Manjung Power Station

Manjung Power Station CW Intake Culvert
End of Contract Report Volume 1
MANJUNG POWER STATION

MALAYSIA
Offshore Cooling Water Intake Culvert

Leighton LAMA Joint Venture
END OF CONTRACT REPORT

July 2000 to October 2001
Leighton-LAMA Joint Venture
Section 1: Page 1 of 4
Table of Contents
VOLUME 1 MAIN REPORT

SECTION 1.
SECTION 2.
SECTION 3.
SECTION 4.
SECTION 5.
SECTION 6.
SECTION 7.
SECTION 8.
SECTION 9.
SECTION 10.
SECTION 11.
SECTION 12.
SECTION 13.
SECTION 14.
SECTION 15.
SECTION 16.
SECTION 17.
SECTION 18.
SECTION 19.
SECTION 20.
INTRODUCTION
JOINT VENTURE RELATIONSHIP
PRE CONTRACT AWARD
BRIEF PROJECT DESCRIPTION
DESIGN OF THE COOLING WATER INTAKE
GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED ON
THE CULVERT ROUTE
PRODUCTION RATES, PLANT UTILISATION AND
CREW SIZES
COST VS BUDGET
RISKS/LESSONS LEARNED
STAFFING LEVELS
SUBCONTRACTORS & SUPPLIERS
TEMPORARY WORKS
PRECASTING OPERATIONS
IN-SITU CULVERT & COFFERDAM
MARINE WORKS
DOSING LINE
NAVIGATION STRUCTURE
FINANCIAL
SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
APPENDICES CD OF DRAWINGS
SECTION 1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. SCOPE
The contract is for the construction of a Cooling Water Intake System as part of the Manjung
Power Station. The plant is coal fired, utilizing available sea water for cooling purposes. The
project is constructed on a joint venture design and construct basis between Leighton
Contractors (main civil subcontractor for the Manjung Power Station Project) and LAMA
International Contractors (Design and specialist Marine Works Contractors.)
The purpose of the structure is to draw and deliver seawater, from 1500 metres offshore, to
the power station cooling system on land, at a rate of 88.2m3/sec when in full operation. This
requirement is being achieved by the construction of a sub-sea triple celled culvert, 1500
meters long. This culvert was constructed over a period of 13 months, involving land and
marine construction operations, including a substantial amount of underwater work using
divers. The locations of the seawater intake points have been carefully selected based on the
tight specifications for minimum depth of water, water temperature, and the turbidity of h
te
seawater.
The project has been carefully designed and constructed to ensure that the clients
requirements are met in full, with due consideration for the environment, local authorities
requirements, constructability, programme and budget.
1.2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Name of Client:
Joint Venture Partner:
Location:
Type of contract:
Initial Budget:
Leighton Contractors (Malaysia) SDN BHD

Lekir, Perak Darul Ridzuan, Peninsular Malaysia
Design and Construct Lump Sum
Design MYR
1 677 000.00
Construction - MYR
60 000 000.00
Final Cost:
Design MYR
1 883 998.47
Construction - MYR
63 250 000.00
Planned Programme: Completion - July 2001
Actual programme:
Completion - October 2001
Manjung Power Station
1.3. PROJECT SUMMARY

The design and construction of the cooling water intake culvert consists of the following:
Dredging of 380 000 cubic metres of in-situ material to form the sub-sea trench for the
culvert.
Underwater piling using 312 no 1000mm diameter spun concrete pipe piles to tight
positional and level tolerances using GPS equipment.
Placing of reinforced pre -cast pile caps underwater and the underwater grouting of these
pile caps into the piles.
Manufacture and handling of 142 no, 10 m long, 3 celled, pre -cast concrete culvert units,
each weighing 400 tonnes.
Transporting of these 400 ton pre -cast culverts on land, using heavy lift trailers, and at
sea using a specially designed floating gantry to place them in line in the pre-dredged
sub-sea foundation trench, to form the triple celled culvert at depths varying between
8m and 16m ACD.
Underwater grouting operations to seal the joints between the culvert units, to prevent
ingress of silt or sand.
Construction, handling and placing of 6 no pre -cast intake units weighing 150 tonnes
each, offshore at the end of the cooling water intake culvert.
Construction of a load out jetty to facilitate loading out of the precast concrete units.
Construction of 70 metres of in-situ concrete culvert within a 12m deep cofferdam to
provide the connection from the offshore precast concrete culverts to the land based
water pool, which is the reservoir for the power stations intake cooling water pumps.
Installation of three 225mm diameter 1450m sub-sea pipelines for the delivery of
hypochlorite to the intake structures at the end of the culvert, to prevent marine growth
inside the cooling water intake system.
Design simulations, including physical and computer modelling, as well as on site testing,
formed a major part of the successful design and construction of the project.
SECTION 2. PRE CONTRACT AWARD

This section deals with the contractual process prior to award of contract. The first contact took
place in October 1999 with Leighton (Malaysia) requesting LAMA to assist them with the
preparation of a price which was to be submitted to Peremba for the construction of an intake and
outlet conduit for a new power station to be constructed at Manjung in Malaysia.
Various alternative designs were considered, including steel, HDPE and concrete pipes, all in a
buried trench, concrete pipes above sea level supported on a piled structure and concrete culverts
in a trench on the seabed.
A budget price was submitted by LLJV to Peremba on 18 October 1999 based on steel pipes with
an HDPE alternative. The price was developed further to exclude the outlets and an option of steel
pipes on trestles above water was also priced and a budget price was submitted on the 1st
November 1999.
In January 2000 negotiations moved from Peremba to Alstom (who had been presumably awarded
the Main Contract at that stage). No pre-bid agreement between ourselves and Leighton was put in
place at this stage due to the nature of the discussions being around budget pricing etc. rather than
the submission of a formal tender. Leighton were now also in negotiations with Alstom regarding
the Main Civil Works Contract.
At this stage Alstom produced their first Design and Construct Specification, which was to be used
for the design of the intake conduits, whichever option was selected. At this stage, however,
Alstom had still not decided whether the contract would go out as a D&C or whether they would
design it themselves to their own design, or thirdly whether they would carry out the design based
on the contractors chosen type of conduit.
During the mo nth of January 2000, various options based on a steel pipe in a trench on the seabed
were priced in order to reduce the contract sum. A presentation was made by the Leighton-LAMA
team to Alstom on the proposed scheme at that time. Leighton had also requested prices from
Van Oord and See Yong & Sons.
A further alternative, that of precast concrete culverts was developed, which started looking like
being the most cost effective solution. The development of the preliminary design of the culvert
then commenced in more detail, in order to further refine the costs of this system. The basic sizing
was taken from Alstom layout drawings showing an internal cell size of 3.42m square. A budget
price based on precast concrete culverts was submitted on 29th January 2000. This price was
developed and reduced further during the month of February 2000. The price which Leighton
submitted for the overall Civils Works included the offshore work based on a price and submission
from See Yong (assumed immersed tube construction) as LAMA were not prepared to agree to a
fixed price at that stage due to the short time given to price the works. Leighton was awarded the
Civil Works Contract including the offshore works as an option to be taken up before end May
2000.
At this stage pricing of the culvert system based on Alstom doing the design as well as the project
being carried out as a design and construct contract, were carried out in parallel, as there was still
no confirmation from Alstom as to which way they were intending to go.
In February an internal Tender review report states that Alstom have indicated that they would
consider a EPC type of contract in order to advance this part of the works but might still insist on
completing the design themselves. This report also discusses two possible bid strategies being:
1. Alstom doing the design and
2. EPC type of contract.
Both options were priced assuming different design fees as well as variable contingencies to cater
for the design risk.
By mid-March 2000, there was still no confirmation that LAMA would be responsible for the
permanent works design.
During the week ending the 19th May, we were informed by Leighton that Alstom required the JV to
do a presentation on the proposed culvert design with a view to awarding the offshore contract on
a design and construct basis by the beginning of June. This was the first time that Alstom had
confirmed their intention to go the D&C route. A LAMA team travelled to Kuala Lumpur on the 20 th
May to make the presentation to Alstom and then spent the next 10 days finalising the design and
price. A revised Performance Specification was issued by Alstom as the basis on which the D&C
contract was to be awarded.
The main issue at that time was the interface between the offshore works and the waterpool, and a
solution was arrived at by the Leighton-LAMA team based on a pipe -jacking operation. LAMAs
design fee was adjusted during the final pricing and was based on the scope of work as defined at
that time. Discussions were also held with Nelson Borch of TerraGeotechnics (through Peter
Furness) for them to assist in both the design approval process as well as providing specialist
geotechnical advice. After submission of the price, various negotiations took place between
Leighton and Alstom and a final price of RM 63.25M for the Offshore Works was agreed to,
although at this stage it was still not clear what our involvement would be.
Leighton notified LAMA during the first week of June that they (Leighton) had been awarded the
offshore contract. A LAMA team then travelled to KL to finalise LAMAs involvement, the JV
agreement, and to discuss staffing and the programme for the contract. It was at this stage that a
revised JV agreement and consultancy agreement appeared for the first time and LAMA was
asked to sign it as a basis of LAMAs design responsibility to Leighton. During this visit in June
discussions were held with the site team (including the Project Director) and a decision was made
to change from pipe-jacking to a cofferdam for the inshore tie-In to the waterpool.
A potential standoff position developed on this visit between Leighton and LAMA around issues of
representation in the JV, the JV Agreement, Indirect Cost split, sponsors fees and profit.
Leightons view was that the marine work had been secured by Leighton as LAMA had not
appeared willing to commit themselves at the time of the original price submission. Leighton
threatened to drop LAMA if no agreement could be reached on the outstanding issues which were
only finally resolved at the first JV EXCO meeting.
Leightons initial requirement was that the responsibility for the design of the works be directly
between Leighton as the Main Civil Works Contractor and LAMA. After discussions at the first JV
Exco meeting on 5 September 2000, it was agreed that if there was going to be a formal
agreement, then the agreement should be between the LAMA and the LLJV and not directly
through Leighton.
SECTION 3. JOINT VENTURE RELATIONSHIP

3.1. BACKGROUND
Referring to Section 2 it will be noted that Leighton played the major role in securing this
project. This was largely due to the fact that Leighton had already secured the main civils
contract and the CW Inlet was to be a sub-contract to the civils package. Because of this
existing relationship with the client, all pre -award negotiations were through Leighton, with
technical and pricing backup being provided by LAMA.
At the first JV meeting held in Malaysia in June, just after the contract award, a new format of
joint venture agreement and joint venture exco was proposed by Leighton. This differed to
those previously used and clearly the intention of Leighton was to reduce the role of LAMA in
joint venture decision-making. This was considered to be unacceptable to LAMA and
eventually it was agreed by the parties to revert to the standard Leighton LAMA JV
agreement previously used on the JV projects.
3.2. DURING THE CONTRACT EXECUTION
The relationship between the Leighton and LAMA Staff on site during execution of the project
was generally good, but between the Parties was complicated by two factors:
The JV was executing the work as a subcontractor to Leighton, and the project director of
the Civils contract (a Leightons contract employee) also acted as the Joint Venture
Project Manager.
LAMA was carrying out the design works on a lump sum basis for the joint venture. On
previous projects generally the design was carried out by LAMA within the Joint Ventrure
and at the JVs risk.
3.2.1.
Subcontract to Leighton
Contractual issues
LAMA commenced work on the project only having seen a generic Leightons Sub contract agreement. The proposed agreement was only prepared after the details
of the CW Inlet subcontract were concluded between Leighton and the Client, which
was some months after the start of the project. The proposed conditions were
unacceptable to LAMA, but Leighton refused to accept any changes to their
standard subcontract agreement The result is that this subcontract agreement
remains unsigned.
Management issues
Leighton had, at the start of the works stated that the main civil works took
precedence over the CW Inlet and they would not permit a disagreement between
the parties to jeopardise progress on the main contract.
All negotiations with the Client which were of a commercial nature were dealt with
by Leighton as they were the Main Contractor, and LAMA was generally excluded
from these discussions. Very little in the way of correspondence between the main
contractor and client which was of a commercial nature was made available to
LAMA or the JV management on site. Agreements on issues such as incentives,
bonuss, penalties and commercial issues surrounding the geotechnical problems
were only received second -hand from Leightons.
It was agreed at the start of the contract that the Leightons Project Director on the
Civil Works would also act as the JVs Project Manager for the CW Inlet, despite
LAMA having placed a very experienced Project manager on site. The commercial
support to the JV was provided by the Leightons Commercial Manager on site.
Some of the Leighton staff found it difficult to be even-handed in their dealings with
the two JV Partners and in particular their approach taken in regard to LAMAs claim
for additional design costs and the resolution of the Geotechnical problems were
questionable. LAMA were treated as sub -contractors by the Leightons Management
although they were also JV Partners.
3.2.2.
Design Works
The decision by the Client to award the CW Inlet on a Design & Construct basis
was only made at a very late stage in the contract negotiation stage. With the very
tight program, and the impact that the CW Works had on the Main Civil works, the
design team were put under pressure from the start of the project.
In particular, the design of the cofferdam at the waterpool, and later the revised
founding to the culvert units consumed a much greater design effort than was
previously assessed.
Leighton at an early stage raised a number of issues with regard to their perception
that the design which LAMA was carrying out was overly conservative and more
expensive to construct than tendered. These perceptions were largely unfounded.
The greatest influence on the JV relationship was brought about by the geotechnical
problems encountered with the culvert foundations (elsewhere detailed). These
problems led to a change in design in the foundations, with the resultant increase in
cost. Although the decision to change the foundation system was made relatively
quickly it resulted in a polarisation between the parties which was never completely
repaired.
There was a large amount of additional design work carried out for the project as a
result of, amongst other things:
Cofferdam design, as a result of the variable ground conditions, and to suit piling
methods and materials.
Redesign of various plant items to suit the requirements of the site team.
Redesign of the Temporary Jetty in order that it satisfy the requirements of a
permanent structure.
Change of the culvert foundation to a piled solution
Design of the navigation structure.
Dosing line change
Although the design work was done as a Lump Sum, additional compensation was
requested for some of the additional work, especially where the additional work was
done to suit the site requirements.
An agreement was reached on payment for certain of the minor additional work, but
despite lengthy submissions and discussions with Leighton on the balance, they
argued that much of this redesign was merely design development; no additional
structures were built than were tendered, and therefore there were no grounds for
additional payment to the designers.
In fact, in the final negotiations with Leighton on the settlement of the piling
foundation claim, all design variation costs (including those agreed to be paid) were
forfeited by LAMA.
3.3. LESSONS LEARNT
Conflict of interest issues must be identified and dealt with in appropriately worded
agreements.
The potentially disastrous arrangement of sub -contracting to your Joint Venture Partner
can severely stress the Joint Venture, particularly when technical or financial problems
are encountered on the project. Similar joint venturing arrangements were in place on
Sha Chau (with Leighton) and on the Natal Pipelines (with Pentow Marine). The Sha
Chau project had no technical problems and was financially very successful so the
relationship was never tested and remained good. The Natal Pipelines project had
technical and financial problems and led to a breakdown in the Joint Venture relationship.
Ideally, the design risk and the cost of producing the design should be shared by the
partners in the JV and not transferred to one of the partners. In this way the cost vs.
benefit of design development can best be managed.
SECTION 4. BRIEF PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The cooling water intake culvert is approximately 1490m in length, extending from the intake
structures at the seaward end to the diaphragm wall of the pump station water pool onshore. The
triple cell culverts have interior barrel dimensions of 3.750m vertically and 3.450m horizontally,
with 0.300m chamfers. The culvert consists of an in-situ section, 142 pre-cast sections with 6
intake towers towards the end, 3 x 225mm HDPE dosing lines on top of the culvert and a
navigation structure 50m offshore of the end of the culvert. These items are described in more
detail below.
4.1. IN-SITU CONCRETE CULVERTS
Water pool Opening into In -Situ Culvert
Cofferdam for In-situ Culvert
The in-situ concrete culvert is 70m long, which was constructed in three sections i.e. one
10m and two 30m long sections, from the open trench through the island revetment to the
connection to the water pool diaphragm wall. Each section was constructed within a sheetpiled cofferdam. All the sheet piles were removed after construction with the exception of
the sheet piles up against the diaphragm wall of the water pool. The diaphragm wall of the
water pool in the region of the tie-in to the in-situ culvert, was cast prior to the construction
of the in-situ concrete culvert. A reinforced concrete chimney, which provides access to all
three barrels, is positioned towards the end of Section 1. This concrete chimney allows the
three interior structural steel bulkheads to be installed into the barrels of the in-situ culvert.
The bulkheads were required to retain the water in the culvert during the construction of the
opening in the diaphragm wall of the water pool. The existing VIB wall surrounding the bulk
of the power station civil works cuts across Section 1 of the culvert.
There are movement joints between each section of the in-situ culvert and at the connection
to the external face of the cooling water pool. Heavy-duty water bars were installed at the
movement joints between the in-situ culvert sections as well as the connection to the water
pool wall. The reinforcement in the concrete culvert is not continuous across these joints.
The poor soil conditions in the area where the cofferdam was constructed, as well as the
large future settlements predicted for this area, dictated that the in-situ culvert needed to be
supported on pre -cast concrete bearing piles. Pre-cast reinforced concrete piles provide
support to the culverts, positioned in four rows longitudinally under the culvert walls. The
longitudinal pile spacing varies along the length of the in-situ culvert. The in-situ concrete
culvert is underlain by a 75mm concrete blinding layer. The piles penetrate the 75mm
blinding layer to tie into the reinforced concrete culvert base slab.
The culverts are founded at approximately 7,680m ACD (underside concrete floor), with
the top of the concrete roof at 3,070m ACD. Over Section 1, fill is placed to a level of
+4,650m ACD. The fill slopes down through the revetment over the length of Section 2 to
meet the general seabed level of 1,600m ACD. This level is maintained over the full length
of Section 3.
4.2. PRE-CAST CONCRETE CULVERT UNITS
Typical Pre -Cast Unit
Pre-Cast Unit being placed by Gantry
The cooling water intake consists of 142 Pre -cast Concrete units extending from the in-situ
culvert to the end of the intake culvert, which are divided into 11 different types as follows:
Pre -cast Culvert Units Type A and B.
Unburied Unit 54 Type A

Buried Unit 71 Type B
Units type A and B are installed in a dredged trench and are supported on 4 concrete pile
caps which are supported on 4 No. 1m diameter, class C, grade 80N/mm2 concrete spun
piles. The cooling water intakes consist of 54 No intake culvert type A & 71 No intake
culvert type B units, which are each 10m long, 11.810m wide by 4.610m high overall. Unit
type A and Bs are triple cell pre -cast culvert units, which have interior barrel dimensions of
3.750m vertically and 3.450m horizontally, with 0.300m chamfers. Unit type Bs are
identical to unit type As except that they have more reinforcement in them to cater for a
greater cover of seabed material due to their location in the length of the intake culvert.
Pre -cast Culvert Units Type F.
Access Unit 6 Type F
Units type Fs are installed in a dredged trench and are supported on 4 concrete pile caps,
which are supported on 4 No. 1m diameter, class C, grade 80N/mm2 concrete spun piles.
The cooling water intakes consist of 6 No intake culvert type F units, which are each 10m
long, 11.810m wide by 4.610m high overall. Unit type Fs are triple cell pre-cast culvert
units, which have interior barrel dimensions of 3.750m vertically and 3.450m horizontally,
with 0.300m chamfers. Unit type Fs are the units that have the 3 manhole covers in them in
order to access the inside of each of the 3.750m x 3.450m barrels.
Pre -cast Culvert Units Type H
Transition Unit 1 Type H
The transition unit type H is the first pre -cast unit that will be placed in front of Section 3 of
the in -situ concrete culvert. The north end is cast at an angle to match the south end of
Section 3 of the in-situ culvert. The transition unit Type H is 8.180 m long along the centre
line and is 11.810 m wide x 4.610 m high overall. Reinforced concrete piles provide support
to the transition pre-cast unit Type H as follows:
2 No. 1000 mm diameter concrete spun piles, positioned longitudinally under the
external culvert walls, on the offshore end of unit Type H as per the typical pre-cast unit
and;
2 No. 700mm diameter concrete spun piles, positioned under the internal walls of the
culvert, at the joint between Section 3 of the in -situ culvert and the transition pre-cast
unit Type H. A continuous crosshead beam and 2 no. rectangular pile caps are cast
over the 2 No. 700mm diameter concrete spun piles to support the pre-cast transition
unit Type H.
Pre -cast Culvert Units Type J&K
Intake Unit 3 Type J
Intake Unit 3 Type K

Units type J&K are installed in a dredged trench and are supported on 8 concrete pile caps
which are supported on 8 No. 1m diameter, class C, grade 80N/mm2 concrete spun piles.
The cooling water intakes consist of 3 No intake culvert type J & K units, which are each
10m long, 11.810m wide by 4.610m high. The triple cell pre-cast culvert units have interior
barrel dimensions of 3.750m vertically and 3.450m horizontally, with 0.300m chamfers.
They are similar to a typical unit except that they have a 3.450m square opening in the top
slab, which incorporates an up stand beam cast around the opening which caters for the in situ connection of the pre -cast Intake towers to the pre-cast units. The unit types J&K also
have internal walls for diverting and channelling the water flow into the culverts. Units J & K
support the 6 No. Intake Tower Structures at the end of the intake culvert.
Pre -cast Culvert Units Type L&M
Unit Right 1 Type L

Unit Left Type M
Units type L&M are installed in a dredged trench and are supported on 4 concrete pile caps
which are supported on 4 No. 1m diameter, class C, grade 80N/mm 2 concrete spun piles.
The cooling water intakes consist of 1 No intake culvert type L and 1 No intake culvert type M
units, which are each 9.5m long, 11.810m wide by 4.610m high. The triple cell pre-cast
culvert units have interior barrel dimensions of 3.750m vertically and 3.450m horizontally,
with 0.300m chamfers. Units L & M are the Side Units Left and Right. Units L & M are
similar to the typical 10m pre-cast units. Unit L & M consists of one additional interior wall
(over part of the 9.5m length), with two interior walls angled to direct flow.
Pre -cast Culvert Unit Type N
End Unit 1 Type N
Units type N is the last pre -cast unit at the end of the intake culvert and it is installed in a
dredged trench and is supported on 4 concrete pile caps which are supported on 4 No. 1m
diameter, class C, grade 80N/mm2 concrete spun piles. There is only 1 No intake culvert
type N, which is 9.5m long, 11.810m wide by 4.610m high. It is also a triple cell pre-cast
culvert unit with interior barrel dimensions of 3.750m vertically and 3.450m horizontally, with
0.300m chamfers. Unit type N is similar to unit type F in tha t it has three access manhole
openings in it, except that it has an end wall, which closes the unit off.
Pre -cast Culvert Units Type P
Unit Adjacent to Transition Unit 1 Type P
Unit type P is the same as a typical unit type B and it is the unit that is situated adjacent to
the transition unit type H. There is only 1 No intake culvert type P, which is 10m long,
11.810m wide by 4.610m high with the same interior barrel dimensions as all the other
culverts.
The pre-cast culverts units all have grout socks between each unit and they will form the joint
seal between two consecutive units.
Each pre-cast unit has a concrete housing structure on top of it, which contains the three
dosing line pipes.
4.3. INTAKE TOWERS
The intake tower structure is supported on the pre-cast unit types J (or K) by a monolithic in situ connection between the pre -cast elements i.e. unit J & K and the intake tower. There
are 6 No intake towers, which consist of a concrete roof slab supported on 8 concrete
columns. There is an opening all the way around which is closed off by a stainless steel
grating. There is a diver access gate provided in the grating on one of the splayed corners of
the intake tower. The intake towers are funnel-shaped structures which end in a 3.45m
square
opening
in
Intake Tower Structure
the top of unit
type J (or K).
The
hypochlorite
dosing ring is
attached to
the
intake
tower
structures.
The
intake
towers
are
indicated in
the
photograph.
Access Grating
Dosing Line Ring
4.4. DOSING LINES

The dosing line pipes, which supply a hypochlorite solution to the cooling water intake
culverts via the 6 intake towers, consists of three separate 225mm diameter, class 10, HDPE
pipes which are continuously butt welded together in 12m lengths as indicated in the
photograph below.
225mm diameter
class 10 HDPE
dosing line pipes
Butt
Welding
Station
The dosing line pipes are

approximately
1500m
long with a dosing ring
and nozzles distributed
around the intake towers.
The chlorine dosing line

pipes are housed in a
small closed concrete
cavity structure located
on the top of the intake
culverts. All three dosing
line pipes are located
within this housing, which
comprises two sloping
pre-cast concrete kerbs
fixed to the top of the
culvert, each with a
recess at the top, into which a pre-cast concrete cover slab is positioned. The dosing line
pipes will thus not be subject to significant wave forces, and will be protected from direct
snagging dangers.
The pipes were pulled out through HDPE sleeves that are cast into pre-cast concrete
diaphragm walls, which are located at 5.0m c/c on the top of the pre-cast units. The housing
and diaphragm walls are indicated in the photograph below.
Concrete Dosing Line Housing on top of pre-cast units.
Diaphragm Wall
The dosing lines come ashore through the revetment. The 225mm diameter pipes are
contained in a 355mm diameter class 10 HDPE sleeve above the in-situ culverts in the
revetment to protect the dosing lines from the backfill material and they end in a junction
box where they will be connected to the pipe work from the chlorine dosing building. The
onshore pipes and connection box is indicated in the photographs below.
Dosing Line Land Section
255mm
dosing
line pipe
Junction
Box
355mm
sleeve
Dosing Line Junction Box
4.5. NAVIGATION STRUCTURE

A south cardinal navigation structure marks the cooling water intake culvert. The navigation
structure is situated approximately 50m south of the end pre-cast culvert type N at Latitude
4 00830.93318 and Longitude 100 03827.03496 with reference to the WGS 84 system. It
consists of a structural steel tower structure, which supports the Tideland ML -300 Maxlumina
Lantern. The tower is supported on a 1m thick concrete slab, which in turn is supported by 3
No. 900mm diameter raking pre-cast concrete spun piles. The concrete slab and equipment
platform are fitted with steel handrails, access ladders and a small craft berthing fender
structure. The structure is fitted with warning signs in English and Bahasa. The navigation
structure is indicated in the photograph below.
Navigation Structure
South Cardinal Marker

ML-300 Maxlumina Lantern
Lightning Conductor
Warning sign
Access Ladder and Fender
4.6. PROJECT ORGANISATION AND RESOURCES

4.6.1.
Overall Organigram
Client
TNBJ
Main Contractor
ALSTOM-PEREMBA J.V.
Contractor
ALSTOM
Sub Contractor Civil Works

Sub Contractor Cooling Water Intake System

Leighton - LAMA Joint Venture
Sub Contractor - Design and Engineering Consultant

Murray & Roberts Engineering Solutions Ltd
4.6.2.
Murray & Roberts Engineering Solutions Organigram.
Project Leader
Greig Wolfe
Engineering Manager
Derek Paul (MRES)
Project Engineer
Karl Heath (MRES)
Quality Assurance
Mike Quarmby (MRES)
On - Site Design Co -Ordinator

Alec Dixon (LLJV (MRES))
Project Design Team
Dra wing Office

Rolf Aebischer
(MRES)
CAD Operators
Nadeema Amlay
Guillame Du Toit
Adrian Julie
Theo Nel
In-house Design Engineers

Chris Michau
Hamied Mohammed
Stephan Hock
Pierre Botha
Simon Meyer
Richard Wegener
External Consultants
Ninham Shand
ZLH
Soil & Rock
(Malaysia)
Terra Geotechnics
(Malaysia)
Knight Hall Hendry
Document Controller
Cindy Feldman
Monica Mbusi
4.6.3.
Cooling Water Intake Leighton LAMA Joint Venture Site Management Team
Leighton -LAMA
Joint Venture Exco
Project Manager
Rick Moore (LLJV)
CWIC Construction Manager

Rudi Voerman (LLJV (MRES))
General Superintendent
George Salmon
(LLJV)
Design Coordinator
Section Engineer
Dosing Lines
Section Engineer
Marine
Section Engineer
Pre -Cast Yard
Alec Dixon
(LLJV (MRES))
Francois Labuschagne
(LLJV (MRES))
Barry Hofmeyr
and later
Dean Pearson
(LLJV (MRES))
Dean Pearson
(LLJV (MRES))
SECTION 5. DESIGN OF THE COOLING WATER INTAKE

5.1. BACKGROUND TO THE DESIGN OF THE COOLING WATER INTAKE CULVERT
The permanent and temporary works design were carried out by Murray & Roberts
Engineering Solutions in Cape Town with some of the detailed design and analysis being
carried out by external consultants.
The purpose of the Cooling Water Intake System is to draw and deliver seawater from
1500m offshore to the power station cooling system on land at a flow of 88.2m per second.
The proposed design concept was to use pre-cast reinforced concrete triple cell culverts,
each having a dry mass of 400 tonnes. The culverts were to be pre-cast on land,
transported offshore and placed on a stone foundation bed in a pre-dredged trench, then
sealed underwater against the previous culvert unit using a filter fabric grout sock as
indicated in figure 1 below.
Dredged Trench
Rock Armour
Stone Bed
Figure 1.
Sand Backfill
Proposed Design Concept
The cooling water intake culvert extends from a 56m-diameter cooling water pond onshore
through the island revetment to the 6 intake tower structures 1500m offshore. The reinforced
concrete culvert consists of a 68.5m long in-situ culvert, connecting into the 56m-diameter
cooling water pond, 142 no. pre-cast culvert sections, 6 pre -cast intake tower structures, 3 x
225mm HDPE dosing lines on top of the culvert and a south cardinal piled navigation
structure 50m south of the end of the last pre -cast culvert as indicated in figure 2 below.
Section 5: Page 1 of 2 0
To optimise the culvert dimensions and minimise the head losses through the intake
structures, a model of the proposed intake structure was constructed at the University of
Stellenbosch in Cape Town, South Africa.
Navigation
Structure
6 No. Pre-Cast
Intake Structures
142 No. Pre -Cast Culverts
3 HDPE Dosing Lines
In-Situ
Culvert
Connection to the
Cooling Water Pond
Figure 2.
Cooling Water Intake
To optimise the structural design, and minimize the mass, 3-D finite element structural
analyses of the pre-cast culvert units were carried out, taking into account all the various
load cases. The load cases modelled included the transportation of the units on heavy lift
trailers to the load-out jetty, the lifting of the units off the load-out jetty using a specially
designed 400 tonne floating gantry, the transportation of the units in the sea to its final
position taking into account surge loads and wave loads.
The intake tower structures were also modelled using 3-D finite element structural analyses.
1:50 and 1:20 models of the intake structures were constructed in the 1m wide wave flume
at the University of Stellenbosch in order to measure the wave forces on the intake towers,
to check overall stability and to optimise the design of the connection between the intake
tower and the culvert.
Two distinct soil layers were evident from the borehole logs. A 25m thick upper layer
comprising highly plastic grey, silty clays and a 15m to 18m thick grey fine to coarse -grained
sand layer below the grey, silty clay upper layer.
The culvert was set below the seabed in a 1500m long dredged trench. During the dredging
operation, however, it was found that a firm founding material on which to place the stone
foundation bed could not be established.
Probes by divers found firm material
approximately 1m below the surface of the very soft clay. However, when the dredger
removed this soft layer, it disturbed the firmer material below, preventing a firm founding
layer from being established. Four additional boreholes with laboratory testing of core
samples were carried out during January 2001 and it was found that the moisture content of
the very soft clay was often greater than the liquid limit, causing the soil to liquefy during
dredging.
In order to reduce the risk of excessive differential settlements between the culverts, it was
decided to change the foundation design. After a careful time, risk and cost evaluation, a
decision was taken to construct a piled foundation for the culvert units. The design change,
due to the unforeseen founding conditions, occurred seven months after the start of the
project. While a piling barge was sourced, the piled foundation design was carried out and
all the approvals and testing requirements were put in place. As the pre -cast culvert
construction was already well advanced the original structural design of the units had to be
checked for the piled support condition. The first working pile was driven eight weeks after
the decision to change the foundation design was taken.
28m long, 1m diameter, 80Mpa, hollow pre-stressed concrete piles were driven down to the
bottom of the dredged trench with a follower to a specified level, to a tolerance of 50mm.
Three to four piles were installed on site per day. Two piles were placed at each joint
between the pre-cast culvert units. Pre-cast pile caps were constructed, then placed and
grouted into the top of the hollow concrete piles as indicated in figure 3 below.
Pre -cast Culvert Unit
Intake Tower Structure
1000mm dia hollow prestressed concrete piles

Pile Cap
Figure 3.
Piled Foundation
The 142 no culvert units, each with a mass of 400 tonne, were pre -cast on land under
controlled conditions and transported by heavy lift trailers to a specially designed load-outjetty for placement offshore. The units were placed on the piled foundation by a specially
designed 400 tonne capacity, floating gantry. Grout bags were then placed between the
underside of the units and the top of the pile cap and pumped full of grout to take up any
relative movement.
This operation progressed extremely well and any time lost due to the change in design of
the foundation was made up and e ven improved upon. The works were handed over within
15 months in October 2001 at a final cost of US$16 million.
The successful completion of this project required innovative engineering and the
involvement of experienced marine personnel throughout all phases of the project. Design
simulations, including physical and computer modelling, as well as on site testing formed a
major part of the success of this design and construct project.
Both the permanent and temporary works were designed by Murray & Roberts Engineering
Solutions. The various elements required permanent works design and temporary works
design were as follows:
5.2. PERMANENT WORKS
5.2.1.
Hydraulic Assessment of the Cooling Water Intake Culverts

Professor Basson of the University of Stellenbosch wa s appointed to calculate the
expected friction losses in the main culverts.
Manning friction factors of 0,0116 and 0,0162 for "new and clean" and "old and
fouled" roughness conditions respectively were used to calculate the total expected
head losses. The head losses for "new and clean" conditions and "old and fouled"
conditions were calculated to be about 1,6m and 2,6m respectively, both less than
the specified corresponding maximum losses of 2,3m and 2,8m.
Energy losses through the intakes into the culverts were difficult to quantify
theoretically, due to the many changes in flow direction, and contraction and
expansion of flow. It was therefore decided that a model study should be carried out
in order to verify the design assumptions. In view of the complex geometry of the
intake structure, it was decided to construct a 1 in 15 scale hydraulic model of one of
the two sets of intakes discharging into the outer barrel culverts. The model was
built and tested at the Hydraulics Laboratory of the Department of Civil Engineering
of the University of Stellenbosch, South Africa, under the supervision of Professor
GR Basson during November-December 2000.
The total energy losses across two intakes and the bend was less than was
predicted theoretically. The sq uare layout of the intakes with their relatively large
throat areas therefore assisted in reducing losses.
The maximum local velocities through the screen openings at Intake 1 under still
water conditions was 0.49 m/s, which was less than the specified maximum velocity
of 0,5 m/s. Velocities through a significant proportion of the screens at Intake 1
were lower and maximum velocities at all other intakes were also slightly lower.
The model tests and results are fully described in Appendix D of the Report on the
Hydraulic Assessment of the cooling water Intake Culverts Report No.
MNJ/99/W/UPA/---/CA/06 rev 04. The model is indicated in the photograph below.
Hydraulic Model of Intakes
5.2.2.
Assessment of the Wave Loading on Intake Towers

The wave clima te for the design of the intake structures was determined, as
recommended in Report No ZLH-554-02 Rev 01, November 2000, Manjung Power
Station Project, Cooling water Intake Culverts and Jetty, Design Wave Conditions
and Report No ZLH-554 -03 Rev 01, November 2000, Manjung Power Station
Project, Wave Conditions for Calculation of Fatigue Loads for the Manjung Cold
Water Intake Structures.
Wave loads were computed using diffraction theory combined with Morrison drag
forces where appropriate. Allowance was made for up to 50mm marine growth on
the intake towers, when calculating the drag components of the forces. However,
no information was available on the expected thickness of the marine growth.
The wave and current loads on the structure were computed using WIFS (Wave
Interaction with Fixed Structures), C J Garrison, 2000 and API RP2A,
Recommended Practice for Planning, Designing and Constructing Fixed Offshore
Platforms, Nineteenth Edition, 1991. Wave and current loads were computed for
extreme conditions, as well as for fatigue design purposes.
The theoretical hydrodynamic loads calculated for the design of the structures was
compared with model tests that were carried out at scales of 1:20 and 1:50 for both
broken and unbroken waves. The main purpose of the model study was to serve as
a control on the numerical models that were used to calculate the forces and
moments on the structure. The models were built and tested at the Hydraulics
Laboratory of the Department of Civil Engineering of the University of Stellenbosch,
to establish the wave induced moments on the intake structures.
A comparison of the numerical wave force analysis results with those from the
model tests resulted in the numerical results being used for design purposes, for the
6.3m design wave height.
The model tests are described in the Appendix of design report no.
MNJ/99/W/UPA/---/CA/021 rev 01. The model is indicated in the photograph below.
1:20 Wave Model

1:50 Wave Model

5.2.3.
Structural Analysis and Design

The reinforced concrete in the culverts had the following properties:
45Mpa, 28 day characteristic strength

Total cementitious content 485kg
PFA content 30% of the total cementitious content
Water/cement ratio 0.33
Reinforcement cover 60mm
5.2.3.1. In-situ Culverts

The in-situ culvert consists of three sections of lengths 30m, 30m and 8.7m
respectively. Movement joints are provided at the diaphragm wall and
between the sections of the culvert, allowing full relative rotation across the
joint. The joint design is described in document no. MNJ/99/W/UPA/---/CA
19.1.
A reinforced concrete chimney, which provides access to all three barrels,
is positioned towards the end of Section 1. This concrete chimney allowed
temporary interior bulkheads to be installed into the in -situ culvert. The
bulkheads were required to provide a dry interior when the water pool
diaphragm wall was broken out to connect to the in-situ culverts.
Reinforced concrete piles provide support to the culverts, positioned in four
rows longitudinally under the culvert walls. The longitudinal pile spacing
varies along the length of the in-situ culvert.
No further detailed analysis or calculations were carried out for Section 2.
Section 2 was detailed using the design carried out for Section 1 as the
loads for Section 2 are the same as or less than Section 1.
Reinforced concrete piles provide support to Section 3 of the Cooling Water
Intake in -situ culvert. One row of 4 No. 400mm square pre-cast concrete
piles, positioned longitudinally under the culvert walls, 1.5m from the
movement joint between Section 2 and Section 3 and, 2 No. 700mm
diameter concrete spun piles, under the internal walls of Section 3 of the
in-situ culvert, at the joint between Section 3 of the in-situ culvert and the
transition pre-cast unit. A continuous crosshead beam and 2 no.
rectangular pile caps are cast over the 2 No. 700mm diameter concrete
spun piles to support the pre-cast transition unit on.
Finite elements analyses were carried out using LUSAS Ver 13, with pre
and post processing using LUSAS Modeller Ver 13. The floor, walls and
roof of the culvert were modeled to the mid-surface using 8 noded thick
shell elements (QTS8 element type). The piles were modeled using
engineering thick beam elements (type BMS3), with a single vertical spring
element at the base of each pile to simulate the foundation stiffness. The
interface between the piles and the culvert floor was modeled locally using
20 noded solid confinuum elements (type HX20), to simulate the load
transfer from the beam elements (piles) to the shell elements (culvert floor).
Ultimate Limit State (U.L.S.) structural design of the culvert section has
been carried out using ultimate bending moments and shear forces
extracted from contour plots for the worst load combinations.
The Serviceability Limit State (S.L.S.) cracking checks have been carried
out using the worst service bending moments, and a maximum permissible
design crack width of 0,2mm. The design of Section 1 and 3 of the in-situ
culvert is described in document nos. MNJ/99/W/UPA/---/CA 04, Ca04.1
and CA 04.2.
Figure 4.
In-situ Culvert
Connection to Water Pool
Pre -Cast
Concrete Units
Concrete Chimney
Steel Bulkheads
1000mm dia Piles
Section 3
700mm dia Piles
Section 2
Section 1
400mm square Pre-Cast Concrete Piles
5.2.3.2. Pre -cast Culverts

The pre-cast culvert section of the cooling water intake consists of approx.
142 No., 10m long, 11.810m wide by 4.610m high units supported on a
concrete pile cap which is supported on 1m diameter, class C, grade
80N/mm 2 concrete spun piles. The triple cell pre-cast culverts have interior
barrel dimensions of 3.750m vertically and 3.450m horizontally, with
0.300m chamfers.
Figure 5. Pre-cast Culvert Lusas Computer Model

The 10m long pre -cast culvert with three interior cells has been modeled
using the LUSAS finite element software. The bottom slab, walls and top
slab of the culvert unit was modeled to the mid-surface using 8-noded thick
shell elements (QTS8 element type). The piles were modeled using beam
elements (type BMS3) and the pile caps as 3-D solids (type HX20). The
contact between the pile caps and the bottom slab thick shell elements
was modeled using 3-D joint elements (type JNT4), in order to simulate the
contact over the correct area on the pile caps. Axial joint elements (type
JSH4) were used at the bottom of the piles to simulate the long term loadsettlement behavior of the piles. The computer model is indicated in
Figure 5.
The position of the piles and pile caps relative to the culvert unit was
varied. In each case the pile cap joint elements were revised such that the
contact area was correctly approximated.
Full fixity boundary conditions were applied to the bottom of the piles. All
nodes on the piles were given horizontal spring stiffnesses in the two
global horizontal directions, based on the horizontal coefficient of subgrade
reaction determined by Soil & Rock Engineering for the 1,0m diameter
spun concrete piles. The magnitude of the spring stiffnesses used for the
lateral soil restraint was increased until the horizontal deflection of the piles
was approximately the same as that obtained by Soil & Rock Engineering
in the full geotechnical analysis. The detailed geotechnical and structural
design calculations for the piled foundation are contained in:
Design report No. MNJ/99/W/UPA/---/CA/24

Design report No. MNJ/99/W/UPA/---/CA/24.1
Design report No. MNJ/99/W/UPA/---/CA/24.2
Design report No. MNJ/99/W/UPA/---/CA/25.
5.2.3.3. Intake Structures

The cooling water intakes consist of 6 intake culvert units, which have
internal walls for diverting and channeling the water flow and intake tower
structures which are fixed in-situ to the top of the culvert units which are
supported on 8 concrete pile caps on 8 No. 1m diameter, class C, grade
80N/mm concrete spun piles. The layout of the intakes is indicated in
figure 6.
The pre -cast culvert units supporting the intake towers were constructed
onshore on a number of prepared casting beds. The units were cast on
plinths in an elevated position to allow the heavy-lift trailers to move in
underneath the units in order to lift and load the units. Each units dry
weight was approximately 400t. The culverts were then transported by
heavy-lift trailers onto a specially constructed temporary load-out jetty. This
allowed a floating gantry to straddle the jetty and unit, to lift it off to
transport it out to a temporary stone foundation bed offshore
The intake tower structures were constructed onshore on a number of
prepared casting beds. The intake tower structures were cast separately
from the intake culvert units supporting them. Each intake towers dry
weight was approximately 156t. The heavy-lift trailers then transported the
intake tower structures onto the specially constructed temporary load-out
jetty. The floating gantry then straddled the jetty and intake tower, and
lifted it off for transport out to the culvert unit, which had already been
placed on the temporary stone foundation bed offshore. The intake tower
structures were then fixed to the submerged culvert units by means of an
in-situ concrete connection at low tide.
The floating gantry then moved the completed intake culvert units including
the intake towers to their final positions on the piled foundations.
The intake units on which the towers are supported were analysed as per
the typical pre-cast units using the LUSAS finite element software. The
intake tower structure was also modeled using the LUSAS finite element
software. All components of the structure were modeled to the midsurface using 8 noded thick shell elements (QTS8 element type). The
tower model was provided with a continuous support at the bottom, with
fixity in all global axis directions to model the connectivity to the pre-cast
unit. The wave pressures on each component of the structure were
calculated using the maximum resultant horizontal and vertical loads on
the structure as determined from the model tests and numerical analyses
carried out using MORA. This previous study determined that the worst
extreme wave conditions anticipated will be unbroken waves (Waves on
point of breaking) with Hmax = 6.0m and a period of 8 seconds. A typical
contour plot from the Lusas software is indicated in figure 7.
The detailed geotechnical and structural design calculations for the intake
structures are contained in Design report No.
MNJ/99/W/UPA/--/CA/25.1..
Figure 6.
Layout of Pre-Cast Intake Towers
Section 5: Page 1 0 of 20
Figure 7.
Lusas FE Model Contour Plot of Pre -Cast Intake
5.2.3.4. Navigation Structure

The Navigation Light Structure has been modeled as a space frame on
Staad Pro 2001, using shell elements to model the pile caps and the piles
were modeled as 900 mm diameter x 130 mm thick concrete beam
elements. The horizontal loads on the piles are applied as trapezoidal
beam loads and the horizontal loads on the slab are applied through a
special dummy beam element at the slab perimeter. Horizontal spring
supports were calculated to simulate fixity of the structure. Lateral soil
springs were provided at different depths along the length of the piles,
which were based on a lateral modulus of subgrade reaction as determined
by Soil & Rock Engineering.
Vessel berthing loads were calculated based on the recommendations of
BS 6349 : Part 4 : 1994 Section 4.7. A berthing velocity of 0.5 m/sec was
used in the calculations. An EXCEL spreadsheet was developed for
determining the wave particle velocities and wave forces based on Linear
Airy wave theory using Morisons equation.
The detailed geotechnical and structural design calculations for the
navigation structure are contained in Design repo rt No. MNJ/99/W/UPA/--/CA/03. The navigation structure is indicated in the photograph below.
5.2.4.
Geotechnical Analysis of the Piled Foundations

The PIES computer program was used to estimate the geotechnical safe working
loads for the concrete piles which support the in -situ, pre -cast and intake structure
culverts. The PIES software was developed by Professor Poulos at the University
of Sydney. The software uses a simplified boundary element formulation and
models the interface between the pile and soil in a hyperbolic manner. The
programme calculates the down drag load of a pile embedded in settling marine
clays and the pile head settlement for different applied pile head loads. In this way,
a complete load vs settlement curve was derived.
The safe working load of the piles was also calculated using theoretical models
provided by Professors Fleming and Randolph.
The safe working loads
(geotechnical) of the concrete piles were calculated for different pile penetrations.
These static analyses were carried out using the computer program PILER.
Soil and Rock Engineering, Geotechnical Consultants in Kuala Lumpur, carried out
the PIES and PILER analyses referred to above.
Soil & Rock Engineering evaluated horizontal spring stiffnesses in the two global
horizontal directions at all the nodes on the piles. These horizontal spring
stiffnesses where based on the horizontal coefficient of subgrade reaction of the
soil profile. These spring stiffnesses were used in the structural analyses.
5.2.5.
Hydraulic, Installation and Design of the Dosing Lines

5.2.5.1. Hydraulic Design.
The hydraulic assessment for the dosing lines for the cooling water intake
culverts from the skid to the intake was modelled with the nozzles, without
any backpressure or non-return valve. The design parameters were as
follows: Maximum flow in pipes 186 m3/hr per pipe, Nominal flow 62 m3/hr,
Minimum flow (one pump) 10 m3/hr, Head from pump curve for 51,66 l/s =
28.4m, Head loss on shore to battery limit (Max flow) = 6.7m, Elevation of
pumps (above sea level) = 4.15m.
We did not have information of the actual pump curves, and we assumed
that the losses of -6.7m in the pipe work and control valves were correct
for the high flow condition. We used the PIPEN software to analyse the
dosing line system.
Wave action will create a dynamic affect in the system, this may influence
the short term dosing at the individual intakes, but the general level of
chlorination in the line should not be affected.
The output from the PIPEN analysis software for the various runs are
contained in design report No. MNJ/99/W/UPA/---/CA/05. The analysis
was based on a 140 dosing ring pipe, but this was subsequently
changed to a 160 dosing ring pipe as this size was more readily
available than the 140 pipe. Please note that there is not a significant
difference in the analysis between the 140 and 160 pipe for the
dosing ring line as most of the losses occur in the main 225 mm line.
Wave action will create a dynamic effect in the system, this may influence
the short term dosing at the individual intakes, but the general level of
chlorination in the line should not be affected.
5.2.5.2. Installation Design
The pipes were pulled out through HDPE sleeves that were cast into
concrete diaphragm walls located at 5.0m c/c on the top of the pre-cast
units. The pipes are located in a closed cavity (covered with concrete
cover slabs), and were thus not subject to significant wave forces, and will
also be protected from direct snagging dangers.
The pipes were assembled on land in lengths of 24m and then joined
before being pulled out by a suitable barge or vessel, through the sleeves.
There were three different pulling lengths i.e. 1315m, 1375m and 1435m.
The pipe was designed to overcome the following forces during installation
(pulling): inertia, friction at sleeves from buoyancy, affects of mis-alignment
of the sleeves from placing tolerances in the pre -cast units or settlements
and launching friction on the land rollers. A pulling nose was designed and
attached to the front of each pipe. An opening was provided in the pulling
nose to allow water to enter the pipe to flood it as it was being launched.
The calculation of the installation forces and the pipe stresses in the HDPE
PE80 225 Class PN 10 dosing line pipe are contained in design report
no. MNJ/99/W/UPA/---/CA/05.1
5.2.5.3. Pre -cast concrete housing design
The chlorine dosing lines are housed in a small concrete structure located
on the top of the intake culverts. All three dosing lines are located within
this housing, which comprises two sloping kerbs fixed to the top of the
culvert, each with a recess at the top, into which a pre-cast cover slab is
positioned. These pre-cast concrete housings are subject to various
forces, the most significant of these forces is uplift on the slabs and drag
forces on the kerbs, due to the action of waves and current.
A model test is the most reliable method to obtain the forces and uplift on
the units, but time and cost constraints prevented this. The analytical
methods used to calculate the design uplift on the top of the culverts was
therefore an approximation The analytical calculations were based on the
best estimates for the combined effects of a depth limited wave for 10m of
seawater over the culvert and an allowance for up to 2m scour next to the
culvert, together with the design current of 1.0 m/sec.
Linear wave theory was used to estimate the wave induced water velocities
in the region of the housing units. Drag and lift pressures were calculated
using Morisons equation. The resulting pressures with 2% included for
added mass were calculated as 35 KPa Lift and 17.7 kPa Drag. The lift
force was applied to the top of the pre -cast element, and the drag forces
have been applied as 79% to the front kerb as a pressure, and the
remaining 21% to the back kerb as a suction force.
Bolts were recommended to hold down the pre-cast concrete covers but
the JV chose not to use holding down bolts. The calculations for the pre cast concrete housing are contained in design report no. MNJ/99/W/UPA/--/CA/05.2
5.3. TEMPORARY WORKS

The temporary works elements requiring detailed design were as follows:
5.3.1.
Load Out Jetty

A reinforced concrete jetty, supported on concrete spun piles, was designed to
provide a structure over the water where the pre -cast units could be positioned and
lifted off the jetty using a floating gantry, before being towed to the dredged trench
and lowered onto the foundation bed in their final position.
The full jetty was mode led using an assemblage of beam elements and analysed
using the PROKON software package. The pre -cast deck slabs were modeled
using beam elements, with each beam having a width equal to half the width of a
pre-cast slab panel.
Horizontal supports for the piles were provided at -4.40m ACD, which corresponds
to a point about 2,5 pile diameters below the scoured seabed level. A scour of
1,0m was taken into account. At the pile toe (taken at 14,40m ACD) horizontal
supports were provided, as well as a vertical spring with a stiffness of 70 000kN/m,
which corresponds to the lower bound pile spring stiffness as calculated by Soil &
Rock Engineering. Towards the rear of the jetty the horizontal restraints were
positioned higher up the pile to take account of the sloping landfill embankment and
revetment.
The detailed structural design was carried out in accordance with BS6349, BS5400
and BS8110. Bending moment and shear force envelopes at Ultimate Limit State
were extracted from the PROKON analysis, for the primary elements of the
structure, namely the pre -cast deck slabs, the longitudinal deck beams near the
end of the jetty, the crosshead beams and the piles. Reinforced concrete design
calculations based on the formulae in BS8110 were carried out for the peak forces
on each primary element, using spreadsheet calculations.
These were
supplemented with additional hand calculations where necessary. Spreadsheet
calculations were used to check the Serviceability Limit State crack widths, based
on the crack width formulae in BS5400.
The calculations for the load out jetty are contained in design report no.
MNJ/99/W/UPA/---/CA/02.
Lateral load analyses for the concrete spun piles were carried out using the
geotechnical software, DEFPIG 6XB (1999), which was developed by Professor
Poulos at the University of Sydney. The programme analyses the behaviour of
single piles and pile groups when subjected to axial and horizontal forces and
moments. The piles were divided into 50 elements and limiting pile- soil stresses
(ultimate skin friction values) and elastic moduli were assigned to each element.
The pile head reactions determined from PROKON software were applied to the
700mm spun piles and lateral deflections and bending moments were calculated for
single piles driven through the revetment and offshore. The lateral deflection at the
pile head level ranged from < 2mm to about 10mm. The maximum bending
moments ranged from about 30kNm to 150kNm. The effects of a 2 No x 760kN
berthing force on the 39 piles supporting the load out jetty was modelled using
DEFPIG. The maximum lateral deflection at pile head level was estimated to be
14mm and the maximum bending moment was estimated to be 1860kNm. The
calculations for the loadout jetty are contained in design report No.
MNJ/99/W/UPA/---CA/02.1.
5.3.2.
Cofferdam
A 53.2m long by 14.4m wide cofferdam was required in order to construct in-situ
section of the concrete culvert for the connection of the cooling water intakes to the
cooling water pond. The cofferdam was a multi-propped type with three layers of
props at +1.50m, -2.70m. and 5.50m ACD respectively. The excavation depth
inside the cofferdam was approximately 8.00m ACD. The ground surface of the
existing island was about +4,65m ACD. The ground level for a distance of
approximately 8m around the cofferdam was reduced to a level of +3m ACD to
reduce the soil loads on the sheet piles. A second row of Lx 16 sheet piles was
driven around the cofferdam and the water table inside this area was reduced to
approximately 0.0m ACD, in order to reduce the water pressure on the cofferdam.
Boreholes were drilled, SPTs, hand shear vane tests, and later CPTs were carried
out to determine the properties of the soil in the area to enable an analysis of the
cofferdam to take place.
The ground conditions varied significantly over the Cofferdam area. The cofferdam
was therefore divided into 3 distinct sections for design, referred to as Sections 1, 2
and 3 respectively. Section 1 Onshore - from 20m to 33m from the Diaphragm
Wall, Section 2 - Revetment - from 33m to 52.2m from the Diaphragm Wall (Section
2a - from 33m to 42m, Section 2b from 42m to 52.2m), Section 3 Offshore from 52.2m to 73.2m from the Diaphragm Wall. The ground conditions for Section
1 (Onshore) were better than for Section 2 (Revetment) and Section 3 (Offshore)
as they were surcharged by the reclamation.
The 3 Sections of the cofferdam consisted of 4 different types of sheet pile
sections. Section 1 (Onshore) - 13m of 18m long PU25 sheet piles driven to 15m
ACD, Section 2 (Revetment) - Section 2a - 9m of 24m long PU25 sheet piles
driven to 21.0m ACD plus Section 2b - 10.2m of 24m long reinforced PU25 sheet
piles driven to 21.0m ACD, Section 3 (Offshore) - 21m of 24m long reinforced Lx
32 (or equivalent 24m long reinforced PU 25) sheet piles driven to 21.0m ACD.
The WALLAP and PLAXIS finite element computer programs were used to perform
the stage-by-stage analyses of the structure, in order to determine the stability of
the cofferdam, the waler loads and the bending moments and shear forces in the
sheet-piles, during the construction process. The programs can be used to model
a braced excavation in layered soil deposits.
PLAXIS is a finite element program that is capable of analysing excavation
problems in 2-dimensional continuum under plain strain conditions. A 6-node
isoparametric element was used to model the soil medium. Underneath the firm
clay layer was the sand stratum and a fixed base was assumed. The phreatic line
was assumed to be at +1.0m ACD. Beam elements were used to model the wall
and struts. The problem was symmetrical and therefore only half of the cross
section was analysed.
The sequence of construction involving the excavation of a soil layer, the
installation of sheet piles and struts, and ground dewatering can readily be modeled
by the programs. The construction sequence generally consisted of: i) Installing
concrete piles for the culvert foundation, ii) Installing sheet piling to toe elevations
of -15m and 21m ACD, iii) Excavation for the cofferdam, iv) Installing the three
layers of struts and walers and de-watering as the excavation proceeded, v)
Casting the in-situ culvert base slab hard up against the sheet piles and vi)
Removing layer 3 of the struts and walers, vii) Completing the in-situ culvert
construction and, viii) Removing layers 2 and 1 of the struts and walers as the
backfilling proceeded.
WALLAP carries out two (2) separate types of analysis: i) Limit equilibrium analysis
where factors of safety are calculated in accordance with recognised and codified
procedures; and ii) Bending moment and displacement analysis. This is carried out
by modeling the stage -by-stage development of forces and wall movements as

excavation proceeds. The results of the WALLAP analyses were not included in
the report as they were only used as a design check. The client would also not
accept designs carried out using WALLAP.
5.3.3.
The calculations for the cofferdam are contained in design report no.
MNJ/99/W/UPA/---/CA/13.2.
Tied back cantilever sheet pile walls were designed at the end of the cofferdam
to enable the placing of the first pre-cast unit next to the in-situ culvert.
The calculations for the wing walls are contained in design re port no.
MNJ/99/W/UPA/---/CA/13.3
400 tonne Floating Gantry

The floating gantry was a space frame structure consisting primarily of Grade 43A
steel (or equivalent) tubular members. The structure spanned between two 120 x
40 x 8 barges in order to stra ddle the load out jetty on which the culvert unit was
placed. The function of the gantry was to lift the unit at two lift points on the gantry
structure and transport the unit while hanging from the gantry to the offshore
location where the unit was lowered into its final position in a pre-dredged trench.
The gantry was towed out from the load out jetty to the final placement location.
The geometric configuration was determined by the following factors : Clearance
over the culvert unit placed on the loadout jetty, Barge dimensions and locations of
bulkheads for gantry support placement, Tidal ranges relative to jetty levels, Culvert
unit dimensions and lifting corbel locations and the Space provision for rigging and
lifting equipment.
In order to assist the structural efficiency of the system, two tie members were
included at a level around 5.5m above the deck of the barge in order to prevent the
separation action of the two barges while the unit is hanging from the gantry. This
meant that the relative outward displacement of the barges was not only resisted by
the portal framing of the gantry. The tie members needed to be placed after the
gantry was moved over the unit prior to lifting due to clearance considerations.
The structural analysis of the framing was performed using STAAD Pro 2000 finite
element analysis software. Simple beam elements were used for member modeling
with tubular section properties. Member offsets at the tubular connections were
included in the model with additional members around the intersection points. The
overall geometry and more specifically the tubular intersection geometry were
developed with the assistance of a 3-D CAD model assembled with AutoCAD
software. Offset geometry coordinates were then imported as input for the STAAD
model. The 3-D model was also used for rigging and sheave block clearance
checks especially around the lift point node. Boundary conditions were applied at
the bases of the four legs on each side of the gantry (4 x 2 = 8 locations). The
barge was not included in this structural model. Vertical springs with stiffnesses
representing the barge buoyancy were used at all 8 locations. One side of the gantry
base was released in the horizontal plane in order to accommodate the outward
relative displacement of the barges.
The following loadings were considered for the structural analysis:
Dead Load : Applied as a uniformly distributed load throughout the structure

self-generated by the STAAD software. This was factored up by 5% to include
appurtenances like walkways and ladders.
Live Load : Hanging weight of the concrete culvert unit together with associated
rigging. This hanging load was applied as a point load at the lift point node. The
load factor used is explained below.
Environmental Loads : The environmental data used for adopting a design
wave is contained in the design report.
Wind : the magnitude of the wind loading on the gantry is insignificant compared
to the other loadings and hence was ignored.
Wave and Current : The 10 year return period maximum wave height is between
0.75 and 1.0m and hence a 1m wave height was used for the design together
with 0.5m (1 knot) current. The effect of the wave and current on the barges was
calculated and applied to the base of the gantry legs to represent transfer of
environmental load into the gantry via the barge.
By far the most critical load condition was the case of the unit hanging prior to
submergence in the water (i.e. the dry weight of the unit).
For wave loading effects on the barges the following wave directions have been
considered : Beam wave (across the two barges) in order to model the effect of
barge separation in addition to differential heave and Quartering (diagonal) wave to
model the torsional loading effects on the gantry due to anti-symmetric rotation of
the barges about the transverse gantry axis.
The STAAD program has an API code check facility and this was used for member
design. In addition, the API punching shear requirements are included in the API
code check. Hence the tubular connection design is also part of the STAAD
structural analysis.
The lift point, tie member connection to the 500 mm diameter gantry legs and barge
support grillage were designed in accordance with the AISC steel design code.
In order to lift the unit from the load out jetty from two lift points on the gantry to four
lift locations on the typical culvert unit, a spreader beam was required to spread the
lift load from a single line to the two lifting corbels on each side of the unit. The unit
was lifted b y Macalloy bars attached to the culvert corbels. The bars were attached
to the lift beam which was connected to the lower sheave block by slings.
The calculations for the floating gantry are contained in design report no.
MNJ/99/W/UPA/---/CA/13.3
5.4. EXTERNAL CONSULTANTS
The following external consultants were appointed to carry out the following detailed design
and analysis.
Ref.
Design Element
Designer
1.
Structural Analysis and Reinforcement Design of

In-situ culverts, Pre-cast culverts and Intake
Tower Structures
2.
Computer Modelling of Wave Forces on the

Intake Towers
3.
Dosing Line Hydraulic Analysis and Structural

Design
4.
Geotechnical Design of the piled foundations
5.
Geotechnical Analysis of Cofferdam
6.
Hydraulic Analysis and Head Loss Calculations
Ninham Shand
7.
Physical Hydraulic Model of the Intake Towers
8.
Physical Wave Model of the Intake Towers
University of
Stellenbosch
Zietsman Lloyd and

Hemsted Inc.
Soil & Rock Engineering
SECTION 6. GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED ON THE CULVERT ROUTE

6.1. GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATIONS
The initial geotechnical data was obtained during the offshore site investigations, which were
carried out by Strata Drill Sdn. Bhd. on behalf of Alstom Export Sdn. Bhd. during December
1999 and January 2000.
The site investigation information, which was provided by the client at tender stage, included
the following:
Six, 50m deep, exploratory boreholes drilled using rotary washboring with SPT testing
and undisturbed Shelby tube sampling. Three boreholes (103, 104 and 105) were drilled
along the intake route. In-situ, field vane testing was undertaken at 1,5m to 2m intervals
in the boreholes until refusal.
Laboratory testing of undisturbed samples from the boreholes, included Atterberg limits,
particle size distribution, UU and CU triaxial compression tests, oedometer, natural
moisture content and chemical testing.
Twenty-five, 20m deep, marine piezocone penetration tests (CPT) were undertaken to
measure cone resistance, sleeve friction and porewater pressure. Dissipation tests were
also conducted. Fifteen of the CPT tests (CPT110 to CPT 124) were undertaken along
the intake route.
6.2. THE SOIL PROFILE

The intake route is underlain by more than 50m of unconsolidated sediments, which are
described, in part, in the borehole logs as alluvium. However, references in the borehole
logs to shells suggest that, at least, the upper parts of the sedimentary layers have a marine
origin or a reworked marine origin.
Two distinct soil layers were evident from the borehole logs.
The upper 25m comprising grey, silty clays with minor sandy clays. Sandy or silty lenses,
shell fragments and traces of organic material and decomposed wood also occur. Grey to
light grey, lenses of slightly silty, fine to coarse sand with some angular to sub rounded, fine
to medium quartz gravel was recorded, in places. The thickness of these occurrences
ranges up to 1,5m. These clayey soils were highly plastic, with the natural moisture content
of the upper 4m of soil approaching, but not exceeding ht e liquid limit. The undrained
cohesion varied from 5kPa to 13kPa at seabed level with a typical increase of 1.25kPa/m
depth.
A sandy layer that generally ranges in thickness from 15m to 18m occurs approximately 25m
below sea floor (about -30m to -35m CD). These light grey sands are fine to coarse grained
and frequently contain sub angular sub rounded, fine to medium gravel. In places, the sands
are silty, and thin silty and clayey layers also occur.
6.3. GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED DURING DREDGING
During November 2000, whilst trimming the excavated trench in the seabed to final level,
diving inspections showed that a layer of between 500mm and 2.0m of soft disturbed
material continuously remained in the bottom of the trench.
After removal of further material to reach the firmer underlying layers identified by diver
probes, the thickness of this layer of poor material did not diminish but remained fairly
constant.
As a result the crushed stone foundation bed could not be placed in accordance with the
original design requirements and there was concern about being able to develop the required
10 kPa bearing capacity.
It was initially unclear as to the source of the poor material as it could not be identified in the
soils data supplied at tender stage. The possibility was that it flowed in from the surrounding
seabed or that it arose from the disturbance of the seabed materials during the dredging
operations. It is now generally accepted that the material which was marginal as a founding
layer tended to liquefy when disturbed by the dredging operations.
6.4. REVISED COOLING WATER INTAKE FOUNDATION DESIGN
The LLJV requested the designers (LAMA) to investigate the cause of the problem and
revise the design to accommodate the seabed materials encountered. At the beginning of
December 2000 LAMA personnel travelled to the site to meet with the LLJV site personnel
and local Malaysian geotechnical engineers. The purpose of this visit was to discuss and to
determine the cause of the problem, and if necessary to institute remedial actions or
alternative designs. Samples of the excavated material were viewed and tested, and the
available borehole cores were investigated. A specification was issued for further borehole
drilling along the trench alignment and four additional exploratory boreholes were drilled
during December 2000 to supplement the investigations conducted by Strata Drill Sdn. Bhd.
Meetings were held in Malaysia with local geotechnical consultants, the Client, Powergen
and the LLJV site personnel to discuss and agree on an alternative foundation design which
would allow construction to continue with as little delay as possible. As a solution it was
proposed that instead of attempting to remove the poor material, large sized graded rock fill
would be dumped in order that it would penetrate the soft underlying material and form a
base for the stone bed. A drop test was carried out to ascertain to what depth a rock would
sink to in the deleterious material. A granite rock (approximate dimensions 0.3m x 0.5m)
supported on a graduated tape was dropped into the soft material. It sank to a depth of about
1.5m. Hand probing at this location refused at a depth of about 2m.
LAMA prepared an initial report on their findings and the proposed revised design. In order
to verify the proposed design, a finite element model was set up using the Sage Crisp finite
element software to calculate and predict the long -term settlement of this foundation
proposal. Rock dumping commenced on site to the revised design in order to carry out insitu testing. The intention was to place a culvert unit on a foundation constructed to the
revised design in order that the actual short-term settlement could be measured and used to
calibrate the FE model. This would improve the accuracy of the models long-term settlement
predictions. The results of both the model and the prototype gave very encouraging and
acceptable levels of settlement. The relevant drawings were changed and design reports
prepared for the revised foundation deta ils.
At the February 2001 JV Exco meeting, the decision was taken to rather consider using a
piled foundation than the dumped rock solution that had been proposed. The reason for this
selection was that it was felt that there was less risk of differential settlement between culvert
units in the long -term with a piled structure and that Alstom were in favour of this change. All
work on the rockfill alternative was then stopped and the test unit removed from the seabed.
6.5. CONCLUSIONS
The problems encountered with the seabed materials in the trench were considered by
LAMA to be unforeseen ground conditions, as the soil investigation information provided to
LAMA at the time of the final design being carried out did not indicate that these materials
would behave in this way during dredging.
This view has been well documented in the report submitted for the revised design, as well
as in reports by independent geotechnical consultants. The original design was found to be
acceptable to our appointed local (Malaysian) geotechnical consultants, the Clients
geotechnical engineer, as well as Powergens Chief Engineer.
At no stage during the design and design approval process (which was by then largely
complete) did anyone, including the local engineers involved, foresee problems with this
material.
6.6. RELATED DOCUMENTS ISSUED
Design Reports:
Doc. No. MNJ/99/W/UPA/---/CA/16, Interpretation of Geotechnical Data For The Cooling

Water Intake Culverts, Rev 03, 16/11/00.
Doc. No. MNJ/99/W/UPA/---/CA/22, Report on Unforseen Ground Conditions Resulting in
the Redesign of the Dredge Pocket Between CH300m and 500m, Rev 02, 15/01/01.
Doc. No. MNJ/99/W/UPA/---/CA/16.1, Revised Geotechnical Design Report For
Foundation Type B, Rev 03, 06/02/01.
Doc. No. MNJ/99/W/UPA/---/CA/30, SRK Consulting Review of Existing Geotechnical
Data for the Cooling Water Intake Culvert, Rev 01, 13/02/01.
Knight Hall Hendry report Review of Geotechnical Data ref LAMA01C\RWH\ms dated
6th March 2001
SECTION 7. PRODUCTION RATES, PLANT UTILIZATION AND CREW SIZES

7.1. OVERALL PRODUCTION
Cooling Water Intake

Graphical Overview of Schedule of Work
160
9 August 2001
Alstom
handover Grid
23 to Grid 142
140
GANTRY
MANUFACTURE
120
STONE SPREADER
Substantial
Completion
Inspection
requested 5
September
2001 from
Alstom
CLAMSHELL DREDGE
SPREAD
AVE CEASAR DIPPER DREDGER

100
PILING OPERATIONS
NAV STRUCTURE
80
PRECAST WORKS
UNIT
PLACING
40
08/10/2001
08/09/2001
08/08/2001
08/06/2001
08/05/2001
08/04/2001
08/02/2001
08/01/2001
08/12/2000
08/11/2000
08/10/2000
08/09/2000
08/08/2000
08/07/2000
08/03/2001
17 April
First unit
placed
Establish PC
Yard
20
DOSING
LINE
Cofferdams, Insitu cilvert (Phase 1 ,2 &3)
60
08/07/2001
No of units and interface
JETTY
7.2. CULVERT UNIT PLACING
Manjung Power Station : Cooling Water Intake

Culvert Unit Placing Graph
160
Gantry Damaged
on 25 June 2001 :
1 week delay
140
120
100
Units from No 23 to furthest

offshore unit 142
Note : no units placed

due to Phase 3
cofferdam not being
ready, piling able to
proceed until cofferdam
completed
Final Unit
Placed
28 August
INSHORE
UNITS no 22
to transition
80
60
First Unit No 23
Placed 17 April
2001 at Chainage
296m
40
20
142 NO. UNITS TO BE

PLACED
All placed in 83 calender
days
7.3. PRE-CAST CULVERT CONCRETE PRODUCTION
Manjung Power Station Cooling Water Intake

Cumulative Precast Culvert Concrete
30000
25000
20000
15000
142 no CULVERTS
1 no Culvert = 164 cubic
metres
Produced 1 no culvert per day
Concrete supply by Boom Pump
Target Daily
Base pour 64 cubic metres start
11 am
Wall & Roof pour 115 Cubic
metres by 13H00
Base Pour : normally 2 to 3
hours
Wall & Roof Pour : 4 to 5 hours
Chinese New
Year
Christmas/New
Year
10000
5000
7.4. PRE-CAST CULVERT MANUFACTURE

Precast Culvert Manufacture
160
TYPICAL WEEK
1 culvert per day
140
6 days per week

No night shift
Extended hours and
Sunday preparations
only
120
No of Culverts
139 UNITS
COMPLETE
FIRST UNIT
PLACED
OFFSHORE AT
GRID LINE 23
100
80
Planned 5
October 2001
ALL SPECIAL
UNITS
constructed
towards the end
of the works
HEAVY LIFT
TRAILERS ON
SITE
60
40
UNITS IN TEMPORARY
STORAGE
18/05/2001
11/05/2001
04/05/2001
27/04/2001
20/04/2001
13/04/2001
06/04/2001
30/03/2001
23/03/2001
16/03/2001
09/03/2001
02/03/2001
23/02/2001
16/02/2001
09/02/2001
02/02/2001
26/01/2001
19/01/2001
12/01/2001
05/01/2001
29/12/2000
22/12/2000
15/12/2000
08/12/2000
01/12/2000
24/11/2000
17/11/2000
10/11/2000
03/11/2000
27/10/2000
20/10/2000
13/10/2000
06/10/2000
29/09/2000
22/09/2000
20
Blue line = Manufacture

Red line = Placing
7.5. COOLING WATER INTAKE M AJOR QUANTITIES

Concrete Quantities
Pre -cast Culverts
In-situ Culverts
Stools
Pile Caps
Load-out Jetty
Establishment
Intake Beds
PC Beds
23 500
1 195
576
556
420
370
360
343
27 320 m3
Reinforcing Quantities
Pre -cast Culverts
In-situ Culverts
Stools
Pile Caps
Load-out Jetty
Establishment
Intake Beds
PC Beds
2 675
130
52
153
79
0
65
22
3 175 Ton
Formwork Quantities
Pre -cast Yard
Load-out Jetty
In-situ Culvert
80 885
1 313
4 170
86 368 m2
Square and Round Piling Quantities

700mm diameter x 42m long Pre-stressed Spun Concrete Piles for
Load-out Jetty
700mm diameter x 30m long Pre-stressed Spun Concrete Piles for
In-situ Culvert
40 No
400 x 400mm x 36m avg. length Square Pre -cast Concrete Piles for
In-situ Culvert support
72 No
1000mm diameter x avg. 28m length Pre -stressed Spun Concrete

Piles for Main Culvert Foundation
320 No
2 No
7.6. MARINE WORKS PRODUCTION

Piling - Pile caps - Culverts
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
17- 24- 3107- 14Mar- Mar- Mar- Apr- Apr01

01
01
01
01
2128- 05- 1219- 26- 0209- 16- 2330Apr- Apr- May- May- May- May- Jun- Jun- Jun- Jun- Jun01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
07Jul01
14Jul01
21Jul01
28- 0411- 18- 2528Jul- Aug- Aug- Aug- Aug- Aug01

01
01
01
01
01
Piling
12
30
54
78
98
122
138
162
182
206
222
246
264
276
280
280
288
288
288
312
Pile Caps
12
36
60
80
104
120
144
164
188
204
228
252
264
276
280
288
288
290
312
Units
14
20
28
40
50
62
70
82
94
106
114
116
118
125
125
125
140
142
SECTION 8. COST VS BUDGET

8.1. PROJECT COST OVERVIE W
Project Cost Breakdown

Dosing
4%
Design
6%
PC
Profit
11%
Marine
C'Dam
Precast
24%
LOJ
Staff
P&G
Design
Dosing
Profit
P&G
2%
Staff
10%
Load Out
Jetty
1%
Marine
35%
Cofferdam7
%
Approximate Total
RM 53 200 000
8.2. STAFFING COST
Total Estimated Cost

RM 5,282,595
2%
4%
25%
2%
67%
Expat
Local
Accom
Vehicles
Mob/Demob
Staffing Cost Proportions

(Malaysia 2000/2001)
8.3. FINANCIAL (SEE SECTION 18 FOR DETAILS)
Although the costs of the work increased considerably due to the change in the foundations
for the culvert, the project still generated 80% of the projected profit (excluding the insurance
payout on the foundation design.)
With the insurance payout taken into account the profit generated was about 35% above the
tendered profit.
8.4. ASSET MANAGEMENT
All assets purchased by the joint venture during the course of the project are recorded on an
Asset Register. Toward the end of the project many assets are no longer required and is
usually disposed of. Major assets include used Sheet Piles, hydraulic hoisting and mooring
winches, various power tools and small plant items, unused materials and equipment,
containers and office equipment.
Suggestions for improvement:
The asset register was found to be inadequate toward the end of the project and was
substantially upgraded to include all known assets. Much time is spent on research ing
information on these items toward the end of the contract. Any item considered an asset
should be fully entered into an asset registry system upon purchase. Post project review,
tracking and sale of such items are therefore made simple. The nature of the JV further
complicates the issue since two separate parties have interests here. This system was not
adequate at Manjung and should in future be implemented from the start of asset purchases.
SECTION 9. RISKS/ LESSONS LEARNT

9.1. TECHNICAL
9.1.1.
Soil Investigation is paramount to minimize risk. Site-specific data must be collected

for analysis and interpreted with due consideration of local knowledge. In this case
the available information was not adequate or adequately interpreted. More
attention should be placed on foundation conditions offshore in early stages.
Cannot be stressed enough.
9.1.2.
Items such as the Dosing Line in this case should receive attention earlier. Cost
could be reduced by optimizing resources. The risk of delays to unit placement was
too high for such a small part of the overall structure.
9.1.3.
Anti- fouling measures are an ongoing risk up to the point of final hand over to the
client. Costs involved in subsequent clean up operations could be significant. The
anti-fouling paint used is merely a temporary measure and it is not agreed how long
it would last.
9.1.4.
Environmental damage risk by the use of hazardous materials such as anti-fouling

paint is high. Great care should be taken to ensure safe use and acceptable
disposal of waste materials. Other materials including granular chlorine were used
inside the culverts. These items must be treated with care and be kept to a
minimum.
9.2. ADMINISTRATIVE, AUTHORITATIVE AND GENERAL

9.2.1.
On a large design and construct project a design coordinator is required on site for
much if not all of the time. This engineer must have the authority to make decisions
on behalf of the design office or have a mechanism in place to ensure that he
receives quick decisions or feedback with minimum delay to the project. He should
remain part of the design office structure and not get completely absorbed into the
site management team.
9.2.2.
Where such an immense amount of quality assurance documentation is called for a

specific QA person should be appointed and made available to hand le peripheral
non-production issues. Site management can help set the system in place, fill in all
check forms and so on but should not be expected to coordinate the vast quantities
of paperwork submitted for prior approval and chase the record keeping.
9.2.3.
The cost of getting approvals for various aspects from the various authorities may
have been included in the tender price but the effort spent on investigating and
determining the exact requirements and the amount of lead time required for
approvals was significantly underestimated. Recommend employing a local agent
to deal with all authoritative approvals (departments of safety & health, fishing,
environment, security, land usage, water, import/export, etc.)
SECTION 10. STAFFING LEVELS

10.1. GENERAL COMMENTS
On site staff for the project was supplied by both Joint Venture partners. LAMA provides all
the expatriate engineers for the project. Leighton Contractors supply a number of
superintendents on various part of the project and assisting office staff shared with the
Leighton Office. LLJV supervisors and foremen are recruited locally. Labor is mostly
subcontracted with their own first level supervision. Staff arrangements for the major section
of the project follows below.
10.2. MARINE WORKS STAFFIN G FROM JULY 2000 TO F EBRUARY 2001
Position/Function
Works Manager
Senior Engineer
Marine Superintendent
Dredging Works (Ave Ceasar)
Dredging Clamshell
Piling Works Engineer
Crane Barge & Pile Caps
Gantry Superintendent
Grouting of Main Joints
Survey Works
Name
Rudi Voerman
Barry Hofmeyr
Dean Pearson
George Salmon
Francois Labuschagne
George Salmon
Ooi Chin Tong
Lee Yap Tan
Richard Kevitt
Kevin Findley
Cheung
Drikus Thiart
Ooi Chin Tong
Notes
(July 00 to Feb 01)
(Feb 01 to Oct 01)
(Nov 00 to Mar 01)
(Expatriate diver)
(Nov 00 to Aug 01)
Operator
(Expatriate diver)
10.3. PRE-CAST YARD STAFFING

Position/Function
Senior Engineer
Superintendent
Name
Dean Pearson
Greg Mackley
Damjan Muhar
Siva Muniandy
Cast 2 & concrete supply and pile caps

Cast 1 & reinforcing supply
Supervisor 1 (Cast 2 operations and plant) Aris
Supervisor 2 (Cast 1 operations)
Steve Ho
Teck Seng
Supervisor 3 (Formwork handling, plinth Mohamad bin Latif
and pile caps)
Supervisor 4 (Unit handling & transport, Aru
temp storage preparation)
Notes
Jul 00 to Feb 01
Mar 01 to end
National Technician
National Technician
Section 10 : Page 1 of 1
SECTION 11. SUBCONTRACTORS & SUPPLIERS

11.1. GENERAL
This section serves as reference to the major subcontractors and suppliers utilized on the
project. The most significant companies and their involvement are listed below.
11.2. MAJOR SUBCONTRACTORS
Company
CST Builders Sdn Bhd
Forenede Plast Sdn Bhd
Fuchi Engineering Sdn Bhd
Geopancer
Global Zodiac
Heng Sum Sdn Bhd
HUME
Kawanda Sdn Bhd
Kuan Industries Sdn Bhd (KIEC)
L Double Sdn Bhd
Lian Hup Yik Sdn Bhd
Logic Global Sdn Bhd
Macon Asia
Mannesmann Rexroth
Megalift Sdn Bhd
Ng Jit Kee Trading & Construction
PERI Hory
Q&Q Builders Sdn Bhd
Rekavista Sdn Bhd
See Yong & Sons
Sri Datai Sdn Bhd
Starfish Underwater Services Sdn Bhd
Tat Hong Plant Hire Sdn Bhd
TEST Sdn Bhd
Torsco Sdn Bhd
Van Seumeren
Widos Sdn Bhd
Service Provided
Dosing line concrete works (in -situ)
HDPE Butt Fusion Jointing
Structural bracing of cofferdams
In-situ piling
Loadout jetty piling
Coring, diamond cutting, demolition
Concrete Marketing Sdn Bhd, Pre-cast concrete
for dosing line
Reinforcing Steel
Manufacture of stone spreader and various other
steel items
Concrete works labour and supervision
On-site welding of sheet piles, painting, concreting,
miscellaneous.
Concrete works (in-situ )
Trench dredging by Ave Caesar
Hydraulic installations
Heavy lift transport
Offshore piling with Katara Tigra piling barge
Formworks materials and design
Concrete Works, in-situ culvert
Labour supply to pre -cast yard
Clamshell dredging
Earthworks
Diving services for offshore works
General Crane Supply
HDPE pipe pressure testing
Gantry superstructure fabrication
Heavy lift operations
HDPE Butt Fusion Jointing
11.3. MAJOR SUPPLIERS AND SERVICE PROVIDERS

Company
Andy Khoo
Arief Services Sdn Bhd
Concrete Materials Laboratory Sdn Bhd
Flexseal Enterprise Sdn Bhd
Handelmax Sdn Bhd
ICP
Juara Marin
King Ong
Kuan Industries Sdn Bhd
Service Provided
Cofferdam excavation
Marine labour supply
Concrete cube testing
Hydraulic fittings, general parts
Labour supply
Preca st spun piles
Tug and towage, stone barge supply
Crusher run
Steel works, various services
Company
Service Provided
Lee Trading Sdn Bhd

Lian Hup Yik Sdn Bhd
LT Piling
Oriental Grandeur Sdn Bhd
Oriental Sheet Piles
Plimsoll
Pioneer Sun Mix Sdn Bhd
SAR Marine Sdn Bhd
Spectest Sdn Bhd
Sri America Travel Sdn Bhd
Strata Drill Sdn Bhd
Technilink Sdn Bhd
Tools & Machinery Sdn Bhd
WE Engineering
Wing Tiek
Wywysha Sdn Bhd
Marine craft, barges

Manufacture and supply of steel members, sheet
pile strengthening and related items
Sheet piles
Marine vessels supply
Sheet pile supply
Hoist and mooring winches, hydraulic power
packs
Ready mix concrete
Feeder boat supply
Onshore boreholes and various testing services
Travel Agents
Offshore boreholes, soil investigation
Technical staff
General tools, equipment, materials
Embedments
Sheet pile supply
Labour supply
11.4. INDICATIVE RESOURCE PRICES (APPROXIMATE APRIL/MAY 2000)

Item
Labourer
Artisan
Formwork labour
25t excavator hire
120t barge hire
Crushed rock supply
Sheet pile supply
Structural steel fabricate
Reinforcing supply
Concrete supply, 45 MPa
Unit
hr
hr
m
day
month
ton
ton
ton
ton
m
Rate (MYR)
7.85
15.00
19.00
600.00
21 000.00
15.00
1 950.00
3 500.00
1 020.00
138.00
SECTION 12. TEMPORARY WORKS

12.1. LOAD OUT JETTY
12.1.1. Background
The Load out jetty was required to enable loading out of culvert units with the use of
the floating gantry. Precast culvert units are placed on the temporary support walls
on the jetty, after being transported into place with the use of the heavy lift trailers
as supplied by MEGALIFT.
The load out jetty was initially intended as a temporary works structure, but early on
in the design process, it was requested by Alstom (The client), that the jetty be
designed as a permanent structure. The jetty size is approximately 55 metres long
by 10 metres wide.
The jetty consists of in-situ concrete crosshead beams, supporting a pre-cast slab
system, stitched together to form a complete working platform, sufficient to take the
load of the trailer and 400ton precast culvert unit.
12.1.2. Design and Construct ability
The jetty design was found to be simple to construct. Some of the items that needed
to be considered carefully for construction according to this design were as follows:
Accuracy of reinforcement position on PC slabs and in the in -situ connections

The sealing of the Pile Infill cast to prevent leakage of concrete
The control of the size of the slabs during the casting stage, to prevent creep
during placing
12.1.3. Major Quantities

Spun Concrete 700 mm Grade 80 Class C Piles
Concrete (Cross head Beams/Infill/PC Slabs)
Reinforcing steel
29 No
400 m3
75 ton
12.1.4. Program (Total time to construct = approximately 11 weeks)

Item
Piles Driven
Precast Planks
Pile Infill Casts
Beams
Slab Placing
Cast Stitching
No off
29
77
29
12
77
Start
25/08/01
07/09/01
02/10/01
02/10/01
14/10/01
20/10/01
Complete
22/09/01
25/09/01
19/11/01
19/11/01
08/11/01
09/11/01
Duration
4 weeks
3 weeks
7 weeks
7 weeks
4 weeks
3 weeks
Ready for use:

16 November 2001
Actual Use for units:
13 December 2001 for load test of unit
First use for permanent placing: 17 April 2001
In the early stages of the project the jetty was considered a critical path item. Once
dredging commenced offshore, the priority was shifted to marine unit placing and
unit foundation resolution. The jetty was not built at top speed. A realistic
programme for this type of jetty should be approximately 8 weeks.
12.2. COFFERDAM
Access for construction of the in-situ culvert section is provided by constructing temporary
sheet pile cofferdams. The original design allowed for the in -situ construction in 3 phases,
each with a separate, sequential cofferdam. This was later changed to combine the second
and third phases and only two cofferdams were built. A third phase Wing wall-cofferdam
(open at the offshore end) served to allow access for placement of the transition culvert
joining the offshore section and the in-situ culvert. An extensive steel whaler and prop
support system was designed and installed by Fuchi Engineering under LLJV supervision.
The main cofferdams were constructed within an outer cofferdam. Light section LX16 sheet
piles were used to construct the outer sheet pile wall. Large rocks are used along the
outside to support the sheet piles and protect against wave action. The function of the outer
cofferdam was to hold back sea water and provide access for the construction and servicing
of the cofferdams.
The client was greatly concerned by the possibility of damage to the diaphragm wall at the
pump house water pool due to the proximity of the excavation. Excavation commenced only
after major delays from the client regarding the stability of the diaphragm wall. Deflections in
this area were constantly monitored to ensure stability was maintained.
12.2.1. Phase 1 Cofferdam
Construction of the Phase 1 cofferdam commenced shortly after completion of the
support pile installation. The phase 1 cofferdam is approximately 30m long x 13m
wide starting from the face of the diaphragm wall. A combination of PU25 and LX32
sheet piles in 18 to 24m lengths were used for the 12m deep cofferdam and driven
to the desired depth and set by vibrating hammer from a 150ton Crawler Crane.
Excavation is carried out in sta ges to allow the installation of a 4-level whaler and
prop support system to ensure a safe working environment inside the cofferdam.
Excavation is by long-arm excavator from the surface. Support beams restricted
access dramatically and two small excavators were employed inside the cofferdam
to remove materials from the inaccessible areas.
The cofferdam is dewatered by a well point pump. Upon reaching the required
foundation level a 500mm deep 26mm stone bed was prepared over a geofabric
layer. A lean concrete blinding was constructed to provide a suitable work platform
at the required levels.
The rushed nature of the construction after the initial delays did not allow sufficient
time for planning and preparation of the work area. Working conditions were often
uncomfortable. The main points of concern were restricted access due to heavily
congested overhead support work. Dewatering was inadequate making final
excavation very tedious.
12.2.2. Phase 2 Cofferdam
A combination of available PU25 and LX32 sheet piles with additional stiffening was
used for the construction of the Phase 2 cofferdam. This cofferdam is much larger
than its predecessor accommodating the entire in-situ culvert. Several changes
were incorporated to improve working conditions, access and subsequently the
quality of work produced. It is important to note that the construction of the In-situ
culvert became the critical path of the project after the initial delays.
The cofferdam was made considerably wider, allowing access behind the outer
walls of the culvert. This was a major problem in Phase 1 where support
whalers were located within 500mm of the casting surface and the outside walls
were inaccessible.
The cofferdam was kept relatively dry by well designed and adequate
dewatering pumps. This improved working conditions immensely with obvious
benefits.
Support whalers and props were redesigned to allow adequate headroom in
critical areas and improve access to the work area for excavators, formwork
handling etc.
Phase 2 is essentially an extension of the Phase 1 cofferdam. The offshore sheet

pile wall from Phase 1 is extracted. A new wall is carefully driven several meters
back onto the roof of the culvert forming the North wall of the dam. The east and
west sheet piles from Phase 1 are removed back to this point. Sheet piles are now
driven for the Phase 2 cofferdam in a different alignment making the cofferdam
wider than Phase 1.
Excavation and support work is completed in the same fashion as the Phase 1
operation. A very large tree (larger than 2m diameter) was found above foundation
level at the offshore end and was trimmed down by chainsaw and excavator. This
operation caused minor delays and accounted for the difficulty in driving sheet piles
in this area.
12.2.3. Phase 3 Wing-wall-Cofferdam
The Wing-wall system was designed to hold back soil onshore to allow the
installation of the pre -cast transition unit connecting the offshore pre -cast culverts
and the onshore in-situ section.
Upon completion of the in -situ culvert construction the offshore end of the culvert
was blocked by sheet piles and geotextile to prevent siltation during backfill. The
cofferdam is gradually backfilled and compacted. With the backfill complete the
offshore sheet pile wall was extracted including the first portion of the east and west
walls. 30m wide wing -walls is driven either side of the culvert, tying into pre installed connection sheet piles fixed to the side of the culvert. During this phase
the outer LX16 sheet piles had to be removed.
At this point the wave action had reduced the level of the sand berm naturally. The
area is excavated from land as far as possible and the all obstructing sheet piles
removed. At this point the clamshell dredger (JETTA 19) resumed dredging up to
the face of the sheet pile wingwalls to allow final driving to the desired depth.
Onshore excavation continues to the same effect until the required levels are
reached.
The offshore wing-walls are driven to the required level (allowing the floating gantry
access overhead) by the KETARA piling barge. The 10ton drop hammer proved
problematic causing damage to the piles. A dolly extension was fabricated since
the final level was well below tide.
A second set of Dead -man wing-walls are driven further onshore to anchor the
front walls. Anchorage is provided by a series of steel cables tied through the front
wall and anchored behind the rear wall. Offshore installation of the wires is carried
out by divers. With anchorage in place final dredging was commenced. The
clamshell dredged a trench in the seabed up to the face of the in-situ culvert without
any significant problems. The dredging is followed by piling, pile cap installation
and finally pre -cast culvert unit placement. The sheet pile and goetextile closure at
the face of the in-situ culvert is removed and the area prepared for the transition
unit. The unit is subsequently placed and all the joints grouted.
After thorough inspection of the works the area is allowed to fill naturally before
removal of the wing -wall system.
12.3. REVETMENT WORKS
To allow construction of the CWI culvert a section of the rock revetment surrounding the
island had to be removed for the construction of the sheet pile cofferdam. Excavated rock
and materials were stored on site for use in the subsequent repair to the revetment. The
basic revetment consists of various layers of graded rock overlaying a geofabric membrane
on sand. Excavation was by excavator from shore and later through a purpose built sand
berm.
WIBAWA EPC a specialist land reclamation contractor was approached for the repair to the
revetment. Since they were directly involved in the original construction of the revetment
their experience would prove useful in satisfying the clients concerns with the repair. No
significant problems were encountered during the repair work. Additional excavation was
required due to large amounts of sand from the nearby Outfall construction site. This
material was spoiled on site as directed by the client.
Reinstatement starts with initial excavation over the affected area to remove sand backfill
and silt to the required level. The existing revetment is exposed to allow sufficient
overlapping of the geo textile layer. The original revetment rock had been stored nearby on
site and separated according to the specified grading. The rock is built up in layers closely
matching the existing layers either side. Excavation and rock placement are both regulated
by tidal changes in the lower layers. With careful placement and constant survey monitoring
of rock levels the revetment is built to final level. Final level rock is carefully placed to form a
relatively even surface and seamless tie in with the existing revetment.
12.4. FLOATING GANTRY
A 400t floating gantry similar to those used on four previous LAMA projects was designed to
handle and place the precast units.
12.4.1. Hull
Two identical barges measuring 120 x 40 x 8 overall were hired from Lee Trading
at a monthly cost of MYR 12 000 each and prepared to be configured in a
catamaran arrangement with 14.2m clearance between them. The hulls were
inspected and surveyed by an independent party. Bollards and bitts were repaired
and fendering was supplied and fitted.
12.4.2. Superstructure
After an exhaustive tender adjudication process a tubular steel structure of overall
dimensions 21.9 x 16.5 x 16.5m was fabricated locally over a two month period and
launched and secured onto the barges via the fabricators loadout facility. The
superstructure was designed to support the load of a suspended culvert unit as well
as withstand the forces generated as the two hulls moved under load in a swell in
any combination of six differential actions.
A separate walkway added to the stern sections provided no additional stiffness to

the craft. A removable tie beam connected by 50mm diameter Macalloy post
tensioning bars was incorporated on the forward section of the superstructure
allowing the craft to approach and straddle a unit on the loadout jetty in all tide
conditions.
Final superstructure steel tonnages and costs were agreed with Torsco as follows:
Main structural steel: 70.613t @ MYR 5 000
Walkways and ladders: 3.840t @ MYR 3 840
Pad eyes and gussets: 3.980t @ MYR 9 900
Erection of total steel: 78.433t @ MYR 1 250
Extras (walkway beams, additional padeyes etc)
Total cost to supply, fabricate and erect
MYR
MYR
MYR
MYR
MYR
MYR
353 065
26 496
39 402
98 041
19 758
536 762
The detailing particularly of the ladders and walkways was not accepted by the
fabricators as being included in their works so an external consultant was
commissioned to assist with the workload.
Most items were fitted during the construction phase at Lumut Port where it is
eventually inspected and certified sea worthy. The barge was towed to the Manjung
Power Station construction site upon completion and the balance of the installations
finalized.
Stringent material and weld testing was carried out in compliance with the
fabricators quality assurance procedures. Another consultant was commissioned to
follow up all aspects of the Department of Safety and Health (DOSH) involvement
leading to the issuance of a certificate of compliance. This certification aspect
originally overlooked almost led to major delays.
At the end of the project it was agreed with the owner of the two pontoons to take
over the entire gantry structure for his disposal or use.
12.4.3. Mooring equipment
Four 10t mooring winches with manual band brakes (two with warping drums) were
fabricated by Plimsoll of Singapore at approximately SGD 17 000 each and fitted to
the gantry barges. Central hydraulic controls were installed and plumbing
connected to the main hydraulic power unit (HPU.)
Four roller fairleads were fabricated and installed by Lee Trading who also
manufactured four new 2t delta flipper anchors. 300m of 24mm diameter IWRC
mooring wire rope was fitted to each of the mooring winches.
12.4.4. Lifting equipment
Two 25t hoist winches with spooling gears and failsafe brakes were built by Plimsoll
and purchased with central controls at approximately SGD 79 000 each and
installed, one on each hull. Winch plinths were fabricated and welded to the deck
and a non-shrink grout was cast under the foundation beams to spread the load
evenly into the barge deck. Initial problems with the spooling gear developed but
were remedied by replacing the drive chain sprockets.
Two 350m lengths of 36mm diameter SWR were fitted to the hoist winches and fed
through single sheave deflector blocks anchored at deck level before going up into
the hoist rigging. Two pairs of 200t SWL 5-sheave hoist blocks supplied by Plimsoll
at approximately SGD 20 000 per pair were fitted to the superstructure and each
reeved into 10:1 arrangements. Theoretical lifting capacity was therefore 2 x 10 x
25 = 500t.
Two lifting spreader beams fabricated by Besteel Berhad in KL for a total of
MYR 64 000 were suspended via four doubled 64mm SWR slings to the lower hoist
blocks.
Each beam housed two lengths of 75mm diameter Macalloy post
tensioning bar from McCalls Special Products in Dubai, which connected the lifting
equipment to the corbels of the precast culvert units through bearing plates,
spherical nuts and washers. The lifting beams had to undergo similar DOSH
inspection and certification processes as for the superstructure.
Two 8 bore diameter hydrau lic cylinder delivering 50t tension load over a stroke of
1.8m were purchased at MYR 8 000 each and supported below each of the two
lifting beams. 32mm Herc Alloy reeving chain connected to either end of the
cylinders ran through horizontal holes in the p recast units corbels and was used to
pulled the units together by bearing against large locking plates.
Rope brakes were installed to ensure that sufficient tension was applied to the slack
hoist wire when spooling back onto the winch drums after placing a unit. The brakes
comprised lengths of hardwood timber held in steel channel frames sandwiching the
rope by adjustable pressure delivered by 2 bore hydraulic cylinders.
A number of load sensing devices were considered but they were all a bit
expensive. DOSH conceded that load sensing or limiting devices would not be
essential as long as the floating gantry was physically unable to lift more than the
rated load.
A load test to 125% of the working load was done and attended by the relevant
authorities. The 500t test weight was made up of a 400t precast unit loaded above
with 100t of additional block kentledge.
12.4.5. Hydraulic Circuitry
A 180 kW (2 x 90 kW) HPU was built and supplied by Plimsoll at SGD 55 000. This
provided all the hydraulic power for the two hoist winches, four mooring winches,
two unit installation cylinders and the two hoist rope brakes.
Mannesmann Rexroth did hydraulic plumbing, pre-pickling, flushing, testing and
commissioning of both the floating gantry and crane barge at a total cost of
MYR 127 000. Some minor problems occurred after initial usage and were
remedied fairly quickly. As production improved and utilization of the hydraulic
equipment intensified, a hydraulic cooling system was deemed necessary and
installed.
12.4.6. Other De ck Equipment and Hydraulic Circuitry
A 200 kVA generator was hired and fitted to the floating gantry mainly to provide
electrical power to the 180 kW HPU. A distribution board was provided and
electrical circuitry provided for deck lighting as well as domestic lighting and power.
An air-conditioned container was provided for the control cabin and another
container supplied for the store.
12.5. STONE SPREADER SUPPORT / CRANE BARGE

12.5.1. Barge hull
A 180 barge was hired from Lee trading for the crane barge. A minimal amount of
refurbishment was required prior to the hire and a third party inspection company
conducted an on hire survey to assess the condition.
12.5.2. On board equipment
The barge was fitted with six new 10 ton mooring winches purchased from Plimsoll
at SGD17 000 each; four of which provided the four-point mooring and the other two
were for lifting the stone spreader when it was moved from bed to bed. Four 2 ton
delta flipper anchors were made by Lee trading and fitted to the ends of the 300m
24mm diameter IWRC anchor wires. Fairleads and bitts were manufactured and
fitted to the barge.
A 150t crawler crane was hired from Tat Hong at MYR 40 000 mob/demob and
MYR 45 000 per month. The crane had a 1m grab for feeding the stone to the
stone spreader.
A 45 kW HPU was purchased from Plimsoll for SGD 17 000 and fitted and plumbed
to provide hydraulic power for the four mooring winches, two lifting winches as well
as the stone spreader. Mannesmann Rexroth did hydraulic plumbing, pre-pickling,
flushing, testing and commissioning of both the floating gantry and crane barge at a
total cost of MYR 127 000. Heat generation problems later resulted in the need to
install a heat exchanger to reduce the hydraulic oil temperature.
12.5.3. Other facilities
Side boards were erected and braced in the centre of the barge to provide a stone
bin to keep a supply of spare stone on board. Containers were fitted for a control
room, divers change room and a store. Lean-to shaded areas and a water tank
were erected.
At a later stage when the barge was used for placing pile caps it wat fitted with a
RTK DGPS positioning system.
12.6. STONE SPREADER
The stone spreader design is basically an improved version of the previously used spreaders
from the Saldanha and Luanda contracts adjusted fo r the specific project requirements.
The spreader machine is basically a 1 x 1m stone hopper in a bogey which runs transversally
on a 16m long traveling frame which runs longitudinally on a 20 x 14m base frame on four
hydraulically adjustable legs. Level adjustment of the main frame is achieved by hydraulic
cylinders extending or shortening the legs. Hopper movement is provided by hydraulic
motors which drive the traveling frame longitudinally and the hopper bogey transversally.
Although it could have been modified to be operated remotely from the surface, it is
controlled on the seabed by divers who need to get immediate feedback on the movements
and to check the stone level in the hopper.
Various quotations were sought and the manufacture contract awarded to Kuan Industries
(KIEC) based in Ipoh, approximately 50 km inland of Lumut. The supply and installation of
the hydraulic drive system was awarded to Mannesmann Rexroth of Kuala Lumpur. During
the construction of the spreader it was discovered that the revised drive system using
grooved drum winches and continuous pull wires could not function as intended and the
concept had to be abandoned. After due consideration the previously used chain and
sprocket system was reintroduced with slight modifications.
The stone spreader was fabricated and commissioned in Ipoh in eight weeks before being
knocked down for transport purposes. It was then delivered and assembled on site and fully
tested by the divers who familiarized themselves with the machine and its controls. There
was a delay of some weeks waiting for the dredging of a suitable area but the machine was
loaded onto a barge, taken offshore and deployed into position on the seabed for the first
time in early January 2001. The machine it screeded the first stone bed in just over a day
and produced acceptable bed levels within a tolerance of 25mm.
It was moved to the next bed position but by then general consensus was being reached on
the unsuitability of the seabed soil conditions for the designed stone foundation and the piled
solution began to emerge. The spreader was removed from service after having completed
only one bed and was subsequently dismantled, cleaned up and stored on site for future
disposal.
SECTION 13. PRECASTING OPERATIONS

The offshore section of the Cooling Water Intake Culvert is constructed by placing 142 No. precast
reinforced concrete culverts end-to-end on a pre-constructed foundation (piles in this case) and
sealing the joints. These units are pre -cast on land under controlled conditions and transported by
heavy lift trailers to a jetty for placement offshore.
13.1. UNITS MANUFACTURED IN THE PRECAST YARD
No Off
141
77
6
460
99
312
Description
400 ton Precast Culvert Units
7 to 10 ton Load Out Jetty Pre-cast Deck Slabs
150 ton Precast Intake Head Units
3 ton Precast Plinths temporary storage of culverts
2.5 ton Precast Slabs for M176 Turbine Building
Precast Pile Cap
Production Rate
1 per day
6 per day
7 weeks total
10 per day
6 per day
4 to 6 per day
A summary of Pre -cast Culvert construction is included in Appendix B.1 for reference.
13.2. LOCATION AND SIZE OF THE PRECAST YARD
There were two choices for the position of the precast yard. The first position was along the
revetment, parallel to the shoreline, and stretching from the load out jetty eastwards for
approximately 200 metres. This area was not used due to concerns about stability of the
revetment in the area. The second area was 1.5 kilometres from the jetty alongside Alstom
and Peremba Offices. This area was not fa voured due to the distance from the load out jetty,
and the interface between general site traffic and the unit bearing heavy lift trailers. All
factors being considered, the second area was chosen for the final location of the yard.
The overall dimensions of the yard were 90 m x 75 m. The area had to be levelled prior to
precasting beds being constructed. Following the levelling of the area, which consisted of
dredged fill/reclaim material, a 200 mm to 250 mm layer of crusher run was levelled over the
whole area and compacted to 95 % Mod Aashto. This was required due to the heavy cranes
and heavy lift trailers which travelled on the area, to facilitate general construction and
movement of the units.
As there were no services (water/sewage/electricity/telephone/air) in this area, these
services had to be installed by the LLJV Precast Yard team.
13.3. SERVICES IN THE YARD
Offices:
2 no fully outfitted 20 foot containers served as staff offices. Fitted with

Telephones
Stores:
3 no 20 ft store containers were used to stock and manage the consumables
and tools for the yard
Shelter:
There was approximately 300 square meters of overhead roofing provided as
undercover work area, lay-down, and labour rest area. This undercover area
was covered with a blinding layer for a hard -standing area.
Water Line: 63 mm Diameter HDPE line fed from the Alstom controlled tanks opposite the
yard. Approximately 500 meters of water pipe was used in total.
Electricity:
Supply by LLJV hired 100 KVA Diesel Generator. Cables supp lied by LLJV
(Approximately 200 metres of suitable cable).
Air lines:
Instead of using mobile compressors, it was decided to use a stationary
compressor. Feed lines were underground using 2 inch GI Pipe. 150 metres
Sewage:
Lighting:
of pipe laid for this use. There were 12 strategically placed up-stand air
service points servicing the PC beds. The compressor used was a 275 KVA
diesel machine.
A 40 foot fitted container was purchased and a conservancy tank placed
underground alongside this 40 foot ablution block.
12 no overhead light masts (site detail) for night work provided elevated light
with 400 watt floodlights. These could be relocated by crane to light the active
work area as required.
13.4. LABOUR FOR THE PRECASTING WORKS

Due to the availability of suitable companies/small businesses it was decided early on that
we should utilize a labour only subcontractor for carrying out concrete, reinforcing and
formwork labour operations. Tender packages were sent out to seven (7) companies who all
quoted accordingly.
Various methods and reasons were used to procure the contractor to carry out this work.
Rekavista (otherwise known as Ikmas Jaya), were eventually awarded the contract in early
August 2000. In total this company provided approximately 120 no labour to complete the
works. It was noted that this company sub-sub & sub -contracted the work requirement.
This led to certain difficulties in managing the amount of resources on site. Once the
systems and labour teams were established, the routine set in the precast yard production
targets were met comfortably each day (1 unit per day, 6 days per week).
13.5. LLJV LABOUR
It was found necessary to have approximately 20 no LLJV directly employed labour in the
precast yard to assist in areas where the subcontractor did not perform, had bad turn outs, or
in areas where extra works were required due to late changes in details. Storekeepers,
welders and office cleaning labour were supplied by the LLJV.
The direct works were carried out by an appointed sub-contractor, according to a bill of
quantities, and tendered rates. A number of prices were submitted for this work (Appendix
B.3). It was found that tender rates had probably been leaked out of the system, to some of
the tendering parties. Rekavista was finally appointed as the sub-contractor to carry out the
works, based on rates submitted for formwork assembly, reinforcing, formwork and concrete
placement. The LLJV supplied approximately 24 labourers to provide store facilities,
scaffolding erection, cleaning, rigging, and general backup works. The PEAK LABOUR in
the precast yard reached approximately 150 no labour (Appendix B.2). It was noted from the
structure of the labour only sub contractor that he had a piece -work system implemented
within his own sub -contract with us. He seemed to have subcontracted each trade, and this
lead to a couple of disputes amongst the parties involved, and also some delays to the
precast yard. With the repetitive nature of the work, the labour side of the precast yard
evened out and ran smoothly, and daily targets were met without excessive overtime.
During the construction works, the sub-contractor persistently fought the pricing, and in
cases threatened to demobilize from site due to their continuous loss of money on their
agreed rates. Certain extras were then negotiated. The end result on the financial outcome
of the labour portion of the precast yard was not as profitable as initially expected.
Precast Culvert Construction: LLJV Labour Team

Labour Description
Direct
Supervisors
Foreman/Leadmen
Carpenter
Welder
General Worker
Rigger
Mason/Concretor
Scaffolder
Steelfixer
3
1
0
2
3
0
0
0
0
9
Broker
Rekavista
0
1
11
0
0
8
1
6
0
27
3
8
20
0
48
0
4
0
22
105
Total
6
10
31
2
51
8
5
6
22
141
36
It was found necessary to have approximately 20 no LLJV directly employed labour in the
precast yard to assist in areas where the subcontractor did not perform, had bad turn outs, or
in areas where extra works were required due to late changes in details. Storeke epers,
welders and office cleaning labour were supplied by the LLJV.
LLJV labour was required for start up, and for assisting the sub-contractor in areas where
they were behind on programme - S/C was back-charged . A dedicated scaffolding crew was
required to ensure that access was safe and erected as required for smooth operations. It is
difficult to categorize the labour descriptions as they are multi-skilled and generally of a
similar standard in skill, production & motivation. The above team was capable of producing
one completed culvert unit every day on average
13.6. REINFORCING OPERATIO NS
13.6.1. Quantities
Total reinforcing for the Precast Yard was broken down as follows (approximate)
Quantity
1 Lot
141 no
77 no
6 no
460 no
312 no
Purpose
Tonnage
Site Establishment in Yard (Plinths/Beds)

400 ton Precast Culvert Units
7 to 10 ton Load Out Jetty Precast Deck Slabs
150 ton Precast Intake Head Units
3 ton Precast Pedestals temporary storage of culvert
Precast Pile Cap
Total
22 ton
2 685 ton
50 ton
60 ton
92 ton
152 ton
3 061 ton
13.6.2. Cost
Supply of Steel (excluding cutting & bending)
Bar Size
10mm
12mm
16 to 32mm
40mm (not used)
Rate (MYR/ton)
High Tensile Mild Steel
1 078
1 043
986
1 043
1 043
1 009
952
Add RM 150 per ton if cut & bent by exte rnal suppliers. RM 138 per ton if cut & bent
by Leighton reinforcing yard.
13.6.3. Supply
Reinforcing was initially supplied cut and bent by the Leighton Steel Fabrication
Yard, at the allowable rate as per tender. Cutting and bending rate = RM 150 per
ton. Due to overload of the Leighton Yard, it was found necessary to order
reinforcing in from external sources, namely Kawanda Corporation. This company
supplied reinforcing, and further acted as an agent and sourced the cutting,
bending, and delivery service from other yards, one being Southern Steel SDN Bhd.
Approximately 900 ton was supplied by the Leighton Yard, and the remaining 2 289
ton was supplied by Kawanda.
Problems were experienced in the early stages with both yards related to incorrectly
bent reinforcement, and the misinterpretation of bending schedules. These were
ironed out as the work progressed. All external steel deliveries were from Kuala
Lumpur.
13.6.4. Fixing Labour Production
Fixing rates varied from 13 man-hours per ton to 30 man-hours per ton. The
average for the culverts was approximately 25 man -hours per ton (Appendix B.4).
Precast Culvert Reinforcement Production: fixing only
Area
Base
Wall Prefixing
Install Cages
Top Slab
Guide Nib
Shearkey
Corbel
Total
Ton in Area
8.2
3.2
Prefixed
5.6
0.5
0.5
1.1
19.0
Fixers
Time(hrs)
12
5
11
11.5
8
6
3.5
3
4
46.5
15
4
8
6
Mhrs
132
57.5
7.5
90
14
24
24
401.5
Mhr/ton
16
18
60
16
28
50
21
25
(Average)
These are average figures achieved on this area of the works. Light duty galvinised
bunched wire used for tying. Labour only sub -contractor was used for all fixing
works. Total no of fixers on site = 30 no including s/c supervisor.
13.6.5. Ordering and management on site
The best system for managing the steel flow to site was found to be the routine
delivery system, and having complete unit deliveries arriving according to the
program being achieved in the precast yard. One unit worth of steel had a mass of
approximately 19 ton. This was sufficient to fill one semi- trailer truck, and on arrival
this was easily checked for missing bars and incorrectly supplied bars.
Once the units were being produced at one complete unit per day, the steel
deliveries followed the same routine. Steel arrived on site by 08H30 each day, and
was offloaded into one of the four empty precasting beds, which was allocated to
reinforcing deliveries on a rotational basis. On offloading a section engineer and
one of the labour only sub-contractor representatives checked the steel as

delivered, and reported any inconsistencies, which were then followed up and
resolved in most cases.
13.7. CONCRETE OPERATIONS
Total Concrete for the Precast Yard was approximately 23 250 cubic metres. Concrete
grade was 45MPa Minimum Cement Content, Early Strength, Marine Grade Concrete
(pumpable).
The mix design was as follows:
Cement (Masscrete 30%)
Water
Stone
Sand
Additive 1 (Daratard 17 D)
Additive 2 (Daracem)
Water Cement Ratio
Slump
1 day strength
3 day strength
7 day strength
28 day strength
56 day strength
485 kg
160 litres
990 kg
725 kg
0.97 litres
4.850 litres
0.33
100 mm
15.0 MPa
26.5 MPa
36.5 MPa
53.0 MPa
64.5 MPa
See also Appendix B.9.

13.7.1. Supply
Concrete was supplied by a central batching plant, owned, and run by Pioneer
Concrete. The batching plant was situated alongside the precast yard (within 200
meters). The same batching plants were used to supply concrete to the Leightons
Main site, Bachy, the LBT Jetty, and Peremba. All concrete was delivered using 6
cubic meter truck mixers as owned and operated by Pioneer Concrete.
13.7.2. Placing of Concrete
The majority of the concrete was placed by concrete boom pump, which did not
require the use of cranes and concrete buckets. Tremie pipes were used to place
concrete in the top cast, down into the walls, due to the high concentration of steel,
and the depth of the pour. The intake units and precast pile caps were all concreted
using crane and concrete bucket methods. Concrete was placed at a rate of 20 to
25 cubic metres per hour. Supply generally did not limit the rate of pour. The
nature of the pour and the vibration required tended to be the limiting factor.
Concrete was vibrated using air driven vibrators. These were efficient and robust.
G & W Equipment supplied concrete pumping equipment at a cost of RM 8 per
cubic meter.
13.7.3. Ordering and tracking
All concrete was ordered using standard concrete order forms, submitted one day
before the applicable pour. Every pour on site was allocated a progressive pour
number. Concrete quantity, location, and cube results were all referenced back to
this pour number. A pour register for the site was maintained, making all concrete
records traceable. Concrete cost was RM 130 per cubic metre for delivered
concrete. Prior to each pour the pump had to be primed with 1 to 2 mixes of cement
rich slurry, for which we were also charged. Leighton paid the Pioneer Concrete
account, and back charged the LLJV according to matched delivery notes and pour
register records.
13.8. STORAGE AND HANDLING OF UNITS
Megalift and Mammoet (2 suppliers) were approached to quote on the heavy lift transport
portion of our works. Both priced and a final agreement was reached with Megalift after
negotiations. The trailer used was not an SPT (Self propelled trailer), but was a trailer which
required to be towed by a mechanical horse/prime mover, and assisted by a D7 dozer where
necessary.
The trailer was operated by personnel from Megalift (approximately 7 no men). The services
offered were very efficient. Cost of the transporting spread per month was RM 118 000
inclusive fuel, dozer, labour and drivers. Units were moved and handle a number of times
each in some cases (up to 4 times each). Details of the machinery are included in Appendix
B.5 & 6.
The majority of the units were completed prior to placing operations commencing. All 142
units had to be placed in temporary storage. This temporary storage was not anticipated at
tender stage. Precast concrete stools were cast in the precast yard. These stools could be
crane handled into the correct positions for storing units in an elevated position. There were
480 no of these required.
All temporary storage areas were prepared using earthworks plant and sub -base/crusher run
materials. Prior to load out for placing, there was a temporary holding area to which the units
were transported for preparation for placing. This was located very close to the load out
jetty. All units were handled at least three times each. First handling was the load out from
the precast yard to temporary storage. Second was from the temporary storage to the
preparation area. Third and mostly final handling was from temporary storage to the load out
jetty. Reaching a monthly hire agreement with the heavy lift transport company was a good
option in this case.
13.9. PLANT REQUIREMENTS
13.9.1. Cranes
Various crane options were considered for the precast yard:
Tower Crane on travelling base and a fixed tower crane

Crawler crane (80 ton) and tower crane combination
2 no Crawler (80 t)/2 Mobile cranes (25/45 t) only
After considering cost of all options, it was decided to use the third option. Crawler
cranes are readily available at low rates. Mobility of the cranes, costs, and general
versatility were all advantages of using the crawler cranes.
13.9.2. Hiab Truck, man lift and fork lift
The above plant items were required to assist in the movement of reinforcing,
precast stools, formwork, and materials generally for the site.
The boom lift (manlift) proved to be very useful for accessing the high points on the
culvert units for patching and repairs, and reduced the requirement for scaffold
erection to carry out his work. Scaffolds were time consuming to build, and also
congested the area. Refer to the Typical Precast Yard Plant breakdown Schedule
and costs (Appendix B.7).
13.10. MATERIAL REQUIREMENTS AND INFORMATION
Most materials were east to find.
problems:
The following materials posed some procurement
Uni-strut: no suitable off the shelf material found

Chamfer: no hard wearing durable chamfer ob tainable. Plastic chamfer of very poor
quality, timber chamfer only lasting 1 to 2 no used.
Shutter-board was found to be expensive, and not of very good quality. 12 re -uses was
the best we could obtain from even the imported board. The extreme heat and humid
conditions did not contribute to long lasting form-board (wetting- drying- heating cycle).
13.11. CUSTOM EQUIPMENT

Various items were made on site to simplify and smoothen out our operations:
A Tunnel Formwork winch and table system

Staircases
Mobile light masts
200 litre drum handling stands
13.12. FORMWORK
Various methods of casting the units were also considered:
Cast the full culvert unit base, walls and roof slab as one (1 cast system)
Cast the base, then the walls, then the roof (3 cast system)
Cast the base including a 1 metre kicker section, followed by walls and roof (2 cast
system)
Cast the base without kicker, then cast the walls and roof as one.
Cast the base, then the kicker incorporating the corbels, followed by remaining walls and
roof (a varied 3 cast system)
Various options were considered for the formwork in the Pre -cast yard:
Peri Hory Formwork using shutter board for facing

RMD System using steel and shutter board for facing
Custom Made Steel Form System: steel facing
SGB System
In addition to this, corbel, stop -end, and guide nib forms considered were either of steel or
timber. After consideration of cost, available time, technical issues, equipment available, it
was decided to cast the base without kicker, then cast the full wall and roof section as one
cast.
The formwork choice was PERI HORY SYSTEM. (Refer Appendix B.8 for an extract from
the Peri Hory Catalogue 2001/2002). This company, having an office based in Kuala Lumpur
offered design services for the use of their system, and produced comprehensive drawings
for fabrication and assembly of the forms. The majority of the formwork was provided at a
square metre rate of RM 7-80 per square metre of formed face. This rate reduced for soffits
to approximately RM 5-80 per squa re meter.
The quantity of formwork was calculated based on achieving 9 units per week of 6 days.
This was a theoretical calculation which turned out to be a good base for calculating the
quantity of formwork and utilization factors.
Base Table Forms
Base Side Forms
Internal Tunnel Forms
External Wall Forms
Stop-ends
Corbels
6 sets (enough to form 6 no bases)

4 sets
6 sets
4 sets
4 sets
2 sets
The LLJV purchased all shutter board and the internal whalers (custom made) for this
formwork. There were some problems related to the use of these forms:
Forms were not robust enough. We often found that items were being broken in the
lifting, handling and casting operations.
The supplier was unable to provide sufficient formwork materials in time for our operation,
and seemed to be over committed on the main works.
The system was loose and provided problems in tying the forms together and achieving
the dimensions required.
Jacking and propping systems were not very efficient.
The systems external forms were under-designed in the whaler area, interfacing with the
corbel position. Bearing pressure from the channel soldiers caused compression of the
timber girders used as whalers.
Peri did not take into account the support pressure on the ground for the base cast. This
resulted in load spreading slabs having to be cast to spread the load under these jacks.
The response, when queried, was that their designers in Germany had handled the base
cast (with a kicker) as a beam, which apparently assisted in the support of the mass of
the top cast. In fact the base was not being cast with an up -stand kicker/beam.
The folding in splay section at the bottom of the form provided a poor finish in the
concrete at this point. The detail was make shift, and not designed to suit the system.
Fixing of the shutter board to the Peri Girders also posed some problems. The fixings
often pulled through the board on stripping, especially on the splayed areas in the lower
wall portions of the culvert.
The timber stop-ends provided were not robust and had to be repaired prior to every cast.
Eventually steel stop-ends were purchased.
13.13. FINAL PREPARATION OF CULVERTS

13.13.1. Background
Prior to load out each culvert unit requires a number of fittings and preparations. A
preparation area is provided at the load out jetty with a five - culvert storage
capacity. Culvert units are stored at various locations around the Manjung site prior
to final preparation. Once the pre -cast concrete works are complete the culverts are
transported to the preparation area by heavy lift trailer. The culvert is placed on
temporary plinths until it is ready for load out to sea.
13.13.2. Preparation Works
The productivity of culvert preparation is entirely dependent upon offshore
placement of culverts and supply of new culverts for preparation. Marine conditions
and progress dictates the pace of culvert placement. On the Manjung project we
had the unfortunate situation of delayed placement of culverts. This resulted in
having large numbers of culverts in storage over a large area of the site. Culvert
preparation was done in one area only due to the availability of services and plant.
We were able to manage the required production without delaying culvert
placement. We were however directly affected by delays in culvert placement.
Once the culvert is securely placed on the plinths safe access is provided by crane
and riggers. A pre -constructed access scaffold is placed and secured alongside the
culvert. An 18mm poly-rope safety barrier is provided along the edge of the top
slab.
A variety of preparations are made as described hereafter:
Survey fittings: Purpose made eyebolts are installed at each corner of the culvert
top slab. They serve as known connection points for survey (pencil)-buoys once the
culvert is submerged at sea.
Joint Preparation: Factory made geotextile grout socks are pre -fitted to the grout
recess on one side of each culvert unit. The grout sock consists of two layers of
geofabric (Polyfelt TS 70) stitched together to form a sealed sock (cylinder). The
grout socks are pre -manufactured and delivered to site. A 25mm PVC grout pipe is
inserted on site to predetermined positions inside the socks. The grout sock is
folded in a controlled manner and secured with a nominal amount of electrical
insulating tape. The folded sock is fixed to the grout recess on the culvert face by
rubber straps nailed to the concrete. Lorry inner tube is cut to 1 strips for this
purpose. Through grout trials this has been found to be an optimu m size for
securing the sock without restricting the grouting of the joint. The ends of the grout
socks are checked to protrude at least 600mm above the top slab of the culvert and
secured. Two separate grout socks are fitted to each unit. A 25m long U-jointsock is fitted along the bottom slab and continued up both outer walls. A shorter
(13m long) Top-grout sock is installed along the top slab.
At first a number of grout socks were site manufactured. These comprised a 10
Layflat hose (Sunny hose) with a single layer of geotextile on the outside. The
geotextile was cut and fit on site. Portable bag sewing machines were used for
stitching outer geotextile bags. Stitching was generally of a lower standard than the
factory made socks. These grout socks were installed and grouted without any
major problems. Due to the high cost of the layflat hose (imported from Japan)
additional grout testing was done on a geotextile-only grout sock. Two layers of
geotextile were separately stitched by a subcon tractor under factory conditions.

The grout test is carried out successfully and the balance of the grout socks
manufactured in this manner.
No serious problems were encountered with the offshore grouting of these socks.
Due to reduced head pressures under water some problems were encountered with
the opening up of the grout socks. In some cases too much insulating tape was
used to secure the socks. Rubber holding straps also caused restrictions during the
grouting operation and divers had to break the se by hand. The problem is
overcome by finding the optimum spacing and size of strapping used for securing
the grout sock to the culvert. This should be adequately strong to withstand the
short term effects of wave action during load out of the culvert units. Grout socks
were ripped off the culvert face on two occasions only. In both cases the socks
were exposed to wave action for prolonged periods of time.
A rubber silt seal is provided all around the culvert at the joint face. 76mm Diameter
heavy duty rubber hose is fitted along the outer edge of the joint face. When
adjacent culvert units are pulled together during placement the rubber hose is
compressed and the culvert effectively sealed from its surroundings. The main
function of the seal is to provide a temporary silt seal prior to grouting of the joints
during the construction phase. It acts as secondary seal in the permanent
condition. The hose is supplied in rolls of 100m, cut to the required lengths and
fixed to the concrete surface by means of roofing nails which proved adequate for
this purpose. The rubber hose had the additional function of supporting the
horizontal sections of grout sock during the grouting operation as they had a
tendency to sag due to gravity.
Dosing Line : The concrete dosing line structure is fitted to the culvert unit in the
preparation area. This operation is discussed in detail in Section 11.
Anti fouling : The internal surfaces of each culvert is painted with anti-fouling paint
within 24 hours before load out of the culvert unit. This serves to prevent marine
growth on the inside surfaces of the culverts during the construction phase. In this
manner the culvert is handed over with minimum flow restrictions avoiding
expensive and time consuming cleaning ope rations. Only a single layer of paint
was used as the temporary measure. Quantification of the effective lifespan of the
paint proved difficult with no experience at hand.
All concrete surfaces are
thoroughly cleaned by high -pressure hose prior to application.
Unit Numbering: Each culvert unit is visibly marked with its placement position
number for identification underwater. A 300 x 200mm number is painted inside
each tunnel and on the top slab of each culvert. Normal aerosol spray paint is used.
General: Prior to load out each culvert is thoroughly inspected for quality of
finishing and completion of all preparation works Refer CHK -P-034 -F (Appendix
B.10). All pre -cast checklists are checked to ensure the culvert is acceptable for
placement. Final concrete repairs are carried out as required. The lifting corbels
are checked for accuracy of construction and concrete strength. The opening at the
bottom of each lifting corbel is checked and any obstructions removed by cutting
torch to ensure safe lifting operations.
The culvert is cleared for load out after final inspection and acceptance by the
clients representative.
Section 13 : Page 10 of 1 1
13.13.3. Suggested improvements/Other useful information
It is an advantage to have the maximum amount of culverts prepared to avoid

delays. Production is regulated by the placement of culverts and any delays
impact directly on the preparation works. With a larger number of culverts a
smaller team is required to ensure timely preparation of culverts without delays.
Most preparation work should be carried out in the pre-cast yard (including
installations such as Dosing Line Structures) using the same resources and
access.
Specialist tasks such as manufacture of grout socks should be done in a
controlled environment to ensure quality. Risks involved in poor quality are
much greater than any additional cost involved in factory made socks. Site
labour proved unskilled in this specialized field and site conditions do not
promote quality or productivity.
Culvert preparation could be done in advance by moving the operation to the
various culvert storage areas. This would require more resources since services
are required in various areas. Culvert placement was often delayed by weather
and other factors directly impacting on the preparation works.
Culvert preparation should ideally be carried out in the pre-casting area using
resources to the maximum. Where long -term storage is involved preparation
works should be carried out in advance. Final preparation works should be
incorporated in the overall production cycle and not be treated as a separate
entity. Time constrained items such as the anti-fouling paint requires little
resources to be moved around site.
Due to the nature of Anti-fouling paint great care should be taken with the
storage, handling and eventual use of these materials. Environmental and
safety risks are substantial. Actual lifespan of the anti-fouling paint was never
confirmed giving rise to fears of inadequate protection if chlorination is delayed
extensively. It is therefore advised to prepare an experimental concrete surface
(i.e.: a test piece) for periodic review of the performance of the paint in the same
conditions as that used in the culverts.
13.13.4. Human Resources

Task
Grout Socks
Anti- fouling Paint
Eye bolts
General
Total
Own Labour
Own Supervision
5 carpenter
3 labour
1 Foreman
Subcontract
2 labour
1 labour
2 riggers
1 Supervisor
1 Foreman
1 Supervisor
13.13.5. Plant and Machinery
25 Ton Rough Terrain Crane (shared with Dosing Line and marine craft loading
work)
60 Hydraulic Boom-lift
Additional 40 hydraulic boom-lift employed at height of production
Concrete Coring Equipment (Dosing Line)
HILTI concrete drills (TE 76 and TE 15)
Portable bag sewing machines
Portable generators/ lighting plant
SECTION 14. IN-SITU CULVERT AND COFFERDAM

14.1. SCOPE
This section describes the construction of the 68m long in-situ section of the Cooling Water
Intake Culvert and its connection to the Water pool onshore.
14.2. WORK DESCRIPTION
The In-situ culvert section serves to connect h
t e onshore water pool with the pre-cast
culverts placed offshore. Safe access is provided by means of a series of sheet piled
cofferdams approximately 12m deep. The initial design required the construction in 3 phases
with three separate cofferdams on a sequential basis. The In-situ culvert was constructed in
2 phases eventually.
The first step was to provide access and a stable working area. To this end a section of rock
revetment was removed and a berm constructed with fill material over the full extent of the in situ work area. An outer sheet pile cofferdam was driven and the.
The in-situ section is supported on a grid of 400x400 Square Reinforced Concrete Piles
driven from the surface prior to excavation. Piles were periodically cut down as excavation
progressed to the required levels.
Construction commenced within the Phase 1 cofferdam adjacent to the water pool.
Excavation proved tedious in the heavily propped cofferdam. Access was restricted and the
water exposed clay proved difficult to remove. A 24m section of culvert was constructed
from the face of the water pool diaphragm wall. in similar fashion to the pre-casting
operation. Great care had to be taken not to disturb the diaphragm wall during the
construction process. The offshore end of the culvert was temporarily sealed off and the
cofferdam backfilled and compacted. Sheet piles were removed from the offshore face. The
Phase 2 cofferdam was constructed from this point to the end of the in-situ culvert in similar
fashion to the Pha se 1 operation.
A number of lessons were learnt from the first cofferdam and implemented in Phase 2.
Restricted space was a major concern and the Phase 2 design allowed additional access
along the sides of the culvert and less congested cofferdam support work overhead.
Additional pumps were employed to ensure adequate dewatering. Working conditions were
much improved in Phase 2.
It is important to note that the In -situ culvert proved to be the critical path on the project in
contrast to the original planning. This was mostly due to initial delays by the client based on
concerns surrounding the integrity of the water pool diaphragm wall. Further difficulties
during the course of the project kept this section on the critical path despite the major delays
incurred with the change to a piled design.
14.3. PILED FOUNDATION
A series of 400 x 400mm square Reinforced Concrete Piles were driven from the surface
prior to construction of the cofferdams. These piles serve as main foundation support for the
in-situ culvert section. Piles were cut down incrementally as excavation progressed on the
12m deep cofferdam. The off-cut sections are sacrificial and balanced against the reduced
cost of driving the piles from the surface as opposed to a post excavation scenario in
restricted space. Refer Appendix C.1 for additional piling data.
Two piles were damaged during the excavation of the Phase 1 cofferdam. Each pile had to
be excavated to expose the damaged area and repaired to the satisfaction of the designers
and client. The combination of vertical piles and horizontal support beams in the cofferdam
made excavation awkward and severely restricted.
14.4. PHASE 1 CONSTRUCTION
All works are subcontracted under LLJV supervision. Concrete works commenced by
preparation of the support piles to design detail. Reinforcing steel was supplied by the site
Rebar Yard and fixed by subcontract labor. Logic Global provided labor and supervision for
all in-situ culvert related works.
The Phase 1 culvert was constructed in three sepa rate casts. Refer Appendix C.2 for
Summary of concrete pours. The entire base (24m long) was cast from the Diaphragm wall
to the first movement joint. Less than 500mm headroom was available due to the cofferdam
support work. Culvert wall starter bars had to be replaced with mechanical rebar coupled
bars at considerable cost. With the base completed the lower levels of cofferdam supports
are removed for construction of the walls and roof slab. 12 m long tunnel forms were
assembled in position from the face of the diaphragm wall. Formwork proved tedious with
limited access and poor ventilation. Walls and roof slab was cast in two 12m long sections to
complete the first 24m of culvert. Tunnel forms were mounted on castor wheels and could
be moved as a unit.
After completion of the 24m long section the open end of the culvert was blocked by sheet
piles and the cofferdam backfilled progressively. A sheet pile wall was carefully driven
behind a purpose built concrete kicker across the top slab of the Phase 1 culvert. The
offshore sheet piles from the first cofferdam is extracted.
Due to the delayed start of the in-situ works the program was extremely demanding. Many
problems encountered were only addressed in the Phase 2 cofferdam due to the tight
construction schedule.
14.5. PHASE 2 CONSTRUCTION
With the cofferdam completed the temporary sheet piles are removed from the face of the
Phase 1 culvert. A pump breakdown during the construction of the Phase 2 cofferdam
caused the area to flood with subsequent damage to the tunnel formwork left inside the
Phase 1 culvert. Formwork was redesigned to cast wall separate from the top slab. The
base slab was cast well in advance followed by individual wall casts. The top slab was
completed progressively. At this stage ventilation inside the culvert tunnels came to the fore
as a safety concern and a large extractor fan was employed to ensure safe working
conditions.
The entire culvert was inspected, repaired and signed off before backfilling. Three HDPE
launch sle eves were installed from the offshore end of the in-situ culvert to the surface
adjacent to the culvert chimney structure for the purpose of launching the Dosing Line after
backfill was completed.
A chimney structure was constructed approximately 30m from the water pool connection.
The chimney allows access to the in-situ culvert from the surface. The main purpose of the
chimney is to provide access for the installation and eventual removal of the temporary steel
bulkheads fitted to each tunnel at this point. The bulkheads are designed to prevent
seawater from flooding the water pool during the construction phase. The offshore portion of
the CWI culvert is flooded long before the water pool is ready to be filled. A 12 Gate valve is
fitted to the center bulkhead for controlled flooding of the water pool at a later stage. Three
separate concrete caps are provided to cover the chimney structure in the permanent
condition.
14.6. CONNECTION TO THE WATER POOL
The In-situ culvert is connected to the water pool through the diaphragm wall. The
connection is essentially a movement joint. The first step was to break through the 1m thick
heavily reinforced diaphragm wall. A specialist subcontractor achieved the breakthrough by
diamond cutting to the profile of the three-celled culvert. Cutting was done from the inside of
the water pool.
After preparation of the movement joint the tie-in concrete was cast to complete the
connection to the water pool approximately 12m below the natural ground level.
SECTION 15. MARINE WORKS

15.1. GENERAL
15.1.1. Scope
This section describes all offshore and marine related activities involved in the
construction of the Cooling Water Intake Culvert. Refer to Appendix D.1- 3 for
Culvert Unit Placement summaries, Marine Staffing and Labour and an Offshore
Works Overview.
15.1.2. Work Description
The cooling water intake structure is for the most part located offshore which
qualifies it as essentially a marine project. A variety of offshore activities are
discussed in detail within this section. A summary of the major Marine Works
components are listed below:
Trench Dredging works

Offshore foundation works (Stone foundation vs. piled foundation)
Diving operations in general (underwater works include grouting, unit placement,
investigations, pipe installations, repairs)
Pre-cast culvert unit transport and placement
Hydrographical and general marine survey
15.2. TRENCH DREDGING

15.2.1. Scope
This report covers the Trench Dredging Works for the Cooling Water Intake Culvert
at the Manjung Power Station.
15.2.2. Background and Dredging Enquiries
To accommodate the buried Cooling Water Intake Culvert and its foundation
a 1 450m long trench had to be dredged along the seabed to the required levels
varying up to 4m below the existing seabed. A trench invert width of 14m was
required and the width at the top was as much as 50m, depending on trench depth
and material stability and an approximate total of 250 000m of material was initially
estimated.
The stone bed foundation design required accurate dredging to avoid excessive
stone material wastage and differential settlement problems so a level tolerence and
a further dredge accuracy incentive were offered in the enquiry which effectively
discouraged the use of most rough cutting trailer suction and cutter suction
dredgers. The tender design also had some engineered backfill and rock armour
placed either side of the completed culvert so these activities were offered as
options to be included in the dredging subcontractors scope of works.
At the onset of the project a dredging specification and tender document were
drawn up and issued to the following contractors:
1.
2.
3.
Antara Koh, Singapore

No quote - not interested
Ballast Needam, Singapore No response
Boskalis, Holland
No dredge quote but interested in the stone bed
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
East Marine, Singapore

GET Systems, Singapore
Jan de Nul, Singapore
Lo & Loh, Singapore
Macon, Holland
See Song, Malaysia
See Yong, Malaysia
UDL Dredging, Singapore
van Oordt ACZ, Singapore
WH Chan, Singapore
No quote
No quote
Submited tender
Received two submissions
Offered Ave Caesar
Submitted tender
No quote too busy
No quote
Full proposal offering Macons Ave Caesar
Did not quote
The complete tenders received with amounts in MYR compared as follows:
Dredge
only
Backfill
only
Dredge
and
backfill
Item
Mobilise
Dredge trench
Maintain trench
Demobilise
Total
Mobilise
Sand fill
Rock armour
Demobilise
Total
Mobilise
Dredge tre nch
Maintain trench
Sand fill
Rock armour
Demobilise
Total
Quantity
Sum
250 000m
1 430m
Sum
Sum
30 000m
30 000m
Sum
Sum
250 000m
1 430m
30 000m
30 000m
Sum
Jan de Nul
1 716 115
4 735 417
0
734 937
7 186 468
497 029
3 977 750
4 432 350
213 283
9 120 413
2 213 144
4 735 417
0
3 977 750
4 432 350
948 220
16 306 881
Loh & Loh

385 500
3 500 000
572 000
257 000
4 715 000
385 000
540 000
2 850 000
257 500
4 033 000
771 000
3 500 000
572 000
540 000
2 850 000
515 000
8 748 000
See Song
350 000
3 375 000
457 600
80 000
4 262 600
450 000
1 800 000
3 450 000
100 000
5 800 000
500 000
3 375 000
457 600
1 800 000
3 450 000
150 000
9 732 600
Jan de Nul provided Dayrates for their cuter suction dredger Marco Polo at
USD 84 000 working and 53 000/day standby. Although this dredger was amongst
the largest in the world there was concern about the degree of achievable level
accuracy so Jan de Nul also offered a sophisticated and multi functional crane
vessel Pompei and a dump barge which would have worked out to MYR 12.3M
over a six month hire period.
Van Oordt ACZ offered Macons Ave Caesar plus dump vessels at a lump sum
price of MYR 9.2M but we had already approached Macon directly who offered the
dredge at substantially lower rate with an estimated total of MYR 3.1M for six
months excluding fuel, consumables and a dump vessel. This option was the clear
commercial winner and was also the only dredger that was both immediately
available and capable of achieving the tight level tolerance. After satisfying
ourselves that it suited the production rate required for the program we entered
commercial negotiations and commenced making mobilisation arrangements.
15.2.3. Dredging with the Ave Caesar
Some preparations to the Ave Caesar were required before it could be mobilised
from Batam. After handling a number of enquiries with various tug owners and
marine towage contractors, Lee Trading was contracted to tow the dredger to site.
Dredging commenced on 24 th October 2000 after erecting the spuds and releasing
all the sea fastenings.
The Ave Caesar was a Liebherr 994 Litronic Excavator turret-mounted on a semijackup pontoon. The three spuds are not able to lift the pontoon clear of the water
but can provide enough lift to hold the pontoon at a stable level unaffected by the
short-term water movements. Two of the spuds provide lift and the third provides
both lift and longitudinal movement when taking a sliding step. Monthly hire cost is
MYR 750 000 based on a single shift.
The Ave Caesar is fitted with an electronic Real Time simulator to facilitate
accurate dredging work. A Differential Global Positioning System (DGPS),
electronic Gyro compass and electronic Tide Gauge were supplied by the J.V. and
incorporated with the on-board systems to provide complete three-dimensional
control of the dredger and its bucket at all times. Initial difficulties were experienced
with the integration of the equipment but specialist survey companies were
consulted for the final integration of equipment into a workable system. Once
operational the system proved very useful for unassisted movement of the dredge
and accurate dredging to the requ ired tolerance.
The Ave Caesar has a dedicated crew and operators who were familiar with the
machine and proved very competent in almost all operations and maintenance
activities. A dedicated LLJV Engineer was on board almost full time to manage and
witness the operation. Appendix D.4 shows an example of daily dredging records
kept and a graphic summary of trench dredging with the Ave Caesar. Dredging
was a 24 -hour operation with subsequent saving in rental. Refer to Appendix D.5
for typical dredge production figures for both a 12 and 24-hour operation.
One disadvantage the backhoe dredger had over other dredgers is that the jack-up
spuds would penetrate up to 10m in the seabed material and the damage would
effectively negate or reduce the seabed bearing capacity. This had a little impact on
the piled foundation but had far more significance when considering the effect on
the originally detailed stone bed design. For this reason attempts were made to
keep the dredgers spuds out of the trench which slightly reduced its productivity.
Extra effort was also spent checking that the dredged tolerances were met before
the dredger moved off an area. For this reason the bucket was used to
systematically sweep the dredged area checking for high spots before making a
step.
The trench was excavated according to profiles programmed into the computerized
display. Refer Appendix D.6. Excavated material is loaded into a 1000m3 SplitHopper Barge Cathay SHB 1006 (At MYR 65 000 per month from Oriental
Grandeur plus additional MYR 8 000 for 4 maintenance crew members) moored
adjacent to the Dredger. An 800hp tug Cathay 28 was dedicated to handling of
the barge for dumping of spoil and Dredger assistance. Refer to Appendix D.7 for
details of the dredging spread.
The excavated material was closely monitored and examined as dredging
commenced. Material in the hopper barge is constantly monitored by visual
inspection and shear vane test. The excavated seabed was repeatedly inspected
by divers to establish the nature of the founding material. The material was soon
found to be unsuitable for the stone bed foundation as designed. Material consisted
of variable clays, which would liquefy once exposed by excavation (Refer Appendix
D.8 for the Trench Seabed Material Survey Record). In the initial dredging stages
the machine was moved to various areas on the trench route to produce useable
trench in acceptable material.
The foundation conditions were thoroughly examined and an alternative piled
foundation was adopted. The relatively small excavator bucket then proved less
efficient in the liquefied material. The Ave Caesar was off-hired on 15 th March
2001. During this time most of the bulk dredging was completed. A 20m3 clamshell
(Jetta 19) was hired to replace the Dipper Dredger since the need for accuracy was
reduced. Refer to Appendix D.9 for data on the Clamshell dredger. The large
capacity clam proved to be better suited to the conditions and dredging was
generally satisfactory.
Monthly hire costs ware significantly reduced to
MYR 450 000 inclusive of a 1200hp tugboat and 1000m3 hopper barge.
Observations taken between 01/11/00 and 09/02/01 showed that the Ave Caesar
backhoe dredger excavated 58% of its total working time and averaged 207m per
excava ting hour as in the summary below.
Activity
Final cut
Bulk dredge
Dump spoil
Maintenance
Repairs
Step/reposition
Other
Non operating (sleep)
Total
Actual excavating effort
Dredge: Operate factor
Dredge:Total time factor
Dredged quantity
Dredging production
Ave Caesar Dredging Production

Unit
Nov 00 Dec 00 Jan 01 Feb 01
Hrs
0
144
216
75
Hrs
213
179
229
79
Hrs
59
58
82
39
Hrs
29
32
26
2
Hrs
5
20
47
19
Hrs
50
80
106
27
Hrs
13
118
6
0
Hrs
351
113
33
0
Hrs
720
744
744
240
Hrs
213
323
445
154
%
58%
51%
63%
64%
%
30%
43%
60%
64%
m
56 491
58 849 81 748 37 380
m/hr
265
182
184
243
Total
434
700
238
89
91
262
137
497
2 448
1 134
58%
46%
234 469
207
The average daily production on a double shift could then be estimated as

2 881m/day (24 hrs x 207m/hr @ 58% efficiency) but the production rate varies
tremendously with material types. Firm material will fill the bucket in a short scoop
and will result in as much as 400m/hr but sloppy mud described as soup will yield
a very low solid contents value. The total invoiced value of the Macon charter for
the Ave Caesar running between 20 October 2000 to 13 March 2001 was as
follows:
Total Invoiced Value for Ave Caesar (MYR)
Mobilisation and Prep dredger
34,100
demobilisation
On/off hire survey
6,513
Sea tow survey
8,491
Ave Caesar
Single and double shifts
2,187,714
dipper dredger
Settlement discount
-164,079
Dredger insurance
188,790
Personnel
Operators
724,853
C'coordinator
201,943
General
Flights
48,987
expenses
Consumables & airfreight
89,663
Total
3,326,975
This figure does not reflect a number of back charges nor a payment claim that
occurred some time later as a result of disputed damage repairs.
15.2.4. Dredging with the Jetta 19
With the decision to replace the culvert stone foundation with a piled foundation, the
need for tight level tolerance dredging fell away to a more economical dredging
solution. Furthermore the piled foundation required a trench cut approximately 0.5m
deeper which with the geometry of the side slopes resulted in a significant increase
in the total material quantity.
In January 2001 enquiries were again sent out to the following dredging contractors:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Ballast Needam
Oriental Grandeur
See Yong & Sons
See Song & Sons
Benalec
Tidal Marine
Asbil
The Ave Caesar finished up and left the site in February 2002 and the clamshell
dredger Jetta 19 from See Yong & sons was towed to site from Penang and
commenced dredging at the beginning of March and completed the trench dredging.
15.2.5. Dumping of spoil
Spoil from the trench excavation was dumped by the split hopper barge in an
existing Sand Re-handling Basin conveniently located within 2km from the trench.
The alternative to this area was located adjacent to the nearby Pankor Island. Such
an operation would be costly due to the long hauls, additional tugs and hopper
barges required to ensure an efficient operation was maintained.
The re -handling basin could be filled to levels corresponding with the surrounding
natural seabed. Spoiling operations were not sufficiently controlled from the outset
leading to reworking the area before termination of the Clamshell Dredgers service.
A survey done on the spoil dump site in Februa ry 2001 showed a dumped quantity
of 187 000m, 16% lower than the volume of material cut from the culvert trench.
This is probably due to survey inaccuracies and/or material being lost along the way
from the trench to the dump site.
The 1 000m split hopper barge and 800 HP tug were hired from Oriental Grandeur
at MYR 66 000 and 45 000 per month respectively.
15.2.6. Survey of dredging works
Besides the positioning of the actual dredger, additional survey was required to
verify the actual dredge depths achieved on site. Hydrographical surveys were
carried out by echo -sounder in combination with a Real Time Kinetic Global
Positioning System (RTK GPS) mounted on a small power boat. A dual Frequency
echo sounder (33kHz & 210kHz) was utilized to indicate both the top of the soft silt
layer and the under-laying firm material. Output from this system was rarely
accurate and numerous difficulties were experienced with the equipment.
Unfortunately this issue was never fully resolved but alternative survey
subcontractors were deemed extremely costly.
15.2.7. Other Dredging Works
Smaller scale dredging was required from time to time to remove silt around the
load out jetty and in the vicinity of the Transition unit. A Toyo Pump was utilized for
such localized dredging. It could be handled by crane from the jetty or shore and
spoil is discharged through a floating pipeline to a suitable location nearby. This
equipment was generally in poor condition but its limited use negated serious
implications.
15.2.8. Suggested Improvements
Soil investigation proved to be the major problem in this project. Accurate

knowledge of the material involved is essential in the choice of dredging
equipment. In this case the cost implications were significant.
Electronic (DGPS) positioning of the dredger proved very efficient and is
certainly an advantage. Cost is high and it would be worth training operators
properly in the use of the equipment. Specialists in the field should be consulted
from the start.
Dredging is by nature a high cost exercise.
Contracts need careful
consideration and works should be planned thoroughly to ensure optimum use
of equipment.
15.2.9. Plant (Refer Appendix D for more information on major plant)
S-Type Dipper Dredger Ave Caesar with Liebherr 995 Litronic Excavator
Cathay 28 800 HP Tugboat
Esprit XI 1000m3 Split Hopper Barge
Clamshell Dredger Jetta 19, Tug boat and hopper barge.
Toyo pump c/w floating discharge pipe sections (poor condition)
Diesel generator (Hired on occasion for dredging)
Survey boat
DGPS receivers
Gyro compass
Electronic Tide Gauge
Dual Frequency Echo Sounder
Various computers and related electronic equipment
Feeder boats (shared)
15.3. STONE SPREADING

As explained elsewhere it was originally intended to found the culvert units on a 0.5m thick
screeded stone bed but this was changed to a piled foundation after it was discovered that
the seabed material had insufficient bearing capacity for the stone bed design. Nevertheless
the principle of the stone screeding activities are recorded here for future reference.
15.3.1. Resources
180 stone spreader support barge with 4-point mooring, 2 x stone spreader
lifting winches, HPU, 150t crawler crane & grab, generator, office and store
containers
180 stone material supply barge (owned by locally based stone supplier)
750 HP tug to move barges (shared usage)

Stone spreader machine (described under section on temporary works) powered
by HPU on support barge
Floating hopper and fall pipe
10 submersible Toya pump & discharge hoses
4-man support barge crew and crane operator
5-man dive team with air dive spread and communications
4-man tug crew with skipper (shared)
Land surveyor with theodolite, level, pencil buoys, survey stations
15.3.2. Operational steps
Confirm seabed to be screeded is dredged to level tolerances and is free of

excessive marine mud, slush and obstructions. If not, use the 10 Toya pump in
a systematic pattern suspended by the 150t crane or use the cranes grab.
Confirm acceptable bearing characteristics of the seabed.
Lay geofabric over bed area by spooling off a roll suspended by the crane.
Geofabric to be pre-weighted with stitched in reinforcing bars or similar.
Move support barge over spreader machine. Lower and connect lifting wires.
First lift machines inshore legs off the completed bed, then the offshore legs.
Keep machine about 1m above seabed.
Move barge to new bed area. Position spreader machine suspended by support
barge over the area and lower to the seabed, offshore legs down first, then
inshore legs onto previously completed bed. Confirm positional accuracy by
surveying the pencil buoys attached to machine and by physically checking
sufficient overlap on the previous bed. Disconnect lifting wires.
Connect hydraulic umbilical to legs. Lift and lower machine to set on level.
Surveyor uses dumpie level from shore or intermediate piled survey platforms.
Confirm all level, steady and secure. Disconnect hydraulic lines and recover
umbilical.
Move support and stone material barges into position. Move floating hopper into
position, lower, install and secure fall pipe. Connect hopper hydraulic umbilical.
Move hopper onto previously screeded bed.
Place stone in floating hopper with the cranes grab. Diver on the seabed drives
the hopper in a set pattern when it is sufficiently full of stone. Diver to ensure
the hopper does not run empty or overflow. Diver to ensure the entire bed area
is systematically covered with no gaps or overruns. Screed the entire bed
complete.
Surveyor with dumpie level to check the screeded levels by sighting on a pencil
buoy floating above a heavy plate moved around the bed in a set pattern by
diver. Confirm all nine shots are within level tolerance. If not re-screed bed.
Disconnect fall pipe and remove floating hopper. Move machines hopper to a
central position in the frame for even weight distribution. Disconnect hydraulic
lines and recover umbilical.
15.3.3. Suggested Improvements

As there was only one complete bed screeded and the learning curve was not yet
overcome there were no significant improvements on the equipment or method
suggested for similar future works.
15.4. PILING WORKS

15.4.1. The change to piling
It was found in late December 2000, that the stone bed design was not compatible
with the ground conditions being experienced in the offshore trench. No founding
level could be established and maintained with any success. Rock dumping was
attempted in order to try and firm up the excavated trench material, but this was also
not successful. From 1 January 2001 to 28 January 2001 various unsuccessful
attempts we re made at trying to find suitable founding at different chainages along
the trench. Core sampling and laboratory testing was carried out on the material
and finally on 2 February 2001, at an LLJV meeting a decision was made to adopt a
piled solution. Th is design change due to the unforeseen founding conditions
occurred 7 months after the start of the project.
15.4.2. Piling Progress
From 2 February 2001 to 30 March 2001, the design was carried out, and all
approvals and testing requirements for the piled solu tion were put in place.
Subcontracts and suppliers were set up and the first working pile was driven on the
30 March 2001. The piling progressed well and on the 20 July 2001 the piling rig
went onto standby due to delays experienced on the cofferdam and in turn dredging
of the last 300m of trench.
During the standby time, the navigation structure piles, intake structure temporary
piles, and load out jetty test piles were driven. The piling restarted on 13 August
2001 after the dredging up to the cofferdam was completed. All piling was
completed by 17 August 2001. Refer Appendix D.10 & 11 for further details on
piling works.
15.4.3. Pile Driving
A subcontractor on unit rates carried out pile driving. The subcontractor, KETARA
TEKNIK, supplied the equipment for driving, labour, tugs, barges for pile delivery,
and collected all the piles from the local factory at Lumut Port.
A follower had to be constructed to enable driving underwater. This was
constructed from a steel pipe pile of 900mm diameter, and approximately 26 m in
length. This was later trimmed down to approximately 16 metres.
A number of interesting issues arose from the underwater pile driving:
The piles should be sealed units, not allowing water into the bottom of the pile,
top of the pile or through the breather holes which are sometimes left in the side
of the pile.
The piles should be driven in an air condition. This was achieved by sealing
the follower within the helmet of the follower, and pumping air into the bell area
of the follower where it interfaces with the pile at the driving end.
All the marine/underwater driven piles had a conical, pointed, steel shoe welded
onto the bottom of the pile. This stopped the ingress of a plug and water, both
of which would have caused the piles to break during driving.
The air pocket at the top of the pile therefore stopped water from entering the
pile. A continuous air pocket was maintained during all driving underwater. 2
no 175 CFM compressors were used for this purpose.
The driving efficiency was still quite good using the follower, especially after
shortening. The packer proved extremely important in ensuring that the pile did not
break during driving. We used layers of 21mm shutter board (approximately
150mm to 200 mm total thickness). Positioning of the piles underwater was
achieved with the Target Pile survey system. A realistic accuracy on positioning
turned out to be 200mm from design centre of pile. The hammer used for pile
driving was a Twinwood 10 ton hydraulic dro p hammer. The hammer stroke was
variable and electronically controlled up to 1000mm.
15.4.4. Piling Production
We achieved 3 to 4 piles per day on average with 30 m long piles. When driving the
shorter 26 m piles we were able to achieve 6 piles in a 10 to 12 h our day. The total
number of blows for a 30 m pile generally varied between 1000 and 1800. Pitching,
driving the above water section, fitting the follower, driving the underwater section,
varied from 2 to 3 hours of driving.
Weather played an important role in the productions achieved. It was found that
side on swells caused problems with the accuracy of the piles as driven, and at
times could also have lead to the breaking of pile heads, due to the angle of impact
of the hammer on the pile head.
15.4.5. Pile supply
ICP Sdn Bhd supplied all the spun concrete piles for our works. The suppliers were
able to produce 4 to 5 piles a day with ease once the moulds were set up. Due to a
late start on the piling option, there were some delays experienced due to the
availability of cured (ready to drive) piles. The cost of the piles was RM 320 per
metre.
15.4.6. Pile Testing
The behaviour of Test piles where monitored using PDA equipment (Pile Driving
Analyser equipment), and re -strikes with the same equipment after set up. It was
found that the piles were setting up well in the offshore material, and capacity was
reported to be increasing two fold after 21 days of set up. Underwater PDA
equipment was procured (RM 20 000) from the USA to test offshore working piles.
This testing indicated piles were being driven to requirements and were meeting the
design capacities without any problems.
One of the test piles was tested using the STATNAMIC TEST. This test measures
the mobility and load bearing capacity of the piles follo wing a single impact from a
hammer which is energised by an upward explosive device, which sends the
hammer mass upwards, and results in the hammer free falling and striking the top of
the pile. Various test instruments are set up on the pile and the resu lts are analysed
and checked for conformance and verification of the design. This test was carried
out on site on the 22nd May 2001.
15.4.7. Surveying the piles
Positioning of the piles was achieved using a Real Time Kinetic Global Positioning
System (RTK GPS). Pile driving position was monitored throughout the driving by a
computer and software (Target Pile) system linked to the GPS equipment. The
LLJV had a full time engineer (Lee Yap Tan) on the piling rig responsible for
monitoring the positioning of the piles. The plan position accuracy of the piles was
generally within 200mm of the design centre. Level control was achieved by
conventional survey, standing on a temporary survey platform located on the test
pile. Graduated accurate level marks were placed on the follower for reading similar
to a staff. Once the pile approached the final drive level, the surveyor controls and
instructs the piling team when to stop.
The level control on the piles was managed to ensure as far as possible that the pile
was driven slightly (20mm to 50mm) deeper than the design level. The actual level
was then measured using pencil buoys and plates. The pile cap thickness was
adjusted to suit the as-driven level of the pile. This ensured that the culvert unit
would be su pported at the correct level on the pile cap.
15.5. PILE CAP PLACING & G ROUTING
Pile caps were manufactured in the precast yard. The first pile caps were placed on 11 April
2001. Pile caps were offloaded at the load out jetty by the precast yard team using a HIABtruck and a 45 ton (or 25 ton) crane.
15.5.1. Equipment employed on pile cap placing
Crane Barge 60 m x 20 metre

80 ton Crawler crane
4 point hydraulic mooring system
7 no Marine labour
1 no expatriate diver
1 team of 4 to 5 divers and their equipment
Lifting slings and lifting beam
RTK GPS system
Underwater epoxy materials for bedding the pile cap on the top of the pile
Grout pump, holding tank, and materials for grouting and testing the grout
15.5.2. Process followed to install one pile cap

Pile caps were loaded from the load out jetty onto a tug and transported out to the
crane barge (ex stone spreader barge). Pile caps were lifted onto the crane barge
by the 80ton crawler crane on the barge, and were then prepared for placing. This
preparation incorporated the following items:
Check the grout tubes are correctly positioned and not blocked.
Check that the grout tubes are correctly identified (breather versus grout tube).
Check the thickness of the cap was correct and suited the as built pile level.
Confirm that the internal diameter of the pile (measured prior to delivery/driving),
suits the external diameter of the pile cap.
Check that the geotextile section at the end of the pile cap shaft is correctly
fitted, secured, and not too large.
Check tha t the number of the pile cap suited the number of the pile in which it
was to be placed.
Check that the plug head (guidance system), was in place and secure.
The custom-made pancake grout bag was secured to the pile cap in a specially
recessed area of the pile cap. The pancake itself was essentially a small empty
grout mattress made of geofabric.
The underwater epoxy was then applied to the pile interfacing area on the
underside of the pile cap bearing area.
The RTK GPS equipment was used once again to accurately position the barge
over the piles, which were to accept the pile caps.
Piles were lifted using the cast in wire rope lifting hooks, and guide into position
using a diver on communications.
Alignment of the pile cap was achieved using a 3 -point reference system, which
consisted of two points on a lifting beam supporting the pile cap, and a long
distance point on land. During placing all three points were lined up such that
the North South alignment of the pile cap was as accurate as possible.
Once the pile was correctly aligned, and with 2-way communication between
above water crew and the diver, the pile cap was lowered into the opening in the
pile.
The pile cap was then grouted into place using the tested and approved
underwater grou t mix. Divers carried out the grouting with underwater
communications.
It was found that the grout quantity turned out to be very similar in each case.
Questions were raised by the clients representative, as to the integrity of the
grouting. Tests were again carried out on the crane barge to prove to the client that
the system worked as required.
After placing the as built level on top of the pile cap was taken by a survey platform
based surveyor.
15.5.3. Productions achieved on pile cap placing
Between 6 no and 10 no Pile caps could be placed and grouted in a day. Poor sea
conditions had a negative effect on production. It was found that the piling was
holding up the pile cap placing. This was not a critical path activity, and a lag in the
program could easily be recovered in a day or two. Refer Appendix D.10.
15.6. CULVERT UNIT PLACING
15.6.1. Resources
Twin hull 400t floating gantry with 4 point mooring and 400t hoist system (as
described under temporary works section) with barge master and 5
riggers/deckhan ds
750 HP anchor handling tug with skipper, motorman and 4 deckhands (shared
usage)
10 submersible Toya pump & discharge hoses
4-man support barge crew and crane operator
Dive barge with air dive spread and communications and 5-man dive team
(shared usage)
Land surveyor with theodolite, level, pencil buoys, survey stations
15.6.2. Procedure
Deliver culvert to the loadout jetty by heavy lift trailer and lower unit onto the
support plinths thus allowing the trailer to move off.
After taking tide into consideration, disconnect and lift the gantrys front tie
member, move the floating gantry in on its moorings to straddle the jetty and line
up over the culvert unit. Secure craft and refit tie member.
Lower the two spreader beams by the hoist winches and handle into alignment
to engage over the culvert units four lifting corbels. Connect the beams to the
corbels by the vertical Macalloy bars, washer plates and nuts.
Lift the culvert unit clear of the jetty structure by the hoist winches.
Carefully warp out clear of the jetty on the floating gantrys mooring winches.
Lower the culvert unit somewhat to improve the stability of the craft and its 400t
load.
With assistance from the attending tug, recover the gantrys anchors and tow
gantry to the placing site. Deploy mooring anchors again in a prearranged
spread pattern on arrival.
Place marker buoys on offshore end of previously placed culvert to mark its
position. Winch the gantry into position on its moorings and secure.
Lower the unit towards the seabed with 0.5m clearance offshore the previously
placed unit. Divers talk the culvert into position while adjustments are made on
the gantrys mooring winches and the hoist winches. Rest culvert squarely on
support pile caps with half a metre clearance from the previously laid unit. Give
slack in the hoisting system.
Diver to connect the two tensioning cylinders in a horizontal line on either side
between adjoining corbels of the previously placed unit and the new suspended
unit.
Once connected with the chain and other rigging provided, take up some of the
weight of the new unit with the floating gantrys hoist system and simultaneously
activate the cylinders to deliver 50t tension load. With the previously placed unit
offering more sliding resistance than the partially supported unit, the new unit
slides up against the previous one into final position. The guide nibs provide the
final alignment and the rubber seal would be sufficiently compressed to provide
an adequate seal prior to the joint grouting operation. By steering the unit with
independent left and right cylinders one can make adjustments in the horizontal
alignment of the new culverts offshore end.
Check and confirm the position, clearances and alignment of the new culvert is
within tolerance.
Lower the lifting system again and slack off. Extend the tensioning cylinders
disconnect and recover tensioning cylinder rigging. Disconnect spreader beams
from corbels and recover.
Pick up anchors and tow floating gantry back to loadout jetty. Moor floating
gantry back onto its anchor spread and prepare to receive the next culvert unit.
15.7. CULVERT UNIT JOINT GROUTING

The sealing of the joints between the culvert units was always considered a critical activity
but more so here after the downtime and high consequential costs suffered on a recent
similar project in Hong Kong due to the failure of joint seals which allowed seabed material to
de drawn into the intake works of a functioning power station.
15.7.1. Resources
10 x 6m grout barge with soft rope moorings, store for stock of cement bags,
fresh water tank, grout mixer/pump and hoses with 4 man crew.
12 x 8m dive barge with control/store cabin, air dive spread, hiab and 5 man
dive team.
750 HP anchor handling tug with skipper, motorman and 4 deckhands (shared
usage)
15.7.2. Procedure
Moor grout barge onto position over pile bent. Moor dive barge onto position.
Diver connects grout delivery line into the deflated pancake grout mattress
already affixed in the pile cap recess under the placed culvert unit.
Mix grout mixture slurry comprising pure cement and fresh water in the
mixer/pump. Fill the pancake with the grout under gravity flow until flow stops
(pancake full.)
Disconnect grout hose and seal receiver hose in pancake.
Connect grout hose to lower u -shaped grout sock in culvert joint recess.
Mix grout and full the grout sock under gravity flow until full.
Disconnect grout hose and seal receiver hose in grout sock.
Connect grout hose to upper straight grout sock in culvert joint recess.
Mix grout and full the grout sock under gravity flow until full.
Disconnect grout hose and seal receiver hose in grout sock.
Move dive barge to next site. Move grout barge off to restock materials for next
pile bent.
SECTION 16. DOSING LINE

16.1. GENERAL
16.1.1. Scope
This section covers the construction of the HDPE Hypochlorite-Dosing pipeline for
the Cooling Water Intake Culvert at the Manjung Power Station.
16.1.2. Background
Three separate 225 O.D. HDPE pipes are installed between the electro-chlorination
building onshore and the Cooling water intake Units at the offshore end of the
culvert. Each pipe serves a single tunnel of the culvert. The pipelines are installed
along the top of the culverts and protected within a concrete kerb- and slab
structure.
16.2. CONSTRUCTION METHOD
Site preparation for Dosing Line works commenced on 15 March 2001. Delivery of pre-cast
concrete elements from HUME Concrete Marketing was delayed and the in-situ construction
of Dosing Line structures was actioned to avoid delays in culvert placement offshore. Dosing
Line installations were carried out in the culvert preparation area at the load out jetty. Plant
and access to culverts could therefore be shared. The spreadsheet in Appendix E.1
summarizes all concrete installations by type and method of installation for each culvert unit.
16.2.1. In-situ Concrete Installation
A reinforced concrete kerb, diaphragm wall and slab arrangement is installed to
each individual culvert. This serves as a protective housing for the HDPE dosing
lines. The site team opted for a pre-cast solution manufa ctured by a subcontractor
and delivered to site for installation. To avoid delays in culvert placement initial
dosing line structures were cast in-situ. 37 In-situ installations were done in total.
To avoid delays additional cost was incurred in formwork and subcontract labour.
Simple plywood and timber formwork was prepared on site by specialist
subcontractor. Reinforcing steel is supplied and bent by the on site Rebar Yard.
The position of the Dosing Line structure is set out on the top slab of each individual
culvert by surveyor, clearly marking the outlines and dowel positions. A system of
T20 rebar dowels provides shear connection between the structure and the culvert
top slab. Dowels are installed and grouted prior to the erection of formwork. The
entire kerb/diaphragm wall structure is cast as a unit. Concrete is supplied by skip
from a mobile crane. Few problems were encountered with the casting.
The subcontractor (L-Double) was required to complete 2 dosing line structures per
day. This was never achieved. The construction proved labour and plant intensive.
LLJV crews were required to assist on several occasions to avoid delays. It was
also clear that the subcontractor was over committed on various other sections of
the power station. A second subcontractor was employed to ensure the production
of 2 units per day. The standard formwork proved useful in the construction of
various special dosing line structures with only minor modifications required. These
include access culverts, diversion culverts and intake unit kerbs. Refer Appendix
E.2 for a summary of dosing line installations to special culverts.
16.2.2. Pre -cast Concrete Installation

The pre-cast solution is preferred for a number of reasons notably the superior
concrete quality, ease of installation and efficiency of production. Ultimately the
dosing line was a belated addition to the culvert structure.
Each culvert is fitted with 4 no. kerb units, 2 no. diaphragm wall units and 3 no.
cover slabs. The position of the structure is set out on the culvert and dowel
positions marked. 16 no Dowel bars are cored and grouted to the top slab of each
culvert unit. Installation was by specialist subcontractor due to the high cost of
coring equipment. The pre-cast kerb and diaphragm units are placed on a layer of
bedding grout and all joints grouted. Diaphragm walls are painted with anti-fouling
paint to ensure the HDPE sleeves remain free of marine growth during the
construction phase. 3 no. 20mm Polyrope messenger lines are placed through the
diaphragms and the cover slabs placed on top. 55 No. special diaphragm walls
(Type B) were cast on site together with 104 cover slabs.
Pre-cast installation was initially by subcontractor. Installation of 3 sets per day was
easily achieved with a single crew consisting of 1 supervisor, 3 labour and 2 riggers.
Plant includes a dedicated Rough Terrain crane and small concrete mixer. The
pace of installation was dictated by the placement of culverts offshore. Pre-cast
installation was eventually taken over by a LLJV crew proving extremely cost
effective. Refer to Appendix E.3 for the basic pre -cast installation procedure.
16.3. PIPE WORK: INSTALLATION AND FITTINGS
The Dosing Line consist of 3 separate 225mm O.D. HDPE main pipes from the onshore
termination point to each individual intake head unit at the offshore end of the Cooling Water
Intake culvert. The hypochlorite solution is dispensed into the culverts at these points.
Each pipe is installed in three sections; the Intake string, Launched string and land section.
Custom designed HDPE ring pipes and Intake String pipe work was manufactured and
delivered to site by specialist subcontractor. Materials are PN10 rated HDPE pipe and
fittings and Grade 316L Stainless Steel for flanged conne ctions at all joints and pipe support
work. The ring pipes are fitted to the Intake Head Units prior to load out for placement
offshore. Supply of special HDPE ring pipe sections proved slow, mainly due to delays in
supply of Grade 316L Stainless Steel for flanged connections, which was not locally
available. In practice only the ring pipes were fitted prior to unit placement. Divers installed
connection pipe work on the Intake Strings to as-built dimensions after placement of the
culvert units. This process proved tedious in the zero visibility conditions.
16.3.1. Launching of Pipeline
The main section of each dosing line is launched from an onshore launch way,
through pre -installed launch sleeves and the pre-cast diaphragm walls along the
length of the culvert. The poly rope messenger lines are spliced together to form
three separate full- length messengers. A 12mm Steel Wire Rope intermediate
messenger line is attached to the onshore end of the polyrope messenger and
pulled through by winch from an offsh ore barge. The 24mm Steel Wire Rope pull
line is attached to the intermediate messenger and pulled through in similar fashion.
The pull line is attached to the HDPE pipe by a manufactured pulling head.
Diameter 355mm HDPE launch sleeves are installed from the offshore end of the
In-situ Culvert section to a suitable surface entry point adjacent to the In-situ Culvert
Chimney. Each sleeve is 60m long and fitted with a 12m length of HDPE test pipe
at the offshore end. The test pipe is pulled through the launch sleeve prior to the
launching operation to ensure the sleeve is free of obstruction and to pull through
the messenger line to the onshore end. Problems were encountered with 2 launch
sleeves with the test pieces being stuck at the offshore end. It was established that
inferior pipe was used for the sleeves causing them to be deformed by the backfill
material. Launching of the dosing line was slightly delayed. Dredging the
overlaying material to relieve the overburden pressure eventually solved the
problem. The risk involved was great, as total failure of the sleeves could prove
very expensive.
The pipe is launched in 48m increments. Each 48m length of pipe is pre -welded
and joined to the launch string after each pull by butt fusion welding. Once the
desired length has been launched the offshore end is brought to the surface and a
flange welded to the end. The launched pipe is secured to the culvert by Stainless
Steel Saddle clamps. The separate Intake String is installed to the relevant Intake
units and secured. Connection pipes are welded to divers measurements to joint
the main dosing line to each intake distribution ring. This process is repeated for
each individual pipe. Refer to Appendix E.4 for the basic launch procedure used.
16.3.2. Land Section
Once the pipelines are approved the land section is completed. Construction
involved routing the individual pipes to a predetermined termination point adjacent
to the Electro -chlorination building by means of standard land based pipe-laying
methods. The dosing lines terminate at a purpose built junction box.
16.3.3. Pressure Testing
Individual dosing lines are pressure tested to the requirements of BS 8010, Section
11. A specialist subcontractor was employed for this purpose. Poor interpretation
o f test results resulted in repeating a number of pressure tests at excessive
pressures. Delays and additional cost was incurred as a result.
No significant leakage problems were encountered with the major concern being
adequate sealing at flanged connections rather that damage to pipes during the
launch and installation process.
16.4. SUGGESTED IMPROVEMENTS
The design of the dosing line structure should be incorporated with culvert design at an
earlier stage to avoid delays and additional cost. Significant cost was incurred by coring
of dowels to fit pre-cast kerbs for instance.
In-situ construction proved expensive and problematic with subcontractors on short
notice and tight schedule. Crews under own supervision proved much easier to control
and more productive for such work. Pre-cast concrete is the preferred option and all
effort should be made to incorporate these items at an earlier stage.
Anchorage of pipe by tremie concrete on offshore sections is impractical as designed.
This was replaced by less accurate sandbag formwork and concrete delivered by skip
underwater. The quality achieved was adequate for anchorage.
High quality materials such as Grade 316L Stainless Steel proved problematic due to
slow delivery. Specialist items should be sourced at an early stage to create awareness
of potential problems.
Detailed pipe work is best pre-fitted on land to ensure quality of construction. As-built
measurements of multi dimensional connections proved tedious in poor visibility
underwater. Long Intake S trings proved difficult to handle in strong currents offshore.
16.5. HUMAN RESOURCES

Refer to Appendix E.5 for resource summaries for the dosing line activities.
OWN LABOUR Involved in all aspects of dosing line construction to varying degrees as
required in addition to the final preparation of culvert units for load out:
Supervisor
Foreman
Riggers
Skilled Labour
Unskilled Labour
1
1
4
5
2
SUBCONTRACTORS:
L-Double/STC Builders (In-situ installations):
Both subcontractors used similar
teams. Work includes formwork erection, rebar fixing, casting of concrete, striking of
formwork, removal of rubble and moving materials to the next culvert for installation:
Foreman
Carpenters
Concreters
General Labour
1
4
3
2
Lian Hup Yik Engineering (Pre -cast Installations): Handling, preparation and installation of
pre -cast concrete for the dosing line structures:
Foreman
Skilled labour
1
3
16.6. PLANT
45 Ton Rough Terrain Crane

25 Ton Rough Terrain Crane
Portable generators (2 no)
Small concrete mixer
Forklift
Pulling Barge
Barge Mounted crane
Concrete installations, materials handling

Concrete installations, materials handling
General power supply
Pre-cast concrete installation
Materials handling (Part time only)
Pipe launch, offshore installations
Offshore installations, Cover slab placement
SECTION 17. NAVIGATIONAL AID STRUCTURE

17.1. GENERAL
17.1.1. Scope
This report covers the construction of the offshore Navigational Aid Structure to the
requirements of the Marine Department of Malaysia
17.1.2. Background
The Marine Department of Ma laysia specifies the requirement for a Navigational Aid
Structure indicating the position of the submerged Cooling Water Intake Culvert. 3
No. 900mm diameter concrete spun piles support a concrete pile cap. A steel
equipment platform is constructed on the pile cap supporting the light installation at
the specified level of +10.5mACD.
17.2. CONSTRUCTION METHOD
17.2.1. Piling
Three 1000mm diameter concrete spun piles were driven to the desired set from the
Ketara Piling Barge with DGPS positioning system. The piles are raked at 1:4 slope in a triangular arrangement.
17.2.2. Temporary Works
All works are carried out with the assistance of a barge -mounted crane. Electricity,
plant and workspace are provided on the barge moored adjacent to the structure.
Purpose made steel pile clamps are fitted to support a temporary work platform and
soffit formwork for the reinforced concrete pile cap. An H-beam support frame to
resist cantilever action due to the working loads connected the three piles.
Standard PERI girders are supported on a steel framework to form the soffit. The
entire soffit support is height adjustable by the inclusion of 6 no. steel spindle jacks
for final levelling and stripping after construction.
PERI formwork is utilized due to availability on site. Support beam dimensions and
spacing was chosen to fit the available standard formwork materials. A plywood
soffit was erected after careful levelling of the support structure by adjusting the
25ton spindle jacks. Wall forms are pre-assembled onshore for easy erection to the
required geometric shape within the restricted space provided by the soffit support
work. With the soffit in place the piles are cut to the required level. The hollow piles
are blocked by casting a grout plug to complete the formwork.
17.2.3. Concrete Works
The pile cap is cast in two stages to reduce the extent of temporary support work
required. The first cast of 300mm thickness incorporates the connection to the
piles. Reinforcing steel for Cast 1 is fixed by a specialist rebar team. After thorough
inspection concreting is commenced. Concrete is delivered by mixer truck to the
load out jetty and transferred to skips. A crane loads the skips onto a tugboat for
ferrying to the offshore barge for casting. Retarded concrete is required due to the
extended delivery time involved.
The second cast rebar is fixed once Cast 1 concrete is set. Cast 2 may continue
upon confirmation of 24MPa minimum strength of the Cast 1 concrete. This cast
includes Stainless Steel anchor bolts for the steel superstructure. Once sufficient
strength is gained the formwork is removed and supports dismantled. A third cast is
required to complete a 150mm plinth for the steel superstructure.
17.2.4. Steelwork and Fittings
All Steelwork is manufactured off site with special attention to corrosion protection.
These include a 3,5m high steel Equipment Platform, handrails, access ladders and
fender arrangement. The steel Equipment platform is fitted by crane off the Crane
Barge. Various corrosion protection measures were specified including large
galvanized sections and high quality paint systems. These were applied under
factory conditions requiring repairs only on site for damage during handling and
installation. High quality steel items proved expensive in general.
17.2.5. Navigational Aid Equipment
The navigational aid arrangement is supplied by Jinora Corporation. It comprises
various parts by Tideland Signal.
ML-300 Solachan Marine Lantern

South Cardinal Mark
Radar reflector
BP Solar panels
Battery comple te with lockable case
The steel equipment platform supports the Navigational Aid equipment at the
required level and position. Access is by cat ladder. The Navigational equipment is
delivered and commissioned by specialist supplier.
The Marine Department indicated further requirements including a lightning
protection system, bird spikes and spot welding of all bolts and nuts to prevent
theft by local fishermen. A small amount of spares were handed over to the client
for maintenance purposes. The spares include lamps and photocell switches as
requested by the local Marine Department. Refer Appendix F.1 for a summary of
the construction of the Navigational Aid Structure.
17.3. SUGGESTED IMPROVEMENTS
Site Measurement and fitting of Fender structure proved difficult due to the location
underneath the pile cap and within the tidal zone.
Construction required a dedicated work barge complete with crane. Toward the end of
the project the Crane Barge was used for this purpose. The barge was very effective
but under-utilized and expensive for this task. Such structures should be considered
from the start of the project. With proper planning resources can be better utilized to
include the construction of such relatively small structures.
Delays were encountered with supply of large galvanized steel items and high quality
materials (i.e.: Stainless Steel 316L). Earlier consideration could minimize delays toward
the end of the project.
Extensive consultation with local authorities (notably the Ma rine Department) as to their
requirements proved essential. This is entirely site driven and should be attended to from
an early stage as response was generally slow. Inspection of the works revealed several
issues not identified in meetings and this should be initiated early on.
A Structure of this nature is required to provide long-term service to the client. The
design should be simplified as far as possible for ease of maintenance and durability.
The constraints of offshore construction must be accounted for, working within the tidal
range always proving difficult.
17.4. PLANT
Crane Barge with 80ton Crawler Crane

Gantry Barge with 25ton Rough Terrain Crane
Feeder boats
Welding Plant
Piling Barge

Manjung Power Station - Malaysia

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Manjung Power Station - Malaysia

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Manjung Power Station CW Intake Culvert

End of Contract Report Volume 1

Offshore Cooling Water Intake Culvert

END OF CONTRACT REPORT