13372.102.R7.Rev1_CPMT_RTA_DDR.pdf

CAVEN POINT MARINE TERMINAL

HYBRID VESSEL SHORE POWER SYSTEM

Jersey City, New Jersey

RTA Submission

JANUARY 2025

CAVEN POINT MARINE TERMINAL (CPMT), NEW JERSEY

JANUARY 2025 i RTA Hybrid Vessel Shore Power System

DOCUMENT REVISION HISTORY

Revision Description Issued by Date Checked

00 RTA Submission Baird 29 April, 2024 MW

01 RTA Submission Baird 06 January, 2025 MW

Produced by:

W.F. Baird & Associates Ltd

60 Broad Street, 24th Floor, Suite 2429

New York, NY USA 10004

JANUARY 2025 ii RTA Hybrid Vessel Shore Power System

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Document Revision History ............................................................................................................ i

List of Figures ............................................................................................................................... v

List of Tables ................................................................................................................................ vi

1. Syllabus

2. Project Description

2.1. Background

2.2. Overall Project Plan

3. Pertinent Data

3.1. Observations from the Site Visit

3.2. Dynamic Mooring Analysis

3.2.1. Results and Recommendations

3.3. Geotechnical Investigation and Report

3.3.1. Available Geotechnical Information

3.3.2. Site Subsurface Conditions & Summary of Geotechnical Design

Recommendations

3.4. GFECI product data and drawings

3.5. As-built / survey data

4. Engineering Studies, Investigations and Design

4.1. General Design Criteria for the Mooring Structure

4.1.1. Design Service Life

4.1.2. Design Codes and Standards

4.1.3. Design Loads

4.1.4. Load Combinations

4.1.5. Materials

4.2. Mooring Dolphins

4.2.1. Structural Layout

4.2.2. Design Criteria

4.2.3. Analysis Model & Design Assumptions

4.2.4. Analysis Results & Structural Design

4.3. Fender System

4.3.1. System Description

4.3.2. Design Criteria

4.3.3. Analysis & Results

4.4. Gangway

4.5. Ladders

JANUARY 2025 iii RTA Hybrid Vessel Shore Power System

4.6. Rub Rails

4.7. Structural Design of Cable Crane

4.7.1. Design References

4.7.2. Materials

4.7.3. Structural Layout

4.7.4. Design Criteria

4.7.5. Design Loads

4.7.6. Analysis Results and Structural Design

4.8. Electrical Design

4.8.1. Design References

4.8.2. Primary Supply

4.8.3. Electrical Characteristics

4.8.4. Transformers

4.8.5. Conductors

4.8.6. Electrical Calculations

5. Construction Staging and Phasing Plan

5.1. Staging and Material Storage

5.2. Scheduling and Phasing

6. Fire Protection

7. Operations and Maintenance Considerations for Electrical equipment

8. Opinion of Probable Construction Cost

9. Life Cycle Cost Analysis

9.1.1. Mooring Hardware Lifespan

9.1.2. Shore Power Charging System Lifespan

10. Permitting requirements

11. Review Documentation

11.1. Project Delivery Team

12. Reference Documents

JANUARY 2025 iv RTA Hybrid Vessel Shore Power System

APPENDIX A SITE OBSERVATION REPORT

APPENDIX B MOORING DOLPHIN AND FENDER CALCULATIONS

APPENDIX C OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST

APPENDIX D LIFE CYCLE COST ANALYSIS

D1 - MOORING, FENDER AND GANGWAY

D2 - SHOREPOWER

APPENDIX E CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE

APPENDIX F CORRESPONDENCE ON PERMITTING

APPENDIX G GEOTECHNICAL REPORT

APPENDIX H LIST OF GOVERNMENT FURNISHED EQUIPMENT CONTRACTOR

INSTALLED (GFECI)

APPENDIX I LONG LEAD TIME ITEMS

JANUARY 2025 v RTA Hybrid Vessel Shore Power System

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Satellite View of 460 Feet of Wharf at CPMT

Figure 2: Superseded, Initially-proposed Mooring Plan of the Driftmaster II, as of 4-28-21

Figure 3: Rose plots showing (a) wave height and (b) wind speed

Figure 4: Plan view and typical section of the new fender system

Figure 5: Mooring layout for the 100% engineering layout

Figure 6: Fender system load deflection curve

Figure 7: Maximum line load vs wind speed - MBL = 75 kN (16,900 lbs)

Figure 8: Maximum fender load vs wind speed - MBL = 75 kN (16,900 lbs)

Figure 9: Maximum line load vs wind speed - MBL = 110 kN (24,700 lbs)

Figure 10: Maximum fender load vs wind speed - MBL = 110 kN (24,700 lbs)

Figure 11: Boring Location Plan (Source: AECOM, 2023)

Figure 12: Mooring Force Angles

Figure 13: 3-D SAP2000 Model

Figure 14: Geotechnical Recommendations

Figure 15: Database Report Model

Figure 16: Power Flow Analysis Model

Figure 17: Short Circuit Analysis Model

Figure 18: Existing Handhole on Site

JANUARY 2025 vi RTA Hybrid Vessel Shore Power System

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Existing Mooring Hardware on Existing Concrete Edge Beam

Table 2: Vessel Particulars Considered for the Preliminary Mooring Analysis

Table 3: Environmental conditions considered in the Mooring Analysis

Table 4: Maximum line loads for wind speed = 64 kn – MBL = 16,900 lbs

Table 5: Maximum line loads for wind speed = 64 kn – MBL = 24,700 lbs

Table 6: Unit Weights

Table 7: Mooring Force Cases

Table 8: Load Combinations (UFC 4-152-01-17)

Table 9: Load Combinations (UFC 4-152-01-17)

Table 10: Pile Strength Design Checks

Table 11: Pile-to-Pile Cap Connection Design

Table 12: Pile Cap – Flexural Strength

Table 13: Ladder Design

Table 14: Rub Rail Design

Table 15: Rub Rail Anchor Connection Design

Table 16: Assumed Dimensions

Table 17: Dead Load Forces

Table 18: Wind Load Forces

Table 19: Seismic Forces

Table 20: Pile Forces

Table 21: Pile Cap Forces

Table 22: Concrete Design - Pile Cap Flexible Strengths

Table 23: Load Summary Schedule

JANUARY 2025 1 RTA Hybrid Vessel Shore Power System

1. SYLLABUS

This document RTA Submission: Hybrid Vessel Shore Power System should be read in conjunction with the RTA plans (CADD drawings) and specifications.

This RTA design submission document provides a record of the technical basis for plans and specifications and serves as a summary of the design work associated with the Caven Point

Marine Terminal (CPMT) Hybrid Vessel Shore Power System.

This document includes the project description, pertinent data, and a summary of the engineering studies, investigations and designs performed for the mooring structure and fender system. Additionally, this report includes information such as the opinion of probable construction cost, life cycle cost analysis, construction schedule and high-level review of permitting requirements.

JANUARY 2025 2 RTA Hybrid Vessel Shore Power System

2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2.1. Background

A new vessel, the Drift master II, is planned to be docked at the Caven Point Marine Terminal, located in Jersey City, New Jersey (Figure 1). In preparation for this, the Baird team was awarded task order number W912DS22D0016 of contract number W912DS23F0041. The

Task Order originally involves preparing two (2) separate Design-Bid-Build contract documents for the construction of the (1) Hybrid Vessel shore power connections and (2) mooring hardware for the DCV Driftmaster II. The charging cables and shoreside cable crane will be purchased as government furnished equipment (GFE) by Operations Division. These components will be incorporated into the design as Government Furnished Equipment, Contractor Installed (GFECI). As part of Mod 2, from the 90% submission and onward, the

AE team has been combining the previously independent (per the original SOW) submissions at the request of USACE. The drawings and specifications have been collated for the 90% submittal, but the Design Analysis Report was independent. In the 100% submission and onward, the two previously independent reports have also been combined.

Figure 1: Satellite View of 460 Feet of Wharf at CPMT

JANUARY 2025 3 RTA Hybrid Vessel Shore Power System

Mooring Structure

The original contract included the design upgrade and/or new mooring hardware for the

Driftmaster II. To support of design of the independent mooring foundations, geotechnical

Investigation were done to collect soil borings to determine soil stratigraphy and design parameters necessary for sizing the bollard foundation support.

As part of this project, it is important to protect the charging system (cable crane and shore power) from impacts. A fender system for the new vessel will provide some physical protection to the charging system against vessel impact from the water side.

Cable Crane

A GFECI cable crane must be installed adjacent to the bulkhead to allow for shore power cable handling between landside and vessel. The cable crane will be installed on an independent, micro-pile supported foundation with an adjacent shore power connection box

GFE). Caution: The deep foundations must be located between existing bulkhead tiebacks.

Housekeeping pads (shallow foundations rather than pile-supported) must be provided for the remaining electrical equipment installed as part of the shore power system. This equipment consists of service entrance switchboard and distribution panel, and shore power connection box. These housekeeping pads must extend a minimum of 3’-0” below grade to account of the Newark, NJ frost line. Utility transformer pad design will be per “PSE&G

Information and Requirements for Electrical Service” document.

Electrical

A new utility service will be established as part of the vessel charging system. A new primary feed and utility pad mount transformer will be installed on the north side of the asphalt parking lot. Existing conduit will be utilized between the existing utility pad mounted switch and new shore power service pad mounted transformer. Service entrance conductors will be installed underground between the new shore power service pad mounted transformer and the shore power service entrance switchboard. Underground feeders from the service switchboard to site loads/equipment include:

Shore power connection box located adjacent to the cable crane.

JANUARY 2025 4 RTA Hybrid Vessel Shore Power System

Distribution panelboard mounted on the south corner of the boathouse building.

The distribution panelboard will be utilized for vessel hoteling power, cable crane power and auxiliary power with the shore power connection box. The Distribution Panelboard will also contain provisions for future EV charging stations within the Boat House. Circuits between the corner of the Boat House and shore power connection box location will require new underground conduit and wire via trenching.

At the direction of the Government (Authority Having Jurisdiction) during the project kick-off meeting, elevated equipment pads (over 6” above finished grade), waterproofing, and/or equipment platforms to elevate electrical equipment above the Design Flood Elevation (per

ASCE 24) are not required as the shore power infrastructure is not considered critical.

Vessel Shore Power Requirements

Per bi-weekly project call on October 17, 2023, the following information was provided by

Ockerman (refer to "10.17.23 USACE Caven Point Shore Power Meeting.pdf” meeting minutes) regarding Driftmaster II shore power requirements.

• Ungrounded shore power service is not required for the Driftmaster II.

▪ On-shore 480V isolation transformer is not required. Driftmaster has an on-board

480V isolation transformer to provide ungrounded power to vessel power system.

▪ 480V grounded power will be provided at the shore connection box for both vessel battery charging and hoteling power.

• Shore power connection box shall have a motor operated breaker(s) for remote shore power energizing.

• Undervoltage protection shall be provided at shore power connection box.

• Auxiliary contacts shall be provided at shore power connection box for external connections.

• Key lock (open position) shall be provided at shore power connection box.

• Shore power (shore side) system have the following protection:

▪ Phase imbalance

▪ Reverse power

▪ Undervoltage

2.2. Overall Project Plan

The major components of the project are as follows:

JANUARY 2025 5 RTA Hybrid Vessel Shore Power System

Civil:

1. Design foundations for Hybrid Vessel Charging System systems.

2. Support Electrical design for routing of new conduits.

Electrical:

1. Coordinate electrical service supply with UP PSE&G.

2. Review and incorporate 30% electrical design provided by USACE produced by electrical engineer Rudy Kahlil.

3. Design Service Entrance Equipment for the Shore Power System.

4. Design electrical distribution to the Hybrid Vessel Shore Power System. The design will be tailored to the GFECI Shore Power Unit, Cable Crane, and shore power cable provided by Operations Division.

Structural:

1. Mooring Analysis

2. Mooring Hardware Design

3. Fender System Design

Government Furnished Equipment Review:

1. Review of Government furnished equipment vendor submittals. The submittal review will assist the Government in identifying equipment characteristics, features, and options, prior to equipment fabrication, which may not meet the Government developed equipment specifications. The equipment review will also serve as an opportunity for early design coordination between the equipment and landside (site) design integration.

JANUARY 2025 6 RTA Hybrid Vessel Shore Power System

3. PERTINENT DATA

This section provides a summary of essential data for the Caven Point Marine Terminal.

3.1. Observations from the Site Visit

A site visit was conducted on April 25, 2023 after the kick-off meeting that day. The purpose of the visit was to assess the existing mooring hardware and structural elements along a 460-foot-long section of the bulkhead and observe the electrical utilities related to shore power for charging and supplying hotel power to a future hybrid vessel. For further details on the site visit, please refer to Appendix A.

During the site visit, a tour of the site was carried out to observe mooring hardware and structural elements of the bulkhead. Visual assessments, supplemented by photographic documentation, were performed to capture the current condition of the mooring structure.

The measurements included the bollards and cleats mounted on the concrete edge beam/pile cap, with measurements based on the existing intersection between asphalt and concrete pavement. The wharf was also observed from the water aboard the 62-foot catamaran

USACE Survey Vessel Moritz. An underwater ROV was also used to examine the face of the

Bulkhead near the center of the future Driftmaster II berth.

There are 10 existing bollards or cleats mounted atop the existing concrete pile cap/ bulkhead edge beam. In the photographs (See Appendix A), the mooring hardware is marked in chalk from “A” to “J” from the southeast to the northwest, that is, from left to right as viewed from the shore looking toward the inlet. Items B through J were also marked with chalk to show the distance, on centers, to the previous bollard or cleat.

The future berth for the 148-foot Driftmaster II will be between Bollards C and G. Bollard C is the rightmost (farthest to the southeast) bollard in Figure 2 below.

New mooring furnishings and fender system are depicted in the CADD drawing set.

Fundamentally, the aim is for bollard allowable working load capacities to exceed the specified minimum breaking strength (MBS)/ minimum breaking load (MBL) of the associated mooring lines. The goal is for mooring lines to part rather than causing the failure of a mooring point on the wharf.

JANUARY 2025 7 RTA Hybrid Vessel Shore Power System

With storm moorings, some bollards may be shared by four lines. The design team anticipates that the net loading on the largest bollard may be the MBS of two 1 ½” poly dac lines (about 28 tons total), so a 44-ton bollard on a new foundation should suffice.

As agreed by USACE NAN, including CPMT staff, the mooring design case should be TYPE

IIB (64 knots). More conservative cases would be difficult to justify and could result in an expensive and usual mooring system design. (Refer to UFC for “Type” definitions.)

Figure 2: Superseded, Initially-proposed Mooring Plan of the Driftmaster II, as of 4-28-21

Over 200 site photos were provided as separate files on Baird’s ShareFile website. The link and more details are provided in Appendix A.

There are four types of existing mooring hardware, labelled A through J, as follows:

Table 1: Existing Mooring Hardware on Existing Concrete Edge Beam

Item Manufacturer Bolts Nuts Number & Location

Bollard J.C. MacElroy, NY, NY

8 Flush with base plate 3 locations (C, F, G)

Bollard Unknown 8 (Hex) Nuts abv. base plate 1 location (H)

Bollard Unknown 6 Nuts abv. base plate (incl. hex & square nuts, suggesting A307 anchor rods

2 locations (A, J)

Cleat Unknown 6 Flush with base plate 4 locations (B, D, E, I)

JANUARY 2025 8 RTA Hybrid Vessel Shore Power System

3.2. Dynamic Mooring Analysis

The design team performed a dynamic mooring analysis including refinements as the design evolved and as Contract Modification 1 (Mod. 1) expanded the scope to include fender system design. This section of the report outlines important considerations such as vessel characteristics, environmental conditions, mooring layout, and findings from the analysis.

Pertinent information and analysis results are included. Mooring force calculations assume the use of 1 ½" poly dac lines.

The vessel particulars for the design vessel (Driftmaster II) are presented in Table 2. Note that U.S. customary units are “hard” values; nominal, equivalent, rounded metric units are included and used with the design software.

Table 2: Vessel Particulars Considered for the Preliminary Mooring Analysis

Metric U.S. Customary

Length Over All 45.1 m 148.0 ft

Length Between Perpendiculars 45.1 m 148.0 ft

Beam 11.9 m 39.0 ft

Depth 4.7 m 15.5 ft

Loading Condition Modeled Lightship

Draft Midship Modeled 2.3 m 7.7 ft

Trim Modeled 0.50 m 1.6 ft

Center of Gravity above Keel 2.1 m 6.9 ft

Displacement 527 mt 581 st

Windage Area Side 236 m2 2540 ft2

Windage Area Front 84 m2 904 ft2

To evaluate the environmental conditions near the project site, wind data from the Newark airport and wave data from NACCS numerical model were considered. Higher wind speeds are observed from the north and west directions, which is consistent with the wave direction in the 90° to 180° Figure 3. The environmental conditions and assumptions input into the mooring analysis are provided in Table 3.

JANUARY 2025 9 RTA Hybrid Vessel Shore Power System

(a) (b)

Figure 3: Rose plots showing (a) wave height and (b) wind speed

Table 3: Environmental conditions considered in the Mooring Analysis

Wind – 30” gust Waves

Comments

Direction Speed Direction Hs nautical deg m/s nautical deg m

N - ENE 20 - 43 - - No waves from these directions

E SE 0.12 1 year return period with 𝐾𝑑 = 0.15

ESE SE 0.42 1 year return period with 𝐾𝑑 = 0.5

SE - SSE SE-SSE 0.83 1 year return period

S - WNW - - No waves from these directions

The mooring analysis includes six (6) new 44 SWL bollards and a new fender system. The new fender system is composed of 20 cone fenders, each connected to the existing concrete edge beam, and to new steel pipe guide piles to the water side. Foam-filled composite

(HDPE) camels are used in front of the piles to provide a wearing surface with the vessel hull.

Figure 4 shows a plan view and an elevation of this system. Figure 5 shows the mooring layout considered in the dynamic mooring analysis.

JANUARY 2025 10 RTA Hybrid Vessel Shore Power System

Figure 4: Plan view and typical section of the new fender system

JANUARY 2025 11 RTA Hybrid Vessel Shore Power System

Figure 5: Mooring layout for the 100% engineering layout

Maximum fender reaction is 101 kN, load deflection curve is showed below in Figure 6 considering the cone fender and the cantilever pile acting in parallel.

Figure 6: Fender system load deflection curve

JANUARY 2025 12 RTA Hybrid Vessel Shore Power System

3.2.1. Results and Recommendations

Indicative results for the mooring analysis are presented below considering maximum breaking loads (MBL) of 75 kN (16,900 lbs) and 110 kN (24,700 lbs). Results are presented as mooring line loads and fender reactions for different wind speeds and directions. Wind coming from E to SSE also include the effect of waves as per Table 4 and Table 5.

Figure 7: Maximum line load vs wind speed - MBL = 75 kN (16,900 lbs)

JANUARY 2025 13 RTA Hybrid Vessel Shore Power System

Figure 8: Maximum fender load vs wind speed - MBL = 75 kN (16,900 lbs)

Table 4: Maximum line loads for wind speed = 64 kn – MBL = 16,900 lbs

JANUARY 2025 14 RTA Hybrid Vessel Shore Power System

Figure 9: Maximum line load vs wind speed - MBL = 110 kN (24,700 lbs)

Figure 10: Maximum fender load vs wind speed - MBL = 110 kN (24,700 lbs)

JANUARY 2025 15 RTA Hybrid Vessel Shore Power System

Table 5: Maximum line loads for wind speed = 64 kn – MBL = 24,700 lbs

For the case with MBL = 75 kN (16,900 lbs), the mooring lines exceed 50% MBL at 72 kn (37 m/s). Cone fenders do not reach their maximum reaction. Sway amplitude of 1.0 m is not exceeded.

As for the case with MBL = 110 kN (24,700 lbs), the mooring lines do not exceed 50% MBL.

Cone fenders do not reach their maximum reaction. Sway amplitude of 1.0 m is not exceeded.

In summary:

• Mooring layout with 75 kN MBL, doubled lines can handle wind and waves requirements from UFC 4-159-03 without exceeding 50% of MBL.

• Mooring layout with 110 kN MBL, doubled lines can handle wind and waves exceeding requirements from UFC 4-159-03 without exceeding 50% of MBL.

JANUARY 2025 16 RTA Hybrid Vessel Shore Power System

3.3. Geotechnical Investigation and Report

3.3.1. Available Geotechnical Information

Draft interpretive geotechnical design properties have been developed and are included within Appendix G.

Three new boreholes were taken at the site, near to the existing concrete cap beam, within the region of the new wharf improvements, as indicated in Figure 11. The third borehole, Boring 03, was added after collection of the first two boreholes, due to the need to add a new mooring point to allow for the relocation of vessels needed to accommodate the new (larger) vessel.

Figure 11: Boring Location Plan (Source: AECOM, 2023)

3.3.2. Site Subsurface Conditions & Summary of Geotechnical Design

Recommendations

Generalized subsurface conditions are provided within the geotechnical report. It is found that there is approximately 120 to 130 feet of surficial soils above bedrock, extending from the surface of the asphalt deck. Extending down from the asphalt, the surficial soils include a layer of fill, organic marsh deposits, a sand layer, followed by silty clay and then glacial till

JANUARY 2025 17 RTA Hybrid Vessel Shore Power System above bedrock. Waterside of the wharf it is assumed that the fill layer is not present and proceeds in a similar manner to bedrock from the organic marsh deposit layer.

Micropiles with rock anchors and drilled shafts are recommended options for deep foundations. Micropiles have been adopted and incorporated into the design of the mooring dolphins.

Bedrock encountered within Borehole 3, which is located near to Mooring Dolphin 7 (MD7), included a weaker seam than that encountered within Borings 1 and 2. The geotechnical engineering properties used for sizing the rock socket bond length remain unchanged. This was decided because lowering the design bond strength (between grout and bedrock) globally for all anchors would inappropriately distort the design of all rock anchors, yielding a less efficient design; rather, to account for the potential for encountering weaker rock seams, the design assumes that, if a weaker seam of bedrock is encountered, then the rock anchor shall be extended into competent bedrock. This aligns with the micropile specifications, which include field verification testing for pile capacity.

The site investigation results in a Site Class F designation and is considered susceptible to liquefaction under seismic events. A calculation to determine the maximum base shear due to seismic loads demonstrates that the mooring line force governs the design by a significant margin (near 100% greater than the maximum seismic force); therefore, by inspection, seismic forces will not govern the design of the batter-pile-founded mooring dolphins or cable crane foundation.

3.4. GFECI product data and drawings

The following documentation has been received and reviewed:

• EATON Switchboard Quote (November 8, 2023)

• Wabtec Cable Crane Design Loads (June 3, 2024)

• Wabtec Cable Crane Engineering Submission (August 2, 2024)

• Ockerman Preliminary Shore Power System Submission (July 26, 2024)

• Ockerman Rev 0 Shore Power System Submission (October 10, 2024)

• Ockerman Rev 1 Shore Power System Submission (October 23, 2024)

Note: Still awaiting GFE information for cable crane.

JANUARY 2025 18 RTA Hybrid Vessel Shore Power System

3.5. As-built / survey data

As-built / survey data in .dwg format was not available and therefore, the AE team created a background for use from a PDF version of the utility as-built survey. All measurements and dimensions shown must be confirmed in field as the AE team cannot confirm complete accuracy of scale from the provided PDF as-built survey. Scope for new site survey was not included in the government issued SAES.

JANUARY 2025 19 RTA Hybrid Vessel Shore Power System

4. ENGINEERING STUDIES, INVESTIGATIONS AND

DESIGN

This chapter includes the design criteria, design codes and standards, investigation results, and key technical data that inform the design of the project features. Additional calculations and associated information have been included in the Appendices of this report.

4.1. General Design Criteria for the Mooring Structure

This design criteria addresses the design of the structural components of the mooring structure at Caven Point Marine Terminal.

4.1.1. Design Service Life

The mooring structure and associated project features are being designed with an anticipated

50-year design service life in mind. Service life assumes that a regular inspection and maintenance program will be implemented to monitor and repair damage and deterioration due to normal wear of structures and equipment.

For facility components and mechanical equipment which cannot reasonably be designed for a 50-year service life, the design shall allow for component replacement. The items currently assumed to require replacement at times during the 50-year design life include: rubber cone fenders, fender camels, fender camel chains, and connection hardware.

It is anticipated that routine maintenance of above water coatings is performed. No repairs to structural steel within the submerged or splash zone are anticipated to be included within the design – these elements will be assumed to have a coating service life of 15 years, followed by sacrificial steel to achieve a 50-year design life.

Depending on direction provided by USACE, various candidate marine concrete mixes for reinforced concrete (mainly in the seven mooring dolphins), with water to cementitious ratio no greater than 0.38 and uncoated rebar, are anticipated to result in the following reinforced concrete lifespans:

a. 50% slag: 52 years (needing maintenance after 46 years) (Not recommended by the

AE team)

b. 25% fly ash and 25% slag: 70 years (only o.k. if the Corps agrees)

JANUARY 2025 20 RTA Hybrid Vessel Shore Power System

c. 50% slag + 3 gal./yd3 of Ca Nitrite corrosion inhibitor: 100+ years

d. 25% fly ash, 25% slag + 2.5 gal./yd3 of Ca Nitrite corrosion inhibitor: 100+ years

4.1.2. Design Codes and Standards

The codes, standards and guidelines that shall be used to develop the design are based on the latest version of the following codes, standards and guidelines, and regulations:

ACI 318-19 American Concrete Institute, Building Code Requirements for Structural

Concrete.

ACI 301-16, Specifications for Structural Concrete.

ACI 315R-18, Guide to Presenting Reinforced Steel Design Details.

ACI 347R-14 (ERRATA 1 2017), Guide to Formwork for Concrete.

ACI 350-06 American Concrete Institute, Environmental Engineering Concrete

Structures.

ACI 543R-12 American Concrete Institute, Guide to Design, Manufacture and Installation of Concrete Piles

AISC 303-16, Code of Standard Practice for Steel Building and Bridges.

AISC, American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc., Manual of Steel Construction, 15th

Edition.

AISC 360-16, Specification for Structural Steel Buildings.

ASCE 7-16 American Society of Civil Engineers. Minimum Design Loads for Building and Other Structures, 2016.

ASCE MOP 130, American Society of Civil Engineers, Waterfront Facilities Inspection and Assessment

ASTM, American Society for Testing and Materials.

AWS D1,1/D1.1ML2020, Structural Welding Code – Steel.

AWS D1.6/D1.6M:2017, Structural Welding Code – Stainless Steel.

IBC 2021, International Building Code, 2021.

RCSC – Specifications for Structural Joints Using High-Strength Bolts, 2014.

ANSI Z49.1, Safety in Welding and Cutting.

PTI 35.1-14, Post-Tensioning Institute, Recommendations for Prestressed Rock and Soil

Anchors.

UFC 4-152-01-17, United Facilities Criteria (UFC) – Design: Piers and Wharves

USACE EM 1110-2-2906, Design of Pile Foundations.

JANUARY 2025 21 RTA Hybrid Vessel Shore Power System

USACE EM 1110-2-3400 - Painting: New Construction and Maintenance

USACE EM 385-1-1 US Army Corps of Engineers Safety and Health Requirements

USACE EM 1110-2-1150, Engineering and Design for Concrete for Civil Works Projects, August 1999.

USACE NANP-1110-1-1 New York District Design Submission Requirements Manual

UFC 3-301-01 2023, Structural Engineering, With Change 1.

PIANC WG 33, Guidelines for Design of Fender Systems

4.1.3. Design Loads

4.1.3.1. Dead Loads (D)

Dead loads shall include self-weight of all permanent components, including bollards, piles and concrete pile cap. Applicable unit weights are presented in Table 6.

Table 6: Unit Weights

Item Weight [pcf]

Water (fresh) 62.4

Reinforced Concrete (normal weight) 150

Structural Steel 490

4.1.3.2. Seismic Loads (S)

The inertial force on the pile cap structure is calculated as shown in the hand calculations below. The seismic force is evaluated using the equivalent lateral force (ELF) procedure in

ASCE 7-16. Since the calculated base shear is less than the mooring loads it will not govern the design and is not considered in the load combinations and SAP 2000 model. The seismic load calculations are shown in Appendix B.

4.1.3.3. Mooring Loads (M)

Mooring hardware, such as bitts and bollards, is sized such that the rated capacity is greater than or equal to the maximum mooring line force. Foundations and connections are designed for the rated capacity of the mooring hardware and taking into account the range of applicable mooring line angles the hardware can accommodate.

The table and figures below summarize the mooring line angles used for this assessment.

The angles, α and β, are defined in the figures.

JANUARY 2025 22 RTA Hybrid Vessel Shore Power System

Table 7: Mooring Force Cases

Case 01 02 03 04 05 06 α (deg) 0 45 0 45 0 45 β (deg) 0 0 60 60 90 90

F1 (kip) 0 0 83.4 59 96.3 68.1

F2 (kip) -96.3 -68.1 -48.2 -34.1 0 0

F3 (kip) 0 68.1 0 68.1 0 68.1

Figure 12: Mooring Force Angles

4.1.3.4. Berthing Loads (Be)

As agreed by USACE NAN, including CPMT staff, the marine terminal is “sheltered”, without currents, not “moderate”. Vessel control will generally be excellent. Berthing velocity will be assumed 0.5 feet per second (not knots). The abnormal berthing factor FA will be set equal to 1.5 (such that the abnormal berthing energy is 50% higher). This implies an abnormal berthing velocity about 22% higher than in the usual case.

Berthing energy is determined according to PIANC WG 33 using the following vessel characteristics. The approach velocity was selected according to UFC 4-152-01-17 for small vessels under sheltered conditions.

• Approach Velocity: 0.5 ft/sec

• Approach angle: 10 degrees

• Abnormal Berthing Factor: 1.5

• Length Overall: 148 ft

• Draft: 9.0 ft

• Displacement: 614 LT

JANUARY 2025 23 RTA Hybrid Vessel Shore Power System

4.1.4. Load Combinations

• LRFD load combinations are based in Table 8 of UFC 4-152-01-17 (see below).

• ASD load combinations for stability and pile design are based on Table 9 of UFC 4-152-

01-17 (see below).

• Load combination numbering utilize the same numbering as is used in UFC, only the relevant load combinations for the structure are included.

4.1.4.1. Mooring Dolphins

Table 8: Load Combinations (UFC 4-152-01-17)

Load Case

Strength Stability/Pile Design

U0 U5 U5a S0 S5 S5a

Dead (D) 1.4 1.2 0.9 1.0 1.0 0.6

Mooring (M) - 1.6 1.6 1.0 1.0

4.1.4.2. Fender System

Table 9: Load Combinations (UFC 4-152-01-17)

Load Case

Strength Stability/Pile Design

U2 S2

Dead (D) 1.2 1.0

Berthing (Be) 1.2(1) 1.0

(1) Berthing forces consider abnormal events, therefore a factor of 1.2 is used per UFC

4.1.5. Materials

4.1.5.1. Reinforced Concrete

Design of reinforced concrete structures shall comply with EM 1110-2-2104 and ACI 318-19.

Concrete used for the pile caps or other new, cast-in-place structural concrete shall meet the requirements of ACI 318-19 Table 19.3.2.1 for Exposure Class F3 and C2.

• Concrete: f’c = 5000 psi

• Rebar fy = 60 ksi (ASTM A615 Gr.60)

JANUARY 2025 24 RTA Hybrid Vessel Shore Power System

4.1.5.2. Structural Steel

Structural steel design shall be according to the AISC Steel Construction Manual, 14th

Edition. For steel pipe piles the provisions of EM 1110-2-2906 shall also apply.

Typical design values are as follows:

• Micro Pile Casing fy=80 ksi (API 5CT Grade N-80)

• Pipe Piles fy = 60 ksi (ASTM A252 Gr.3, ASTM A572 Gr.60)

• Steel Plates fy=36 ksi (ASTM A36)

4.1.5.3. Rock Anchors

The design of the rock anchors shall be according to AISC 360-16.

• Threaded bar (#18) fy= 75 ksi (ASTM A615 Gr. 75)

4.2. Mooring Dolphins

New mooring points equipped with 44-ton safe working load (SWL) bollards will be installed on independent, pile supported foundations, rock anchored into subsurface bedrock.

This section provides a general overview and summary of the structural design of the mooring dolphins. Additional details can be found in the Structural Appendix B included with this report.

4.2.1. Structural Layout

The mooring dolphins constitutes pile caps with steel pipe piles, rock socketed to bedrock using grouted prestressing steel with double corrosion protection, and a 44 SWL bollard, which was sized for the minimum breaking load (MBL) of the mooring lines attaching to it.

There are 7 new pile caps designed for this project. These will be located along wharf next to the existing edge beam.

Based on contract modification 3, the cable crane location was moved to center it between two pairs of fender piles. To accommodate this change, the entire fender pile system was moved 5.5 ft west. This led to a conflict between mooring lines and fender piles, but it was tweaked by modifying the C-103 and C-105 drawings, which show the mooring lines wrapped around the outboard face of the fender piles. The fender piles have been checked to be safe under the additional load due to a kink in the mooring lines.

JANUARY 2025 25 RTA Hybrid Vessel Shore Power System

The structural system consists of micropiles and concrete pile cap. The micropiles are installed using a permanent steel casing and are anchored 20’-0” into bedrock using two #18 threaded bars. N-80 pipe casing according to API 5CT, with a yield stress of 80 ksi, is used for the permanent casing. The threaded bar anchors utilize Grade 75 ksi steel. The micropiles are designed using passive anchors (no prestress), where axial compression is resisted by the permanent pile casing, and axial uplift/tension loads are resisted by the threaded bar rock anchors.

Part of the design intent of constructing laterally stiff bollard foundations is to limit the lateral deflection of mooring point structures perpendicular to the berth. This is done to avoid imparting loads to the existing concrete edge beam that could result in damage. Furthermore, a new fender system that has suitable energy to arrest the design vessel during berthing will result in forces on the existing concrete edge beam. The new mooring points will laterally buttress the existing edge beam. Note that there are no record drawings of the edge beam reinforcement or its supporting structure below, so its load capacity is difficult to determine with certainty.

Another important aspect is the intention to keep as much of the existing parking space as possible. For this reason, the top of the pile caps is located at the existing grade elevation, while the bollards are anchored to concrete pedestals that project above the surface.

The main structural elements can be summarized as follows:

• 11.750” OD x 0.534” micropiles, each with two #18 threaded rod rock anchors embedded 20’-0” into bedrock.

• 19' x 13' x 3' concrete pile caps with 1.5 ft high pedestals to anchor the bollards.

4.2.2. Design Criteria

4.2.2.1. Structural Steel Design

Micropiles are designed using ASD load combinations (Table 8). Design strength is computed using design recommendations for micropiles according to FHWA and AISC 360-16.

4.2.2.2. Reinforced Concrete Design

Reinforced concrete elements are designed using ultimate (LRFD) load combinations in

Table 8. Design strength is computed using ACI 318-19.

JANUARY 2025 26 RTA Hybrid Vessel Shore Power System

A minimum temperature and shrinkage reinforcement ratio of 0.003 per Section 2.9.1 of EM

1110-2-2104.

4.2.2.3. Rock Anchor Design

Design recommendations for the geotechnical capacity of the micropiles is included within the geotechnical report. The allowable pile geotechnical capacity stated in the is 180 tons compression and 110 tons in tension. The anchor bond length in the report to achieve these capacities is 15’-0” into bedrock.

The required uplift capacity is 140 tons and to increase the tension capacity of the rock anchor, the bond length was increased 5’-0” from what is shown in the geotechnical report, to a total bond length of 20’-0”. The increase in bond length will result in achieving an uplift capacity exceeding the demand, mitigating the need for adding additional piles.

Additionally, the permanent pipe casing is shown extending 3’-0” into bedrock, such that the total penetration is 23’-0” into bedrock. The design intent is to penetrate the pipe casing to assist developing end bearing within sound bedrock, as well as to mitigate potential for grout loss when installing the rock anchor.

Boring 3, taken as part of adding a new mooring point to the project (to allow for shifting of existing vessel fleet to make room for the new hybrid electric vessel), indicates there is a potential to encounter a weak rock seam. If encountered during the field installation of the anchors, then the rock anchor shall be extended such that the bonded zone is located within bedrock that achieves the design bond strength used for soil strata layer 6 of the geotechnical report.

4.2.3. Analysis Model & Design Assumptions

The mooring structures is analyzed using a SAP2000 model with the following characteristics:

• The pile cap is modeled using thick shell elements.

• Piles are modeled using frame elements.

• Micropiles are assumed to be axial-only elements (pinned).

• Rigid frame elements that reflect the thickness of the pile cap are used to connect the shell elements to the pile frames.

• Micropiles are assumed to be fully braced (laterally).

JANUARY 2025 27 RTA Hybrid Vessel Shore Power System

• The bollard is modeled using a rigid frame element.

• Micropile spacing exceeds the minimum spacing recommendations for consideration of pile group effects.

4.2.4. Analysis Results & Structural Design

4.2.4.1. Pile Design

The design forces evaluated from the SAP model are only axial loads since the piles are pinned at both ends. Furthermore, the piles will not undergo global bucking since they are confined by the soil. The compression forces are resisted by the pile casing and the rock anchors contribute to the tensile strength. The strength check for pile casing and the threaded bar shows that the micro piles have sufficient capacity. Maximum pile forces and demand-capacity ratio (DCR), obtained from the analysis model, for ASD load combinations (ASD) are summarized in Table 10.

Table 10: Pile Strength Design Checks

Section Size Maximum Design Forces Member Utilization

(Compression) (Tension) (Compression) (Tension)

[kip] [kip] Demand-Capacity Ratio (DCR)

Demand-Capacity Ratio (DCR)

Pipe Casing

11.750 x 0.534

370 - 0.41 -

(2) #18 Threaded Bars, Grade 75

- 284 - 0.79

4.2.4.2. Rock Anchor Design

The allowable tension capacity of the micropile is stated within the geotechnical report is 220 kip (110 ton) when the anchor bond length is 15’-0” into the bedrock; however, the required axial uplift capacity of the rock anchor is 280 kip (140 ton).

The calculations in the appendix demonstrate that the two threaded bars have sufficient steel strength to resist the 280 kip uplift demand. Therefore, the tension capacity of the pile is increased by lengthening the embedment of the rock anchor to a total bond length of 20’-0”, an increase of 5’-0” from what is provided within the geotechnical report.

JANUARY 2025 28 RTA Hybrid Vessel Shore Power System

4.2.4.3. Pile-to-Pile Cap Connection

The pile cap is checked for two-way (punching) shear and concrete bearing strength at pile-to-pile cap interface for the maximum of compressive or tension force. The design is performed using LRFD load combinations and results are summarized in Table 11.

Table 11: Pile-to-Pile Cap Connection Design

Item Unit Ru ϕRn DCR Reference

Concrete Bearing at Pile Cap kip 580.8 1707.3 0.34 ACI318-19 - Section 22.8

Two-Way Shear at Pile Cap kip 580.8 930.5 0.62 ACI318-19 - Section 22.6

Concrete Breakout-Tension kip 456.2 573.8 0.80 ACI318-19- Section 17.6.2

Side Face Blowout-Tension kip 456.2 4129 0.11 ACI318-19 -Section 17.6. 4

Concrete Breakout-Shear kip 56.6 215 0.26 ACI318-19- Section 17.7. 2

4.2.4.4. Pile Cap Beam Concrete Design

Bending strength calculation of the pile cap per ACI 318-19 is summarized in Table 12 and the shear strength calculations are summarized in Table 13.

Table 12: Pile Cap – Flexural Strength

Case h_design As a εs Φ ΦMn Case Mu DCR

[in] [in2/ft] [in] - - [kip-ft/ft] - [kip-ft/ft] -

M22 (-) 36 1.57 1.66 0.0042 0.9 214.5 U05-60H0V 175 0.82

Table 13: Pile Cap – Shear Strength

Case h_design Av Vc Vs Φ ΦVn Case Vu DCR

[in] [in2/ft] [kip/ft] [kip/ft] - [kip/ft] - [kip/ft] -

V23(-) 36 0.307 52.9 47.8 0.75 75.6 U05-60H0V 73 0.97

4.3. Fender System

This section provides a general overview and summary of the structural design of the fender system. There are three steps followed when selecting the fender system: derivation of berthing energy, fender selection, and design of the supporting elements. Calculations can be found in Appendix B included with this report for the three steps mentioned.

JANUARY 2025 29 RTA Hybrid Vessel Shore Power System

4.3.1. System Description

The selected fender system includes two primary components, a fender sized to absorb the design abnormal energy, and a steel guide pile with camel to provide berthing for the full range of tidal variation.

The dynamic mooring analysis required stiffening the fender to prevent vessel motions generating forces which exceed deflection limits of the fender. That is, the fender selection is controlled by vessel motions and not berthing. The outcome is a fender system that is stiffer, generating larger day-to-day forces. Further consideration of balancing mooring and berthing requirements will be made moving forward, with the intent on providing a system best suited for the wharf’s use, which may result in softening the fender system.

The fendering will be mounted to the existing wharf concrete pile cap using post-installed epoxy anchor rods. There is no existing information, drawings or calculations, for the concrete cap beam. It is assumed that there is minimum reinforcement within the beam. There are two existing elements also connected to the pile cap: a concrete drop panel fronting steel sheet pile. The extent of the embedment of the steel sheet pile within the existing concrete beam is unknown, as well as the reinforcing steel used to connect the concrete drop panels.

A guide pile sleeve fabricated out of steel is connected to the fender. A 14" diameter steel guide pile is then placed within the sleeve and is embedded into the soil below to achieve pile fixity below the mudline. The inner annulus of the pile is filled with concrete to mitigate corrosion of the pile interior. Bending loads are taken by the steel pile without consideration of composite action.

There are four 40-ft long 18 in.-diameter composite camels, each supported by five discrete guide piles, spaced at 9’-0” on center.

Cone fenders are selected because it can accommodate the guide pile sleeve assembly.

4.3.2. Design Criteria

4.3.2.1. Structural Steel Design

Steel piles are designed using ASD load combinations (Table 8 and Table 9). Design strength is computed using AISC 360-10. Allowable stresses shall be 5/6 of the values prescribed in

AISC as per Section 4-2.d (1) of EM 1110-2-2906.

JANUARY 2025 30 RTA Hybrid Vessel Shore Power System

4.3.2.2. Fender Design

Natural rubber is assumed to be used for the fabrication of the fender.

The maximum temperature variance is assumed to be +88 degrees and –4 degrees

Fahrenheit (+30 degrees and –20 degrees Celsius).

A manufacturer’s tolerance of plus or minus 10% is applied to the rated energy and fender reaction force, whichever generates the worst-case scenario.

4.3.3. Analysis & Results

4.3.3.1. Berthing Energy & Fender Selection

The resulting abnormal berthing energy is 10.3 kip-ft (14 kNm) according to PIANC.

Natural rubber extruded cone fenders, 12” deep, were selected such that they provide greater energy absorption than the abnormal berthing energy, including reductions for manufacturer tolerances, and factors for temperature, approach angle and fender compression velocity.

4.3.3.2. Fender Guide Pile

14-inch diameter steel guide piles, spaced at 9’-0” center-to-center, are used to provide bearing points for the 18-in. composite camels. A finite element model was created, modeling the soil-response using nonlinear p-y soil springs. Required pile embedment is determined following the development of the second point of contraflexure below mudline. This was estimated to be 26-ft below mudline.

4.3.3.3. Camels

Foam-filled composite camels are provided as a wearing surface for vessel berthing, preventing the vessel from contacting the vertical steel guide piles. There are four total camels, each 40 ft in length, separated by 5 ft clear. The camels must resist both crushing forces (between the vessel and the steel guide piles) as well as bending (due to the vessel potentially impacting it between a pair of guide piles.

Crushing of the camel governs the size selection, and thus a smaller diameter camel (with thick wall) is best suited to resist the governing crushing force.

JANUARY 2025 31 RTA Hybrid Vessel Shore Power System

Each fender is sized to absorb all of vessel’s design berthing energy. Due to the flat-hull curvature of the design vessel, a 9-feet spacing between each fender, and the presence of a camel and guide piles, it is evident that a minimum of two fenders will be engaged during a berthing event. The 18” camel shown on the drawings is sized for this condition, where a minimum of two fenders are engaged.

4.4. Gangway

As part of Mod 1, a gangway is incorporated into the project's scope of work during the implementation of Modification 1 (gangway CAD sketches and a gangway performance specification, so that the gangway can be contractor designed and contractor furnished). The initial concept aimed for a straightforward gangway design; however, the challenging environmental conditions, notably the significant tidal range during which the gangway must remain operational, prompted a comprehensive reevaluation of the approach to its design.

This necessitated the consideration of various technical aspects, including geometry, to effectively accommodate the substantial tidal range. The resultant design comprises multiple interconnected components, including stairs with self-leveling treads and an interconnecting walkway. To ensure stability and safety, the gangway now requires a fixed support structure, along with the capability to be retracted and swiveled to prevent accidents.

Furthermore, the increased complexity of the design, driven by the need to relocate this more substantial structure, mandates the incorporation of a power system to facilitate its movement. These adjustments are accompanied by an inevitable increase in project cost, reflective of the enhanced scope and technical requirements.

4.5. Ladders

Ladders are designed to replace the ones that will be removed to allow the installation of the new fender pile system at the Driftmaster II berth. Ladders allow crewmembers to access the wharf and deploy the gangway during low tide conditions. Design forces for ladders are based on ASCE 7-16 requirements. Loads are assumed to be distributed uniformly between both the stingers of the ladder and rungs ae designed as hinged at their connection with stringers.

Table 13 below shows the design summary for rungs and stringers of the ladder.

JANUARY 2025 32 RTA Hybrid Vessel Shore Power System

Table 13: Ladder Design

Item Mn/Ω [kip-in] DCR [ - ] Vn/Ω [kip-in] DCR [ -

Stringer 21.6 0.83 15.4 0.04

Rung 1.42 0.95 3.89 0.04

4.6. Rub Rails

Rub Rails are protective elements, serving a critical role in safeguarding mooring lines from damage and wear from abrasion against the structural elements such as concrete. Rub rails made of steel pipe that is coated with a marine grade epoxy coating has been included running along the face of the new berthing area.

In case of high-water level, the rope will have a greater bend angle at the rub rail, and the force exerted on the rub rail will not be significant. For rub rail design, a low water level case would govern. The magnitude of mooring line loads would be lower at low water levels, but we will use the breaking load, i.e., 16.9 kips, to design the rub rail components to be on the conservative side. Rub rail comprises of two pipes, 4xx-strong horizontal pipe and 3xx–strong curved vertical pipe. The curved vertical pipe is connected to the base plate anchored to pile cap beam using post-installed adhesive anchors. The existing concrete beam reinforcement will add to the resistance of the anchor connection of the rub rail but its strength is not considered in the design checks for conservative analysis. Design results are summarized in

Table 14 and Table 15 below.

Table 14: Rub Rail Design

Item Unit Ru ϕRn DCR Reference

Horizontal Pipe Bending kip.ft 24.2 24.9 0.97 AISC 360-16 – Chapter F