Expansion of Middle Eastern Port Overcomes Difficult Ground Conditions

Bill Paparis, P.E., Simon Yaron, P.E., Zion Matalon, P.E.,

Dan Halber, P.E., Geoffrey Leff, P.E.

Abstract
The current phase of the Haifa Port expansion project, designated Carmel Port Phase A,
includes construction of 2,000 m of quays, two roll-on/roll-off ramps, reclamation of
approximately 270,000 sq m of land, and the addition of a container terminal. The project also
includes dredging to accommodate the largest Post-Panamax container ships and modern high
capacity general and bulk cargo vessels. Future staged development will ultimately increase the
capacity of Haifa Port to 20 million tons of cargo annually. It is anticipated that the expanded
Port will serve as a distribution point for goods not only for Israel, but for the entire Middle East.
The design needed to overcome a number of challenges, including difficult ground
conditions. Some of the specific issues which were addressed include the following:
Potentially large settlements of the site due to underlying clay layers
Moderate level of earthquake accelerations, and associated potential for liquefaction of
hydraulic fill
Potential difficulty in driving piles through cemented sandstones
Difficulty in obtaining adequate quantities of suitable sand from dredging for reclamation
Removal of unsuitable, potentially contaminated material from the seabed of the reclamation
area
In order to address the above issues during the design, comprehensive geotechnical
investigations were carried out to obtain sufficient data to develop the most cost effective design.
In addition, several alternatives for the quay design were evaluated, taking into account
operational considerations, technical merit, constructability, and both capital and maintenance
cost. The structural alternatives included both open and closed quay alternatives. Specifically,
high level platforms, low level relieving platforms, sheet pile bulkheads, double sheet pile walls,
gravity walls, and concrete caissons were evaluated. The most cost effective design solution was
then selected, taking into account all of the above issues.
Author Biographical and Contract Information
Bill Paparis, Han-Padron Associates, LLP, 22 Cortlandt Street, NY, NY 10007, (212) 608-3990, (212) 566-5059 (fax),
bpaparis@han-padron.com
Simon Yaron, Yaron-Shimoni-Shacham Consulting Engineers, Ltd., 38 Hamasgar Street, P.O. Box 57047, Tel Aviv, Israel, 972-
3-537-4844, 972-3-537-4065 (fax) yaron@yss.co.il
Zion Matalon, Yaron-Shimoni-Shacham Consulting Engineers, Ltd., 38 Hamasgar Street, P.O. Box 57047, Tel Aviv, Israel,
+972-3-537-4844, +972-3-537-4065 (fax) zion@yss.co.il
Dan Halber, Israel Ports Authority, Head, Ports Development Project Administration, P.O. Box 20121 Tel Aviv, Israel, +972-3-
565-7023, +972-3-565-0482 (fax) danh@israports.org.il
Geoffrey Leff, Israel Ports Authority, Ports Development Project Administration, Carmel Port Project Manager, P.O. Box 20121
Tel Aviv, Israel, +972-3-565-7900, +972-3-565-7071 (fax) jeffl@israports.org.il

1
Introduction
The Carmel Port - Phase A project, which is being carried out for the Israel Ports Authority
(IPA), involves the expansion of the Port of Haifa by constructing 2,000 m of quays to
accommodate container, bulk cargo, general cargo, and miscellaneous general vessels, and a ca.
270,000 sq m container terminal. The new quays are designed to accommodate the largest Post-
Panamax container ships and modern high capacity general and bulk cargo vessels. Haifa is the
only port in northern Israel, and one of the two main ports in the country, and its development to
keep pace with increased vessel traffic is critical not only to the local economy but to positioning
it as a distribution point for goods throughout the Middle East. Photo 1 illustrates an overall
view of the existing Haifa Port.
Fig. 1 is an overall project site plan. The project includes the following major components:
Construction of Quay 2 (container quay), with a length of approximately 700 m, which will
supplement the existing container berth adjacent to Quay 1.
Construction of Quay 3A (general and bulk cargo quay), with a length of approximately
250 m.
Construction of a Retaining Structure, with a length of approximately 1,000 m, which serves
as a boundary for the east side of the reclamation area.
Dredging in the entrance channel and turning basin, in an approach channel, along Quay 2,
and outside the existing breakwater, with a total estimated volume of approximately
2,700,000 cu m (see Fig. 1).
Reclamation with the dredged sand, stockpiled sand, and sand from quarries of the area
bounded by Quay 2, Quay 3A, and the Retaining Structure. The total estimated volume of
in-place fill, after compaction and settlement, is 3,100,000 cu m.
Compaction of the fill and some of the underlying dune sand using vibrocompaction and/or
vibroflotation with stone columns.
Dredging and disposal into the sea of unsuitable dredged material (approx. 700,000 cu m).
Construction of two (2) Ro Ro Platforms.
Construction of steel sheet piling inshore of one of the Ro Ro Platforms and the adjacent
rubble mound seawall, and removal and reconstruction of a stone dike and seawall within
this area.
Construction of the pavement, rubber tire gantry (RTG) runways, and utilities, including
water, sewer, storm drainage, electrical, and communications infrastructure; and construction
of two electrical substations and an electrical switching station, utility protection structures
(UPSs), reefer platforms, and two operations buildings.
The difficult ground conditions at the site, which included compressible soils, a shortage of sand
suitable for reclamation, potentially difficult pile driving due to the presence of cemented
sandstone layers, and the potential for moderate levels of seismic shaking, posed the greatest
challenges to the design team. This paper describes how each of these issues was addressed
during the design stage.

Geotechnical Conditions
The generalized soil profile, which has been established on the basis of an extensive site
investigation program and construction specifications for backfill soils, includes a surface layer
of 5 to 15 m of hydraulically placed sandy fill. It is assumed that the uncompacted fill will have

2
a relative density of approximately 30 to 45 percent, while compacted fill will have a minimum
relative density of 70 percent, in accordance with the construction specifications. The water
table is approximately at elevation 0.0 m. The native soils underlying the fill consist of 10 to
12.5 m of variable dune sand, with standard penetration resistance ranging from 13 to greater
than 50 blows/30 cm. The sand is underlain by approximately 5 m of overconsolidated lagoonal
clay, exhibiting pre-construction undrained shear strengths of between 30 kPa and 130 kPa. This
upper lagoonal clay is underlain by alternating layers of cemented sands, and stiff clays, to an
elevation of approximately 200 m, at which point very stiff sandy clay was encountered.

Dredging
Soils to be Dredged
The following soil types are to be dredged:
M1 (marine silt and clay): This soft sediment was recorded as being 1.5 m thick in certain
areas of the site (towards the nearshore end of the reclamation area), being very soft to soft in
nature (undrained shear strength of 5 kPa to 35 kPa), and locally containing sand layers. In
other areas of the site, relatively thin (<0.2 m ) silt layers were recorded. The total estimated
volume of this material is 135,000 cu m.
D1 (dune sand and littoral sand): This is a medium dense to dense, fine to medium grained
sand, locally silty. The geotechnical investigation identified a variation of fines content (<63
m) within this layer. It was found that in the areas protected by the main breakwater, the
average silt content in the near seabed layers was in general higher than in areas not protected
by the main breakwater.
Reclamation Volumes
The volume of fill required for the project is approximately 3,100,000 cu m. This includes an
additional volume to account for 0.25 m of settlement throughout the reclamation area, due to the
presence of clay layers underneath the reclamation material, an additional 6% volume of
reclamation material to account for compaction (and consequent reduction in volume), and an
additional 4% volume to account for the loss of fines.
Dredging Volumes
The dredging areas are shown on Fig. 1, and they are described below:
Area II is the harbor basin adjacent to Quay 2. This area requires dredging to Elevation
14.0 m Israeli Land Survey Datum (ILSD). It has previously been maintained by
maintenance dredging. Analysis of the data from the geotechnical investigation shows an
increased fines content near the seabed. It is most likely that this was caused by overflow
and re-sedimentation resulting from the maintenance dredging, and siltation. For this reason,
the dredged materials from this area are considered to be largely unsuitable for reclamation.
The materials in Areas V and VI, while much smaller in volume, are similarly considered to
be unsuitable for reclamation.
Area IV is the entrance channel to the Kishon Basin. This area has also been maintained by
dredging, causing the same problems with the fines as previously discussed for Area II.
However, due to the relocation of the approach channel in a northeasternly direction, part of
the dredging will be performed in the northeast bank, which has not previously been dredged.

3
 Boreholes indicate a reasonably low fines content in this part of the area. For this reason,
some of the dredged materials from Area IV are considered to be suitable for reclamation.
Area III is the turning circle and entrance channel to Haifa Port. The percent fines in this
area is low, and the material to be dredged is sand. Thus the dredged materials from this area
are considered to be suitable for reclamation.
On the basis of the above, preliminary dredging volumes were calculated and are as follows:
Dredging Area II, V and VI 450,000 (cu m)
Dredging Area IV 380,000 (cu m)
Dredging Area III 50,000 (cu m)
Considering the volumes of suitable reclamation materials resulting from the dredging operations
in the indicated areas, the following can be summarized:
Areas II, V, and VI: Only 60,000 cu m of suitable reclamation material will result from the
dredging in these areas.
Area IV: Only an assumed 50% of the dredged material from this area (190,000 cu m) can be
considered as suitable for reclamation.
Area III: This area has a low silt content (2-4%). The total volume of suitable reclamation
material resulting from this area is estimated to be 50,000 cu m.
All other dredged materials are to be loaded in barges and dumped at sea. In total, some 300,000
cu m of material suitable for reclamation can be collected in the specified dredging areas. Thus,
some 2,800,000 cu m of suitable reclamation material is required from other sources.
Borrow Area (Area I)
Over the years, sand has accumulated outside the existing main breakwater. The eastern outline
of the proposed borrow area outside the existing main breakwater is shown on Fig. 1. In general,
the borrow area consists of brownish gray silty fine sand with scattered shell fragments, having a
D50 of 210220 m. The sand contains 10% to 20% silt. After discussions and agreement with
the Israeli Ministry of the Environment (MOE), it was agreed that 2,400,000 cu m of this
accumulated sand could be used to make up for some of the balance of the reclamation materials
required.
Stockpile, Quarries and Other Sources
The remaining shortfall in reclamation volumes will be obtained from the following sources:
Stockpile: 250,000 cu m of dredged sand from the nearby Eastern Kishon Quay will be
made available by the IPA.
Quarries: As stipulated by the permits for the project, up to 150,000 cu m of material can be
obtained from quarries.
Other Sources: The remaining reclamation volume will be made up with fill from other
sources within 100 km of the Site.

Seismic Evaluation
A seismic response study was carried out to determine the seismic response of the soils during
Level 1, operating level earthquakes (OLE), and Level 2, contingency level earthquakes (CLE).
Analyses were performed at three different locations, each at the site of a relatively deep

4
borehole that was logged during the geotechnical investigation. The specific locations were in
the vicinity of Quay 2 and the Ro-Ro Platforms, in the vicinity of Quay 3A, and in the vicinity of
the Retaining Structure. Consequently, the analyses performed provide coverage for all the
structures included within the project. The results of these analyses are described in Port
Terminal Design in a Region of Moderate Seismicity: Engineering and Economic
Considerations, by McCullough et al, as it is a temporary structure.
Three design earthquake levels were used in the analyses:
1.) Level 1 (OLE), 50% probability of exceedance in 50 yrs: magnitude 5.0, peak ground
acceleration (PGA) 0.08 g,
2.) Level 2 (CLE), 10% probability of exceedance in 50 yrs: magnitude 6.0, PGA 0.20 g, and
3.) Retaining Structure CLE, 10% probability of exceedance in 20 yrs: magnitude 5.5, PGA 0.10
g. This reduced level of shaking accounts for the potentially temporary nature (20 year
design life) of the Retaining Structure.
A summary of the seismic response analyses is also presented in Port Terminal Design in a
Region of Moderate Seismicity: Engineering and Economic Considerations, by McCullough et
al.
Based on the results of the seismic study, peak ground surface accelerations of 0.11 g and 0.23 g
were used for the OLE and CLE motions, respectively, while 0.14 g was used for the Retaining
Structure CLE motion.

Analyses and Design of Quay Walls, Crane Supports, and Pavement

Quay Walls
Several alternatives were evaluated for the various quays and Retaining Structure. These
included:
high level pile supported platform
relieving platform
anchored sheet pile wall
double sheet pile wall
gravity wall
concrete caissons
The results of the evaluations indicated that the anchored sheet pile wall was the most cost
effective alternative. Detailed static and seismic analyses were performed to determine structural
element sizes for the selected alternative. The seismic analyses were performed using the results
of the seismic response study previously described, and the computer program FLAC, and they
were carried out with and without incorporating the effects of the crane supports. The analyses
considered the alternatives of vibro-compacting none, all, or only some of the fill. The results of
these analyses are presented in Port Terminal Design in a Region of Moderate Seismicity:
Engineering and Economic Considerations, by McCullough et al. One of the key conclusions
of these analyses was that it is necessary to vibro-compact the hydraulic fill between the sheet
pile walls and behind the anchor wall, to prevent liquefaction during the CLE.
Fig. 3 shows a typical cross section at Quay 2, the container quay.

5
 Pile Drivability
Due to the concern about whether the king piles of the main sheet pile wall could penetrate the
upper kurkar (K2) layer, sheet pile driving tests were carried out at two locations during the
design stage, and these tests indicated that driving the king piles to thee required design depths is
feasible.
Crane Supports
A settlement evaluation was conducted to determine the anticipated settlements across the site,
and thereby assess the most cost effective length of the crane rail support piles. Figs. 4 and 5
show some of the results of the settlement evaluation. By analyzing the crane beams and piles
for the anticipated differential settlements caused by the placement of the hydraulic fill, based on
the results of the settlement evaluation, it was determined that the piles supporting the crane
beams could be founded in the upper kurkar (K2) layer. Thus the pile lengths were limited to
approximately 25 m. This design is anticipated to provide adequate support for the crane loads,
and in addition, result in differential settlements within acceptable limits, i.e., the crane beams
would not be overstressed, and rail tolerances would not be exceeded.
Pavement
Based on the results of the geotechnical investigations and subsequent test results, the pavement
was designed based on a California Bearing Ratio (CBR) of 10. The design incorporated
concrete blocks in the container stacks and asphalt concrete for the roadways. The rubber tire
gantry (RTG) runways are to be of reinforced concrete design. The results of the settlement
evaluation were also used in the design of the runways. In addition, the Specifications require
that the runways be cast no sooner than twelve (12) months following reclamation to insure that
excessive differential settlements do not result in operating problems for the RTGs.
Conclusions
The Carmel Port Phase A project presented a number of challenges to the designers,
particularly with respect to the difficult ground conditions at the site. However, by performing
carefully planned investigations during the design stage, the client and the designers were able to
accommodate the effects of the difficult ground conditions on the project in a manner so as to
minimize the construction cost. Furthermore, by carrying out sheet pile driving tests during the
design stage, a large potential risk was eliminated. By minimizing cost and potential risks during
construction, the potential for future operational problems during the service life of the facility is
also minimized.

6
Photo 1. Overall View of Existing Haifa Port

7
Figure 1. Overall Site Plan

8
 Figure 2. Geologic Profile

Figure 3. Typical Quay Section

9
 1400

1300

1200

1100

1000
Northing (m)

900

800

700

600

500

400
500 600 700 800 900 1000
Easting (m)

Figure 4. Settlements During Design Life (Years 1-60)

10
 1400

1300

1200

1100

1000
Northing (m)

900

800

700

600

500

400
500 600 700 800 900 1000
Easting (m)

Figure 5. Settlements Below Upper Lagoonal Clay During Design Life (Years 1-60)

11