Ordinary MeetingA paper to be presented and discussed the at Institution of Structural Engineers, I I Upper BelgraveStreet, London S WIX 8BH, on Thursday I December 1988, at 6.0 pm. The design of the structure for the new terminal building at Stansted Airport G . J. Zum, Ove h BSc, FEng, FIStructE, FICE p & Partners M. W. Manning, MA, CEng,MIStructE Ove Amp & Partners c. G. H. Jofeh, BSc, CEng,MIStructE Ove Amps & Partners Jack Zunz graduated in 1948 after militaty service in Egypt and Italy. joined He Ove Arup in 1950 and was made an Associate Partner1955 in and a Senior Partner in 1965. He has been associated with many of the firm ’S projects in the UK and abroad. MartinManning is a Director of Ove A m p & Partners and the leader of BuildingEngineering Group 4. He joined Arup after graduatingfrom St. John’s College, Cambridge, in1968. He has worked inLondon,Zambia,andIran and on projects throughout theworld.HehasbeentheProject Director for the Stansted Terminal since 1981. Fig 1. Stansted Airport of the base continued as a civilian aerodrome, but in 1952 the USAF returned and extended the runway. In the following year, the British Government decidedthat London’s main airport should be Heathrow, with Gatwick as the main alternative and Blackbushe the f i s t reserve. A notional Christopher Jofeh is a Principal of Ove Arup & role for Stansted was retained, however, inthe event of unexpected increases Partners California. He joinedArupsafter graduating from Imperial College in 1972 and has in air traffic. worked in London, Europ, the Middle East, and the later an The USAF finally withdrew in 1957, and 4 years USA. He has been involved with the Stanstedproject for the since 1983, withspecialresponsibility interdepartmental Government Committeewas set up to look into future steelwork. airport provision. In 1964 it reportedthat notonly would a third London airport be needed by 1973, but Stansted was the only oneof 18 sites that was clearly suitable. Apublic inquiry intoStansted’s development opened the following year, which dulyturned down the proposal and recommended a much wider review.As a result, theRoskill Commission began its public inquiry into both the need for, and the sitingof, a third London airport, eventually shortlistingCublington, Foulness, Nuthampstead, and Thurleigh. Stansted was discarded as an altenative, and Cublington selected. Professor Synopsis Colin Buchanan, however, favoured Foulness,and following his lead the The developmento f Stansted Airportis now well advanced. In particular, Maplin DevelopmentAuthority was set up in 1973 to reclaim Maplin Sands the comtruction the of primary structuref o r the terminal buildingis nearly off Foulness Island as both an airport and seaport. complete. This paper describes the development of the structural design In 1974 the new Labour Government reviewed Maplin and speedily and its architectural background. cancelled the project, taking into account both theoil crisis and theincreased use of widebodied aircraft. After only 2 years, however, the Government Introduction began to look again at airportstrategy and in 1978 produced a White Paper In 1942 the United States Air Force built a military airfield at Stansted, which argued that further capacity would have to be found by 1990. use north-west Essex, for World War 2 bomber operations. After the war, During the ‘60sStansted had increased its capacity greatly. By 1968, when The Structural EngineedVolume 66/No.21/1 November 1988 361 Planning studies The development of Stansted into a major international airport enabled BAA'Sexpertise t o be deployed in planning terminal and support facilities for a greenfield site from first principles. economic and operational factors making the ultimate size o f the terminal uncertain..ebruary1981.clersketch the Roskill Commission was set up. but in I984 the inspector issued his conclusion that. I3AA planners had considered a number o f different plans for the terminal. The primary objective of these studies was to have ready a viable scheme if and when parliamentary approval was given.a. and sat for a total of 258 days. Sectionthroughterminal 362 The Structural EngineerlVolume 66lNo. (KM) Single level for all passengerprocessing Calm Landside oClear Services undercroft Unobstructed roof I The brief The brief for the terminal building was to create a potential capacity of 15M passengers p.a. after a futher study. the buildingplan has t o beflexible so that. while regional airports should be expanded. its traffic had increased tenfold t o 147 p.. First. 'The public inquiry into these plans opened o n 29 September 1981. The architect analysed the planning options and proposed a design based o n twokey principles.ondon Airport and announced the intention for i t to expand to a capacity o f 15M passengers p. and theopening of a new passenger terminal the following year resulted in almost half a million passengers passing through i n 1970.Paper: ZunzlManninglJofeh Fig 2. The design /concept Fig 4. the building will be able to respond to the changing needs. selected Stansted as the most promising option for the third i. f:oster'sdesign also aimed to make the terminal calm. Despite further concerted protests. Various other options were duly taken into consideration. and construction commenced on I5 April 1986. Ove Arup & Partners were appointed as the consulting structural engineers in1. the movement o f passengers through the terminal should be as simple as possible. Consideration was to be given t o the transportation planning on both land and airside. they could not meet the needs of the south east and that the major expansion o f Stansted should g o ahead. and convenient. the layout for the terminal zone with its rlecessary developments. Existing ground level - Airside n Fig 3. and the site conditions. the Ciovernment gave the go-ahead to a compromise first phase expansion to XM passengers p. Particular consideration was to he given to the size and scale o f the building in the landscape. FosterAssociateswere appointed architects t o carry outpreliminary studies for the terminal building. s o that adequate facilitiescouldbe available to meet anticipated traffic demands in time. In 1979 the new Conservative Ciovernment. clear.a. The airport was and is operating under the directiono f the British Airports Authority (BAA). A n early Norman ?*?. The building wasto be phased-unpredictable political.a. who is responsible for the overall development o f the airport.asair transport technology and fashions change.2111 November 1988 . Secondly. This led to a master plan for the terminalzone. Thus. hasgiven an identity to the building.2111 November 1988 363 . departures and arrivals bothdivided into landsideand airside. After studying a number of grids. Such an arrangement also appearedto provide the facility to be ableto plan and replan the concourse with ease. The view through the terminal from the forecourt The Structural EngineerNolume 66hIo. A number of investigations into possible construction sequences to determine the best overall project programmewere carried out. a proposal for a column spacing for theroof over the passenger concourse of 36m in both directions was accepted. The terminal building The passenger concourse of the terminal building consists of four areas. based on parallel strips parallel to the main runway. For architectural reasonsa single levelopen concourseof this size needs to be high. A second principle was to keep as short as possible the walking distance from the entranceto theterminal to thepoint at which passengers left it for the planes. interms of the plantfor building services as well as the baggage-handling machinery. it has to do a number of other things as well. even though environmentally onlythe bottom 3 or 4m needs to be controlled. drainage blanket. Fig 5. The depth of thebuilding (162m) was determined by the maximum desirable walking distance and by the distance necessary to alow a check-in point and an inclined ramp (taking baggage to a --long baggage hall below) to be arranged ina straight line. The design of the roof structure thus had to respond to the span. which of course influenced the design of the structure. which also allows easy access to the undercroft for service vehicles at a level different from that occupied by the passengers. The chosen sequence. It has to be both conveived and detailed so that the maximum advantage can be taken of offsite prefabrication and onsite preassembly at ground level. The structure ingeneral. the height and the need to accommodate the building services requirements at the grid points but not dominate the concourse space. is located beneath it in an undercroft. It has to define the scale of the public space. once checked in. in as uninterrupted a manner as possible. At the position on the airport where it was likely that access to the terminal could readily be gained. It has to respond to a construction sequence which allows construction to proceed as independently of the weather as possible and on a number of fronts across the building. The width of the building is determined by its capacity. Itwas proposed that this couldbe done effectively from points on a grid similar to that for the columns for the roof structure. in a building of the size and qualityof this terminalto be builtto the required programme. to move on through passport andsecurity checks to departures. but the roof structurein particular. early What the structure has to do The structure obviously has to support the building but. The existing topography of the site held a clue to this. and the quality and refinement of its details are fundamental to the architecture. and thus Fig 6.Paper: ZunzlManninglJofeh ~~ ~ ~ ~~ BAA was equally anxious that the design should be such that the completed building was good value for money. Construction in progress where he is going. was as follows: -overall excavation leaving a sacrificial layer of glacial till above the final formation level -construction of pad foundations and land drains -erection of the structural steelwork with roof decking -final excavation. The planning of the check-in desks is arranged in a way which allows the passengers. The site levels encouraged this arrangement. etc. Terminal expansion can take place from either end of the terminal building within these parallel strips. existing ground level wasfirstly some 6 7 m above that which had already been established as the appropriate level for the main apron and secondly fell towards it. A consequence of these planning and technical considerations is the benefit to the passenger in that he can see where the planes are. All engineering support to theconcourse area. from the moment he enters the terminal-an objective of the architect. A quickly established planning principle was that the building should be arranged so that passengers could continue to move in one direction and remain at one level. to enter the terminal at the existing ground level and remain at that level while moving towards the planes seemed to be a good starting point and one which reflected the existing topography. and groundslab construction all under cover -construction of the concourse slab -erection of the perimeter cladding. Fire safety One of the issues raised by proposing a public space 198m long. is fire safety.Paper: ZunzlManninglJofeh -the 'beams' could occupy the upper 8m of the 12m-high concourse.2 and 26.rom that starting point consideration was given to: ( 1 ) the ways in whichthe overall stability of the structure could be provided. Above all. The site consists of the following soil profile: -topsoil and fill between 0 .2mthick -Woolwich and Reading beds proved t o a depth of I1. But the form and configuration of the structure between the 'trees' went through a long development. (4) whether the gridline beams should be continuous over the tops of the branches or pinned to them. Geotechnical constraints Asiteinvestigation was carried o u t in1983 to determine the ground conditions. all described below. Early studies soon converged onto a concept of 'trees' at 36m centres in each direction. The roof structure was always seenas the technical design generator of the building. 1111 I Ill . whether or not it should be prestressed and. The earthworks necessary to provide the undercroft and service areas implied excavation and fill over the area of the terminal building which would lead to movements o f the order of 200mm because of heave and 50mm because of total long-term settlements. (b) These towers. and about 12m high. The response was to propose a structural form as follows: (a) The'columns' would be square towers founded at undercroft level and extending to about4m above the concourse slab and which would contain the services for the space. perhaps most importantly -what contribution or otherwise the steelwork made to the openness of scale of the whole concourse.55mthick -weathered and unweathered glacial till between13. byhow much. I t was also to provide a cover beneath which the builders could build. Detailed studies of different grids and grid infill configuration were examined over a period of time. 1 and 0. a roof of half that span is likely to be cheaper and offer more scope for repetition. (i) The roof structure Form. This led to a concept which embodies the following salient features: (a) Thetrunks would be fully welded vierendeelspropped by the concourse slab which would both allow unrestricted accessto the services within them and take advantage of the stiffening which the concourse slab would provide. The strategy was to erect a canopy about 20m high.5mthick -Kesgrave sands and gravels between 0 and 4. Additional factors in preparing a solution were -the deflections that the roofing and cladding would haveto accommodate -roof drainage -ease of service access within the trunks -the amount of high level erection access and lifting capacity required and. (c) The roof would consist o f beams o n a 18m square grid which would support 18m square independent panels which would be preassembled and erected whole. the roof structure had to be economic despite it being a major feature in the architecture of the building. . 162m wide. It became clear that cross-bracing would largely impede bringing large air ducts into and out ofthe trunks. as was the water within the sand lenses in the glacial t i l l .4m The glacial till contains sand lenses which are waterbearing.2111 November 1988 The structure . These support a number of secondary structural emements. I'H I 'O 0 . but should be so arranged as to minimise the obstruction to views through the concourse. While a 36m span is well within the capability of modern engineering. (2) whether the trunks should be pin-jointed and cross-braced. At the same time the design of the roof waterproofing was complicated by the need for structural expansion 364 The Structural EngineedVolume 66hJo. The initial investigation did not determine the horizontalor vertical hydraulic continuity o f these. The starting points for this canopy were: -the span was 36m -the 'columns' were to be integrated with the mechanical and electrical services for the concourse volume (3) how the bracing in the branch zone should be arranged.45m thick -Londonclaybetween18. The fire strategy for the structure is based o n this study. 1. There are two discreet components to the structure-the steel roof structure and the undercroft made of reinforced concrete both cast in sifu and precast. In particular.2 and 28. (5) whether the trunks should be propped by the concourse slab. Piezometers and standpipes were placcd i n a number o f the bore holes which showed that the water i n the Kesgrave sands and gravels was under some pressure. Detailed studies for the fire planning o f the terminal were carried out. but in its form and detail provided the architecture for the building. if so.. a substantial amount of work o n the probable smoke movement within the space was done to demonstrate that escape times wereacceptable when related to the amount of smoke which would be generated by a fire o n the concourse. or portal frames. or trunks.l I A subsequent comprehensive investigation over the terminal site was carried out to try to estimate the hydraulic continuity of the granular soils. would splay o u t at the top into branches so that the roof itself would be supported at 18m centres rather than 36m. of which the principal function was to keep out the rain. -.2111 November 1988 365 .Paper: ZunzlManninglJofeh l - . .. .. The development of the trees The Structural EngineerNolume 661No. . .*- No bracing in the tree Roof pinned to free standing trees Branch and trunk braced with prestressed ties Branch braced with prestressed ties Sway 134rnm Sway 89mm Weight 59kglm2 Weight 50kglm2 / Roof bending continuous over free standing trees I I Roof pinned to trees propped by concourse Roof bending continuous over trees propped byconcourse 1 I Weight 41 kglrn2 Weight 42kglm2 Sway 165mm Sway 8Omm Weight 56 kglm2 Weight 42 kglrn2 Sway 27mm Sway 24mm Weight 40kglm2 Weight 41 kglm2 Weight 42 kglm2 Weight 42 kglm2 Fig 8. I -- R- ' I' +-. Paper: ZunzlManninglJofeh Fig 9.2111 November 1988 . The development of the panels 366 The Structural EngineerlVolume 661No. would be self-supporting and provide support for the 18m square infill. settlement or differential movement of the sections of concourse slab. with its 18m canopy. the lower pyramid would be members capable of taking both tension and compression. first.40mm Macalloy bars each prestressed to 330 kN -lower bracing pyramid members: 168mm CHS -gridline beams: 323mm CHS Many solutions were consideredfor theinfill panelsin the18m square bays. The trees and shells during erection The Structural EngineerNolume 66/No. Thesolutionadopted was independentlatticedomes consisting of intersecting orthogonal barrel vaults.21/1November 1988 double all round 12. Full penetration double bevel butt weld all round. Thus the cladding could be singly curvedi These lattice shells rely on their out-of-planebending stiffness for stability. Section justification has been carried out to BS 5950. Detail drawing 367 . (c) Each tree. Analysis. These ranged from conventional beam sections to thin aluminium shells. while not impairing stability. the forces inthe system were markedly reduced and minimised the increase in size of the branch members. Full penetration single bevel c I Single bevel butt we Ground flush 12mm fillet weld each side dJf355 0 457 0 x 40CHS grade 50 D 457 0 x 32 CHS grade 50 D penetration Full weldbutt bevel Fig 10. by prestressing only the upper pyramid. a wind tunnel test was carried out at the of Bristol. The mathematical models used for analysis included one of the entire roof structure restrained at concourse level bysprings for overall behaviour. This also determined the profile of the eaves cladding which would trap a stationary vortex around theperimeter of the roof to reduce the Cpe values for which the roof structure has to be designed. to provide elegant routing for the service ducts and. to demonstrate that the resulting increase in trunk flexibility. after much analytical work. Prestressing the bracing kept itsmall and unobtrusiveand. The member sizes are as follows: -trunk members: 457mm CHS vertically and 356mm CHS horizontally -branch members: &mm CHS -upper prestressing members: 2 no. (b) The branch sections would be sway stiffened by two pyramids. meant that the structural joints in the roof were not required. The additional weight in the columns and vierendeel members of the trunking was marginal. The diagonal arch members are 194mm CHS and the lattice members 114mm CHS. The analysis of the roof structure has assumed that the roof is loaded simultaneously by -its self-weight -the worst distribution of live load -the one-in-50 year wind from the worst direction -a dominant opening on the windward face (if indeed that is critical) -the worst overall or differential imposed strains due to temperature. University To assess the wind loads.5 CHS I Fig 11. as well as oneof part of the roofwhich included every memberwithin the structure.Paper: ZunzlManninglJofeh joints. The upper inverted pyramids would be prestressed tension members. secondly.5 CH5 457 0 x 16 CHS 457 0 X 12. Removing the cross-bracing madeit possible. Lay valley force Fig 12. The thickness of shims requlred at grid line beam splice to be determined by exact length of grid line beam to be insalled and exact length of grld line beam stubs already erected Temporary bracing is needed for stability 3. (jackingforce approx 7Otons) Loosely to prestressthe macalloys.and lay roof drainage pipes (without bolting) in valleys r Valley purlins Lattice assembly in on-site jig including valley purlins (and edge truss where appropriate) Area of decking installed at ground level before lifting lattice into place 10. Lift and place lattice shell Loosely bolt it at corners 7. bolted Remove high level bracing referred to in3 (force required approx 20-3OkN) 9. gridline bzams. install remainder of valley purlins. The erection sequence 368 The Structural EngineedVolume 66/No.Paper: ZunzlManninglJofeh Grid line Macalloys Branches j)Trunk 1. Jack detail BIBB closed 4. Erect branches. (forcerequiredapproxTighten lattice corner 5-10kN) connections. Amount of shimming will be determined by exact length of GL beam to be installed and exact length of GL beam stubs already erected r 6. Pull GL beamup to and edges together connect to lattice edges.21/1 November 1988 . (Travel approx 150mm) boltitat corners obtained for forces applied to tree during infill GL beam installation 5. Install trunk on holding down bolts to specified accuracy A 2.Lift and place lattice. Pull adjacent lattice 8.macalloys. Install GL beams between towers. Cast nodes Fig 13. Erection. The process used was to -shim the gridline b e a m s to achieve a length tolerance of + 0 . The problem of potential pore water pressures in the glacial till raised two issues. The worst accumulation of those loads is alsowhere the worst duty-free shop live loads are provided on the concourse. 369 . The structure of the forecourt issimilar to that of the concourse floor with some additional provisions to satisfy accidental damage requirements which flow from BR regulations. The surface f ~ of the h steelwork is important in the architectural expression of the structure. beam. First. --erect and prestress each tree with its trunk. They are tied to lm diameter anchor piles 6m long at 3m c/c located 2Om behind them. Stability is provided by frame action between the coffered slab and the 8m-high columns. The joints at each end ofthe branches were the most difficult onesto resolve. structural considerations are important and centrelines really ought to pass through centrelines insofar as that is possible. -The pore water pressures in the granular materials were lowered during the construction of the substructure. as well as by rail. itwas essential to ensure that.To try to minimise the difference between the tube and the joints. Access to the terminal at concourse level is provided by the forecourt road which is positioned over the BR station and immediately adjacent to the main ground level carpark.when the contractor gets the erection and prestressing arrangement right. The floor is a coffered slab 4OOmm thick in the6m zone and 850mm thick in the 12m zone. To assure the quality ofthe foundry process a series of prototypesand tests was undertaken to check that itprovided both thematerial strength and the surface f ~ s required. The BR station and forecourt. But for these joints. Rnishes. the successful contractor proposedthat joints should be cast. Secondly. Reinforced concrete was chosen for economy. In areas of the undercroft. in the permanent case. from material to grade A4 to BS 3100. The piles The design of these piles caters for a number of soil conditions. Fig IS. The erection of the steelwork was based on getting it rightfiist time and not on making adjustments at the endof construction. The following measures were taken. the design of the joint details is critical.2m. Erecting a shell The Structural EngineerNolume 66mo. Approved samples of painted tubewere made available at tender.Paper: ZunzManninglJofeh Detmk For a structure ofthis size which is fullyexpressed and which has people close to it.2111 November 1988 is under construction. The wall consists ofin sifu lm diameter piles between 14 and 24m long. the formation level for pad foundations was not softened unacceptably by a reduction in effective stress. there is a mezzanine floor between the groundslab and concourse slab.in thetemporary case. Access to theterminal building is by road.2mm.It appears that. of the building. However. The concrete in the superstructure is grade 40. Expansion joints are at 36m centresin two directions. in which the baggage-handling hall is located. The groundslab is ground bearing. The planning grid for theaccommodation on the concourse floor is 1. The piles are at 3m centres. -The ground slab is underlain by a 3oOmm-thick granular layer of specified permeability and compaction which has within it land drains laid at 18m centres which lead to a central ground water sewer along the centre of the building. This was built after the concourse and consists of precast beams and planks supported on in situ corbels on the columns. The planning of the basement resulted m two basic column grids for the structure for the concourse floor: the southern half of the building at basement level is occupied mostly by mechanical and electrical while the northern half plant and is planned on a 6m square column grid. Clearly. The concourse slab (ii)The undercroft The concourse. A new rail link betweenBishops Stortford and the terminal Fig 14. the tender drawings showed all the joints as fabrication made from tube and plate. carry vertical load as well as retain the soil behind them. For ease of operation it was decided to suspend most of the baggage handling and servicing in the basement from theconcourse slab. Along the southside of the forecourtand station isa 10m-high cantilever retaining wall. is planned on a 12m square column grid. Thus the concourse slab loading is substantial-approximately 15 kN/m2. h The steelwork is painted for corrosion protectionand difficult jointsare silicon sealed. it was necessary to makesure that. rather than welded to save time.branch and fourgridline beams -jack/push the tree to ensure that the four comers are inacceptable an positi0n -insert the joining gridline The fist tree was assembled in situ and used as thelearning prototype to refine erection techniques. The building is founded on shallow padfoundations which can accommodate the heave movement of the glacial till. the architetural hierarchywithin the structure was most important in determining their arrangement. the ground slab couldnot be loaded upwards by the build-up of water pressure beneath it. the prestressing corrects errors in initial setting-out and seems to be self-squaring. (G)) The secomiary steelwork The significant elements of secondary steelwork are associated with the perimeter wall of the building and the independent freestanding cabin structures which form the enclosed offices in the concourse space. The mullions are positioned at 2.cabin steelwork : Arnolds (Branbridges) Ltd.Simply supported beams are positioned between them.21/1 November 1988 Prograamc . Construction on site commenced inJune 1986.steel roof : Tubeworkers Ltd. Install and protect anchor tics and construct earth dumpling 1.Paper: Zunz/Manning/Jofeh Extent of e x c a v u t i for piling platform. The inplanestiffness of the wall is produced by inplane bracing. on the steel roof Tony Stevens. The perime$er wall is supported by the concrete slab and spans vertically 12m to the roof above.1984 when a Acknowledgements The authors would like to thanktheir client. Construct wal piles. A reinforced concrete wall was then b e t anchored to the frontof the piles from the bottom up. Tony Roper. -undercroft : Keir (London) Ltd.. Backfill behind wall 97-3 T88-5 Combined track and toe drain Fig 16. r Compactedglacial till ' A In situ RC cdum stage 3 - f k C-te 300mm in situ RC facing wall 97-0 retaining wall and capping beam 1.6m square mushroomsare assembled at 6m centres and contain the service risers. The reinforced concrete work will be completed in late 1988. double wrapped DENSO taw ond plartic tube (max bar length 10-4m) 970 I / I .. TIre wall construction sequence After constructing the piles the construction sequence was to excavate in front of the piles with the soil arching between them. as directed by the engineer L l2OOxlO2OxMW)f RC anchor bkck Onc lOOmm IUACAUOY MSP VU steel ground anchor at 3m9t . In the other two directions the wall is free of the roof. Prestress anchors and grout amulus between anchor and 150 plastic tube g. confmed scheme design wassubmitted to the British Airports Authority. the contractors for the major structural elements: . Preliminiary designs were prepared during theperiod 1981. The cabii strudures mirror the independent tree and servicing philosophy of the main roof structure. -wall steelwork : Tubeworkers for Hans Schmidlin . the BAA Project Team. The structural steelwork for the roof was completed in late 1987.protected &y grease. Pin filtrum to exposed earth face and install l l O m m vertical slotted dmim j. drains and C a r park sutrways lO3-15 1 inMn fall Sopcl a Excavatc and form piling Ohtform b. The roof is formed of woodwool slabs. Foster Associates.British Airport Services Ltd. -BR station and forecourt : Cementation Construction Ltd..At themullion head.8m c entres. The section above theties is then backfilled against an in situ reinforced concrete wall. the architect. Excavute in front of wall pikr in stages of approx 15m depth h Remove block-outs i.6m centres with transoms at l . Fix mesh and apply sprayed concrete to face W: The contractor may be rewired to adjust the level of prestrrSS as bockfill proceeds. Con§!truct anchor piles t I sopc 2 20m RH/ LH T a at 103-0 Turn buck b i ?2&ain anchor t i to 50kNi#t# from this end d. 370 The Structural EngineerNolume 66/No. the roof structure can move in all three directions.but restrains the wall only in a direction normal to it. A Management Contractor was appointed in 1985. assisted by Laing ManagementContracting Ltd. The terminal building is scheduledto be completed in1989 and will open for traffic early in 1991. Cast anchor pik capping beam and wall andux blacks e. 3. and all their colleagues for their support and guidance but in particular Peter Rice. andIan Ainsworth. tenders for steelwork and some ofthe reinforced concrete works having been called for earlier. cased to fulldepth or under Bentonite if ncceswy c.