41.8 46.1 48.6 50.4 52.0
North West 27.7 34.1 39.7 43.8 46.2 47.9 49.4
Table 2-6 Extreme Wind Speeds (Terrain Category 2)
Site Wind Speed (3 Second Gust) m/s

Wind Return Period
Direction 1 Year 5 Years 25 Years 100 Years 250 Years 500 Years 1000 Years
North 26.0 32.1 37.3 41.1 43.4 45.0 46.5
North East 22.1 27.3 31.7 35.0 36.9 38.2 39.5
East 20.8 25.7 29.8 32.9 34.7 36.0 37.2
South East 20.8 25.7 29.8 32.9 34.7 36.0 37.2
South 22.1 27.3 31.7 35.0 36.9 38.2 39.5
South West 23.4 28.9 33.6 37.0 39.1 40.5 41.8
West 26.0 32.1 37.3 41.1 43.4 45.0 46.5
North West 24.7 30.5 35.4 39.1 41.2 42.7 44.1
2.4.5 Waves
The wave climate within the port varies with the northern reaches of the existing navigation channel and
turning basin exposed to primarily local wind waves and the southern section of the navigation channel
exposed to both local wind waves and swell.
Initial wind wave parameters are presented in Table 2-7 where the significant wave height (Hs) is defined as the
average of the highest third of waves in the wave spectrum. These have been estimated using in-house
spreadsheet calculations based on the methods presented in the Shore Protection Manual and using ultimate
design wind speeds in accordance with AS1170.2 - 2002 and applicable between Long Island Point and
Bluescope.

Basis of Design
15-May-15 12
Table 2-7 Estimated Significant Wave Height and Period
Return Period
1 Year 100 Years 500 Years
Direction Southerly Southerly Southerly
Significant Wave Height Hs (m) 1.0 1.8 2.0
Period T (s) 3.5 4.3 4.4
Additional wave information is still to be defined by the Hydrodynamic workstream however initial estimates of
1 year return period waves agree with those tabulated above.
2.4.6 Currents
Tidal currents within Western Port were modelled as part of the Western Port Receiving Water Quality
Modelling (Harrison et al., 2007). The study found that the residual currents are strongly influenced by the
braided channel and bank formations within the inner eastern estuary. The trends for a 15 day spring-neap
tidal cycle are presented in Figure 2-4.
Figure 2-4. Residual velocity vectors and depth showing dominant tidal driven currents in the absence of wind (Harrison et al. 2007)
A data acquisition campaign in December 2012 (Reference 1) gathered information that has furthered the
understanding of the flows in the vicinity of the proposed development. The data showed that the dominant
flow direction of the northern deployed ADCP was along a NE/SW axis. The mean flow speed for the month
deployment was 0.42 m/s, with a maximum of 0.85 m/s. The southern ADCP flow direction was along a N/S
axis, with mean flow speeds of 0.44 m/s and a maximum of 1.0 m/s.
Basis of Design
15-May-15 13
Figure 5. Location of the Southern and Northern ADCPs
The navigation chart for the Port of Hastings (Aus 150 “Western Port”) indicates that tidal currents in excess of
2 knots are experienced in the shipping channels immediately to the south of the Bluescope jetty area, and
tidal currents in excess of 3.5 knots are experienced in the Western Channel (off Phillip Island).
Further current monitoring is being carried out in the study area to support planning, design and calibration of
numerical modelling by the Hydrodynamic work stream and the above will be updated when this information is
available.
2.4.7 Coastal Processes
The characteristics of sediment movement in Western Port are discussed in the Port of Hastings 2013
Description Report – Hydrodynamics Report (Reference 1).
Sand waves in the channel off Stony Point have been recorded. These are discussed in the Port of Hastings
2013 Description Report – Hydrodynamics Report (Reference 1) and further investigations are currently being
undertaken by the Hydrodynamic work stream. The sand waves have previously been monitored and were
found to be stable, with the tops of the sand waves being close to -14.3 m CD (Stony Point).
2.4.8 Rainfall
Criteria relevant to rainfall intensities are yet to be completed by the Hydrodynamic workstream.
2.4.9 Visibility
Criteria relevant to visibility are yet to be completed by the Hydrodynamic workstream.
2.4.10 Temperature
Extremes of shade air temperature for Coastal Region II (ie locations within 20km of the coast and South of
ο
22.5 S) and altitudes of less than 1,000m above sealevel taken from AS 5100.2 are as follows:
 Maximum = 45°C
 Minimum = -1°C

Basis of Design
15-May-15 14
2.5 Existing Port Infrastructure
2.5.1 The Port
The Port of Hastings is an operational commercial port serving international and domestic shipping movements
that include import and export of crude oil, LPG, ULP, general cargo, project cargo, ship to ship transfer, pipe
laying operations and the lay-up/repair of oil rigs/floating platforms. The current port facilities do not handle
containerised freight. Historically the port has been used to import steel slab but this has been discontinued.
The existing port infrastructure includes berths and land in three precincts – Long Island Point, Crib Point and
Stony Point. Studies completed to date have confirmed the focus of port expansion activities in the area to the
north of Long Island Point and in and around the 3,000 hectares of land north of Hastings township. This area is
zoned for port related uses and is referred to as the Special Use Zone (SUZ1).
Within the port environs, land is already utilised by BlueScope Steel, Esso-BHP Billiton and other land owners
and tenants. The shipping channels are owned and managed by the Victorian Regional Channels Authority.
Further details are contained in the Port of Hastings 2013 Descriptive Report (Reference 3).
2.5.2 Special Use Zone
The boundaries of the SUZ 1 area (port environs) and the overall study area for the landside infrastructure are
shown in Figure 2-6.

Basis of Design
15-May-15 15
Figure 2-6. Port Environs (SUZ1) and the study area

Basis of Design
15-May-15 16
2.5.3 Channels, Anchorages, Berth Pockets and Navigational Aids
The shipping channel to the Port of Hastings terminals consists of a two-way channel starting from the west of
Phillip Island and heading in a north easterly direction to Sandy Point where it turns to the north to the existing
berths. The channel has a one way capacity from north of Sandy Point to the existing berths at BlueScope.
Channels, approaches, swing basin, anchorage and berth pocket details are listed in Table 2-8 and Table 2-9
and are shown in Figure 2-7.
Table 2-8 Channels, Anchorages and Swing Basins in the Port of Hastings
Length Min. width 1-Way / declared

Channel section 1 Description
(km) (m) 2-Way depth (m)
Primary channels
Western Channel – South 8.0 400 2 14.8 Fairway Buoy to Buoys 7 & 8
Western Channel – Centre 6.0 400 2 14.8 Nos.7 & 8 to 13 & 14 Buoys
Western Channel – North 3.80 400 2 14.8 Nos.13 & 14 to 17 & 18 Buoys
North Arm – South 3.2 180 1 14.2 Nos.19 & 20 Buoys to Crib Point
North Arm – North 5.81 245 1 14.2 Nos.25 to 29 Buoys

Approaches and Swing Basins
Crib Point Approach - - 1 12.7 24 Buoy to Crib Point Jetty
Crib Point Swing Basin - - 1 14.2 Adjacent to Crib Point Jetty
Long Island Point Swing Adjacent to Long Island Point
- - 1 14.2
Basin Jetty
Steel Wharves Approach North of Long Island Point to

200 1 9.0
Steel Wharves
Steel Wharves Swing Basin - - 9.0 Adjacent to Steel Wharves
Anchorages
East Arm Anchorage Primary anchorage,

10 to 20
immediately north of Cowes
Old Tyabb Anchorage 9.2 East of Old Tyabb Reclamation
Flinders Anchorage Between Flinders and Phillip

Island
Table 2-9. Existing Berth Pockets
Berth Depth (m) Length (m) Width (m)

Stony Point Jetty 2.5 to 6.5 - -
Crib Point Jetty No. 1 15.7 350 90
Long Island Point Jetty 15.7 350 90
BlueScope No.1 (Dedicated RORO berth) 12.0 290 30
BlueScope No. 2 12.0 290 30
1
Maintained depth source = Chart AUS 150 – Western Port (Edition No. 2 dated 4 Jun 2010)
Basis of Design
15-May-15 17
Figure 2-7. Port of Hastings Approach Channel

Basis of Design
15-May-15 18
2.5.4 Port Terminal Infrastructure
This section summarises the terminal infrastructure at each of the existing terminals. Further information is
included in the Port of Hastings 2013 Descriptive Report (Reference 3)
2.5.4.1 Long Island Point
Within the BlueScope site there are two berths owned by BlueScope Steel and operated by Patrick Western
Port Stevedores. Berth 1 is a Ro-Ro berth for stern door vessels up to 16,000 DWT. Berth 2 is a conventional
general cargo wharf, 152m long and suitable for vessels with a LOA of up to 190m and 50,000 DWT according
to Port of Hastings Operating Handbook & Harbour Master’s Directions Dec 2013.. These facilities have a
declared depth alongside of 12m and a swing basin diameter of 457m and are not currently used for the
steelworks facility. The northern general cargo berth is currently being used for project cargo.
Within the Esso site the Long Island Point Jetty is state owned and used by Esso and for the export of Gippsland
Crude Oil and LPG. This berth can cater for a 300m LOA, 100,000 DWT tanker however according to Port of
Hastings Operating Handbook & Harbour Master’s Directions Dec 2013, the facility has catered for ships up to
160,000 DWT in the past. .
2.5.4.2 Crib Point
There are two berths at Crib Point. Berth 1 can cater for a 100,000 DWT, 300m LOA vessel and is used by
United Petroleum for the discharge of refined petroleum fuels and automotive diesel to their terminal in
Hastings. Berth 2 has been decommissioned due to its poor condition.
2.5.4.3 Stony Point
The Stony Point Jetty is currently used for the Inter Island Ferry, Seahorse Spirit Navy charter ship, and the
Western Port Bay tug berth for two tug vessels. It is also used for recreational fishing. The jetty can
accommodate a vessel with an LOA of up to 70m and 2 x 52t (bollard pull) tugs each 34m long.
The Stony Point depot includes the administration building which also houses harbour control. There are also
several sheds and workshops within the jetty area, including a machinery shed, buoy workshop, dangerous
goods store, tug office and amenities. Pollution response and buoy maintenance operations are undertaken at
Stony Point.
2.5.5 Pipelines
A full list of all pipeline licences in the area, including details of operators, pipe content, length, diameter and
pressure is included in the Services & Utilities report (Reference 14).
Notable pipelines located within the port area (refer to Figure 2-8), include:
 Western Port-Altona-Geelong (WAG) Pipeline, used to transfer gas to refineries in Geelong and Altona
 ESSO Australia pipeline for the transfer of gas from Longford to Long Island
 Elgas and Vic Gas pipelines for Liquid Petroleum Gas (LPG) for local use
 Crude Oil pipeline from Longford to Long Island Point owned by Esso Australia and BHP Billiton
 United Petroleum Pty Ltd pipeline for unleaded petrol from Crib Point to storage facility at Long Island
Point.
In addition to the gas and oil pipelines, there are also the following services easements in the area:
 Water Pipeline – Melbourne Water
 High Voltage Transmission Line – United Energy
2.5.6 Utilities
Details of major local utilities and services are documented in the Services & Utilities report (Reference 14).

Basis of Design
15-May-15 19
Figure 2-8. Plan of existing utilities around the Port of Hastings

Basis of Design
15-May-15 20
2.5.7 Drainage Networks
The Long Island Point precinct is relatively flat and has existing, predominantly man made, drainage
infrastructure in place to cater for stormwater runoff.
A review of relevant data indicates that all of the major roads surrounding the site have swales or channels
running alongside them, with culverts crossing under roads in appropriate locations. There are two major
outlets to Western Port:
 to the north side of the existing Old Tyabb Reclamation at the end of Bayview Road, and
 to the south end of the Old Tyabb Reclamation near the end of Long Island Drive.
Further details on surface water catchments and their management are documented in the Services & Utilities
report (Reference 14).
2.5.8 Transport Networks
Access to the Western Port area is provided by major highways and a broad gauge railway. There are four
broad access routes between Melbourne and Western Port. On the Mornington Peninsula side, Peninsula Link
and Western Port Highway provide access, including the major strategic access routes to the Port of Hastings.
On the northern and eastern coast, the South Gippsland Highway and the Monash Freeway – Healesville-Koo
Wee Rup road routes provide strategic access.
Rail access is provided by a single-track broad gauge railway that operates as an extension of the double-track
electrified suburban Frankston line. This line serves multiple purposes including an intensive suburban
commuter railway, a low-frequency passenger service between Frankston and Stony Point, and established
freight movements to and from the steelworks at Long Island. A disused railway corridor exists through
Tooradin and Koo Wee Rup on the northern coastline of Western Port; it is currently being converted to a rail
trail by removing the disused rail infrastructure.
Further details are provided in the Port of Hastings 2013 Descriptive Report (Reference 3) and on the Port of
Hastings WebMap (https://projectmap.ghd.com/pohda/).

Basis of Design
15-May-15 21
3.0 Planning Parameters and Operational Criteria
3.1 Vessel Navigation and Marine Operations
3.1.1 Design Vessels
Background and details relating to forecast vessels are contained in the Commercial and Economic work stream
(Reference 9) report.
3.1.1.1 Container Vessels
Table 3-1 outlines the characteristics of the design container vessels expected to call at the Port of Hastings.
The following vessel sizes are preliminary only and are based on initial output from studies undertaken by the
Commercial and Economic workstream which are ongoing and subject to future change.
Table 3-1. Container Vessel Characteristics
Characteristic Unit Minimum Design Vessel Maximum

Vessel (Stage 1) Design Vessel
Design Ship Capacity TEUs 777 8,000 – 10,000 18,000 – 19,200
Dead Weight Tonnage (DWT) tonnes 12,600 93,600 195,000
Displacement Tonnage tonnes 17,200 135,600 249,000
Length Overall (LOA) m 144 300 400
Length Between Perpendiculars (LBP) m 135 286 376
Beam (B) m 22.6 42.8 59
Depth (D) m 10.8 24.6 30.3
Maximum Design Draught (TDesign) m 8 14.5 16
Air Draught (Ha) m
Transverse (i.e. y-axis) metacentric height m
of the ship (GM)
Longitudinal (i.e. x-axis) centre of m

metacentric height
Bow Radius m
Bow Flare Angle degrees
Main Engine – Power kW n/a
Main Engine – Propeller Diameter M n/a
Main Engine – % of total power utilised % n/a
whist at berth
Bow Thruster – Power kW n/a
Bow Thruster – Propeller Diameter % n/a
Bow Thruster – % of total power utilised m n/a
whist at berth
Note: Shaded areas are to be defined prior to Preliminary Design

Basis of Design
15-May-15 22
3.1.1.2 Tankers
Table 3-2 outlines the characteristics of the maximum tanker vessels that currently call at the Port of Hastings
and the possible future maximum vessel that could call at the Port of Hastings during the forecast period
(Reference 12). It is noted that growth in vessel size is allowed for petroleum product tankers only. It is noted
that these ship sizes could change following industry discussion with Hastings importers and exporters.
Table 3-2. Tanker Characteristics
Deadweight Tonnage -
Vessel LOA (m) Beam (m) Draught (m)
DWT (tonnes)
Crude oil tankers
 Current Maximum 115,000 250 44 15.5
 Possible Future Maximum 115,000 250 44 15.5
LPG tankers
 Current Maximum 58,000 230 37 12.6
Petroleum products tankers
 Current Maximum 45,000 187 32 12.2
3.1.1.3 Other Vessels

Table 3-3 outlines the characteristics of other vessels that will potentially use the port. The tabulated ship sizes
could change following industry discussion with relevant operators and stakeholders. Details of ongoing
operations at the Bluescope general cargo berth are to be confirmed for incorporation in the planned facilities.
Table 3-3. Other Vessel Characteristics
Offshore Project Bass Strait

1 Bunker
Characteristic Unit Tugs Supply Cargo RORO
Vessels 2
Vessels Vessels Vessels
Dead Weight Tonnage (DWT) tonnes n/a 11,000
Displacement Tonnage tonnes 14,127
Length Overall (LOA) m 35 184.4
Beam (B) m 12 23.64
Full-Load Draught (TFL) m 4.8 6.35
Length Between Perpendiculars
m n/a 172.37
(LBP)
Bow Radius m n/a
Bow Flare Angle degrees n/a
Twin or Single Screw Vessel
Main Engine – Power kW
Main Engine – Propeller
M
Diameter
Main Engine – % of total power % 100

Basis of Design
15-May-15 23
Offshore Project Bass Strait
1 Bunker
Characteristic Unit Tugs Supply Cargo RORO
Vessels 2
Vessels Vessels Vessels
utilised whist at berth
Bow Thruster – Power kW n/a
Bow Thruster – Propeller
% n/a
Diameter
Bow Thruster – % of total
m n/a
power utilised whist at berth
Notes
1. Based on a nominal tug pull of 68tonnes.
2. Based on the Victorian Reliance and Tasmanian Achiever that are currently used by Toll Transports at
Webb Dock 1 East
3. Shaded areas are to be defined prior to Preliminary Design
3.1.2 Vessel Operations

This section outlines preliminary vessel operational criteria in the Port of Hastings. This will be further refined
following completion of the 2D vessel simulation modelling and review with the Harbour Master and Port
Phillip Sea Pilots.
3.1.2.1 Vessel Transit Speeds
Initial estimates have been made of vessel transit speeds. Table 3-4 outlines the transit speeds through the
various channel sections from the pilot boarding ground at the Port Limits to either the Crib Point Jetty Swing
or Long Island Point. Figure 3-1, Figure 3-2 and Figure 3-3 outline the speed envelopes through the channel for
various vessel types and directions. The chainage has been defined based on the centreline of the existing
channel from the Port Limits at the pilot boarding ground.
These transit speeds are provisionally agreed with the Harbour Master and the Port Phillip Sea Pilots, and are
to be confirmed during full bridge navigation simulation studies.
Table 3-4. Speed Envelopes (Knots)
Pilot Western
Western North Arm North Arm
Vessel Boarding Swing Basin Channel
Channel In In Out
Ground Out
Container Vessels 12 16 12 6 12 16
Crude oil tankers
12 12-14 10 6 8-10 10-12
and LPG tankers
Petroleum products
12 14-16 12 6 12 14-16
tankers

Basis of Design
15-May-15 24
Figure 3-1. Speed Envelopes for Container Vessels
Figure 3-2. Speed Envelopes for Crude Oil Tankers and LPG Tankers
Figure 3-3. Speed Envelopes for Petroleum Products Tankers

Basis of Design
15-May-15 25
3.1.2.2 Arrival and Departure Draughts
The actual arrival and departure draughts are expected to be less than scantling draughts. An assessment of
actual sailing draughts is currently being undertaken by the Commercial and Economic workstream to further
inform the channel design, (Reference 13). At the time of writing, the findings of this study have not been
published.
3.1.2.3 Pilotage
Pilotage is compulsory for all commercial vessels except for some Bass Strait service vessels which may obtain
Harbourmaster exemptions.
The pilot boarding ground is assumed to remain at the current location which is approximately 3.5 NM south of
West Head at the western entrance to Western Port. As per the current operations vessels will embark their
pilot at the outer pilot boarding ground, in position approximate 38º 32.7’ S, 145º 01.8’ E.
3.1.2.4 Tug Assistance
According to the Port of Hastings Operating Handbook & Harbour Master’s Directions Dec 2013 there are
currently no prescribed requirements or criteria for the use of tugs in Western Port and tug assistance
requirements are determined by Owners, Masters and Pilots in consultation with the Harbour Master. Tug
requirements for the expanded port will be determined in consultation with the Harbour Master and the Port
Philip Sea Pilots and confirmed in full bridge navigation simulations.
Initial assessment is that as a minimum two tugs will be required to assist with the berthing and unberthing of
the design vessel in normal circumstances. The tugs will be required to have a 68 tonne bollard pull (minimum)
which covers all normal operating parameters. The design containerships which are expected to have ships’
own manoeuvring systems (ie bow and stern thrusters), will provide a safety margin in marginal conditions.
The tugs will join inbound container vessels between number 27 and 31 beacons and will secure once the
speed has reduced to 6kts as the vessel has entered the swing basin. Outward bound, the tugs will be released
in the vicinity of number 27 beacon.
It is assumed that escort towage will need to be provided for both inward and outward transits of the design
vessels.
Currently there are no criteria or prescribed requirements for the use of tugs in the Port of Hastings, however
adverse weather forecasts, storm surges or other exceptional circumstances may cause the Harbour Master to
require a “standby tug” to be made available while a vessel is in port. For the purpose of the Concept Design it
has been assumed that future port operations will require vessels to use tugs.
3.1.2.5 Vessel Traffic Service
The future port will need to have Vessel Traffic Service (VTS) for control of vessel movements. This VTS will
operate as part of the Harbour Master’s department and the Australian Maritime Safety Authority (AMSA).
3.1.3 Navigational Channels
3.1.3.1 Channel Design Parameters
The navigational channels are to be designed in accordance with PIANC Harbour Approach Channels Design
Guidelines – 2014. The design will be confirmed by the use of 2D modelling and full bridge simulation in
subsequent stages of the study. The navigation simulation program will be designed to demonstrate
navigational safety while minimising the extent of dredging required.
Navigation aids are to be designed in accordance with relevant IALA Recommendations and Guidelines.
In line with recommendations of PIANC WG 121-2014 guidelines, the channel will be aligned to ensure that the
channel toe lines do not come within 120 metres (2 x vessel Beam) of any tanker terminal berth pocket or
vessel at a tanker terminal.

Basis of Design
15-May-15 26
3.1.3.2 Channel Navigation Aids
The channel will be marked by paired lit buoys with radar reflectors and AIS transponders at a spacing and
visibility defined by the IALA regulations. Leading marks may be provided where appropriate. This corresponds
to an ‘Aids to Navigation’ rating of “good” according to the PIANC Harbour Approach Channel Design
Guidelines 2014. The navigational aid provision will be tested and verified during full bridge navigation
simulation.
3.1.3.3 Conceptual Dimensions
The conceptual dimensions for the anchorage, vessel approaches, swing basin and berth pockets will be based
on the PIANC guidelines and will be confirmed through 2D simulation and in liaison with the Port Philip Sea
Pilots and Harbour Master.
For conceptual planning of the berth pockets, it is considered reasonable to assume an inter-vessel spacing
equal to the beam of the vessel. The vessel is assumed to be berthed bow-out for operational and safety
reasons following consultation with Sea Pilots and Harbour Master.
3.2 Container Terminal

3.2.1 Cargo Types and Trade Forecast
3.2.1.1 Container Dimensions
ISO containers are recognised in terms of Twenty Foot Equivalent Units (TEU). Container details are presented
in the below table.
Table 3-5. Container Details
Out of Gauge
20’ 40’ 45’
(OOG)
Limited only by
Length 6.096 m 12.192 m 13.716 m
shipping lines
Limited only by
Width 2.438 m 2.438 m 2.438 m
shipping lines
Limited only by
Height 2.591 m 2.591 m /2.896 m 2.896 m
shipping lines
Limited only by
Weight empty 2,330 kg/2,400 kg 4,000 kg/ 4,300 kg 4,800 kg
shipping lines
Limited only by
Weight full 24,000 kg/30,480 kg 30,480 kg 30,480 kg
shipping lines
26,480 kg / 26,180 Limited only by
Payload 21,670 kg/28,080 kg 25,680 kg
kg shipping lines
3.2.1.2 Trade Forecast

Refer to the report prepared by the Commercial and Economic workstream (Reference 9)
3.2.1.3 20/40 Ratio
Refer to the report prepared by the Commercial and Economic workstream (Reference 9).
3.2.1.4 Modal Split
Refer to the report prepared by the Commercial and Economic workstream (Reference 9). Sensitivity testing
will be undertaken to consider the requirements for a maximum share of 30% to rail.

Basis of Design
15-May-15 27
3.2.1.5 Dwell Times by Mode
Refer to the report prepared by the Commercial and Economic workstream (Reference 9).
3.2.1.6 Vessel Call Spectrum
This is documented in the report prepared by the Commercial and Economic workstream (Reference 9)
3.2.2 Planning Parameters
3.2.2.1 Berth Performance Indicator
The proposed berth throughput targets are as outlined in Table 3-6. These estimates are preliminary and
subject to change based on output from terminal capacity/operations assessments.
Table 3-6. KPI by Time Period
Timing TEU/m
2020 - 2028 1,200 – 1,300
2029 - 2034 1,300 – 1,500
2035 - 2040 1,500 – 1,800
Beyond 2040 >2,100
3.2.2.2 Berth Utilisation

Targeted “not to exceed” berth utilisation shall be in line with published criteria to reflect random arrivals and
to ensure a service to waiting ratio of less than 10%. The adopted parameters are shown in the following table.
These estimates are preliminary and subject to change based on output from terminal capacity/operations
assessments.
Table 3-7. Berth Utilisation
No. of Berths Target Occupancy Rate

1 35%
2 50%
3 and more 65%
3.2.2.3 Container Terminal Operating Parameters

Design criteria and parameters related to the operational performance of the container terminal are defined in
the Terminal Systems Static Modelling Report (AGH-CEP0-DE-REP-0021). This documents parameters for:
 Crane Rates and Intensity
 Yard Operational Modes and Performance indicators
 Gate Operations
 Truck Turnaround Times
 Terminal Equipment
 Maintenance Facilities – (noting that a provisional building footprint of 120m x 30m will be provided per
4M TEU capacity terminal)
 Facilities for leaking containers, container isolation, out-of-gauge containers. reefer racks
 IT Systems
3.2.2.4 Operating Hours/ Downtime
Terminal operating hours are assumed to be 365 days per year, 24 hours per day.

Basis of Design
15-May-15 28
Downtime is to be assessed based on the wind data in Section 2.4.4.1 and the limitations of the cranes and
where relevant, vessel movements at berth arising from wave action.
3.2.2.5 Terminal Offices, Mess, Ablutions
The estimate for the numbers of staff and their functions is not yet confirmed. This will be undertaken as part
of the C&E work stream financial modelling activities.
The terminal planning shall however, include provision for terminal office buildings, canteen and amenities.
3.2.2.6 Security Systems and ISPS Boundaries
ISPS boundaries are to be defined in coordination with the State Authorities. Boundary conditions are to
comply with ISPS regulations. To be updated progressively based on output from terminal capacity/operations
assessments.
3.3 Other Terminals

3.3.1 Bass Strait Trade
Details of vessels servicing other precincts are documented in section 3.1.1.2
3.4 Road and Rail Infrastructure

3.4.1 Roads
3.4.1.1 Truck Fleet Profile
The types of vehicles to be accommodated at the Port of Hastings are presented in Table 3-8:
Table 3-8: Vehicle Fleet likely to serve Hastings
TEU Vehicle Turning

Vehicle 1 2 Schematic of Vehicle
Capacity Length Circle
Semi-Trailer 2 19 m 26 m
B-Double 3 26 m 26 m
Super B-Double 4 36 m 31 m
Super B-Triples 6 53 m 31 m
Notes:
1. Source Austroads
2. Turning circles are diameters and are based on a speed of 10km/hr, source Auto Turn V8.2
The subsequent summary preliminary parameters considered for planning are presented in Table 3-9.
Table 3-9: Summary Vehicle Parameters
Factor Parameter Value

Truck Capacity Semi-trailer 2 TEU
B-Double 3 TEU
Super B-Double 4 TEU
Super B-Triples 6 TEU
1
Truck Utilisation Semi-trailer 50% (1 TEU average loading)
B-Double 65% (2 TEU average loading)
Basis of Design
15-May-15 29
Factor Parameter Value
Super B-Double 75% (3 TEU average loading)
Super B-Triples No data available
Design Speed Design Speed Dependent of road transport connection scenario adopted
General Mass Semi-trailer 42.5t
Limit Vehicles B-Double 62.5t (max axle load 22.5t)
Super B-Double Up to 77.0 tonnes subject to axle configuration (max axle load 22.5t)
Super B-Triples Up to 77.0 tonnes subject to axle configuration (max axle load 22.5t)
Higher Mass Limit Semi-trailer 45.5t (max axle load 22.5t)
Vehicles B-Double 68.0t (max axle load 22.5t)
Super B-Double Based on 77.0 tonnes subject to axle configuration
Super B-Triples Based on 77.0 tonnes subject to axle configuration
Design Vehicle Design Vehicle 30m Super B-Double (HPFV) (max axle load 22.5t)
Notes:
1. Based on that currently experienced through the Port of Melbourne and utilised for the Department
of Transport’s Metropolitan Intermodal System study
3.4.2 Rail
The Concept of rail operations will be determined by studies being undertaken by the Commercial & Economic
work stream. These studies are not currently complete.
3.4.2.1 Rail Corridor Capacity
For the purposes of early stage project planning it is assumed that any future rail corridor will have sufficient
capacity for the mode share being considered.
3.4.2.2 Grade Separation
Current government policy specifies no new ‘at grade’ level crossing in Victoria, and it is considered unlikely
that this policy will change in the future. As such, it is appropriate to assume that all intersections of public
road and rail will be grade separated for this project. Within the terminals the requirement for grade
separation will be evaluated for each case.
3.4.2.3 Rail Design Consist
The Department of Transport is developing concepts for a Metropolitan Intermodal System (MIS) to transfer
containers around metropolitan Melbourne. In this context it is appropriate for the rail design consist for the
Port of Hastings to be consistent with the concept of operations for the MIS, with capacity for locomotive “run
arounds” should these be required.
Trains would typically be of 590 m in length with an indicative 42 vehicles and a two locomotive push/pull
configuration. The longer term growth of the MIS system envisages that trains within this system may grow to
900 m in length with two locomotives in push /pull configuration and this configuration also needs to be
catered for within the port terminal. In addition to the MIS system, trains from regional areas and interstate
will deliver export containers to the port. These trains are currently 1200 to 1500m in length and design
capacity should allow for up to 1800m for the future. Trains in excess of 900 m will arrive at the marshalling
terminal (north of the port) and be broken down to a maximum length of 900 m for travel to and unloading at
the port terminal. “Run around” capability will be required for these trains.
Key criteria for the rail design consist are summarised in Table 3-10.

Basis of Design
15-May-15 30
Table 3-10. Rail Design Consist Criteria
Parameter Criteria
Minimum train length 600m
Maximum train length (network and marshalling terminal) 1800m
Maximum train length (port terminal) 900m
Minimum horizontal curve radius 250m
3.4.2.4 Rail Container Stacking

Limits on the double stacking of containers on trains are present across Melbourne and at Federation Square,
an essential point to pass from all points west of Melbourne CBD. Accordingly it is assumed that single stacking
of trains will be the normal operation for trains travelling to the Port of Hastings. The bridges planned in the
Westernport Highway are designed with deeper foundations allowing for the track to be lowered if required.
All bridges within the port environs, port precinct and the port terminal are to be designed with deeper
foundations allowing for the track to be lowered if required.
3.4.2.5 Train Marshalling Terminal
A train marshalling terminal will be provided adjacent to the port to break longer trains into the correct
configuration for the port terminal and make up trains for their journey away from the port.
In the absence of the completion of the ‘Concept of Rail Operations’ study, the marshalling terminal will
provide arrival and departure facilities for trains up to 1800 m length together with a staging facility for MIS or
900 m trains.
The train marshalling terminal will also include:
 Wagon repair services
 Locomotive servicing and provisioning including fuelling facilities
 Train storage/layover facilities where trains do not depart immediately
 Train crew facilities for crew change
3.5 Port Services

3.5.1 Port Administration
The detailed requirements will be defined as part of the ongoing master planning in consultation with the
commercial and economic workstream, PoHDA and relevant regulatory authorities.
3.5.2 Harbourmaster
Assumed that facilities will be off port and requirements defined in consultation with the commercial and
economic workstream and PoHDA.
3.5.3 Pilot
Pilotage services may be provided by the Port Phillip Sea Pilots or a different entity. The facility requirements
will be defined as part of master planning in consultation with C&E and PoHDA.
3.5.4 Line Boats
Small craft berth facilities for mooring line boats will be considered.
3.5.5 Tugs
As required to service vessels. This will be based on the results of the channel simulation.

Basis of Design
15-May-15 31
3.5.6 Security
Security provision shall be as per the requirements of the Maritime Transport Security Act 2003 and from the
findings of appropriate risk assessment, that are not yet completed.
3.5.7 Customs
Still to be defined and subject to the outcomes of regulatory authority consultation.
3.5.8 Quarantine
Still to be defined and subject to the outcomes of regulatory authority consultation
3.5.9 Pollution Control Services
Still to be defined and subject to the outcomes of regulatory authority consultation. A designated area for the
storage of leaking or damaged containers shall be included.
3.5.10 Vessel Servicing and Repair
Still to be defined and subject to the outcomes of regulatory authority consultation
3.5.11 Survey / Maintenance
Facilities are to be provided for a survey vessel and maintenance operations.
The facilities are to be suitable for use by the Authority or if subcontracted to a private company.
3.5.12 Fire Services and Emergency Response
The detailed requirements are yet to be defined. These are subject to the outcomes of regulatory authority
consultation.
3.5.13 Bunkering
Barge bunkering for refined fuels and LPG are to be considered
3.6 Port Precinct

The functional needs of the port precinct are subject to the outcomes of the Port Industry Needs Analysis
studies being undertaken by the C&E work stream. In the absence of the study outcomes, appropriate
benchmark provisions will be adopted. The benchmark provisions currently in place are documented in the
Port Precinct & Environs Preliminary Planning Concepts Report (AGH-CEP0-DE-REP-0011).
3.6.1 Empty Container Facilities (ECF)
The requirements and operational criteria relevant to empty container facilities are still to be defined, but will
be assumed to include the following for the purposes of planning:
 ECF’s will organised and integrated with the container terminal
 Volumes, lead and dwell times are defined in the C&E forecasts
 Services provided will include repair, pre-tripping and washing facilities
 Environmental management requirements that are similar to existing facilities in Victoria
3.6.2 Port User Facilities
The scope of port user facilities to be provided is yet to be defined.
3.7 Port Environs

Ports have special land use planning requirements that need to be identified and protected to reflect their role
and contribution to Victoria’s economy.
Primary land use planning considerations are most appropriately addressed early on at the ‘strategic planning’
stage rather than at the planning permit or implementation stage.
Basis of Design
15-May-15 32
To guide and inform the initial port option design and development process for the Port of Hastings, the
following strategic land use planning principles have been prepared as a general suite of expectations or
parameters.
1. Alignment with Government Policies and Strategies
Consistency with relevant National, State and Local land use and transport planning policy including:
 Our Cities, Our Future –A National Urban Policy for a Productive, Liveable Future
 National Land Freight Strategy Update, June 2012
 National Ports Strategy, July 2012
 Metropolitan Planning Strategy: ‘Plan Melbourne’, 2013
 Growing Freight on Rail and Transport Solutions
 Victorian Freight & Logistics Plan (VFLP) discussion paper
 Victorian Planning Scheme / Mornington Peninsula Planning Scheme.
2. Provision of an Integrated, Whole of Port Planning Solution
Land use allocation and layout at the Port of Hastings will have a direct connection or linkage with future port
operational efficiency and effectiveness. Key integrated port planning principles include:
 Plan for land use outcomes consistent with the purposes of the Port of Hastings having regard to primary
(core precinct), secondary (broader precinct) and interface locations
 Future proof long term development by ensuring that sufficient land is available for port expansion. To
maximise opportunity for new trades arising from the existing port precincts layout, configuration and
nature of existing use
 Plan and protect the long term development of both road and rail transport modes to and within the port
 Identify and protect areas of significant environmental and/or cultural value (refer Table 3-11)
 Plan for integrated utility or services corridors
 Ensure that the combination and location of core port uses appropriately addresses amenity, risk and
residual emissions.
3. Managing the Port Interface
Managing the interface between port and freight activity and other near port land uses is an important
planning (and design) consideration. The overarching interface management principle is to minimise future
conflicts between land uses to ensure the ongoing, efficient and safe operation of the port. Key principles
include:
 Separation of potentially conflicting industry types and transport systems
 Co-location of amenity-affecting land uses that require a substantial threshold distance
 Minimising the disruption and impacts on existing port precincts, considering their layout, configuration
and nature of existing use
4. Address potential adverse environment, social and economic effects and impacts
At a high level, consideration will be given to managing potential adverse effects and impacts. The port option
design and development process for the Port of Hastings should seek to manage the impact on areas and sites
with significant environmental, historic, architectural, aesthetic, scientific and cultural values.
The following table outlines specific considerations for the port design and development process that are
reflected in planning policy and/or controls within the Mornington Peninsula Planning Scheme:

Basis of Design
15-May-15 33
Table 3-11. Option development considerations arising from planning policy
Considerations Description
Affected parcels Identify the number and nature of affected properties
Impact on Existing Businesses Disruption to existing businesses during construction/operation
Severance Issues Physical access to properties and community facilities, impacts on

road, public transport, walking and cycling networks
Amenity Proximity to residential areas, open space and other sensitive land
uses. consider the number of residential lots, open space sites and
sensitive land uses within 100 m, 200 m and 500 m of the site
option
Heritage Impact(s) Proximity to and potential impact on aboriginal and non-aboriginal

cultural heritage sites
Flora and Fauna Impact(s) Proximity to and potential impact on listed flora and fauna
species/communities
Surface Water Impact(s) Proximity to and potential impact on surface and groundwater,
land subject to inundation and flood zones

Basis of Design
15-May-15 34
4.0 Engineering Design Criteria
4.1 General Requirements
4.1.1 Design Standards, Codes & Guidance
General guiding principles for durability, future proofing, SID etc for planning and engineering are covered in
Section 1.3. This section is specific to engineering design.
Concept and preliminary planning and design shall take into consideration the design recommendations and
guidelines of the relevant Australian and international codes of practice and guidelines appropriate to the level
of detail of the design including:
Table 4-1. Standards, Codes and Guidance
REFERENCE TITLE
AS/NZS 1163 Cold-formed structural steel hollow sections
AS/NZS 1170.0 Structural design actions—General principles
AS/NZS 1170.1 Structural design actions—Permanent, imposed and other actions
AS/NZS 1170.2 Structural design actions—Wind actions
AS/NZS 1170.4 Structural design actions—Earthquake action
AS/NZS 1554 Structural steel welding
AS 1657 Fixed platforms, walkways, stairways and ladders - Design, construction and
installation
AS 1720 Timber structures
AS 2159 Piling - Design and installation
AS/NZS 2312 Guide to the protection of structural steel against atmospheric corrosion by the
use of protective coatings
AS 2419.1 Fire hydrant installation—System design
AS 2832 parts 3 & 5 Cathodic protection of metals
AS 3600 Concrete structures
AS 3678 Structural steel - Hot rolled plates, floorplates and slabs
AS 3679 Structural steel - Hot rolled bars and sections
AS/NZS 3725 Design for installation of buried concrete pipes
AS 3990 Mechanical equipment - Steelwork
AS 3996 Access covers and grates
AS 4100 Steel structures
AS/NZS 4671 Steel reinforcing materials
AS 4678 Earth-retaining structures
AS 4997 Guidelines for the design of maritime structures
AS 5100 Bridge design
BS 6349 BS6349 Marine Structure Part 1 – 2000: Code of Practice for General Criteria

Basis of Design
15-May-15 35
REFERENCE TITLE
BS 6349 BS6349 Marine Structure Part 1.1 General - Code of Practice for Planning and
Design of Operations (supersedes relevant parts of Part 1 (2000))
BS 6349 BS6349 Marine Structure Part 1.2 – General - Code of Practice for Assessment of
Actions (refer BS6349 Part 1 (2000) above until part 1-2 is available)
BS 6349 BS6349 Marine Structure Part 1.3 General - Code of Practice for Geotechnical
Designs (supersedes relevant parts of Part 1 (2000))
BS 6349 BS6349 Marine Structure Part 1.4 General - Code of Practice for Materials
(supersedes relevant parts of Part 1 (2000))
BS 6349 Marine Structure Part 2 – 2010: Code of Practice for Design of Quay Walls, Jetties
and Dolphins
BS 6349 Marine Structure Part 4 – 1994: Code of Practice for Design of Fendering and
Mooring Systems
BS 6349 Marine Structure Part 5 – 1991: Code of Practice for Dredging and Land
Reclamation
PIANC Guidelines for the design of fender systems (2002)
PIANC Harbour Approach Channels Design Guidelines (2014)
PIANC Guidelines For Design of Armoured Slopes under Open Piled Quay Structures –
Design Requirements
PIANC Accelerated Low Water Corrosion
PIANC Seismic Design Guidelines for Port Structures
Engineers Australia Coastal Engineering Guidelines, May 2012
EPA Victoria Guidelines for Dredging, Publication 691, Oct 2001
EAU Recommendations of the Committee for Waterfront Structures
CIRIA The Rock Manual (C683)
US Army Corps of Coastal Engineering Manual
Engineers
BCA Building Code of Australia
HB 84-2006 Guide to Concrete Repair and Protection
WSA 03-2011-3.1 Water Supply Code of Australia Melbourne Retail Water Agencies (MRWA),
Version 2
IALA IALA Maritime Buoyage System
IALA IALA Navguide: Aids to Navigation Manual
VicRoads and AustRoads Austroads Guide to Road design and supplementary Vic Roads design guidelines
Standards Parts 1 to 8.
VicRoads Traffic Engineering Manual Volume 1 – Traffic Management.
VicRoads Traffic Engineering Manual Volume 2 – Signs and Markings.
th
Interpave, 4 edition The Structural Design of Heavy Duty Pavements for Ports and Other Industries.
Concrete Institute of Performance Criteria for Concrete in Marine Environments (2001) – recommended
Australia practice

Basis of Design
15-May-15 36
4.1.2 Design Life
For structures where replacement, refurbishment or significant maintenance may interrupt commercial
shipping, tug operations or terminal operations, the design life is 100 years. Where a design life is specified as
less than 100 years, the specific elements must be designed for ease of replacement, refurbishment and
significant maintenance at the end of the asset’s service life.
Table 4-2 outlines the life for which the asset is intended to perform its specified design function without
replacement, refurbishment or significant maintenance. Significant maintenance includes works that may
interrupt commercial shipping, tug operations or terminal operations.
The specified design life is based on the premise that routine preventative and regular inspections and
maintenance of the structures would be undertaken in accordance with standard practice for the specific
structural elements. At the end of the design life the structure shall still be capable of carrying the design loads
and perform its function as per the original design however further subsequent deterioration of the facility
beyond its design life may limit the functionality and ongoing operations .
Table 4-2. Design Life Requirements
Asset Design Life (Years)

Berth structures / access bridges 100
Road/Rail bridges 100
2
Reclamations and ground treatment 5 - 100
Retaining walls that are part of the wharf 100
Other retaining walls 50
Sloping seawalls beneath quay structures 100
Other sloping seawalls 50
Other sloping seawalls and edge structures 100
Buildings 50
Drainage structures including culverts and pipes 50
Bollards 30
Cathodic protection and monitoring systems 30
Navigational Aids 30
Tug berth structures 50
Fenders 10
Terminal pavements – Concrete 40
Terminal pavements – Asphalt 25
Services 25
Access road pavements 20
2
Decision is related to financial modelling outcomes / recommendations.
Basis of Design
15-May-15 37
4.1.3 Stability Criteria
4.1.3.1 Slope Stability
The following minimum factors of safety (FOS) against potential deep slip failure modes are to be achieved for
permanent dredged and reclamation slopes, temporary dredged slopes affecting new and existing structures,
berth structures and edge structures using unfactored loads and material strengths:
Factor of safety against global instability (deep slip)
> 1.5 Normal loading
> 1.2 Extreme loading
> 1.1 Seismic loading
Ground water profiles and tidal lag effects used in the design shall be in accordance with AS4997.Consideration
shall be given to the adverse effects of extreme sea levels in stability analysis.
For seismic loading consideration shall be given to dynamic loading and soil liquefaction.
Dredged slopes in navigation channels shall be targeted to be stable under the action of waves, currents or
other hydrodynamic effects.
4.1.3.2 Retaining Structures
For marine structures, reference is made to the recommendations of AS4997. The following minimum factors
of safety (FOS) against potential sliding, overturning and bearing capacity failure are to be achieved for
permanent and temporary berth structures and edge structures using unfactored loads and material strengths:
Factor of safety against sliding
Factor of safety against overturning
For retaining walls on land, reference is made to the recommendations of AS4678.
For seismic loading consideration shall be given to dynamic loading and soil liquefaction.
Factor of safety against bearing failure
Conventional 2D equilibrium analysis is to be used in determining the factors of safety against potential failure
modes.
Stability analyses shall take into consideration pore water pressures, imbalances in hydrostatic effects due to
tidal lag and the effects of waves consistent with design event exposure, refer AS4997. Consideration shall be
given to the relevant effects of global warming including adverse effects of extreme sea levels in stability
analysis.
4.1.3.3 Settlement
Settlement shall be limited in keeping with the operational tolerances associated with the intended land-use.
Tolerances for terminal operations will depend on the mode of operation and area and shall be confirmed
Basis of Design
15-May-15 38
based on the terminal systems studies. Ground treatment including potentially surcharging and / or deep
compaction within the terminal may be required to reduce residual settlements to acceptable limits over the
operational design life.
Where necessary allowances should be made for structures and formation levels to be pre-set above targeted
long term design finished levels to minimise the effects of residual settlement consistent with targeted
tolerances outlined in Section 4.7.3.
4.1.3.4 Liquefaction
The potential for reclamation material to liquefy due to the design seismic events shall be considered and
allowances made where appropriate to minimise the risks of liquefaction consistent with agreed risk levels.
4.2 Dredging
4.2.1 General
Dredged areas are to be designed to include allowance for maintenance dredging and where necessary
provision is to be made for dredging extensions or deepening without destabilising adjacent slopes, scour
protection or structures.
4.2.2 Criteria for Dredged Slopes
Permanent dredge slopes shall be designed with stability factors as specified in Section 4.1.3.
4.2.3 Tolerances and Limits
Specified dredging profiles shall be the minimum required for capital and maintenance dredging works.
Dredging tolerances in the berth pocket alongside berths and in navigation channels shall reflect the likely
dredging equipment to be used and material to be dredged. Until further assessments are undertaken the
following allowances shall be used:
Note: - the quoted tolerances reflect maximum values for noted dredging plant.
 Vertical – 0.5m (1.0m in stiff to very stiff clays)
 Horizontal – 3.0m through the toelines where appropriate (5.0m in stiff to very stiff clays)
4.3 Reclamations and Edge Structures

4.3.1 Environmental Loads
Environmental loads considered in the design shall include coincident adverse effects from wind, waves,
currents, hydrostatic loads as outlined in Section 2.4. Where possible the potential for wind shifts of up to 90
degrees shall be considered in limiting operational and storm events. Load combinations for maritime
structures shall include separate normal operational and extreme event scenarios as specified in Section
4.6.1.7, taking into consideration the recommendations of AS4997, AS1170 Pt.4 and BS6349.
4.3.2 Live Loading
Live loading on finished level adjacent to seawalls other than berth structures shall be compatible with
operational modes and no less than:
 Normal Operational Loading: 20 KPa;
 Extreme Environmental Loading (No operations): 10 KPa.
4.3.3 Seismic Design Criteria
Reclamations and edge structures shall be designed in accordance with AS 1170.4 Minimum design loads on
structures – Part 4: Earthquake Loads.
The Importance levels relevant to this project are defined in Table 4-3 and listed for each structure type in
Table 4-4.

Basis of Design
15-May-15 39
Table 4-3 - Importance Level Definitions (AS1170 Part 0)
Importance Category Comment (AS 1170 Part 0) Rationale

Level
2 Medium consequence for loss of Normal structures not falling Normal structures
human life, or considerable into other levels
economic, social or
environmental consequences
4 High consequence of loss of Post-disaster structures (post- Very great
human life or very great disaster functions or economic
economic, social or dangerous activities) consequences
environmental consequences
Table 4-4 - Importance Level of Structures
Asset Importance Level

(AS1170 Part 0)
Berth structures / access bridges 2
Road/Rail bridges 2
Reclamations and ground treatment 4
Retaining walls 2
Sloping seawalls beneath quay 2
Other sloping seawalls and edge structures 2
Buildings 2
Other structures 2
Post disaster structures including associated retaining walls, 4
sloping sea walls beneath structure
For an Importance Level 2 as per AS1170.0 Table F2 i.e. Normal structures and structures not falling into other
levels, the design event in terms of annual probability of exceedance for earthquake loading for a 25, 50 and
100year design life is 1/250, 1/500 and 1/1000 respectively.
For an Importance Level 4 as per AS1170.0 Table F2 i.e. Structures with Post-disaster functions, the design
event in terms of annual probability of exceedance for earthquake loading for a 25 and 50year design life is
1/1,000 and 1/2,500 respectively and for 100 year design life the return period is to be determined by risk
assessment and is to be less than or equal to 1/2,500.
The earthquake hazard factor (Z) for the site (Port of Hastings) in accordance with Figure 3.2(a) of AS 1170.4 -
2007 Part 4: Earthquake Actions is Z = 0.10.
The sub-soil classification for the site is considered to correlate to Class De (Deep soil site) in accordance with
AS 1170.4 - 2007 Part 4: Earthquake Actions.
The probability factor (Kp) shall be taken as detailed in AS1170.4 Table 3.1 based on the relevant annual
probability of exceedance. For Importance Level 2 structures with a design life of 50 and 100 years, the annual
probability of exceedance of the design event is 1/500 and 1/1,000 respectively and the probability factor Kp is
equal to 1.0 and 1.3 respectively.
For structures with 50 year design life and Importance Level 2, Kp.Z = 1.0 x 0.10 = 0.10 and the Earthquake
Design Category (EDC) in accordance with AS1170.4 Table 2.1 is:
 Category II - for structure height < 25m; and

Basis of Design
15-May-15 40
 Category III - for a structure height > 25m.
For structures with 100 year design life and Importance Level 2, Kp.Z = 1.3 x 0.10 = 0.13 and the Earthquake
Design Category (EDC) in accordance with AS1170.4 Table 2.1 is as above ie:
 Category II - for structure height < 25m; and
 Category III - for a structure height > 25m.
Edge structures such as structural or gravity retaining walls and sloping seawalls shall be designed to achieve
minimum geotechnical stability factors specified in Section 4.1.3. Sloping revetments shall be protected against
instability due to wave and hydraulic action and scour.
4.3.5 Revetments
4.3.5.1 Standards
Rock armour revetment shall comply with the requirements of the Rock Manual – The use of rock in hydraulic
engineering (2nd edition) 2007 CIRIA/CUR.
4.3.5.2 Form and Functionality
Revetments shall not be steeper than 1:1.75. Formation slopes shall be consistent with the natural angle of
repose of the material utilised at each stage of construction.
Seawall crest level and details shall consider sea level rise, potential wave overtopping and impact on landside
operations as appropriate to the return period considered. Overtopping intensities shall not exceed the
recommendations of The Rock Manual – The use of rock in hydraulic engineering.
4.3.5.3 Loads
Design events shall include wave effects associated with wind, surge levels and wave heights of H 10
(representing the average of the highest 10% of waves in the wave spectrum) associated with the design storm
event. H10 shall be taken to be equal to 1.27 x Hs, where Hs is the significant wave height based on Rayleigh
theory, refer Section 2.4.5.
4.3.5.4 Stability
Geotechnical stability of seawalls shall include the local stability of revetment profiles. Rock armour sizing for
revetment may utilise the Hudson Formula in line with the recommendations of BS6349. Revetment grading
shall be graduated to retain finer materials against hydraulic wash out effects from currents and waves.
4.3.5.5 Armour
Rock and concrete armour for the revetment shall be designed based on the recommendations of BS 6349.
Armour rock stability factors shall be in accordance with CIRIA/CUR (2007) and BS 6349 Part 1. Armour rock
density factors shall take into account locally available rock resources. The density of saltwater shall be taken
into account in armour stability assessments.
Alternative shore protection system using precast concrete units may be considered depending on cost and
availability of rock armouring.
4.3.5.6 Acceptable Damage Levels
Damage level for design wave, and damage level for propeller wash from vessels and tugs shall take into
account accessibility for maintenance and whole of life objectives.
Design of seawall revetments needs to allow for marine access for maintenance works. Permissible damage
levels in the revetment design shall be consistent with use of the Hudson Formula for the design return period
event and targeted time of first maintenance.

Basis of Design
15-May-15 41
4.4 Dredge Spoil Disposal and Containment Structures
Stability criteria for dredged spoil and containment structures shall be as specified for dredged slopes in
Section 4.1.3.
4.5 Onshore Earthworks

Stability criteria for onshore earthworks shall be as specified for slopes and retaining structures in Section
4.1.3.
4.6 Berth Structures

4.6.1 Loads
4.6.1.1 Environmental Loads
In addition to the requirements in Section 4.3.1 wave loads on berth structures are to be calculated using the
average (most probable) maximum wave height in the design event equal to 1.9 times Hs, refer Figure 17 of
BS6349 Part 1.
4.6.1.2 Berthing Loads
Berthing loads shall be determined in accordance with AS4997 and PIANC Guidelines for the Design of Fender
Systems 2002.
The structure shall be checked for the following energy criteria to determine which is the most critical.
 Design Normal Energy – energy absorbed within normal recommended working stress limits specified by
manufacturers;
 Abnormal Energy – energy absorbed without permanent damage to the structure. Abnormal berthing
factors shall be applied to the normal berthing energy in accordance with PIANC 2002 guidelines. An
abnormal energy factor of 1.75 shall be adopted for container vessel berthing and an abnormal energy
factor of 2.0 shall be adopted for other vessels, refer PIANC Guidelines for the Design of Fender Systems
2002.
The berthing velocity is to be determined in accordance with AS 4997 - 2005, Figure B1 for good berthing in
sheltered conditions and the following parameters are to be taken into account for the berthing loads on the
basis that berthing will be tug assisted.
Table 4-5 – Berthing load parameters
Parameter Container Vessel RORO Vessel Other Vessel

Berthing Point Quarter Quarter Quarter
Maximum Approach Angle 10º 10º 10º
4.6.1.3 Mooring Loads

Mooring loads are to be determined in accordance with AS 4997 – 2005 for the full vessel spectrum.
The following serviceability loads are to be considered:
 60 knots wind speed (30 second gust) from all directions;
 maximum current velocity concurrent with maximum wind/wave condition; and
 all states of tides with and without sea level rise allowance.
 vessel interaction effects combined with most adverse tidal current
4.6.1.4 Dead Loads
Dead loads to be assessed in accordance with AS 1170.1-2002

Basis of Design
15-May-15 42
Material unit weights are to be in accordance with AS 1170.1-2002 or manufacturer’s specifications where
applicable.
Density of reinforced concrete = 25 kN/m3
Density of unreinforced concrete = 24 kN/m3
Density of steel = 78 kN/m3
4.6.1.5 Imposed Loads
The following loads shall be considered for international container wharves.
4.6.1.5.1 Uniformly Distributed Loads
The following global uniformly distributed loads are to be considered consistent with Table 5.1 of AS4997 for a
primary port/international gateway container terminal:
 10 kPa between the cope face and seaward container rail
 50 kPa between the crane rails.
 60kPa behind the rear crane rail.
4.6.1.5.2 Container Stacking Loads
Container stacking on the wharf is to be block stacking of containers, stacked up to 3 high and 1.5m from the
front crane rail which complies with AS 4997 – 2005.Maximum 40ft container weight shall be 30.5 tonnes with
allowance for reductions in weight for subsequent tiers.
Maximum contact point loads shall be taken from Table 4-8. This incorporates the recommendations from ‘The
th
Structural Design of Heavy Duty pavements for Ports and Other Industries (4 Edition) pavement guidelines by
Interpave that reflects alternative stacking arrangements.
4.6.1.5.3 Quay Cranes
The quay cranes shall be designed in accordance with operational requirements.
In addition to the dead and live quay crane loads, the following are to be considered:
 Worst combination of wheel load, wheel spacing and crane spacing considering both 8 wheel and 10 wheel
bogie options for cranes;
 Number of adjacent cranes servicing a vessel as per Section 3.2.2.2
 Horizontal loads – to be no less than 15% of the vertical leg travel load being considered;
 Tie down loads – as specified by the manufacturer; need to state a minimum – manufacturer won’t be
known
 Storm pins loads – as specified by the manufacturer; need to state a minimum – manufacturer won’t be
known
 End buffers – no less than 1000 kN or as otherwise specified by the manufacturer.
4.6.1.5.4 Vehicles
The following vehicle loads shall be considered on the berth structure:
 40 tonne lift capacity forklift (laden and unladen) in accordance with AS 4997 – 2005.
 40 tonne lift capacity reach-stackers (laden and unladen) in accordance with AS 4997 – 2005.
 40 tonne lift capacity straddle carriers in in accordance with AS 4997 – 2005.
 70 tonne lift capacity AGV
 Vehicle Load – SM1600 in accordance with AS 5100.2 (bridge code).

Basis of Design
15-May-15 43
 Loads arising from typical maintenance crane access and operations.
4.6.1.5.5 Hatch Covers
Hatch cover loads for the design vessels shall be considered up to 3 high on the wharf or in the back reach area
extending 25m behind the landside crane rail.
4.6.1.5.6 Heavy Load Areas
Heavy load areas shall be designed for the delivery of quay cranes and other heavy equipment that is still to be
defined.
4.6.1.6 Load Factors
Load factors to be used in the evaluation of ultimate limit state design are shown in Table 4-6, refer AS1170
Part 0 Section 4, AS4997 Section 5.12 and BS6349 Part 2 Annex A.
Table 4-6 Load Factors
Load Type – Primary Load Cases Load Factor (Ultimate Limit

State - ULS)
LC1 - Dead Load 1.2
LC2 - Deck UDL 1.5
LC3 - Container Crane 1.5
LC4 - Container Crane Storm Tie Down 1.0
LC5 - Mobile Harbour Crane (MHC) 1.5
LC6 - Forklift 1.5
LC7 - Mooring Loads (Crane Operating/Not Operating) 1.5
LC8 - Mooring Loads (Extreme Mooring Conditions) 1.1
LC9 - Berthing Loads (Abnormal/Normal) 1.5
LC10 – Wave Loads 1.5
LC11 – Geotechnical Loads 1.5
4.6.1.7 Load Combinations

Load combinations shall be as specified in this document which has been based on recommendations of AS
1170.1-2002, AS 4997-2005 and BS 6349 and are shown in Table 4-7.
Table 4-7. Load Combinations
Combined Load Cases Description

Ultimate Limit State
LC21 1.2LC1 + 1.5LC2 Dead + Live UDL
LC22 1.2LC1 + 1.0LC2 + 1.5LC3 Dead + Live UDL + Container Crane
LC23 1.2LC1 + 1.5LC6 Dead + Forklift
LC24 1.2LC1 + 1.5LC3 Dead + Container Crane
LC25 1.2LC1 + 1.0LC2 + 1.5LC3 + 1.5LC7 Dead + Live UDL + Container Crane + Mooring(Operating)
LC26 1.2LC1 + 1.5LC2 + 1.0LC9 Dead + Live UDL + Mooring (Extreme Mooring Limits)
LC27 1.2LC1 + 1.5LC2 + 1.2LC3 + 0.5LC9 Dead + Live UDL + Container Crane + Berthing

Basis of Design
15-May-15 44
Combined Load Cases Description
LC28 1.2LC1 + 1.5LC2 + 1.0LC9 Dead + Live UDL + Berthing
LC29 1.2LC1 + 1.0LC2 +1.5LC9 Dead + Live UDL + Berthing
LC30 (1.2 or 0.85)LC1 + LC4 Dead + Crane Storm Tie Down
LC31 (1.2 or 0.85)LC1 + 1.5LC9 Dead + Berthing
LC32 (1.2 or 0.85)LC1 + 1.5LC7 Dead + Mooring (Operating)
LC33 (1.2 or 0.85)LC1 + 1.0LC8 Dead + Mooring (Ultimate Mooring Limits)
Serviceability Limit State
LC35 1.0LC1 + 1.0LC2 +1.0LC3 Dead + Live UDL + Container Crane
LC36 1.0LC1 + 1.0LC6 Dead + Forklift
LC37 1.0LC1 + 1.0LC2 + 1.0LC3 + 1.0LC7 Dead + Live UDL+ Container Crane + Mooring (Operating)
LC38 1.0LC1 + 1.0LC2 + 1.0LC3 + 1.0LC9 Dead + Live UDL + Container Crane + Berthing
Seismic design shall consider a 70% reduction in live load associated with the combined probability of
coincidence of live load with a seismic event, refer AS1170 Section 6.2.2.
4.6.1.8 Seismic Design Criteria
Berth structures must be designed for seismic load effects in accordance with AS 1170.4 Minimum design loads
on structures – Part 4: Earthquake Loads. Lateral deflections shall not exceed 1.5% of the height of the
structure for the relevant design event as specified in Section 4.3.3.
4.6.2 Serviceability Criteria
Serviceability design criteria for marine structures including quays and access bridges shall include limitations
on overall structural lateral deflections and limitations on working load reinforcement stresses and/or crack
widths in reinforced concrete, refer Section 6.3.7.2 of AS4997.
4.6.3 Deck Level
The top of the cope level is to be designed to take into account the requirements for access and maintenance
of the wharf structure together with the combined effects of extreme water levels, waves including standing
waves and future sea level rise. An open piled shall structure shall not be at risk of uplift.
4.6.4 Earth Retaining Structures
.Earth retaining structures adjacent to roadways are to be designed for the effects of vehicle surcharge loads in
accordance with AS 5100.2 in addition to other loads.
4.6.5 Scour Protection
The structures are to be designed to consider scour potential around the structures from vessel propellers and
thrusters, wave and current action. The design will either incorporate scour protection measures to prevent its
occurrence over the design life of the structure, or allow for potential scour in the design. The design of scour
protection measures is to consider future stages of the port development including deepening.
The hydraulic stability of any seawall revetment underlying quay structures or adjacent to berths shall be
designed to cater for vessel manoeuvring alongside including operation of bow thrusters and the effects of
main propellers and tugs.

Basis of Design
15-May-15 45
4.6.7 Fenders
The fenders are to be designed in accordance with PIANC Guidelines for the Design of Fender Systems and are
to consider the following:
 Losses due to manufacturer’s tolerances, temperature effects and berthing angle;
 Minimum shear loads equal to 20% of the maximum rated reaction;
 The maximum allowable hull pressure for the full spectrum of vessels which shall not exceed 20t/m2, refer
PIANC Guidelines for the Design of Fender Systems 2002;
 Suitable for the full spectrum of vessels for the full tidal range including sea level rise;
 Direct impact on one fender or between fenders whilst maintaining a clearance of at least 500mm
between hull and cope line / quay crane.
 Fender spacing to suit the full range of container and non-container vessels
4.7 Terminal Pavements and Foundations

4.7.1 Standards
Terminal pavements are to be designed in accordance with the recommendations of the Interpave publication,
th
Structural Design of Heavy Duty Pavements for Ports and other Industries, 4 edition and cross-checked for
compliance with Austroads and Vic Roads standards.
4.7.2 Loads
4.7.2.1 Containers
The design of container yard pavements should take into account the fact that not all containers are fully
loaded. The maximum contact loads and distribution of container loads on pavements will be taken in line with
the Structural Design of Heavy Duty Pavements for Ports and other Industries publication, and the container
corner casting loads as shown in Table 4-8 shall be considered.
Table 4-8 Container corner casting loads by container stacking arrangement
Load on Pavement (kN) for each stacking

Stack Reduction in Gross Contact Stress arrangement
Height Weight (N/mm2)
Single Row Block
1 0 2.59 76 152 305
2 10% 4.67 137 274 549
3 20% 6.23 183 366 732
4 40% 7.27 213 427 853
5 40% 7.78 229 457 914
4.7.2.2 Equipment
Equipment load information shall be adopted from that presented in Section 4.6.1.5.4.
4.7.3 Grading and Settlement
The limitations on surface grade for alternative terminal equipment shall be adopted as per Table 4-9.
Table 4-9. Preliminary Grading Limitations
Area Maximum Slopes

Straddles

Basis of Design
15-May-15 46
Area Maximum Slopes
 Transverse 2%
 Longitudinal 2%
RTGC
 Transverse 1%
 Longitudinal 1%
ASCs/RMGC
 Transverse 1%
 Longitudinal 1%
Truck Access Roads
 Max road crossfall 4%
 Longitudinal grade 0.3 - 4%
 Crossfall rollovers 0.1% in 5m
4.7.4 Pavement Subgrade Conditions

The design pavement subgrade conditions will be based on the available geotechnical site conditions
information and proposed earthworks/reclamation. Capping layers will be provided depending on the
assumed subgrade strength in accordance with the Structural Design of Heavy Duty Pavements for Ports and
other Industries publication.
4.7.5 Pavement Types
Pavement types will be selected based on performance requirements and taking into account the accepted
maintenance strategy. Rigid and flexible pavements will be considered.
4.7.6 Differential Settlement Criteria
Differential settlement criteria for pavements will be specified to suit the operational equipment requirements
and/or the adopted maintenance strategy, as appropriate.
4.8 Terminal Structures and Buildings (if required)

Building requirements will be confirmed and quantified based on a floor areas following terminal and
operations design.
4.9 Terminal Utility Services

4.9.1 Stormwater
All stormwater drainage shall be designed in accordance with AS/NZS 3500:3 and relevant statutory best
practice guidelines for treatment of sediments and nutrient, and containment of pollutants such as the CSIRO
1999 Urban Stormwater Best Practice Environmental Management Guidelines.
The stormwater drainage design shall meet the following design parameters Table 4-10
Table 4-10. Stormwater Drainage Design Parameters
Parameter Value
Primary drainage network 20 year ARI
Overland flow 100 year ARI

Basis of Design
15-May-15 47
Parameter Value
Time of concentration 5 minutes
Flow path depths Road – 10mm
Terminal – To be defined
Drainage design shall take into account the coincident effects of relevant storm surges and adverse potential
effects of differential settlement. Provisions for self-cleansing of drainage systems shall be in accordance with
relevant guidelines.
Stormwater interception and retention facilities shall be incorporated in the drainage network where required.
4.9.2 Potable Water
The design of new water mains is to be undertaken in accordance with Water Supply Code of Australia WSA 03-
2002-2.3 (Melbourne Retail Water Agencies Edition – Version 1).
4.9.3 Sewerage
The design of new sewage infrastructure is to be undertaken in accordance with the Water Services Association
of Australia (WSAA) publication ‘WSA 02 Gravity Sewerage Code of Australia Version 3.1 (1 July 2014)’ and any
relevant supplementary publications from South East Water.
Unit rates for sewage demand shall be in accordance with the Sewerage Code of Australia, Melbourne Retail
Water Agencies Edition, Version 1.0 (WSA 02-2011) to reflect commercial / industrial classes of use.
4.9.4 Electrical
The design of new power infrastructure is to be undertaken in accordance with the relevant Ausgrid Network
Standards, AS 3000 and any relevant supplementary publications from United Energy or AusNet.
Unit rates for power demand shall be in accordance with those presented in Table 4-11, unless specified
otherwise.
Table 4-11. Unit power demand estimates for equipment and usage type
Equipment / Usage type Unit consumption Source

Ship to shore gantry crane 140 kWh / hr None specified – based on
previous project experience
Rail mounted yard gantry crane 110 kWh / hr
Refrigerated containers 2.5 kWh / hr
Lighting 3.5 kWh / m2 / year
Offices and workshops (Terminal) 0.1 kWh / m2 / hr
Power supply to ships (cold 2000 kWh / ship / hr
ironing)
Offices and workshops (General) 100 VA/m2 Table C3 AS/NSZ 3000:2007
Retail (light, power and air 100 VA/m2 Table C3 AS/NSZ 3000:2007
conditioning)
Warehousing & bonded 15 VA/m2 Table C3 AS/NSZ 3000:2007
warehousing (light, power and
ventilation)
Light Industrial (light, power, air- 80 VA/m2 Table C3 AS/NSZ 3000:2007
conditioning and equipment)
Manufacturing 80 VA/m2 Table C3 AS/NSZ 3000:2007

Basis of Design
15-May-15 48
Accommodation 80 VA/m2 Table C3 AS/NSZ 3000:2007
Carparks 5 VA/m2 Table C3 AS/NSZ 3000:2007
Road Lighting 2 VA/m2 Vic Roads guidelines
4.9.5 Lighting
Lighting lux level performance requirements in various operational areas are outlined in Table 4-12.
Lighting shall be designed to prevent light spill in accordance with AS 4282.
Table 4-12. Lux Level Requirements
Area Lighting Requirements

Terminal
Terminal operational areas Average 50 lux (min 20 lux)
Access routes for mobile equipment Average 20 lux, (min 10 lux)
General operational areas Average 20 lux, (min 10 lux)
Perimeter areas Average 15 lux +/- 30%
Gates and entrances Average 40 lux +/- 30%;
Berths Average 15 lux +/- 30%
Pedestrian areas AS1158.3.1
Road As per Vicroads standards
Rail Average 50 lux (min 20 lux)
4.9.6 Communications and Security

A CCTV surveillance system is to be suitable for the requirements of the operators and the Authority in meeting
the requirements of the Maritime Transport Security Act 2003. The CCTV surveillance system will utilise the
conduit corridors and towers for the lighting system in the terminal and be capable of 24 hours per day
operation in all weather conditions, without interference in operation by passing vessels or vehicles and
capable of recognition of the registration number on vehicles and human sized objects within and around the
terminal.
4.9.7 Fire Fighting Systems

The fire water system shall be designed in accordance with BCA 2012 and AS 2419.1-2005.
Fire hydrants shall be positioned at regular intervals around the terminal such that firefighting extends to all
parts of the terminal footprint based on a 20m appliance hose plus 60m fire hose plus 10m throw.
4.9.8 Bunker Facility (if required)
Bunkering facilities may include low sulphur fuel, LPG, water etc to be incorporated at the berth depending on
perceived demand
4.10 Port Services Infrastructure

The requirements for Port Services infrastructure are included in Section 3.5.

Basis of Design
15-May-15 49
4.11 Security
The requirements for security are to be defined following liaison with regulatory authorities.
4.12 Navigation Aids

Navigation aids are to be designed in accordance with relevant IALA Recommendations and Guidelines. A
combination of buoys and beacons shall be considered.
Navigation beacon structures shall include a support base pile, top structure adapter, platform with handrail,
day marker, navigation light stand, navigation light, navigation aid back-up power supply, access ladder to
platform, hardwood fender and sacrificial anode(s) on pile.
Allowances for fatigue loading effects are to be taken into account for monopile beacons in accordance with
AS4100, in particular Section 11 of AS 4100. Water based navigational structures are to be designed for safe
access for servicing and maintenance vessels and crew. Additionally loads imposed by maintenance vessels are
to be considered. The potential for fatigue effects due to vortex shedding in areas of strong current shall be
considered in the design.
4.13 Terminal Access Roads and Bridges

4.13.1 Outside the SUZ 1
Road design outside the SUZ1 area is covered by Vic Roads, and is not covered by this document.
4.13.2 Geometric Road Design Criteria in the SUZ1
Access roads to the terminal within the SUZ1 area will comply with the following criteria in Table 4-13, unless
otherwise specified.
Table 4-13. Access Road Geometric Design Criteria
Item Design Criteria

Design Speed (Horizontal and Vertical Alignment) 80 km/h
Posted Speed Limit 60 km/h
Sight Distance  The minimum sight distance is the stopping sight
distance
 The stopping sight distance must comply with the
design speeds
Horizontal Alignment Minimum curves at intersections – 20m
Vertical Alignment Maximum grades at intersection – 3%
Maximum allowable grade elsewhere – 5%
Design Vehicle Super B-double
Terminal internal roads will comply with the following criteria in Table 4-14.
Table 4-14. Terminal Internal Road Geometric Design Criteria

Design Speed (Horizontal and Vertical Alignment) 40 km/h
Posted Speed Limit 20 km/h
Sight Distance  The minimum sight distance is the stopping sight

Basis of Design
15-May-15 50
distance
 The stopping sight distance must comply with the
design speeds
Horizontal Alignment Minimum curves at intersections – 20m
Vertical Alignment Maximum grades at intersection – 3%
Maximum allowable grade elsewhere – 5%
Design Vehicle Super B-double
4.13.3 Pavements
4.13.3.1 Design Criteria
Traffic load distribution must be determined in accordance with AUSTROADS Pavement Design Guide.
The pavement is to be designed for the expected annual average daily traffic volumes determined by the
transport modelling studies..
4.13.3.2 Performance Criteria
Performance Criteria for pavements will be developed based on the proposed pavement types and
maintenance strategy taking into account whole of life costing considerations.
4.13.4 SubSurface Drainage
Allowance shall be made for sub-surface drainage to be made in areas of potential water ingress such as from
groundwater beneath the pavements or at pavement joint locations.
4.14 Terminal Rail Access and Sidings

4.14.1 Geometric Design Criteria
The following principal design standards are to be as the basis for the preliminary rail alignment design:
 Victorian Rail Infrastructure and Operator Group Standards (VRIOGS) 001 Structural Gauge Envelopes
 Victorian Rail Infrastructure and Operator Group Standards (VRIOGS) 004.1 Heavy Rail Track Design
Manual
 V/Line Track Design Manual NIST-2618
Rail Infrastructure within the SUZ1 area will comply with the following criteria in Table 4-15, unless otherwise
specified.
Table 4-15. Rail Geometric Design Criteria
Track Gauge – AARL Passenger - Broad 1.60m

Gauge
1.435m
Track Gauge – Standard Gauge
Track Centres 4.50m
Line Speed 80km/hr (min)

Basis of Design
15-May-15 51
Track Grades 1:50 (2%) maximum

1:150 (0.67%) absolute maximum
Structural Clearance Horizontal

4.00m desirable minimum – fence/retaining wall
1.55m – platform edge
Vertical
5.75m - passenger services
7.10m – Freight services (Double Stacked Containers where
applicable)
Horizontal Geometry 250m minimum radius

450m optimum radius
25m minimum length of straight between horizontal curves
Cant
Applied Cant = 80mm maximum
Cant Deficiency = 85mm maximum
Vertical Geometry 6700m minimum Sag radius

3350m minimum Summit radius
25m minimum length between vertical curves
1:15 crossing angle, 800m radius, 65km/hr diverge speed
Turnouts BG (1:15 tangential)
60kg/m rail on full depth concrete bearers
Track Formation and Ballast 60kg/m rail on full depth concrete sleepers
300mm minimum ballast depth below sleeper
400mm minimum ballast shoulder widths with a minimum 1m
clearance to edge of capping and 1:1.5 shoulder slope
4.15 Port Precinct Infrastructure

Design criteria for port precinct infrastructure shall be in accordance with regulatory Authority requirements
and relevant Australian Standards.
4.16 Port Environs Infrastructure

Design criteria for port environs infrastructure shall be in accordance with regulatory Authority requirements
and relevant Australian Standards.

Basis of Design
15-May-15 52
Appendix A Glossary
The acronyms and terminology used in this document are outlined in the following table.
Table A-1. Glossary of Terms
Acronym / Term Definition

Abutment Structure at Landward termination of jetty.
ACRMG Automated Cantilevered Rail Mounted Gantry Crane
AGV Automated Guided Vehicle
Aids to Navigation Markers with known charted positions located and designed to enable mariners to
avoid dangers and/or fix their positions.
Anchorage Area designated by the Authority for anchorage of vessels waiting for a berth or
distressed or impaired vessels.
Approach Channel Any stretch of waterway linking the berths of a port and the open sea
ARTG Automated Rubber Tyred Gantry
ASC Automated Stacking Crane
AShC Automated Shuttle Carrier
AutoStrad Automated Straddle Carrier
Berth Location(s) alongside of the Wharf where vessels berth and moor for loading,
including berthing and mooring dolphins.
Berth Pocket Dredged area along each side of the Wharf, with depth sufficient to accommodate
fully laden vessels at Lowest Astronomical Tide
Berthing The action of coming alongside and mooring the vessel to the wharf. Berthing
Dolphin Supports fender and mooring line hooks.
Cardinal Marker Marker that indicates the direction of the safest water. They indicate the safe side to
pass a danger or a feature, such as a bend in channel or end of a shoal.
CEPEX Capital Expenditure
Channel Marker Marker used to show well established channels, indicating the port (left) and
starboard (right) hand side of channels in accordance with IALA Maritime Buoyage
System Region A (red to port), where the (fairway) direction of travel for reference is
the one leading from the sea.
Container Exchange The average number of TEU movements onto and off a vessel as a ratio to the
Rate vessel’s capacity in TEU.
Container Ratio The number of TEU per container, reflective of the mix of twenty-foot and forty-foot
containers. The Container Ratio is always a number between 1 and 2; 1 being a
container mixture of solely twenty-foot units, and 2 being a container mixture of
solely forty-foot units.
Crane Intensity The total number of cranes applied to a particular vessel, divided by the vessel
length. For example a 275m vessel being worked by 3 cranes has a crane intensity of
92m
CRMG Cantilevered Rail Mounted Gantry
D%TAB Delays as a percentage of time at berth
Delay as a % of Time at The Waiting Time at anchorage for inbound vessels as a percentage of total Time at
Berth (D%TAB) Berth
Delays Waiting time for both inbound and outbound vessels due to channels, swing basins
or berths being occupied. Typically vessels delayed by more than 4 hours will move
to anchorage, however smaller delays can be handled through slow steaming.
DES Discrete Event Simulation
Distribution Centre A freight facility used for destuffing containers into smaller consignments for
(DC) distribution into retail facilities or manufacturing centres
Ebb Tide TBC
Basis of Design
15-May-15 53
FCL Full Container Load
Fleet Spectrum The total number of recorded or projected vessels calling at a port each year, broken
down into discrete vessel classes based on capacity.
Flood Tide TBC
Forecast Throughput The projected volumes of any trade type expected to be transported through the
various ports in a particular year.
GCR Gross Crane Rate
GMBL Guaranteed minimum breaking load of a mooring line.
GMPH Gross container moves per hour
Gross Crane Rate The average number of cranes’ moves per hour for a crane over a year taking into
(GCR) account downtime for maintenance.
Gross Tonnage (GT) Formerly known as Gross Registered Tonnage (GRT)
HTE Horizontal Transfer Equipment
IALA International Association of Marine Aids to Navigation and Lighthouse Authorities.
ISA Intermediate Stacking Area
LCL Less than full Container Load
LPG Liquified Petroleum Gas
LOA Length Over All
Lo-Lo Lift On / Lift Off
Marker Buoy A yellow marker with a cross used to indicate a special area.
Maximum Design The maximum draught at which the vessel can safely sail with respect to classification
Draught rules and load line regulations and the draught is measured vertically from the lowest
point on the hull to the water level when at the maximum permissible summer load
line. This is sometimes referred to the scantling draught
Mooring Dolphin Supports mooring link hooks, no fender.
Navigation Leads A pair of navigation marks used to indicate a safe passage for vessels entering a
shallow or dangerous channel. Leads are separated in distance and elevation, so that
when lined up vertically with one behind the other, they provide bearing.
Net Crane Rate (NCR) The average number of container lifts per hour for a crane whilst it is working.
Non-working Time at The time when a vessel is at berth but no containers are being exchanged i.e. cranes
Berth are not working the vessel. This time includes time for fixing and releasing lines,
lashing and unlashing containers, opening hatches and any other delays due to
stevedore working practices such as changing crew work shifts. Unless specified
otherwise, the value used in this report is the average for all vessels throughout each
year.
OD Origin / Destination
OPEX Operational and maintenance costs
Passing Separation Distance between two passing vessels. Measured as side to side, not centreline to
centreline.
Pbm Per berth metre
Peaking factor The ratio of the maximum monthly throughput for the port to the 12-monthly
average throughput for the relevant year
PICI Port Interface Cost Index
Port Marker A red square marker indicating the port (left) hand side of the channel. When
travelling upstream (or entering a harbour), leave port hand marks on the port side.
When travelling downstream (or when leaving harbour), leave port hand marks on
the starboard side.
Port planning factor A reduction factor applied to the Theoretical Capacity to provide a capacity buffer
which facilitates a competitive environment between the stevedores
QC Quay Crane
Quad-lift A quayside crane capable of lifting four TEUs (four twenty-foot or two forty-foot

Basis of Design
15-May-15 54
containers) simultaneously.
Quay Occupancy The ratio of the average cumulative length of vessels alongside at any one time to the
total quay length.
RMG Rail Mounted Gantry Crane
Ro-Ro Roll On /Roll Off
RTG Rubber Tyred Gantry Crane
Sailing Draught The draught of the vessel at arrival or departure from a port when it is at rest.
Typically this is measured at the bow, amidships and stern prior to departure to
confirm that it can leave the port and enter the next port safely. This is sometimes
referred to as the running draught
SC Straddle Carrier
Sector Light An aid to navigation that indicates safe channel through shallow or dangerous
waters. There are usually three lights of different colours identifying a sector of an
arc. The white centre sector indicates the safe water, and the red and green sectors
either side indicate areas to avoid.
Ship Access Gangway Gangway for personnel access to the moored vessel.
Starboard Marker A green triangle marker indicating the starboard (right) hand side of the channel.
When travelling upstream (or entering a harbour), leave starboard hand marks on
the starboard side. When travelling downstream (or when leaving harbour), leave
starboard hand marks on the port side.
Swing basin Designated area for turning vessels prior to berthing or following unberthing
TEU Twenty-Foot Equivalent Unit
Theoretical Capacity The maximum throughput (in TEU) that can be handled by the facility before the key
performance benchmark(s) is breached
Throughput The number of containers (in TEU) passing through the terminal in a particular year
Tide TBC
Time at Berth (TAB) The total time between first lines on and last lines off for each vessel. Time at berth
generally includes time for fixing mooring lines, transferring cargo, opening and
closing hatches and administrative tasks.
TOS Terminal Operating System
Transhipment The use of a central aggregation/disaggregation point for the shipment of containers
within a broader region.
TTT Truck turnaround time
Twin-lift A quayside crane capable of lifting two twenty-foot containers simultaneously
ULP Unleaded Petrol
Unberthing The action of removing the vessel from the wharf in preparation to depart.
Unitized Cellular A type of specialised container ship
Container ship (UCC)
VBS Vehicle Booking System used to schedule trucks at a container terminal). Similar to
the TAS system which is used by Hutchison Ports Australia
Vessel Class A grouping of vessels based on their TEU capacity.
Vessel Working Time The time taken per vessel to unload and load all of the containers to be exchanged,
i.e. the time when cranes are actively working the vessel.
Waiting Time (at The time elapsed whilst vessels are held at anchorage due to insufficient berth length
anchorage) being available to enable them to dock, or channel unavailability.
WCCUs Wheeled Cargo Carrying Units
WT/ST Waiting Time to Service Time ratio
WTST% Wait Time to Service Time Percentage

Basis of Design
15-May-15 55
Appendix B References
The following table outlines the reports referenced in this document and their revision at the date of issue of
each revision of this document.
Table B-1. References
No. Title Date Company / Document No. Status

Workstream
1 Port of Hastings 2013 March 2013 Cardno NA49913530 Version 0.1
Description Report –
Hydrodynamics Report
2 Multi Criteria October 2013 GHD/AECOM - -
Assessment Report
3 Port of Hastings 2013 17 December GHD/AECOM - Rev E - Final
Descriptive Report 2013 Draft
4 Port Options Summary May 2014 GHD/AECOM - -
Report
5 Topographic and 3 July 2014 Watsons Pty Ltd 36585 Version 1
Feature Survey Report
6 Referral Concept 9 July 2014 Design & Engineering - AGH-CEP0-DE- Rev B - Draft
Report AECOM + GHD Joint REP-0002
Venture
7 Sustainability and 21 July 2014 Design & Engineering - AGH-CEP0-DE- Rev 2
Durability Principles AECOM + GHD Joint REP-0004
Summary Report Venture
8 Geotechnical 5 Nov 2014 Design & Engineering - AGH-CEP0-DE- Rev A
Interpretative Report AECOM + GHD Joint REP-0009
Venture
9 Throughput Forecast 7 October Commercial and N/A -
and Shipping Study 2014 Economic - GHD
10 Preliminary Information 15 May 2014 Hydrodynamic - HAS-CEP0-HY- Rev A
for Basis of Design - Haskoning REP-0001
Hydrodynamic, Water
Quality and
Meteorological Data
11 Victorian Coastal July 2014 Victorian Coastal
Strategy Council
12 Maximum Ship Size 15 May 2014 Commercial and N/A -
Particulars for Referral Economic - GHD
Design
13 Sailing Draughts in the Not Yet Issued Commercial and TBC -
Port of Melbourne Economic - GHD
14 Services & Utilities March 2015 D&E – GHD/AECOM JV AGH-CEP0-DE- Rev B

Assessment report REP-0017

Basis of Design
15-May-15 56

GHD Aecom Basis of Design

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

GHD Aecom Basis of Design

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

GHD Aecom Basis of Design

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Basis of Design

Document Ref: AGH-CEP0-DE-REP-0005

Port of Hastings Development Project – Design and Engineering

Client: Port of Hastings Development Authority

Prepared by the AECOM + GHD Joint Venture

JV ABN: 57 194 323 595

Port of Hastings Development Project – Design and Engineering

Document Basis of Design

Reviewed by Venket Naidu, Richard Clarke & Peter Fountain

A 24-Sep-14 Draft Peter Fountain Peter Fountain *

Port of Hastings Development Project – Design and Engineering

Port of Hastings Development Project – Design and Engineering

1.2 Purpose of this Document

Port of Hastings Development Project – Design and Engineering

1.3 Guiding Principles for Port Planning and Design

Port of Hastings Development Project – Design and Engineering

2.2 Survey Data

Port of Hastings Development Project – Design and Engineering

Port of Hastings Development Project – Design and Engineering

Port of Hastings Development Project – Design and Engineering

Port of Hastings Development Project – Design and Engineering

Port of Hastings Development Project – Design and Engineering

Tidal level Height (m AHD) Height (m CD)

2030 2070 2100

Port of Hastings Development Project – Design and Engineering

Return 2030 2070 2100

20 0.77 ±0.05 0.92 0.98 1.24 1.44 1.59 1.88

50 0.8 ±0.06 0.95 1.01 1.27 1.48 1.62 1.92

20 1.79 ±0.20 1.94 2.00 2.26 2.4 2.61 2.85

Return 2030 2070 2100

20 3.52 ±0.20 3.67 3.73 3.99 4.13 4.34 4.58

50 3.67 ±0.21 3.82 3.9 4.14 4.34 4.49 4.73

Port of Hastings Development Project – Design and Engineering

2.4.4.2 Extreme Winds

Port of Hastings Development Project – Design and Engineering

Site Wind Speed (3 Second Gust) m/s

Table 2-6 Extreme Wind Speeds (Terrain Category 2)

Site Wind Speed (3 Second Gust) m/s

Port of Hastings Development Project – Design and Engineering

Port of Hastings Development Project – Design and Engineering

Port of Hastings Development Project – Design and Engineering

Port of Hastings Development Project – Design and Engineering

Length Min. width 1-Way / declared

North Arm – North 5.81 245 1 14.2 Nos.25 to 29 Buoys

Steel Wharves Approach North of Long Island Point to

East Arm Anchorage Primary anchorage,

Flinders Anchorage Between Flinders and Phillip

Table 2-9. Existing Berth Pockets

Berth Depth (m) Length (m) Width (m)

Port of Hastings Development Project – Design and Engineering

Port of Hastings Development Project – Design and Engineering

Port of Hastings Development Project – Design and Engineering

Port of Hastings Development Project – Design and Engineering

Characteristic Unit Minimum Design Vessel Maximum

Longitudinal (i.e. x-axis) centre of m

Port of Hastings Development Project – Design and Engineering

3.1.1.3 Other Vessels

Offshore Project Bass Strait

Main Engine – % of total power % 100