No abstract

I would like to mention the salient points which arose during the designs, first, to arrange for efficient cargo handling to ensure a rapid turn-round of the ships, second, to provide ample space for processing passengers and tourists, and thirdly, to provide amenities to attract shoppers and local residents.88. In 1970 the records show 388 ships berthed at the terminal, made up of 103 passenger ships, 10 cruise liners, 254 cargo ships, and 21 container ships, these only for four months, as since then they have been using No. 5 wharf. Passengers recorded were 15 000, and there were 53 million visitors. Cargo imported was 40 000 tons, and exported 280 000 tons.89. One of the main difficulties in planning was that potential lessees, faced with a proposal which was new and to them rather speculative, were very slow in making up their minds what they wanted. We had therefore to keep the planning very flexible: even at the end there were still changes which had to be made. This was all in the superstructure, and it showed more clearly almost every day the advantage of the Contractor's design in separating the deck structures from the superstructure because it gave the clients several months longer in which to settle the final details of the letting.90. It has proved very popular to local people, as about 115 000 persons visited the terminal each week. M r D. L. Pope, Bertlin & PartnersAt one time I was employed by Taylor Woodrow on the construction of the Ocean Terminal. For someone who was concerned with this project at very close quarters on site, the day-to-day problems were very acute from my point of view. It is therefore very revealing to have a Paper like this which puts the whole problem into perspective.92. However, the Paper compresses a large project into a short space, and I think that in one or two instances the Authors have erred on the side of being too concise. In particular, the question of the provision of independent foundations for the jetty deck and the superstructure which is stated in !j 25 as having the following advantages:(a) the client and the lessees could delay until the last possible moment decisions (b) the problems of differential settlement between the jetty and the super-(c) the deck structure can be kept shallow and out of the tidal range.on the layout of the superstructure; structure would be minimized ; 93. The layout of the columns was determined in advance, and I would suggest that since the deadload must be a very large proportion of the load on the columns, it would only be a very small number of columns where the final design load was not known in advance. So this cannot really have been an important criterion.94. So far as differential settlement is concerned, if the whole structure was carried on one foundation system, there would not have been any problem. However, by

The HRS in Wallingford and the Danish Hydraulics Institute have enjoyed good relationships and excellent co-operation for many years. In coastal engineering, engineers learn by mistakes or failures caused by exceptional circumstances. In either case, a study of what happened is a very worthwhile exercise. On this account alone the Authors are to be congratulated on producing such an interesting paper.81. As Mr Ssrensen has said, wave disturbance studies and wave flume studies would nowadays be conducted using random seas, the advantage being that quantitative as well as qualitative assessments can be made. However, such facilities were not available at the time of these studies. At that time the size of armour units was chosen by subjecting model slopes to regular seas, with a design wave height of a value equal to the average of one-third of all the largest waves.82. That brings me to my first questions. In the case under discussion, why was the maximum wave height chosen rather than the significant wave height? Secondly, do the Authors think that random sea testing would have produced a larger stone size? In a random sea there would be higher waves than the ones used in the tests.83. One point to settle in tests of this nature is the damage criterion. Should this be no damage, 2%, or some other figure. I should like to ask what the damage criteria were in this case.84. Referring to wave measurements ($29) the Authors state 'It was felt that the chances of success of such measurements within the short time available would not warrant the expense involved'. I should like to ask whether, with hindsight, they would have made the same decision today.85. Even during the construction of a scheme such as this there is a case for wave recording, for instance to help settle contractor's claims or as an aid in checking the design. Perhaps the Authors would comment. M r J. Palrner, Consultant, Rendel, Palrner and Tritton I was delighted to learn that the design of this harbour was produced by the harbour authorities, as I am afraid that I shall have to be critical of one or two points in the design; and the Authors will appreciate that my criticisms are therefore not directed against them.87. Mr Langvad mentioned that the cost of the breakwater was approximately €1.6 million though the Paper itself does not deal much with costs nor the tonnages of trade passing in and out of the harbour, nor any discounted cash flow calculations. Nevertheless, there was one vital economic statement in $1: 'Ships could not stay safely in the old port during south-easterly gales'. There is the complete economic Paper published

There may be some people who think that there has been duplication of effort in providing two large docks at Belfast for the shipbuilding industry. While the new building dock provides for the float out of the near finished product, the dry dock is primarily designed for the ship repair side of the industry and for those ships still launched by conventional means at the Musgrave Shipyard.130. When the new workshops are in full production four tankers of the 300 000 ton class will be built in the dock each year as well as two bulk carriers of the 100 000 ton class at the Musgrave Shipyard.131. The throughput of the building dock will be such that it will not be possible to use the dock for ship repair work.132. The sill level is such that there is a restriction on deep draughted vessels from entering the dock. There is 8.38 m of water over the sill at MHWS at the building dock compared with 11.6 m at the dry dock. M r RennieSix contractors were invited to submit tenders and my firm was fortunate in being awarded the Contract-this expression of confidence by the Belfast Harbour Commissioners was particularly welcome to Charles Brand, who were building quays in Belfast Harbour for the Commissioners in the mid-1800s.134. It was a personal pleasure to me as I had been working closely with the General Manager and the Chief Engineer and his staff on numerous contracts in the Belfast Harbour for very many years, and I was also renewing an old association with the Consultants, Rendel Palmer and Tritton. M r J. A. Williams, Wilton and BellFigure 2 impresses me as being an extremely satisfactory design for a dry dock and one which takes full account of the practical construction problems and methods. With regard to the anchor piles, was the use of stressed anchors to be taken down into the rock considered in the design? I think this might have been more positive and cheaper.136. The job was designed in the early 1960s. If it were being repeated in 1972 would diaphragm walling be preferable to sheet piling, either technically and/or from the point of view of cost?137. In Fig. 2, there is a gap between the bottom of the bearing piles and the rock.Does this mean anything, or were the piles carried down to the rock? Was there any trouble with boulders among the other pile driving problems? 138. I have experience of Peine piles in countries outside the UK and think they are extremely useful from the design aspect. On one occasion in difficult ground half-inch jetting pipes were introduced into the leading interlocks to assist the driving.139. Referring to 5 18, is it wise to take adhesion into account in resisting uplift?In similar designs I have always ignored this adhesion in order to keep something in hand. If there is risk of flotation, there is a chance of lubrication between the clay and the piles, and the use of adhesion in design appears doubtful. What proportion of the overall factor of safety is contributed by the adhesion?140. Is there any positive anchorage between the concrete floor and the piling in the form of sh...

No abstract