Mixing Engineering and Archaeology at Port Arthur

11 August 2014 Richard Barnes Simon Wiltshier

11 August 2014 Richard Barnes Simon Wiltshier Port Arthur Tasmania Port Arthur

A. Port Arthur Historic Site • World Heritage • Three periods • Penitentiary • Other parts of the site B. Port Arthur Penitentiary • People involved • Interpretation • Design concepts • Design refinement • Construction

C. Port Arthur District and General Tourism Appeal • Motels • Natural Attractions • Three Capes Walk • Boat Cruises Port Arthur Historic Site

World Heritage Listing 2010

AUSTRALIAN CONVICT SITES New South Wales 1. Cockatoo Island 2. Old Great North Rd Wisemans Ferry 3. Hyde Park Barracks Each of the sites had a specific purpose, in terms both of punitive 4. Old Government House, Parramatta imprisonment and of rehabilitation through forced labour to help build Norfolk Island the colony. The Australian Convict 5. Kingston and Arthurs Vale Sites presents the best surviving examples of large-scale convict Western Australia transportation and the colonial 6. Fremantle Prison expansion of European powers through the presence and labour of Tasmania convicts 7. Brickenden and Woolmers Estates 8. Cascades Female Factory 9. Darlington Probation Centre 10. Coal Mines 11. Port Arthur Port Arthur Tasmania

1790-1820 Flour Mill 1830-1877 Convict Site 1880-1940s Carnarvon 1960-1970 National Parks 1980-2014 Heritage Site Port Arthur Tasmania 1790-1820

Fledgling supply to Van Diemans Land colony Flour Mill Port Arthur Tasmania 1830-1877 Historic Values Port Arthur is an exceptional example of the 19th-century European strategy of using the forced labour of convicts to establish global empires.

Port Arthur demonstrates to a high degree the adaptation of the 19th century British penal system to Australian conditions. This regime ensured that men would be punished and reformed.

Port Arthur was an industrial establishment, which engaged in large scale manufacture of a wide range of material and goods for both government and private markets.

A number of Port Arthur’s institutions pioneered new aspects of British and American 19th-century penal and social ideas and practice: the Point Puer establishment, the Dockyard, the Separate Prison, the Paupers’ Depot and the Lunatic Asylum all demonstrate important innovations in attitude and practice.

Port Arthur Tasmania

Interior Shots of Penitentiary taken after closure in 1880 Port Arthur Tasmania

Interior Shots of Penitentiary taken after closure in 1880 Port Arthur Tasmania

1880s to early 1900s CARNARVON

Devastating fires in 1895 and 1897 Growth of town servicing the area Timber getting, farming

Port Arthur Tasmania

Shot of Penitentiary after fire in 1898 Carnarvon Township

Smith O’Brien’s cottage Medical Officers residence

Chaplains residence Port Arthur Tasmania

1960-1970

Run by Tasmanian National Parks and Wildlife Service Tourist Attraction

1980- Present Port Arthur Tasmania Tourism Attraction

School groups

Shelter from the Weather English Garden Feel The Church The Church Massacre Memorial

28 April 1996 Massacre Memorial Massacre Visitor Centre Isle of the Dead & Point Puer Boys Prison Port Arthur Township

Hospital

Commandants Guard House Tower Dockyards Port Arthur Penitentiary

The Consultant Team

Michael Pender Peter Saw

Graham Brooks

Simon Wiltshire Richard Barnes The Client Team

Port Arthur Heritage Site Management Authority

Stephen Large Jane Harrington Lucy Burke-Smith Marita Perry David Roe Jody Steele

Bev, local residents representative Jo Lyngcoln, PAHSMA John Featherstone, Site maintenance Sue Clarke, PA Board The Structural Design Teams

Mott Macdonald Simon Wiltshier Alison Naimo

Hyder Gavin Lume Jordan Scott Tim Miller Richard Barnes Interpretation 1

Penitentiary Interpretation 2

Hospital Separate Prison & Asylum Separate Prison Separate Prison Penitentiary Flour Mill to Convict Barracks Water Wheel Convict Cells Structural Capacity Analysis

INPUTS Geotechnical Survey Masonry analysis in laboratory Applied load assessment Finite element modelling by STRAND

GOAL To compare applied loads to design capacities Geotechnical Investigation Geotechnical Investigation Masonry Review BRICK AND MORTAR TESTING

1. Mortar Samples (6No.) Analysis of constituents • Lime • Sand of variable grading • Other fine material e.g. brick or stone dust • Other material e.g. shell fragments, clays, etc.

2. Making New Mortar: After analysing the mortar, appropriate mixes for making three types of mortar will be agreed upon:  an average mortar  a stronger mortar (i.e. more lime)  a weaker mortar (i.e. less lime) The purpose of this is to establish the sensitivity with regard to strength of the potential variability in mortars likely to exist in the building. BRICK AND MORTAR TESTING

3. Making Test Samples Compressive Strength Flexural Strength Salmon bricks 3 tests with average mortar Salmon bricks Cream bricks 5 tests with average mortar 3 tests with average mortar 5 tests with weaker mortar 5 tests with stronger mortar Shear Strength

Salmon bricks Cream bricks 6 tests with average mortar 5 tests with average mortar 5 tests with weaker mortar Cream bricks 5 tests with stronger mortar 6 tests with average mortar

BRICK AND MORTAR TESTING

4. Curing It is understood that lime mortars gain strength slowly. Since we cannot cure for long periods it is proposed that curing take 28 days.

5. Required Output Tested as per Appendix D of AS3700-2011 Characteristic flexural tensile strength to AS3700-2011 (f’mt) Characteristic compressive strength to AS3700-2011 (f’m) Characteristic shear strength to AS3700-2011 (f’ms) STRENGTH GAIN OVER TIME FOR LIME MORTARS BRICK TESTING - PENITENTIARY RESULTS (MPa) Test (lime: sand ratio) Red Bricks Cream Bricks 28 Days Final 28 Days Final Compressive strength (1:2) 1.1 2.0 2.6 4.7 Shear Strength (1:2) 0.004 0.010 0.011 0.020 Flexural Strength (1:2) 0.019 - 0.038 - Flexural Strength (1:1.5) 0.020 0.040 0.034 0.070 Flexural Strength (1:3) 0.017 - 0.037 - LIME ANALYSES

Sample No. Description Ca0, % Si02, % Parts Lime Parts Sand 1 Bake house E wall 12.0 0.5 1 1.6 2 Bake house end gable 12.9 0.4 1 1.5 3 Penitentiary W wall 9.9 0.7 1 2.0 4 Front wall east 10.0 1.0 1 2.0 5 Front wall east 11.6 0.5 1 1.7 6 South wall 13.0 1.0 1 1.5 Loads

• VERTICAL • LATERAL – Wind AS1170.2 – Earthquake AS1170.4 – Wave action Wall loads

Threat – Wave impact and Inundation Inundation Inundation Wall Design Capacity to AS3700

Comparison of BENDING MOMENTS Wall Design Capacity to AS3700

Design for vertical bending

Wall Mcv Input variables: Thickness • Wall section moduli Z , Z , Z (mm) (kNm/m) d p u • Compression from wall weight above fd • Masonry strength f’ut, f’mt 450 5 • Brick density 550 9 700 21 • Perpend spacing kp 850 38

Design for horizontal bending

Wall Mcv Thickness (mm) (kNm/m)

450 9 550 14 700 23 850 34 Early Strand Models

WINDOWLESS MODEL

Wind in East-West direction Early Strand Models

Wind in North-South direction Flappy South wall MODEL OF CRITICAL WALL F

No restraint, Horizontal moment

* Mh = 35 kNm STRAND MODEL with WINDOWS WEST WALL

Existing

Vertical bending Horizontal bending WEST WALL

Vertical line of restraint

Vertical bending Horizontal bending Wall bracing points WALL BRACING BASIC STRUCTURAL OPTIONS Wall bracing – option 1 Wall bracing – option 2 Wall bracing – option 3 Wall bracing – option 4

Cross-braced frame WALL FRAMING WALL FRAMING

WALL FRAMING REFINING THE OPTIONS WALL FRAMING

STRENGTH

DEFLECTION LIMITS

SPAN/500 = 22mm Full Code Compliance

SPAN/250 = 44mm

SPAN/125 = 88mm Fabric damage, but no collapse WALL FRAMING

Strength WALL FRAMING

Deflection WALL FRAMING WALL FRAMING WALL FRAMING WALL FRAMING

Varying mast size – 273, 323, 355, 406, 457mm diameters

(top row bases pinned; bottom row bases fixed) WALL FRAMING

50mm diameter cable 273mm mast diameter 1500mm cable offset Fixed bases 9m spacing between masts 88mm deflection limit L/125 WALL FRAMING Archaeological constraints Archaeological constraints Archaeological constraints Design Plans Wall F

Finalised Strand Modelling

Columns Helibar Grouted Sock Anchors Top Plates General Solution Steel Columns & Concrete Footings Helibar HELIBAR HESBIA GROUTED STRUCTURAL ANCHORS

Christ Church Cathedral, Newcastle.

Vertical anchor. GROUTED STRUCTURAL ANCHORS BY GRUENSTARK

Grouted structural anchor.

Salisbury Cathedral, Wiltshire, UK. Grouted structural anchor. Grouted Sock Anchors Top Plate Wall F design solution

• Columns • Helibar • GSA • Top plates

WALL F2 Elevation Interpretation Works

Elevated walkway over cells Interpretation Works Interpretation Works Interpretation Works Construction Construction Construction Construction Construction Foundation Construction Foundation Construction Column construction Wall drilling for grouted anchors Wall drilling for grouted anchors Port Arthur District And General Tourism

Port Arthur Surrounds Port Arthur Township

Regular township Accomodation in Area Fox and Hounds Stewarts Bay Lodge Proposed on-site luxury resort Cruise ships Hobart Accomodation in Area

Stewarts Bay Lodge Coal Mines Eaglehawk Neck

Guard dog line, Eaglehawk Neck Tessellated Pavement

Tasman Arch

Blow Hole

Devils Kitchen Tasman Island Adventure Cruises Seal Colonies Three Capes Walk Three Capes Walk – Cape Raoul Three Capes Walk – Cape Huay Cape Huay Bridge Three Capes Walk – Cape Pillar & Tasman Island Conclusion - Port Arthur Project

• Mixture of engineering, tourism and archaeological inputs • Of national significance, with $8M committed by State and Federal Governments Questions Contributions