DREDGING AND RECLAMATION PLAN

PRELIMINARY DESIGN OF WEST BERTH AND EXPANSION OF CONTAINER YARD AT TERMINAL CUENCA
DEL PLATA, MONTEVIDEO-URUGUAY

APRIL 2021

Revision Date Author(s) Checked by Approved by Comments

L. de Boom
0 12/3/21 M.G.M. Huijsmans BSc MSc/ B.A. B.A. Pielage MA MSc
Pielage MA MSc
1 9/4/2021 M.G.M. Huijsmans BSc
2 19/4/2021 M.G.M. Huijsmans BSc
3

DREDGING AND RECLAMATION WORKS

Preliminary Design of West Berth and Expansion of Container Yard at TCP
April 2021. iii
 Table of contents
1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................4
1.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE ......................................................................4
1.2 DISTRIBUTION AND INTENDED AUDIENCE ......................................4
1.3 DEFINITIONS, ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ............................4
1.4 REFERENCE DOCUMENTS AND LINKS ..............................................4

2 BERTHING AREA DEPTH ASSESSMENT .............................................5

2.1 Design methodology ........................................................................5
2.1.1 Handbook Quay Walls ..............................................................5
2.1.2 PIANC 2014...............................................................................6
2.2 Calculation results............................................................................7
2.3 Recommended depth results ..........................................................7

3 BERTHING AREA DESIGN ..................................................................9

3.1 Design aspects .................................................................................9
3.2 Preliminary design scour protection ................................................9
3.3 Concept dredging design terminal and berthing area ...................11
3.3.1 Preliminary designs ................................................................12
3.4 Dredging contours .........................................................................14

4 DREDGING QUANTITIES .................................................................17

5 DREDGING METHOD AND DURATION ...........................................18

5.1 Dredging of the berthing area .......................................................18
5.1.1 Dredging of rock .....................................................................19
5.2 Installation of the bottom protection ............................................21
5.3 Dredging of the terminal area .......................................................22
5.4 Reclamation of the terminal area ..................................................22
5.4.1 Reclamation works .................................................................22
5.4.2 Dredging and transportation .................................................22
5.4.3 Disposal ..................................................................................23
5.4.4 Quantities, production and duration .....................................25

6 RISKS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................27

DREDGING AND RECLAMATION WORKS – BASIS OF DESIGN

Preliminary Design of West Berth and Expansion of Container Yard at TCP
March 2021. 2
Table of tables
Table 1-1. Abbreviations ............................................................................................................ 4
Table 1-2. Reference documents ............................................................................................... 4
Table 2-1. Depth levels of the berthing according to different guidelines ................................ 7
Table 2-2. Recommended depth levels at the berthing area for the design vessels ................. 8
Table 3-1. Preliminary design of scour protection of the berthing area .................................. 10
Table 4-1. Dredging Quantities................................................................................................. 17
Table 4-2. Dredging Quantities, outside berthing area ............................................................ 17
Table 5-1. Approximate quantities, productions and theoretical duration ............................. 26

Table of figures
Figure 2-1. Channel Depth Factors_Handbook Quay Walls ....................................................... 5
Figure 2-2. Channel Depth Factors_PIANC 2014 ........................................................................ 6
Figure 2-3. Results of the depth at the berthing area for the design vessel according to the
different design methods ...................................................................................... 7
Figure 3-1. Extent of the scour protection in front of a quay wall PIANC 2014 [ref.6] ............ 10
Figure 3-2. Preliminary design of scour protection of the berthing area (not to scale) .......... 10
Figure 3-3. Open quay wall and shallow rock .......................................................................... 12
Figure 3-4. Open quay wall and deep rock............................................................................... 13
Figure 3-5. Closed quay wall and shallow rock ........................................................................ 13
Figure 3-6. Closed quay wall and rock at great depth.............................................................. 14
Figure 3-7. Areas to be dredged ............................................................................................... 15
Figure 3-8. Cofferdam and retaining wall to protect the southern breakwater ...................... 15
Figure 5-1. Split Hopper barge and backhoe dredger .............................................................. 19
Figure 5-2. Rock levels in berthing area ................................................................................... 19
Figure 5-3. Typical rock core recovered ................................................................................... 19
Figure 5-4. Floating pontoon with drill towers......................................................................... 20
Figure 5-5. Heavy duty rock CSD .............................................................................................. 20
Figure 5-6. Installation of geotextile mats ............................................................................... 21
Figure 5-7. 9,000 m3 TSHD ....................................................................................................... 23
Figure 5-8. Temporary slope at the reclamation fill, open quay .............................................. 24
Figure 5-9. Spreader barge, connected to a floating pipeline.................................................. 25
Figure 5-10. Bulldozers pushing sand in front of the landline releasing the sand mixture ..... 25

DREDGING AND RECLAMATION WORKS – BASIS OF DESIGN

Preliminary Design of West Berth and Expansion of Container Yard at TCP
March 2021. 3
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE

The information provided in this document is for Milestone 2 of the project ‘Extension of Cuenca del
Plata Terminal’. The report is compiled to determine feasibility of the dredging and reclamation works
and presents the dredging design for the berthing and terminal area.

1.2 DISTRIBUTION AND INTENDED AUDIENCE

This document is intended to provide a level of internal alignment and provide the Client and
Consultants with a starting point for further detailing of the project.

1.3 DEFINITIONS, ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

Table 1-1. Abbreviations

Term/Acronym/Abbreviation Explanation/Definition
CD Chart Datum
cm centimetre
TSHD Trailing Suction Hopper Dredger
CSD Cutter Suction Dredger
GIS Geographic Information System
MSL Mean Sea Level
m Metre
HWL High Water Level
Wh Wharton level, the reference level in Montevideo
km Kilometre

1.4 REFERENCE DOCUMENTS AND LINKS

Unless specifically designated by date, the latest edition of each publication shall be used, together
with any amendments/supplements/revisions thereto.

Table 1-2. Reference documents

Ref. Title / Description
(1) Estudio Ingegneria Ambiental 2012, Detalle Techno de Roca Varias Batiemtrias
IMFIA – Fluvial y Marítima 2020, Estudio de agitación y operatividad de la
(2)
ampliación de los muelles de TCP en el Puerto de Montevideo, 11/01/2020 v2.0.
(3) 2021-01-09 ANTE PUERTO SUR 33 KHZ (survey drawing)
(4) 2021-01-09 ANTE PUERTO SUR 200 KHZ (survey drawing)
(5) PIANC, report no. 121, Harbour Approach Channels Design Guidelines;
PIANC, report no. 180, Guidelines For Protecting Berthing Structures from Scour
(6)
Caused By Ships;
(7) J.G. de Gijt & M.L. Broeken; Quay Walls Second Edition 2014;

DREDGING AND RECLAMATION WORKS – BASIS OF DESIGN

Preliminary Design of West Berth and Expansion of Container Yard at TCP
March 2021. 4
2 BERTHING AREA DEPTH ASSESSMENT
This chapter presents the approach applied to assess the recommended depth at the berthing area,
based on the defined starting points (in the basis of design document).

2.1 Design methodology

The depth of the berthing area is determined on basis of the handbook Quay Wall [ref.7] and PIANC
2014 [ref. 5]. The results of these two approaches are compared and evaluated in order to define the
most suitable recommended depth of the berthing area.

2.1.1 Handbook Quay Walls

According to the handbook Quay Walls [ref.7], the recommended design depth of the berthing area
depends on the draught of the loaded ship (D), the vertical movement caused by waves, listing and
trim and the required keel clearance. This is presented in the figure below.

Figure 2-1. Channel Depth Factors_Handbook Quay Walls

As a rule of thumb, 10 % of the maximum draught is taken for the keel clearance. Therefore, the
required Nautical Guaranteed Depth (NGD) is equal to the level design water level (see BoD [ref. X])
minus 1.1 times the maximum draught of the design vessel.

To determine the design depth of the berthing area an extra allowance for sedimentation
(maintenance margin) and dredging tolerances needs to be added to the NGD. According to the
handbook Quay Wallss, the maintenance margin is set equal to 0.50 m for unprotected bottoms and
1.0 m for bottoms with scour protection. In addition, the presence of rocks at the bottom is another
reason to adopt a higher margin (similar to the location where scour protection is installed).

This results in the following formula used for determining the Nautical Guaranteed Depth (NGD) of the
berthing area:

NGD = DWL - 1.1 x D

Where: DWL is Design Water Level (see BoD [ref. X]) equal to -0.5 m Wh

DREDGING AND RECLAMATION WORKS – BASIS OF DESIGN

Preliminary Design of West Berth and Expansion of Container Yard at TCP
March 2021. 5
2.1.2 PIANC 2014

The PIANC 2014 [ref.5] is a guideline developed for the design of approach channels (and not for
terminal). Therefore, this method is included for the sake of comparison. According to PIANC 2014,
the recommended design depth of the berthing area is determined by the vessel draught (D), the
design water level and the ship and bottom related factors. This is presented in the figure below.

Figure 2-2. Channel Depth Factors_PIANC 2014

The ship related factors dominate the design depth. These factors (squat, dynamic heel and wave
response allowance, etc) can be estimated separately or can be combined into one factor (Fs),
according to PIANC 2014. The combined factor (Fs) is obtained by multiplying the design draught by a
coefficient and by adding a constant value. The coefficient depends on ship speed and wave
conditions. Near berthing areas, the ship speed is low, the wave conditions are the dominant factor
for the value of this coefficient. A higher wave height will lead to a higher coefficient. The constant
value depends on the sea bottom type.

The combined factor (Fs) is obtained according to table 2.2 of the PIANC 2014 in combination with the
starting points applied for the design.

This results in the following formula used for determining the combined factor (Fs) and thus the
Nominal Bed Level (NBL) of the berthing area:

NBL = DWL - Fs = LAT - 1.1 x D - 0.6

Where: DWL is Design Water Level (see BoD [ref. X]) equal to -0.5 m Wh

Note that, in order to define the average dredging depth of the berthing area, an extra allowance
below the Nominal Bed Level needs to be incorporated in the design. This allowance is the bottom
related factors presented in ¡Error! No se encuentra el origen de la referencia..

DREDGING AND RECLAMATION WORKS – BASIS OF DESIGN

Preliminary Design of West Berth and Expansion of Container Yard at TCP
March 2021. 6
2.2 Calculation results
The table below presents the results of the depth at the berthing area for the design vessel according
to the different design methods:

Table 2-1. Depth levels of the berthing according to different guidelines

1
Design draught Nautical Guaranteed Depth/ Average Dredge Level
Design method
[m] Nominal Bed Level [m Wh] [m Wh]
Handbook Quay Walls 14.0 -15.9 -17.4

PIANC 2014 14.0 -16.5 -18.0

1
Below maintenance margin of 1,0 and scour protection with a thickness of 0.5 m.

The results of the depths at the berthing area according to the different design methods are presented
in the figure below:

Figure 2-3. Results of the depth at the berthing area for the design vessel according to the different
design methods

2.3 Recommended depth results

As mentioned before, PIANC 2014 is a guideline developed for the design of approach channels.
Therefore, the results according to handbook Quay Walls are used for the recommended depth levels
of the berthing area.

On top of the Nautical Guaranteed Depth an extra allowance is required to accommodate dredging
tolerance and sediment buffer to arrive at the average dredge level. Before we calculate the dredge
level it’s important to mention that there are three different dredging levels distinguished in the
berthing area. These different levels relate to:

1 Areas where the bottom after dredging consists of rock.

2 Areas where the bottom after dredging consists of ‘soft’ or erosion sensitive material, but are not
close to the berthing line. Close to the berthing line there will be a bottom protection

3 Areas where a bottom protection needs to be installed, near the berthing line.

DREDGING AND RECLAMATION WORKS – BASIS OF DESIGN

Preliminary Design of West Berth and Expansion of Container Yard at TCP
March 2021. 7
At ‘1’ the 1.0 m allowance is required as indicated in the section called ‘handbook quay Walls’. At ‘2’
only 0.5 m allowance is needed. Since there is space required for a bottom protection and the bottom
protection itself results in a one-meter allowance, the total allowance at ‘3’ is 1.5 m.

The table below presents the recommended average dredge levels of the berthing area for the design
vessel. After discussions with the Client it was agreed to round these levels to the figures presented in
the column “agreed average dredge level”

Table 2-2. Recommended depth levels at the berthing area for the design vessels
Nautical Guaranteed Average dredge level [m Agreed average dredge
Area Allowances [m]
Depth [m Wh] Wh] level [m Wh]
1 -15.9 1.0 -16.9 -17.0

2 -15.9 0.5 -16.4 -16.5

3 -15.9 1.5 -17.4 -17.5

DREDGING AND RECLAMATION WORKS – BASIS OF DESIGN

Preliminary Design of West Berth and Expansion of Container Yard at TCP
March 2021. 8
3 BERTHING AREA DESIGN
This chapter presents a preliminary design of scour protection that is required to protect the bottom
of the berthing area against erosion.

3.1 Design aspects

The design of bottom protection and the extent of this protection are influenced mainly by the
following factors:

- The erosion load caused by the flow generated by ships propellers.

- The susceptibility to erosion of the subsoil: grain shapes and size, composition and bottom
roughness.

According to handbook Quay Walls [ref.7], the width of the protection in front of the quay wall is
determined by the following criteria:

- Area of the propeller jet load, usually extending 0.75 times the ship’s beam from the front of the
quay.

- The width of the passive wedge of the soil in front of the quay wall, which must be covered by the
bottom protection.

3.2 Preliminary design scour protection

The following materials can be used for a bottom protection: riprap on geotextile, pattern-grouted
riprap with colloidal concrete or bitumen, or asphalt mattresses.

Based on the quay wall design and past project experience, a scour protection composed by quarry
stone with a weight of 10–60 kg grouted with asphalt-bitumen or colloidal concrete is recommended.
The grouting of the stones ensures a better protection against erosion and loss of materials. This type
of scour protection has usually a thickness of 0.5 m. In addition, to prevent the bottom material from
being washed out a good filter structure under the scour protection is required. The filter layer usually
consists of sand-tight geotextile. An accepted method is to use fascine mattresses, which consist of
bundles of fascines attached to a strong geotextile. The mattress is sunk onto the bottom as an
extended carpet. In a further design phase it should be investigated if this design solution is locally
available.

For most conditions, the extent of the protection results in a width smaller than the ship’s width
PIANC 2014 (see figure 3.1). The extent of the protection depends on the influence area of the
propellers and thrusters of the design vessels. This influence area is approximately 0.75 times the
ship’s beam from the front of the quay According to handbook Quay Walls. Given the beam of the
design vessel (see Basis of design) the length of the scour protection from the front of the quay should
be at least equal to 44 m. It is recommended to compute the required passive soil wedge in front of
the quay wall, which must be covered by the bottom protection in a later project stage.

Furthermore, it is advised to increase the protection width with an extra 5 m composed by only rock
material with a weight of 10–60 kg. This extra width ensures a smooth transition between the
protected and the unprotected bottom and functions as a falling apron.

DREDGING AND RECLAMATION WORKS – BASIS OF DESIGN

Preliminary Design of West Berth and Expansion of Container Yard at TCP
March 2021. 9
 Figure 3-1. Extent of the scour protection in front of a quay wall PIANC 2014 [ref.6]

The table and the figure below presents the preliminary design of scour protection of the berthing
area:

Table 3-1. Preliminary design of scour protection of the berthing area

Layer Thickness [m] Length [m]

1st 10–60 kg quarry stone grouted 0.5 44

1st 10–60 kg quarry stone 0.5 5

2nd geotextile n.a. 49

Figure 3-2. Preliminary design of scour protection of the berthing area (not to scale)

Slope protection

In case the quay wall structure consists out of a deck on piles with a protected slope below the deck,
it’s important that a smooth transition is created between this slope- and the bottom / scour
protection of the berthing area.

DREDGING AND RECLAMATION WORKS – BASIS OF DESIGN

Preliminary Design of West Berth and Expansion of Container Yard at TCP
March 2021. 10
One of the solutions for a transition between the shallow seabed at the toe of the breakwater near
the new deck on piles berthing structure and the deep berthing area, is a relatively flat slope of
approximately 1:4. This slope at the south-end of the berthing area requires protection. The snap-shot
below shows the location of the slope. The protection is required to make sure this slope stays stable
over a long period of time and is not destabilised/eroded by water, waves and propellor wash.

New terminal area

Slope requiring protection

In section 3.4 a (different) solution is presented for the protection of the southern breakwater.

3.3 Concept dredging design terminal and berthing area

Soft material (SPT <15 blows) is present over the rock material in the new terminal area. A part of the
material is gradually bull-dozered towards the south by granular material that’s being placed from the
land side. Most of the soft material in the (future) terminal area needs to be dredged. Relatively stiff
material (if any) can remain the level to which soft material needs to be dredged is determined by its
properties, the depth and the location. An optimum need to be found in the costs and risks of removal
of soft material and the benefits.

Most of the material in the terminal area, on top of the rock, is very soft silty clay or clayey silt.
Material with a low SPT value (< 5-15 blows) which lies relatively shallow (say 0-8 m below bed level)
should be removed. Removal of deeper layers with very low SPT values can also be removed but this
could become costly and risky. Especially in the southern area towards the breakwater (Escollera
Sarandi) this is relevant since the top of rock is deeper than -30 m Wh at some point. Removing all
material on top of the rock would result in very large dredge volumes but also in risks of instability in
surrounding areas, that will not be dredged.

All material dredged from the terminal area will be disposed in an offshore disposal area at
approximately 30 km distance from the dredging area (see Basis of Design). The disposal area is
determined in cooperation with TCP.

DREDGING AND RECLAMATION WORKS – BASIS OF DESIGN

Preliminary Design of West Berth and Expansion of Container Yard at TCP
March 2021. 11
Not dredging soft subsoil in the terminal area causes a few risks:

1 High levels of residual settlement after the terminal area has been filled with sand.

2 Instability of the reclamation fill and soft subsoil at the location of the slope under the piled deck
(at the deck on piles alternative).

3 Hight pressures of soft subsoil against a closed quay wall due to the load of the reclamation fill. The
soft soil is pushed towards the closed quay wall, resulting in an extra horizontal load.

Additional soil investigation is required to make proper settlement and stability predictions and
resulting phased construction and measures to shorten the residual settlement period. With these
calculations and predictions several design loops need to be made to find the optimum between
removing a layer of soft material with a certain thickness and phased construction of the reclamation
and measures for speedy settlement.

3.3.1 Preliminary designs

Four different preliminary dredging design solutions have been developed based on the two base
solutions for the quay wall design. Starting point is that soft material is dredged from the terminal
area up to the rock layer in case the rock layer is less than 10 m below current seabed level. In case
the rock layer is deeper than 10 m, then a layer of approximately 7 m soft material will be removed,
the deeper layers of soft material remain. Near the quay wall construction (both alternatives) deeper
dredging off soft material is necessary to reduce stability risks.

a) Solution 1: open quay wall and shallow rock

All soft material on top of the rock layer will be removed. In the berthing area the soft material and
rock will be dredged to a level as described in the chapter ‘berthing area design’.

Figure 3-3. Open quay wall and shallow rock

b) Solution 2: open quay wall and rock at great depth

Soft material will be removed to at least a level of -10 m Wh. Soft soil is removed to a maximum level
of -27.5 m Wh near and at the location of the open quay wall structure as shown in the figure below.

DREDGING AND RECLAMATION WORKS – BASIS OF DESIGN

Preliminary Design of West Berth and Expansion of Container Yard at TCP
March 2021. 12
This -27.5 m Wh is continued for another 10 m to accommodate the tow-structure of the armour
protected slope. After that, the level rises to -17.5 m Wh to accommodate the bottom protection
(0.5 m thick).

Figure 3-4. Open quay wall and deep rock

c) Solution 3: closed quay wall and shallow rock

All soft material on top of the rock layer is removed. In the berthing area the soft material and rock
will be dredged to a level as described in the chapter ‘berthing area design’. No bottom protection is
required in the berthing area.

Figure 3-5. Closed quay wall and shallow rock

DREDGING AND RECLAMATION WORKS – BASIS OF DESIGN

Preliminary Design of West Berth and Expansion of Container Yard at TCP
March 2021. 13
d) Solution 4: closed quay wall and rock at great depth

The figure below indicates that soft material will be removed up to -10 m Wh. Soft soil is removed to a
level of approximately -20 m Wh near and at the location of the closed quay wall structure as shown in
the figure below. Replacement of the soft soil with sandy material is required to limit the soil pressure
behind the closed quay wall. This -20 m Wh is continued for another 10 m into the terminal area. The
sandy material on both sides of the closed quay wall also results in better balanced passive forces. Soil
improvement to a lower level at this location might be necessary for that reason. Results of additional
soil investigations should be used to determine optimum level.

Figure 3-6. Closed quay wall and rock at great depth

3.4 Dredging contours

The figure below (3-7) indicates the dredging areas. The extend of the dredging areas towards the
existing Escollera Sarandi, the fill area and the other land boundaries needs careful attention in order
not to cause instable situations. Relatively flat slopes are designed (1:4) around the berthing area to
connect with the non-dredged shallower areas surround the berthing area.

Extra soil investigations need to be carried out at the locations where stability is critical both for
dredging and also for the reclamation works (at the Escollera Sarandi).

The southern breakwater requires attention with respect to stability when dredging or reclaiming in
its vicinity. The construction of a so called cofferdam and retaining wall to minimize impact of the
dredging and reclamation works on the breakwater could be considered. The picture below (3-8)
shows how this could look like. Three main advantages of suchs a combination of structures are:

- possibility to construct the berthing structure and berthing are up to close proximity of the break
water;

- dredging (up to -27m Wh) for soil improvement under a deck of piles structure to enable a steep
(1:2) slope under the deck on piles;

- dredging the berthing area for soil improvement in close proximity of the breakwater;

- increasing the terminal area because of the installation of a retaining wall.

DREDGING AND RECLAMATION WORKS – BASIS OF DESIGN

Preliminary Design of West Berth and Expansion of Container Yard at TCP
March 2021. 14
 Figure 3-7. Areas to be dredged

Figure 3-8. Cofferdam and retaining wall to protect the southern breakwater

DREDGING AND RECLAMATION WORKS – BASIS OF DESIGN

Preliminary Design of West Berth and Expansion of Container Yard at TCP
March 2021. 15
DREDGING AND RECLAMATION WORKS – BASIS OF DESIGN
Preliminary Design of West Berth and Expansion of Container Yard at TCP
March 2021. 16
4 DREDGING QUANTITIES
Based on the dredging design, quantities to be dredged can be calculated. Initial quantities are shown
in the table below. The theoretical volume is the volume up to the exact levels per design. The gross
volume includes allowance for dredging tolerance and measuring in-accuracy. Dredging tolerance is
only required in the berthing area. The design levels in the terminal area are equal to the average
dredge-levels.

Table 4-1. Dredging Quantities

Area Theoretical volume [m3] Gross volume [m3]

removal of soft soil terminal area 1,680,000 1,680,000

removal of rock at berthing area 100,000 110,000

removal of soft soil berthing area 710,000 720,000

total volume to be dredged 2,490,000 2,510,000

Rock material extends outside the berthing area (50m wide) towards the shipping channel. Removal of
this rock and the soft soil on top of it to a level of -17m Wh might be required. Volumes for these extra
volumes are indicated in the table below.

Table 4-2. Dredging Quantities, outside berthing area

Area Theoretical volume [m3] Gross volume [m3]

removal of rock at berthing area 72,000 80,000

removal of soft soil berthing area 210,000 230,000

total volume to be dredged 282,000 310,000

DREDGING AND RECLAMATION WORKS – BASIS OF DESIGN

Preliminary Design of West Berth and Expansion of Container Yard at TCP
March 2021. 17
5 DREDGING METHOD AND DURATION
Not only the design but also a good understanding of the dredging method and duration of the works
prove the feasibility.

Dredging works take place at three different locations: the berthing area, the terminal area and the
offshore sand borrow area. All three locations might require different dredging methods and
equipment, possibly some synergy can be achieved. This will be discussed in this chapter.

5.1 Dredging of the berthing area

The subsoil of the berthing area to be dredged consists of soft material and rock material. The soft
subsoil (clay/silt) is easy to dredge with most types of dredging equipment. Transportation of the
dredged soft material needs to be done by hopper barges since the material is disposed at an offshore
disposal area some 30 km away from the dredging area.

A choice needs to be made between mechanical and hydraulic dredging. Mechanical dredging is by
means of a grab or backhoe dredger and hydraulic dredging happens with a cutter suction dredger or
a trailing suction hopper dredger.

Water is added to the dredged material to pick it up and transport it in case of hydraulic dredging. The
mixture of clay/silt and water is loaded in the hopper. When the hopper is fully loaded with the
mixture it’s ready to sail. The density of dry particles in the hopper is low at that point in time.
Increasing the density in the hopper by releasing surpless/process water from the hopper is not
possible without also releasing silt/clay particles since the latter will not settle in the hopper but stay
in suspension. So, sailing to the disposal area with a low situ-volume of material in the hopper seems
the only option and is very in-efficient The hopper loading process can be more efficient and the use
of for example a TSHD might be an option in case loading of the very soft soil is possible with only
adding a small volume of process water. The situ volume percentage in the hopper might be sufficient
for an efficient process.

However, mechanical dredging seems a more efficient method in this case. This is best done by a
backhoe dredger accompanied with 2 or 3 split hopper barges. See figures below.

DREDGING AND RECLAMATION WORKS – BASIS OF DESIGN

Preliminary Design of West Berth and Expansion of Container Yard at TCP
March 2021. 18
 Figure 5-1. Split Hopper barge and backhoe dredger

5.1.1 Dredging of rock

Rock is present in the subsoil of the berthing areas. Soil

investigations show the presence of Gneiss type of rock with a low
rock quality designation (RQD). Gneiss can be very hard (UCS > 100
MPa) and therefore very difficult to dredge. De light and dark blue
coloured area on the map indicates the area of shallow rock that
needs to be removed. Blasting/fragmenting of the rock is possibly
the best and most proven option. However, modern day heavy duty
rock cutter suction dredgers are a serious alternative in terms of
capability of removing the rock. The low RQD in various layers could
prove a very fractured rock outcrop/layer which is in favour of a
direct dredging option.

Mobilising a heavy duty CSD for this rock dredging is very costly.
Especially because the CSD does not seem to be a feasibly/efficient
way to dredge the soft soil in the berthing area and the terminal
area.

Figures below show a typical blasting pontoon and a Heavy duty

cutter suction dredger.

Figure 5-2. Rock levels in berthing area

DREDGING AND RECLAMATION WORKS – BASIS OF DESIGN

Preliminary Design of West Berth and Expansion of Container Yard at TCP
March 2021. 19

Figure 5-3. Typical rock core recovered

 Figure 5-4. Floating pontoon with drill towers

Figure 5-5. Heavy duty rock CSD

DREDGING AND RECLAMATION WORKS – BASIS OF DESIGN

Preliminary Design of West Berth and Expansion of Container Yard at TCP
March 2021. 20
Drilling and blasting are best carried out in rock that is not too fractured already. Weathered rock
which appears in the top part of the rock layer is removed with the heavy backhoe dredger, operating
with a small bucket, the same backhoe dredger (and hopper barges) that’s used for dredging the soft
soils. The high breaking powers of the backhoe make it possible to remove the weathered and
fractured rock without pre-blasting. This is an advantage of this work method: Before any drilling and
blasting is done, the rock can as much as possible be removed by use of the backhoe only. The rock is
either transported to the offshore disposal area or brought on land for re-use.

5.2 Installation of the bottom protection

A bottom protection is installed in front of the quay wall. The bottom protection consists out of
teotextile maths covered with a 10-60 kg rock grading and is approximately 0.5 m thick. The rock is
penetrated/grouted with (under-water) concrete.

Before the mats are placed the bottom of the berthing area needs to be levelled. The variation of the
bottom levels should be within a range of -5/+5 cm. This requires accurate levelling by means of a
plow or other device. It might be advisable to replace the soft/clayey sub soil (1 m or so) by sand,
depending on the characteristics of the sub soil.

The geotextile mats are installed with a specially prepared large pontoon. After placing the mats, the
rock material is placed directly on top to stabilise it. A grab-crane or backhoe with grab can be used for
this. After installation of the rock, it will be penetrated with concrete to stabilise the rock.

Figure 5-6. Installation of geotextile mats

DREDGING AND RECLAMATION WORKS – BASIS OF DESIGN

Preliminary Design of West Berth and Expansion of Container Yard at TCP
March 2021. 21
5.3 Dredging of the terminal area
The terminal area is dredged with the same equipment as the berthing area. Excavation of the
terminal area requires special attention near existing structures. Three locations can be identified:

- Area near the Escollera Sarandi (southern breakwater).

- Area near the newly reclaimed area.

- Areas near the terminal boundary.

With extra soil investigations it needs to be determined how close to these structures material can be
dredged and what slopes can best be maintained. If it turns out to risky to dredge close to these
structures then it might be an option to improve the sub soil at these locations after reclamation
works have been carried out. The following could be considered:

- Preloading.

- Vertical drains.

- Soil improvement by removing soft soils and replacing with granular material in a controlled
manner after most of the terminal area is already reclaimed

5.4 Reclamation of the terminal area

5.4.1 Reclamation works

Sand will be dredged at Banco Arquimedes (see

picture) for the reclamation of the new terminal area.
This sand borrow area is located 36 km (as the crow
flies) South East of the new terminal area and has
water depths between 8 and 10 m. Sand quality and
ownership of this borrow is verified and prove suitable
and available for reclamation.

5.4.2 Dredging and transportation

Dredging of the sand at Banco Arquimedes is best

being carried with a Trailing suction hopper dredger
(TSHD). The TSHD can dredge the sand at the sand
borrow area. So called ‘over flowing’ is possible with
this type of sand and the vessel can fully loaded sail to
the terminal area. Since the water depths at the sand
borrow is at maximum 10 meter, the TSHD cannot be
too big for this job. The figure below shows a typical
9,000 m3 TSHD that has a maximum loaded draft of

DREDGING AND RECLAMATION WORKS – BASIS OF DESIGN

Preliminary Design of West Berth and Expansion of Container Yard at TCP
March 2021. 22
9 m.

Figure 5-7. 9,000 m3 TSHD

5.4.3 Disposal

Ones the TSHD arrives at the terminal area it will unload its sand. At the first phase of the reclamation
works the sand will be disposed through a floating pipeline that will be connected to the bow of the
TSHD. The sand on board the vessel will be mixed with water once again and pumped via the bow
coupling through a floating pipeline towards a spreader pontoon. The spreader pontoon will ‘spread’
the sand out over the terminal area in a thin layer (0.5 m). It’s important to not exceed the 0.5 m in
order to slowly and evenly increase the load on the soft sub-soil. This slow increase of loading is
particularly important near the existing southern breakwater. Frequent bathymetric surveys should be
carried out to monitor the filling-in-layers process.

The edge of the reclamation fill area is created at the location of the quay wall. With a spreader barge
it is possible to create a temporary sloop in the berthing area (1:5 / 1:6). This is shown in below
picture.

DREDGING AND RECLAMATION WORKS – BASIS OF DESIGN

Preliminary Design of West Berth and Expansion of Container Yard at TCP
March 2021. 23
 Figure 5-8. Temporary slope at the reclamation fill, open quay

This method of reclaiming makes it possible to construct the back row and back construction (L-wall)
of the deck on piles quay wall with so called land equipment, standing on the new reclamation. Before
the rest of the pile can be installed the 1:2 slope under the future deck needs to be trimmed and
protected. Maths and rocks are installed in a similar fashion as the bottom protection. Before placing
the armour rock the piles need to be installed from of a barge/pontoon.

A closed quay wall can be constructed completely with dry equipment with this fill method.

Once the quay wall is constructed the remaining sandy material in the berthing area can be dredged
and disposed in the reclamation area.

After the sand fill works reach a level of approximately 1.5 m below water level with the use of a
spreader barge, filling via land and a land line will start. The level of the reclamation area is further
increased up to such a level that sufficient sand has been brought in to also cover for settlement and
possible soil improvement works near the boundaries of the reclamation area.

Below are some pictures of sand fill works, below and above water.

DREDGING AND RECLAMATION WORKS – BASIS OF DESIGN

Preliminary Design of West Berth and Expansion of Container Yard at TCP
March 2021. 24
 Figure 5-9. Spreader barge, connected to a floating pipeline

Figure 5-10. Bulldozers pushing sand in front of the landline releasing the sand mixture

5.4.4 Quantities, production and duration

The below table shows the required reclamation volume for the terminal area. The gross volume
indicates the estimate volume including allowance for settlement (estimated average 1.5 m). Dredging
volumes area repeated in the table. Volumes of dredging and reclamation are slightly different for the
two alternative quay wall solutions. Since the differences are small (<5%), these are not shown in the
volumes tables.

DREDGING AND RECLAMATION WORKS – BASIS OF DESIGN

Preliminary Design of West Berth and Expansion of Container Yard at TCP
March 2021. 25
Weekly production rates in the different areas are calculated and added in the table. It’s important to
realise that these productions and durations are based on a 24/7 work week and are excluding any
waiting times or phased construction, especially for the reclamation works. The reclamation works are
carried out by two TSHD’s, each of 9,000 m3 capacity.

Table 5-1. Approximate quantities, productions and theoretical duration

Theoretical volume Gross volume Production
Activity Duration [weeks]
[m3] [m3] [m3/week]
removal of soft soil terminal
1,680,000 1,680,000 118,000 14
area
blasting of rock 100,000 110,000 5,000 22

removal of rock at berthing area 100,000 110,000 40,000 3

removal of soft soil berthing
710,000 720,000 118,000 5
area
reclamation works 3,360,000 3,800,000 148 26

Phasing of works

Durations as indicated in the table above are net durations, no time is reserved for phasing or waiting.
Especially for the reclamation works it might be necessary to fill in a few phases in order not to
destabilise subsoil, breakwater or existing shore-line (structures). Soil improvement near the existing
shore line or near the breakwater might require fill material first to be placed in temporary stockpiles
after which it is being used to improve the sub soil conditions with land equipment in a controlled
manner near existing shoreline and existing break water.

DREDGING AND RECLAMATION WORKS – BASIS OF DESIGN

Preliminary Design of West Berth and Expansion of Container Yard at TCP
March 2021. 26
6 RISKS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The following risks are considered most relevant in relation to the dredging and reclamation works.

- Removal of the hard rock material in the terminal area requires specific attention and use of
explosives. Use of explosives near existing structures is a risk for the integrity of these structures.

- The soft sub soil in the terminal area creates a risk for the stability of the quay wall structure. For
the same reason there’s a stability risk when dredging near the existing terminal border, existing
land border/coastline and near the southern breakwater (see also below).

- Leaving soft material in the terminal area will require measures to force the settlement of these
layers and limit residual measurement. The measure that are required take some time and pose a
risk for the planning (see also below).

- Attached to this report is the document named “Dredging and reclamation risks”.

Below are the conclusions on the three risks addressed in this document

It is important to note that the analyses presented in this document are not to be considered as a
proper basis of a design. The purpose of the analyses is to enable the study on feasibility of risk
mitigating measures only. Contractor will be responsible for obtaining and verification of all relevant
starting points, including new information regarding the soil conditions, based on soil surveys which
will be carried out. Based on this information, the Contractor will have to prepare a design. Possibly
the results of this design may result in different conclusions than presented in this report.

Risk 1: Instability of the Sarandí breakwater

Dredging in the proximity of the Sarandí breakwater poses a risk to its stability. Calculations made
based on the available information indicate that a dredging level of -17.5m Wh can only be reached at
a distance of 90m from the centreline of the breakwater (i.e. approximately 80m of its toe) with
negligible impact on the breakwater. As soon as dredging takes place closer to the breakwater, the
stability of the breakwater will be lowered compared to the current situation if no other precautions
are taken. A dredging level of -27.5m Wh, which may be necessary for the soil improvement works,
may only be reached at 130m from the centreline of the breakwater. These distances assume the
bedrock is present at -36m Wh, and may be larger if the bedrock is deeper.

If a deeper bed level is to be reached at a shorter distance to the breakwater, measures need to be
taken. For instance, a large (cofferdam) wall could be built next to the breakwater (port side), reducing
the safe distance between breakwater and berthing pocket.

Risk 2: Instability during quay wall construction

For the construction of the open berth quay wall, a 1:2 sand slope is to be built. Stability with such
steep slope and a soft subsoil is difficult to achieve. Therefore, to enable the slope of 1:2 the following
construction sequence is proposed:

1. Dredge the area of the proposed container yard and quay wall to the desired level (-27.5m
Wh, due to the required soil improvement);

DREDGING AND RECLAMATION WORKS – BASIS OF DESIGN

Preliminary Design of West Berth and Expansion of Container Yard at TCP
March 2021. 27
 2. Carefully fill the area of the container yard and quay wall with sand in layers (spraying
pontoon), compacting and finishing in a gentle slope, up to just above water level. This
process must be well-controlled and monitored. Underwater drains could be installed after
the first few metres of sand;
3. Install prefabricated vertical drains (PVD) as soon as fill height is about 1 m above water level;
4. Continue filling the area of the container yard and quay wall with sand in layers, compacting
and finishing in a 1:4 or gentler slope, up until the container yard level, and possibly above
that if preloading is necessary. This process must be well-controlled and monitored.
5. Once the natural soil has reached enough resistance and is consolidated sufficiently, dredge in
front of the quay wall down to desired dredging level (-17.5m Wh), finishing with the 1:2
slope.

The indicated slopes and depth correspond to a bedrock at -36m Wh; a deeper bedrock may signify
more demanding requirements (gentler slopes, deeper soil improvement).

We believe this is a robust construction sequence, showing the technical solution is feasible. Future
design stages, when more information is available, may lead to optimisations (such as omitting the
underwater drains).

Risk 3: Residual settlement in the container yard area

Calculations indicate that, by using drains and a suitable amount of preload, an acceptable residual
settlement can be achieved within two years, provided the top layers of soft soil are removed. This will
reduce maintenance costs of the container yard substantially. At the location where the bedrock is
present at -36m Wh, dredging down to -17.5m Wh is likely to be sufficient in combination with PVD
and preloading. Where the bedrock is deeper, it is possible that a higher preload and/or more
dredging is necessary, in case the lower layers are formed by soft soil.

It is noteworthy that settlement calculations are mere predictions, and that good monitoring must
take place during construction. Consolidation times may vary.

It’s recommended to carry out additional soil investigations to get a better understanding of the
subsoil and it’s behaviour in the terminal area. This includes investigations to determine whether any
pollutants like chemicals, heavy metals or oil spills are present.

Due care needs to be taken in compiling the tender documents, to address the risks and prepare
requirements that result in proper measures taken by Contractor to mitigate risks and prepare a plan
and work method that matches with the specific challenges of this project. All relevant findings of this
project preparation works should be carefully transferred to the tender documents and the
contractors.

DREDGING AND RECLAMATION WORKS – BASIS OF DESIGN

Preliminary Design of West Berth and Expansion of Container Yard at TCP
March 2021. 28
 APPENDIX 01
Dredging and Reclamation Risks
 Dredging and reclamation risks
PRELIMINARY DESIGN OF WEST BERTH AND EXPANSION OF CONTAINER YARD AT TERMINAL CUENCA
DEL PLATA, MONTEVIDEO-URUGUAY

APRIL 2021

Responsables Responsable de Responsable de

Revisión Fecha Comentarios
elaboración revisión aprobación
0 8/4/2021 JV BJP

2
3
 Índice
1. INTRODUCTION................................................................................1
1.1. PROJECT BACKGROUND...................................................................1
1.2. OBJECTIVE ........................................................................................1
1.3. REFERENCES .....................................................................................2

2. DREDGING AND RECLAMATION RISKS.............................................3

2.1. RISK 1: INSTABILITY OF THE SARANDÍ BREAKWATER ......................3
2.2. RISK 2: INSTABILITY OF THE SLOPE DURING QUAY WALL
CONSTRUCTION ...............................................................................4
2.3. RISK 3: EXCESSIVE RESIDUAL SETTLEMENT AT THE CONTAINER
YARD ................................................................................................4

3. CALCULATIONS ................................................................................5
3.1. STARTING POINTS ............................................................................5
3.1.1. Ground conditions ...................................................................5
3.1.2. Water conditions ......................................................................6
3.1.3. Geometry .................................................................................6
3.1.4. Planning ....................................................................................6
3.1.5. Allowable long-term settlement ..............................................7
3.1.6. Safety .......................................................................................7
3.1.7. Software ...................................................................................7
3.2. D-STABILITY CALCULATION: SARANDÍ BREAKWATER (RISK 1).........9
3.3. D-STABILITY CALCULATION: QUAY WALL SLOPE (RISK 2) ..............11
3.3.1. Step 5: Filling to +4.0m Wh ....................................................12
3.3.2. Step 6: Dredging to obtain 1:2 slope......................................13
3.4. D-SETTLEMENTS CALCULATION: RESIDUAL SETTLEMENT (RISK 3)15

4. CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................17

DREDGING AND RECLAMATION RISKS

Preliminary Design of West Berth and Expansion of Container Yard at TCP
ii April 2021.
1. INTRODUCTION

1.1. PROJECT BACKGROUND

Katoen Natie - Terminal Cuenca del Plata (TCP), through CSI Ingenieros S.A. and its subcontractor
Witteveen+Bos, is developing the preliminary design of an expansion work for its terminal specialized
in container handling, located in the port of Montevideo.

This project comprises the expansion of the container yard and the construction of a 700 m long open
berth (piled deck) to function as a quay wall, between the existing terminal and the Escollera Sarandí.
This is illustrated in Figure 1-1.

Figure 1-1 – Current situation (left) and planned expansion (right).

1.2. OBJECTIVE

This document starts by describing the most significant risks carried by the dredging works (chapter 2).
It then explains the calculations which were carried out to quantify these risks and investigate possible
mitigation measures (chapter 3). Finally, it draws conclusions and proposes the way forward (chapter
4).

Important: this document is based on limited available site information. Its starting points and
conclusions will need to be updated once a project-specific site investigation takes place.

DREDGING AND RECLAMATION RISKS

Preliminary Design of West Berth and Expansion of Container Yard at TCP
April 2021. 1
1.3. REFERENCES

 “Rehabilitación de las Escolleras Sarandí y Oeste”, Geoproyectos, December 2003.

 “Muelle Oeste TCP”, Geoproyectos, August 2014.
 “Verificación de la estabilidad de la Escollera Sarandí”, Geoproyectos, September 2014.
 “Terminal Cuenca de la Plata (Katoen Natie): Diseño Preliminar del Muelle Oeste. Estudio
Geológico-Geotécnico del Área Marina Adyacente”, CSI Ingenieros, March 2021.
 “Estudio con sísmica de reflexión y magnetómetro en el puerto de Montevideo (Uruguay),
Esgemar S.A., May 2012.

DREDGING AND RECLAMATION RISKS

Preliminary Design of West Berth and Expansion of Container Yard at TCP
2 April 2021.
2. DREDGING AND RECLAMATION RISKS
Based on the current available information, there are three significant risks carried by the dredging
and reclamation works:

1. Instability of the Sarandí breakwater, due to nearby dredging works related to the
construction of the quay wall and berthing pocket;
2. Instability of the reclamation during the construction works since thick sand layers need to be
positioned on the existing soft subsoil. Especially the slope to be constructed as part of the
quay wall can be considered to be a critical location;
3. Excessive residual settlement of the container yard caused by slow and high amount of
settlements of the soft subsoil layers not removed by the dredging works.

These risks are detailed in this chapter.

2.1. RISK 1: INSTABILITY OF THE SARANDÍ BREAKWATER

The west end of the Sarandí Breakwater was built on top of a soil improvement (substitution of clay
by sand and gravel). The below figure shows that soil improvement has been carried out down to -
12m Wh. Given the bedrock level at approximately -36 m Wh, this means that a soft layer of
considerable thickness is to be expected underneath the soil improvement of the breakwater.

Dredging in the vicinity of the Sarandí breakwater will pose a risk to it in terms of significant
displacement and possibly instability, eventually leading to damage and loss of functionality of the
breakwater.

Figure 2-1 – Sarandí Breakwater.

DREDGING AND RECLAMATION RISKS

Preliminary Design of West Berth and Expansion of Container Yard at TCP
April 2021. 3
2.2. RISK 2: INSTABILITY OF THE SLOPE DURING QUAY WALL CONSTRUCTION

Under the piled deck, a slope needs to be constructed. Currently a steep slope of 1:2 is foreseen to
limit the required deck size, as shown in the drawing below. However, the combination of a steep
sand slope on top of soft subsoil layers may lead to slope instability.

Figure 2-2 – Proposed quay wall.

2.3. RISK 3: EXCESSIVE RESIDUAL SETTLEMENT AT THE CONTAINER YARD

At the container yard area, bedrock may be present below -36m Wh, above which mostly soft soil
layers are encountered. Complete removal of these soft layers by dredging is not desirable given the
large volumes and the risk of instability of surrounding areas (such as the breakwater). Therefore no or
only partial removal of the soft soil layers seems to be the most likely outcome, leaving at least several
meters of soft compressible soil below the reclamation. If no measures are taken this carries the risk
of significant residual settlements during the lifetime of the container yard, leading to high operational
costs.

DREDGING AND RECLAMATION RISKS

Preliminary Design of West Berth and Expansion of Container Yard at TCP
4 April 2021.
3. CALCULATIONS
Based on the risks identified in chapter 2, several calculations were made to investigate the risk and
identify possible remediating measures. In this chapter, the performed calculations are described.

3.1. STARTING POINTS

3.1.1. Ground conditions

The project area shows a large variability in the thickness of the soft soil layers on top of the bedrock.
The bedrock level at the location of the proposed quay wall in the area varies between -8m Wh and
deeper than -36m Wh. Close to the Sarandí breakwater, the bedrock is at its deepest at -36 m Wh or
lower. Figure 3-1 shows the top of bedrock level in the area, obtained by seismic profiling (see
references).

Figure 3-1 – Bedrock depth (in m Wh).

Sarandí breakwater

There is limited available site investigation at this area. The closest boreholes to the area with the
deepest bedrock level (and thus the thickest layer of soft soils) are indicated in Figure 3-2 (see also the
references). The numbers between brackets show the year of execution of these boreholes.

DREDGING AND RECLAMATION RISKS

Preliminary Design of West Berth and Expansion of Container Yard at TCP
April 2021. 5
 Figure 3-2 – Available site investigation.

It is unknown whether these boreholes represent the subsoil conditions of the entire area well, given
the large variability encountered. Furthermore, the top layers of the boreholes carried out next to the
breakwater are expected to vary substantially at each location. The construction of the breakwater
included soil substitution, and it is likely that during installation the fill mixed with the original soil,
making the conditions potentially very heterogeneous.

For the calculations, borehole P6 was selected because it was the closest one to the critical area. Table
3-1 shows the soil layers and its parameters. These parameters are based on the soil descriptions, in-
situ tests (SPTs and vane tests) and laboratory tests (classification, density and triaxials) made for this
borehole. When necessary, this information was complemented by tests made in nearby boreholes,
and estimations based on engineering judgement.

Parameters are also provided for the non-natural materials in Table 3-2.

3.1.2. Water conditions

A water and groundwater level of 0m Wh is used in the calculations, with hydrostatic porewater
pressures.

3.1.3. Geometry

The geometry of the breakwater used in the stability calculations was based on Figure 2-1. The
required dredging level for vessel navigation and berthing was assumed to be -17.5m Wh.

Other relevant geometric details (such as slope gradient) are presented together with the calculations
in the following sections.

3.1.4. Planning

The reclamation works were assumed to last 2 years for the calculation of settlements.

DREDGING AND RECLAMATION RISKS

Preliminary Design of West Berth and Expansion of Container Yard at TCP
6 April 2021.
 3.1.5. Allowable long-term settlement

It was assumed that a long-term settlement (between end of construction and 50 years after) of 10cm
is acceptable. This is an estimation only, no requirements are specified yet.

3.1.6. Safety

The performed calculations were carried out for the purpose of risk assessment only. They are not
design calculations, and no (partial) safety factors were used.

3.1.7. Software

The stability calculations were performed using D-Geo Stability version 17.1, an analytical
macro-stability software, with Bishop failure circles.

The settlement calculations were performed with analytical software D-Settlements version 20.1.

DREDGING AND RECLAMATION RISKS

Preliminary Design of West Berth and Expansion of Container Yard at TCP
April 2021. 7
 Table 3-1: Soil conditions and derived parameters (P6)
Layer Classification Material Top Average Density Undrained Angle of Compression Reloading/ Coefficient of Secondary Vertical
Description elevation NSPT Shear Strength Internal Friction Ratio Swelling Ratio Compression permeability
(uncorrected) γsat Cu φ CR RR Cα
[m Wh] [-] [kN/m3] [kPa] [º] [-] [-] [-] [m/s]
1 CH Very soft clay -4.1 0 14 5 - 0.3067 0.1022 0.0153 10-9
-4
2 SP/SM Medium dense slightly silty sand -8.2 18 20 - 30 0.0051 0.0017 0 10

3 CH Very soft clay -13.0 1 14 20 - 0.3286 0.1095 0.0131 10-9

4 CL/ML Soft sandy clay -18.0 3 17 25 - 0.1533 0.0511 0.0061 10-8

5 SM Very loose silty sand -20.6 4 18 - 22.5 0.1150 0.038 0.0046 10-8
-9
6 ML Soft sandy silt -25.5 3 14 25 - 0.3286 0.1095 0.0131 10

7 CH Soft clay -26.8 4 14 30 - 0.3286 0.1095 0.0131 10-9

8 CL Sandy clay -32.9 5 15 35 - 0.2300 0.0767 0.0092 10-8

Bedrock (model lower boundary) -36.0

Table 3-2: Soil conditions and parameters (non-natural soils)

Material description Density γunsat / γsat [kN/m3] Angle of Internal Friction φ [º]

Fill (compacted sand) 18/20 32,5

Gravel / breakwater blocks 18/20 40

Concrete 25/25 45

DREDGING AND RECLAMATION RISKS

Preliminary Design of West Berth and Expansion of Container Yard at TCP
8 April 2021.
3.2. D-STABILITY CALCULATION: SARANDÍ BREAKWATER (RISK 1)

The first stability calculation performed has the goal of determining the conditions for which the
stability of the Sarandí breakwater becomes negatively influenced in terms of stability (maximum
allowable dredging level and proximity to the breakwater).

A caption of the model is shown in Figure 3-3.

Figure 3-3 – Model Breakwater Stability.

The failure circle for the current conditions is presented in Figure 3-4. The calculated factor of safety
shall be used for comparison purposes only given the uncertain soil conditions under and next to the
breakwater (see section 3.1.1). The actual factor of safety is unknown and difficult to assess, therefore
it is assumed that the current structure is on the edge of failure and any decrease in stability
(reduction of safety factor) needs to be prevented.

Figure 3-4 – Breakwater Stability: benchmark failure mode: current conditions.

DREDGING AND RECLAMATION RISKS

Preliminary Design of West Berth and Expansion of Container Yard at TCP
April 2021. 9
After the benchmark calculation, the effect of dredging was studied. It was assumed dredging works
are carried out under a 1:4 slope, starting approximately 35m from the centreline of the breakwater
and ending (at dredging level) 90m from the centreline of the breakwater. Note: the toe of the
breakwater is assumed to be 12m from its centreline. This geometry, together with the critical failure
circle, is shown in Figure 3-5. This situation resulted in a safety factor (SF) being equal to the reference
situation, which means that no negative impact is expected. As soon as the distance was taken smaller
than 90 m, the safety factor reduced, indicating a negative impact on the stability of the existing
breakwater. Therefore it can be concluded that a safe distance of 90 m needs to be taken into account
between crest of the breakwater and start of berthing pocket if no other measures are taken.

Figure 3-5 – Breakwater Stability: failure due to dredging works (-17.5m Wh).

90m

-17.5m Wh

For a dredging level of -27.5m Wh, which may be necessary to carry out a local soil improvement (see
section 3.3), the same 1:4 slope, also starting at approximately 35m from the centreline of the
breakwater, does not have a negative impact on the stability of the breakwater. Following the same
dredging slope and distances, the dredging level of -27.5 m Wh is only reached 130m from the
centreline of the breakwater, see Figure 3-6.

DREDGING AND RECLAMATION RISKS

Preliminary Design of West Berth and Expansion of Container Yard at TCP
10 April 2021.
 Figure 3-6 – Breakwater Stability: failure due to dredging works (-27.5m Wh).

130m

-27.5m Wh

If the berthing pocket is to be positioned closer to the breakwater (i.e. making use of a larger
extension of the quay wall), extra measures need to be taken to ensure the stability of the
breakwater, such as installation of sheetpiles or a cofferdam to protect the stability of the breakwater.

3.3. D-STABILITY CALCULATION: QUAY WALL SLOPE (RISK 2)

The second stability calculation aims at determining safe conditions for the quay wall construction
sequence.

The following construction sequence is assumed:

1. Dredge the area of the proposed container yard and quay wall to the desired level (-27.5m
Wh, due to the required soil improvement);
2. Carefully fill the area of the container yard and quay wall with sand in layers (spraying
pontoon), compacting and finishing in a gentle slope, up to just above water level. This
process must be well-controlled and monitored. Underwater drains could be installed after
the first few metres of sand;
3. Install prefabricated vertical drains (PVD) as soon as fill height is about 1 m above water level;
4. Continue filling the area of the container yard and quay wall with sand in layers, compacting
and finishing in a 1:4 or gentler slope, up until the container yard level, and possibly above
that if preloading is necessary. This process must be well-controlled and monitored.
5. Once the natural soil has reached enough resistance and is consolidated sufficiently, dredge in
front of the quay wall down to desired dredging level (-17.5m Wh), finishing with the 1:2
slope.

DREDGING AND RECLAMATION RISKS

Preliminary Design of West Berth and Expansion of Container Yard at TCP
April 2021. 11
Stability calculations were carried out for steps 5 and 6. Steps 1 and 2 are not critical for the feasibility
and therefore are not analysed. Since the soft soil is in step 5 conservatively modelled as not having
experienced any consolidation, this step is more critical than steps 3 and 4, which were therefore not
modelled.

For step 6, the increase in undrained shear strength (Cu) on the soft layers due to the additional
weight of the fill, combined with the consolidation due to the drains, was taken into account. This
increase is presented in Table 3-3.

Table 3-3: Soil conditions and derived parameters (P6) - increase in Cu.

Layer Classification Material Description Top Elevation [m Wh] Undrained Shear Strength Cu [kPa]

Initial (Step 1) Final (Step 6)

Also for Step 5
4 CL/ML Soft sandy clay -18.0 25 35

6 ML Soft sandy silt -25.5 25 35

7 CH Soft clay -26.8 30 40

8 CL Sandy clay -32.9 35 50

3.3.1. Step 5: Filling to +4.0m Wh

Step 5 concerns the moment when the container yard has been raised to +4m Wh, but the benefit of
consolidation has not yet been (fully) experienced by the soft layers. The model was set up taking the
soil improvement down to -27.5m Wh into account, as well as a 5m wide 15kPa load at the top of the
slope. The positive effects of settlement and strengthening of the soft layers have not been taken into
account; on the other hand, the negative effect of a potential preload to accelerate consolidation has
not been taken into account either. The calculation shows that a 1:4 slope leads to a stable situation,
with a failure mode as shown in Figure 3-7 (safety factor >1.3). Therefore, a temporary slope of 1:4 or
gentler is considered to be feasible.

DREDGING AND RECLAMATION RISKS

Preliminary Design of West Berth and Expansion of Container Yard at TCP
12 April 2021.
 Figure 3-7 – Stability during construction: step 5.

3.3.2. Step 6: Dredging to obtain 1:2 slope

Once the subsoil has gained enough strength by consolidation (accelerated by PVD and possibly
preloading), the fill can be dredged to achieve the final 1:2 slope protected by slope protection. The
slope needs to be cut in stages and each stage protected immediately after dredging, since a 1:2
underwater slope consisting of (compacted) sand is not considered to be stable for a long period. The
strength used for the soil in these calculations assumes strength increase due to consolidation, as
presented in Table 3-3.

If no soil improvement was to take place, the slope after dredging would become unstable, therefore
a slope of 1:2 is not feasible without soil improvement (SF<1,0). This situation is presented in Figure
3-8.

DREDGING AND RECLAMATION RISKS

Preliminary Design of West Berth and Expansion of Container Yard at TCP
April 2021. 13
 Figure 3-8 – Instability during construction: step 6 - no soil improvement (SF<1.0).

For a soil improvement down to -27.5m Wh, the factor of safety is the same as for a full soil
improvement (down to bedrock at -36m Wh). This situation is presented in Figure 3-9. This is why a
soil improvement down to -27.5m Wh (or deeper) is considered necessary and was modelled in the
previous steps.

Figure 3-9 – Stability during construction: step 6 - soil improvement down to -27.5m Wh.

DREDGING AND RECLAMATION RISKS

Preliminary Design of West Berth and Expansion of Container Yard at TCP
14 April 2021.
3.4. D-SETTLEMENTS CALCULATION: RESIDUAL SETTLEMENT (RISK 3)

The settlement calculation is set up to model the expected settlements in time to assess the need for
settlement-acceleration measures. Excessive residual settlement may lead to damages in the
container yard, and therefore to high maintenance costs and downtime of the yard due to frequent
repair works.

For the purposes of this calculation, construction is assumed to take two years. The residual
settlement is the settlement which occurs between end of construction and end of the design lifetime
of the container yard (50 years). Spacing and depth of PVD can be varied, in this study a triangular grid
at 1.5m centre-to-centre distance, and tip level of -35m Wh were assumed.

Firstly, the situation without any soil improvement was analysed. The existing subsoil was maintained
at -4.1 m Wh, and the container yard was filled with sand up to +4.0m Wh, without any settlement-
controlling measures being taken. As expected, this leads to very significant (residual) settlement, as
shown in Table 3-4.

Secondly, the situation with soil improvement down to -17.5m Wh was analysed. In this case, only the
natural soil under -17.5m Wh was maintained, and above that level all the way up to +4.0m Wh is
filled with sand. Using the drains and a preload during the construction period of two years leads to a
residual settlement of 10cm.

Lastly, the situation with soil improvement down to -27.5m Wh was analysed. In this case, only the
natural soil under -27.5m Wh was maintained, and above that level all the way up to +4.0m Wh is
filled with sand. Using the drains and a preload during the construction period of two years leads to a
residual settlement of 10cm.

Note: the added preload was just sufficient to achieve the 10cm of residual settlement in each case.
This means more preload was used in the -17.5m Wh case (approximately two additional metres of
sand) than in the -27.5m Wh case (approximately one additional metre of sand).

This information is summarised in Table 3-4. Figure 3-10 presents the evolution of the settlement with
time for each of the analysed situations.

Table 3-4: Indicative settlement calculation results.

Calculation Settlement after Settlement after Residual Settlement

2 years [m] 50 years [m] [m]

No soil improvement 1.13 4.05 2.92

Soil improvement to -17.5m Wh 1.40 2.01 0.61
Soil improvement to -17.5m Wh + drains 1.81 2.06 0.25
Soil improvement to -17.5m Wh + drains + preload 1.99 2.08 0.10
Soil improvement to -27.5m Wh 1.02 1.22 0.20
Soil improvement to -27.5m Wh + drains 1.08 1.22 0.14
Soil improvement to -27.5m Wh + drains + preload 1.12 1.22 0.10

DREDGING AND RECLAMATION RISKS

Preliminary Design of West Berth and Expansion of Container Yard at TCP
April 2021. 15
 Figure 3-10 – Indicative development of settlements in time.
Time [logaritmic scale]
Settlement

No substitution Dredging level -17.5

Dredging level -17.5 + drains Dredging level -17.5 + drains + preload

Dredging level -27.5 Dredging level -27.5 + drains

Dredging level -27.5 + drains + preload 2 years: end of construction

DREDGING AND RECLAMATION RISKS

Preliminary Design of West Berth and Expansion of Container Yard at TCP
16 April 2021.
4. CONCLUSIONS
The conclusions regarding each of the three main risks associated with dredging and reclamation are
presented below. It is important to note that the analyses presented in this document are not to be
considered as a proper basis of a design. The purpose of the analyses is to enable the study on
feasibility of risk mitigating measures only. Contractor will be responsible for obtaining and
verification of all relevant starting points, including new information regarding the soil conditions,
based on soil surveys which will be carried out. Based on this information, the Contractor will have to
prepare a design. Possibly the results of this design may result in different conclusions than presented
in this report.

Risk 1: Instability of the Sarandí breakwater

Dredging in the proximity of the Sarandí breakwater poses a risk to its stability. Calculations made
based on the available information indicate that a dredging level of -17.5m Wh can only be reached at
a distance of 90m from the centreline of the breakwater (i.e. approximately 80m of its toe) with
negligible impact on the breakwater. As soon as dredging takes place closer to the breakwater, the
stability of the breakwater will be lowered compared to the current situation if no other precautions
are taken. A dredging level of -27.5m Wh, which may be necessary for the soil improvement works,
may only be reached at 130m from the centreline of the breakwater. These distances assume the
bedrock is present at -36m Wh, and may be larger if the bedrock is deeper.

If a deeper bed level is to be reached at a shorter distance to the breakwater, measures need to be
taken. For instance, a large (cofferdam) wall could be built next to the breakwater (port side), reducing
the safe distance between breakwater and berthing pocket.

Risk 2: Instability during quay wall construction

For the construction of the open berth quay wall, a 1:2 sand slope is to be built. Stability with such
steep slope and a soft subsoil is difficult to achieve. Therefore, to enable the slope of 1:2 the following
construction sequence is proposed:

1. Dredge the area of the proposed container yard and quay wall to the desired level (-27.5m
Wh, due to the required soil improvement);
2. Carefully fill the area of the container yard and quay wall with sand in layers (spraying
pontoon), compacting and finishing in a gentle slope, up to just above water level. This
process must be well-controlled and monitored. Underwater drains could be installed after
the first few metres of sand;
3. Install prefabricated vertical drains (PVD) as soon as fill height is about 1 m above water level;
4. Continue filling the area of the container yard and quay wall with sand in layers, compacting
and finishing in a 1:4 or gentler slope, up until the container yard level, and possibly above
that if preloading is necessary. This process must be well-controlled and monitored.
5. Once the natural soil has reached enough resistance and is consolidated sufficiently, dredge in
front of the quay wall down to desired dredging level (-17.5m Wh), finishing with the 1:2
slope.

The indicated slopes and depth correspond to a bedrock at -36m Wh; a deeper bedrock may signify
more demanding requirements (gentler slopes, deeper soil improvement).

DREDGING AND RECLAMATION RISKS

Preliminary Design of West Berth and Expansion of Container Yard at TCP
April 2021. 17
We believe this is a robust construction sequence, showing the technical solution is feasible. Future
design stages, when more information is available, may lead to optimisations (such as omitting the
underwater drains).

Risk 3: Residual settlement in the container yard area

Calculations indicate that, by using drains and a suitable amount of preload, an acceptable residual
settlement can be achieved within two years, provided the top layers of soft soil are removed. This will
reduce maintenance costs of the container yard substantially. At the location where the bedrock is
present at -36m Wh, dredging down to -17.5m Wh is likely to be sufficient in combination with PVD
and preloading. Where the bedrock is deeper, it is possible that a higher preload and/or more
dredging is necessary, in case the lower layers are formed by soft soil.

It is noteworthy that settlement calculations are mere predictions, and that good monitoring must
take place during construction. Consolidation times may vary.

DREDGING AND RECLAMATION RISKS

Preliminary Design of West Berth and Expansion of Container Yard at TCP
18 April 2021.