Life Cycle Management of Port Structures Recommended Practice for Implementation

PIANC ‘Setting the course’

Report n° 103 - 2008

Life Cycle Management of Port Structures Recommended Practice for Implementation The World Association for Waterborne Transport Infrastructures

PIANC

‘Setting the course’

PIANC REPORT N° 103 MARITIME NAVIGATION COMMISSION

LIFE CYCLE MANAGEMENT OF PORT STRUCTURES RECOMMENDED PRACTICE FOR IMPLEMENTATION 2008

PIANC Report 103

PIANC has Technical Commissions concerned with inland waterways and ports (InCom), coastal and ocean waterways (including ports and harbours) (MarCom), environmental aspects (EnviCom) and sport and pleasure navigation (RecCom). This Report has been produced by an international Working Group convened by the Maritime Navigation Commission (MarCom). Members of the Working Group represent several countries and are acknowledged experts in their profession. The objective of this report is to provide information and recommendations on good practice. Conformity is not obligatory and engineering judgement should be used in its application, especially in special circumstances. This report should be seen as an expert guidance and state of the art on this particular subject. PIANC disclaims all responsibility in case this report should be presented as an official standard.

PIANC Secrétariat Général Boulevard du Roi Albert II 20, B 3 B-1000 Bruxelles Belgique

http://www.pianc.org VAT BE 408-287-945 ISBN 2-87223-168-4

© All rights reserved

PIANC Report 103

TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS..................................................................................................................................... 4 1. INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................................... 5 1.1 Background . ......................................................................................................................................... 5 1.2 Terms of Reference................................................................................................................................. 5 1.3 Target Readers........................................................................................................................................ 5 1.4 Objectives of the Report.......................................................................................................................... 6 1.5 Structure of the Report............................................................................................................................ 6 1.6 Abbreviations........................................................................................................................................... 6 2. LIFE CYCLE MANAGEMENT AS A CONCEPT – A BROAD OVERVIEW.................................................... 7 2.1 General . ......................................................................................................................................... 7 2.2 Life Cycle Phases.................................................................................................................................... 7 2.3 Performance Criteria – Functionality and Technical Quality.................................................................... 8 2.4 Direct and Indirect Costs......................................................................................................................... 9 2.5 Direct and Indirect Benefits..................................................................................................................... 9 2.6 Relationship between Technical Lifetime and Time of Use..................................................................... 9 2.7 The actual LCM process....................................................................................................................... 10 2.7.1 Identify Alternatives................................................................................................................. 11 2.7.2 Estimate costs and benefits of alternatives............................................................................. 12 2.7.3 Evaluation of alternatives and WLC........................................................................................ 12 2.8 WLC in relation to LCM......................................................................................................................... 12 2.8.1 Stakeholders and institutional set up...................................................................................... 13 2.8.2 Factors affecting WLC and required input............................................................................... 13 2.8.3 Availability of justifiable input data.......................................................................................... 16 2.9 MCA in relation to LCM......................................................................................................................... 16 3. PRACTICAL APPLICATION OF LCM EXAMPLE FOR A CONTAINER TERMINAL................................. 17 3.1 General . ....................................................................................................................................... 17 3.2 LCM related processes and actions in consecutive life cycle phases................................................... 17 3.3 Typical example based on the construction of a major container terminal............................................ 19 3.3.1 Planning and design phase..................................................................................................... 19 3.3.2 Construction phase................................................................................................................. 25 3.3.2.1 Quality......................................................................................................................... 26 3.3.2.2 Cost Control................................................................................................................ 26 3.3.2.3 Programme Management........................................................................................... 27 3.3.2.4 Design Review............................................................................................................ 27 3.3.2.5 As-Built Documentation............................................................................................... 28 3.3.3 Operation & maintenance phase............................................................................................. 28 3.3.4 Re-use and/or disposal phase................................................................................................ 30 4. MAINTENANCE MANAGEMENT............................................................................................................... 31 4.1 General . ....................................................................................................................................... 31 4.1.1 Review of Maintenance Strategy............................................................................................ 31 4.1.2 Operational Records............................................................................................................... 31 4.1.3 Maintenance Monitoring.......................................................................................................... 31 4.1.4 Maintenance Costing.............................................................................................................. 31 4.1.5 Operation & Maintenance Cost Planning................................................................................ 31 4.1.6 Operational Performance Review........................................................................................... 32 4.2 Organisation ......................................................................................................................................... 32 4.2.1 Personnel................................................................................................................................ 32 4.2.2 Structures and Facilities.......................................................................................................... 32 4.3 Inspection Program............................................................................................................................... 33 4.3.1 Types and Frequencies of Inspections.................................................................................... 33 4.3.2 Rating and Prioritisation.......................................................................................................... 34 4.3.3 Recommendations and Follow-up Actions.............................................................................. 36 4.4 Repair Prioritization............................................................................................................................... 37 4.5 Data Management................................................................................................................................. 38 5. REFERENCES . ....................................................................................................................................... 38 APPENDIX A – PERFORMANCE CRITERIA..................................................................................................... 39 APPENDIX B - NEW QUAYWALL...................................................................................................................... 46 APPENDIX C - NEW QUAYWALL...................................................................................................................... 49 APPENDIX D – EXISTING QUAYWALL............................................................................................................ 50 APPENDIX E – QUESTIONNAIRE.................................................................................................................... 53

3

PIANC Report 103

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Peter Spragg High Point Rendel United Kingdom

The work and contributions of the following WG 103 (formerly MarCom WG 42) members, reviewing, corresponding and temporary members is acknowledged:

Ad van der Toorn Port of Rotterdam Delft University of Technology The Netherlands

Wim Colenbrander - Chairman Retired from Bouwdienst Rijkswaterstaat The Netherlands

Andreas Westendarp Bundes Ambt Wasserbau Germany

George Steele - Vice Chairman George Steele Consulting Ltd United Kingdom

Ronald West † Ronald West Consultancy Ltd. United Kingdom

Wilfred Molenaar – Secretary Ballast Nedam Infra Consult + Engineering Delft University of Technology The Netherlands

† The working group regrets the death in August 2004 of Ronald West, who was a very active and enthusiastic member of the group.

Åke Bjurholm Grontmij-CarlBro Sweden

Reviewing, corresponding and temporary members:

Gunnar Björk Niras Denmark

Valery Buslov former Han-Padron Associates USA

Hans Hartelius Retired from Ramboll Denmark

Ole Christoffersen Denmark Ennio de Curtis Canada

Ron Heffron Moffatt & Nichol USA

Koen van der Eecken Hydro Soils Services Belgium

Mitsuyasu Iwanami Port and Airport Research Institute Japan

Hidenori Hamada Port and Airport Research Institute Kyushu University Japan

Hans Klingenberg KFS Anläggnings Konstruktörer AB Sweden

Jean Jacques Trichet Cetmef France

Professor Giuseppi Matteotti University of Padova Italy

Enrique Urribarri Alatec Spain

Piero Ruol University of Padova Italy

PIANC Report 103

4

1. PIANC PTCII report: “Life-cycle-management of port structures – General principles” (report of Working Group 31, Supplement to Bulletin no.99) has been published giving the general principles of LCM 2. The new working group will build on these general principles and develop the practical recommendations for implementation in port structures 3. The goal of the new working group is to produce an “Implementation Manual” for LCM in port Structures based on the four phases of LCM.

1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background Since 1987 three MarCom Working Groups WG17, WG31, and WG 103 (formerly known as WG42) have been working on the Inspection, Repair, Maintenance and Life Cycle Management (LCM) of Port Structures. Working Groups 17 and 31 prepared three reports. The first report “Inspection, Maintenance and Repair of Maritime Structures Exposed to Damage and Material Degradation Caused by the Salt Water Environment”, published in 1991, was the stepping stone for the second report “Life Cycle Management of Port Structures – General Principles” which was published in 1998.

The scope of the Implementation Manual will consider: 4. The four fundamental phases of LCM: planning and design, construction, operation & maintenance, disposal. 5. Each phase will be considered independently, but the study will also highlight interactions between decisions taken in former phases. 6. The Manual will be based on the comprehensive analysis of the practices employed by the ports worldwide as well as on the latest developments in the port technology.

The Working Group 17 report was revised and updated and re-published in 2004. The revised WG17 report contains: • principles and causes of degradation and damage of materials • state-of-the-art methods of inspection, maintenance and repair of port structures • a guide and an extensive, annotated bibliography • materials dealt with are timber, stone and masonry, concrete (unreinforced, reinforced and pre-stressed), and steel.

For a full understanding and appreciation of the life cycle process it is considered advisable to read all of the above Working Group reports in combination with each other.

WG31’s report “Life Cycle Management of Port Structures — General Principles” contains: • introduction to the concept of LCM by first defining the terms used and what is meant by the term LCM • a chapter on the reasons for undertaking LCM, introduction of the concept of Whole Life Costing. Whilst this is not an essential precursor to LCM, its use at the pre-construction planning phase is an excellent starting point for planning maintenance from the very beginning • onset to the implementation of LCM – the latter of which is considerably expanded in the present report.

1.3 Target Readers Port structures are subject to a life cycle process, and this report is based on the four phases listed in the Terms of Reference. Conventionally, these phases are managed and developed by separate teams of qualified personnel. With this arrangement the overall outcome technically, economically, and environmentally may not be optimal because a particular aspect is not pursued beyond the phase dealt with by the team due to perhaps a flaw in logic, knowledge, or custom. An important objective of LCM is to link the four phases by providing each team with adequate knowledge and vision to master this objective and to collaborate closely with any other team performing concurrently.

1.2 Terms of Reference As a sequel to the WG 31 1998 report MarCom appointed WG42 (currently named PIANC WG 103) with the following Terms of Reference:

5

PIANC Report 103

In this context, the report principally aims at readers with qualifications to participate in the abovementioned teams but who may not be conversant with LCM. Further, the report endeavours to cover subjects of potential interest to port owners and port users. Besides these target readers the report may, of course, be used for other purposes, e.g. teaching and training, but for brevity this has not been taken into account.

benefits are seen, LCM would be rapidly extended to cover all infrastructure in the port.

1.5 Structure of the Report This report begins with an overview of LCM, which includes the necessary definitions of life cycles and performance criteria, description of the LCM process, Whole Life Cost and Multi Criteria analysis. Chapter 3 includes a practical example for a container terminal. Chapter 4 covers the area of maintenance management following completion or refurbishment of a facility.

Note: readers with an economic-financial background will recognize in LCM a lot of what is known to them as Asset Life Management (ALM).

1.4 Objectives of the Report

Some references are listed in Chapter 5 to enable interested readers, to further their knowledge in the various aspects of the subject.

The intention of this report is to supplement the “general principles” into recommendations and guidance for implementation to port structures.

The Appendices present: • Performance criteria and measures to enhance performance • The LCM approach to decide on the berth depth to be provided along a new quay • The LCM approach to decide on immediate or postponed investment for a new quay • A case where LCM was implemented for decisions on renewal of an existing quay in Rotterdam. • The Questionnaire and results. This Questionnaire has been sent to ports all over the world in order to assess the degree to which port structures are managed from an LCM point of view, if at all. The outcome of the Questionnaire has been useful in preparing the report.

Port authorities are interested in the behaviour of the civil engineering elements of port infrastructure, particularly with respect to the financial, technical, safety and environmental decisions to be taken during the life-time of the structures. It therefore follows that to avoid unexpected largescale rehabilitation measures and costly downtimes as a consequence of neglected periodic maintenance, a systematic planning and budgeting of maintenance activities is necessary. LCM, and its precursor Whole Life Costing, will contribute to a realistic approach of maintenance policy, including decision-making, planning, budgeting and funding of inspection and repair activities during the life-time of port structures.

1.6 Abbreviations

The report focuses on LCM of port infrastructure such as wharves, quays, jetties and breakwaters. Roads and buildings, as well as dredging associated with the structures, and port equipment such as cranes are excluded from the report, however similar principles will and frequently are used with respect to them. It cannot be over-emphasised that whilst the ideal is to set up LCM at the planning stage for a new project, it can be implemented at any time during a facility’s lifetime for the remainder of its working life. It can also be used for a specific part of a facility, although in this case it is to be hoped that once the

PIANC Report 103

6

PIANC MarCom PTC II WG

International Navigation Association, www.pianc-aipcn.org Maritime Navigation Commission (formerly PTC II) Permanent Technical Committee II Working Group

LCM ALM WLC MCA QA QC NPV

Life Cycle Management Asset Life Management Whole Life Costing Multi criteria analysis Quality assurance Quality control Net present value

CD

Chart Datum; reference level on nautical maps

2. LIFE CYCLE MANAGEMENT AS A CONCEPT – A BROAD OVERVIEW

2.2 Life Cycle Phases The relevant life cycle changes for new or existing structures covers planning and design, construction, operation, maintenance, renovation, and /or reconstruction, re-use and /or disposal.

2.1 General In general terms Life Cycle Management (LCM) is a management approach to infrastructure construction to achieve cost effective functionality and quality and to enable a port to generate maximum direct and indirect income for minimal Whole Life Cost (WLC).

A brief description of each of these phases follows below: The planning and design phase encompasses the whole period and all the activities from the initial idea to elaboration into concepts, outline design and pre-design thru to the detailed design stage of a structure.

Whole life costs relate not only to the direct cost of construction, maintenance, etc. of the structure itself but also to indirect costs and probable benefits related to its use and the environment in which it is located.

The construction phase commences with the preparation phase followed by on-site construction and finishes with a handover to the owner or operator and ongoing maintenance.

Although in principle LCM is aimed at providing minimum Whole Life Costs it has to be acknowledged that in practice there are many situations where time or budget constraints lead to far from optimum solutions. For example port owners may not wish to expend additional money on an adaptable or reuseable structure, or may not have the funding to choose more durable or easier maintainable alternatives. Part of the problem is due to the fact that although additional direct costs are identifiable, future savings or tangible benefits may not be readily apparent. It only becomes easier to accept when for example it is known that ship sizes are likely to increase in the future which has been the case with container vessels for many years. This has also had the effect of developers having to consider the cost of larger shore side cranage together with deeper dredged berths and approach channels when considering medium to long(er) term planning.

The operational and maintenance phase relates on the one hand to operational activities and commercial use of the facility and on the other hand to inspection, evaluation and if deemed necessary appropriate repairs. The re-use and/or disposal phase relates to the end of the service life and /or the technical lifetime. A reassessment of existing structures can take place at any time during their lifetime to review the functional requirements. If these are not being fulfilled an upgrade, downgrade or refurbishment of the structure may be necessary. Substantial changes in the functional requirements may demand reuse of the main parts or the total structure itself or even re-location to another site. Disposal means demolition of a structure in whole or/and in part and its removal from site.

In this report the LCM approach is applied to both new and existing port infrastructure and is limited to quays, jetties and breakwaters and takes into account performance criteria such as functionality and technical quality. It also examines appropriate life cycle stages such as design, construction, operation, maintenance (including inspection, evaluation and repair), re-use and /or disposal.

All structures will eventually reach the end of their serviceable life, e.g. due to changes in economic, operational, or environmental conditions or for social reasons. It is at this phase an LCM database may contain sufficient information in respect of the design, construction, maintenance, repairs or upgrading of the structure to allow an informed judgement to be made on the future use of the asset. Some options at the re-use stage are shown in Figure 2.1 (next page).

Although examples in this report are generally limited to quays, jetties and breakwaters the LCM technique can be applied to other structures, plant and equipment.

7

PIANC Report 103



Figure 2.1: Re-use options (limited example only) or jetty, the quay or jetty deck loads and, last but not least for LCM, the lifetime of the structure. Prime requirements for a breakwater would also include the horizontal layout, thus the length of the breakwater, and the height of the breakwater, more specific the required crest level.

2.3 Performance Criteria – Functionality and Technical Quality The performance criteria, functionality (or functional quality) and (technical) quality, mentioned in the definition of LCM need to be defined or clarified further. For this purpose general reference is made to Appendix A.

Given the prime requirements, serviceability and availability demands are equally important for the overall functionality of berthing facilities, whilst for breakwaters, availability of the sheltered area generally overrides all other factors.

Functionality is the degree to which a structure can fulfill its intended main functions as specified in the functional and operational requirements, which are primarily of user interest.

Technical Quality is the degree to which a structure suffices to wishes and demands being more of interest to other stakeholders such as the designer, builder or contractor, maintenance manager, the surrounding, society as a whole, etc.

In this report the overall criterion functionality has been split up in three sub criteria: prime requirements, serviceability and availability. A common prime requirement regarding berthing facilities and breakwaters is the number of berths or number of breakwaters to be provided; only one or a multiple number.

The technical qualities that come into play due to stakeholder interests are listed in the table below, together with the functionalities, the latter to provide oversight over all the performance criteria distinguished in this report.

Other prime requirements for berthing facilities would be the depth of water, the length of the quay

PIANC Report 103

8

costs have to be translated to a common base level. To achieve this, the Net Present Value (NPV) of all costs has to be calculated.

2.5 Direct and Indirect Benefits The direct benefits or income derived from quays and jetties is generally related to the use of the structure itself. This can be through individual ship’s dues, but in many cases through a longterm lease arrangement between a private company and a Port Authority. Indirect income is also derived from port dues for use of the navigational approaches (including breakwaters) to the quays or jetties and from charges placed on goods which are loaded or discharged over the quayside or jetty. Table 2.1: Performance criteria

If during the lifetime of the structure it is put out of use due to problems related to the quality of construction, inspection or maintenance activities, physical damage and/or obsolence, there will be partial or total loss of income from the asset.

2.4 Direct and Indirect Costs When considering construction of a quay wall, jetty or breakwater the following present and future cost components directly related to the structure may be applicable:

Similarly, if the structure has to be upgraded to improve the functionality, hence the income stream, there will be a period of little or no income during the period of upgrade activities.

Design costs + Construction Costs + Inspection and Maintenance Costs + Renewal and /or Demolition Costs

As for costs, the NPV of all benefits has to be calculated for fair comparison of alternatives.

Some times Operational Costs have to be considered as a Direct Cost Component. For instance, when standard bollards have to be compared with quick release hooks, or the use of capstans instead of reeling lines by hand.

2.6 Relationship between Technical Lifetime and Time of Use A quay or jetty structure will generally be designed for a minimum life of 25 - 50 years. In certain circumstances a longer design life may be required by the owner on the basis there is an expectation that a structure can be adapted for different user requirements over the lifetime of the structure.

Indirect costs will occur if during the lifetime of a structure it is partly or totally out of use due to lack of quality, poor inspection or maintenance, excessive damage due to impact forces caused by use or mother nature. Such periods of non-usage could result in loss of benefits / income or damage to equipment and could even lead to claims from third parties. Other indirect costs associated with short- or long-term downtime can include associated downtime of industrial facilities depending on the port, or permanent loss of customers to other ports.

Apart from the design life, extended future use is greatly dependent on the flexible nature of the structure. As an alternative it may be considered more cost effective to use a shorter design life with a view to future demolition of the structure and its replacement with another structure as business needs change. In many cases given the fast changing needs of the business in ports and harbours the latter view is taken in preference to pure technical considerations for such structures.

The above direct and indirect costs or financial risks can and will be faced at any time during the lifetime of the structure. For comparative purposes such

9

PIANC Report 103

The relationship between time, functionality, quality, benefits and costs is shown in Figure 2.2. Gradually increasing functional demands may require a quantum increase in functionality of the structure at a certain moment in time.

Figure 2.4: Benefits versus time The constant and increasing need for maintenance of a structure over a period of time is demonstrated in Figure 2.5. The potential effect on functionality, quality and benefit, when a major investment is made is illustrated in Figures 2.2 thru 2.4. Sometimes structures need extra maintenance in the first years of operation because of so called children’s diseases (not shown in Figure).

Figure 2.2: Functionality versus time Figure 2.3 shows the typical deterioration of a structure, the decrease of quality in time. This generally coincides with the increases in maintenance costs. Assuming a minimum level of quality is required, the decrease can be redressed through a periodic injection of investments, which may also be necessary to improve the functionality and benefit of a structure.

Figure 2.5: Costs versus time

2.7 The actual LCM process The implementation of LCM involves a three-step process. Assuming that a project has been identified and the basic functional requirements and design criteria are known, either explicitly or intuitively, the LCM process may begin.

Figure 2.3: Quality versus time Usually some time will pass before the benefits reach a maximum level. In a following, longer period of time, the benefits remain stable, then they may diminish, but can increase again when major investments to improve functionality are made, see Figure 2.4.

PIANC Report 103

1. The first step is to identify alternatives 2. The second step is to estimate the costs and benefits associated with each alternative 3. The third step is to apply whole life costing to facilitate decision making.

10

Figure 2.6 illustrates this concept. Each of these steps is further explained below. Before moving on, note that it could be worthwhile to draw up a first design that meets most of the draft design criteria, if this has not already been produced. This first design can be used as a Reference Design or Zero-Alternative, acting as a beacon for setting alternative development in the right direction.

Adopting the spirit of LCM a port authority could prepare different scenarios for the use of the facility during its lifetime, not only varying the type of use but the considered period of use as well. Assuming that the facility and/or area is planned in a versatile but odd corner of the port, three life scenarios for a new quay, to be developed in that area, are presented. Obviously a lot could be argued pro and contra these scenarios, however, the main purpose to be served here is illustration of LCM implementation. Scenario1: the facility is used for dry bulk the first 30 years, then 20 years for containers, and the remaining lifetime for heavy lift purposes. Note that the total required lifetime would be about 70 years, which in itself results in additional strength design requirements. In fact an upgrade of a larger piece of port area is effectuated by this development. Scenario 2: the facility is used for about 20 years as multi purpose berth. Being at a slightly obsolete corner of the port most probably there will be no further use of the facility after this period. Note that the lifetime is relatively short for a quay, possibly resulting in reduced strength requirements. Scenario 3: the facility starts as a container terminal; will be used for general cargo in the next period, resulting in a total of about 30-35 years for port use. Since the port is moving seaward the city takes over ownership from the port and will develop the facility according to its needs.

Figure 2.6: The LCM procedure 2.7.1 Identify Alternatives Each of the LCM considerations may involve many alternatives to be considered. The alternatives will be project and facility specific. While it would be impractical to list all of the possible alternatives which could apply to all facility types, examples may be useful. The next Chapter and Appendix A provide examples of measures that may be implemented for each performance criterion. Not all of these aspects may be applicable for a given project and an alternative measure proposed for one criterion may be beneficial for more than just that aspect. This would limit the number of alternatives to be evaluated.

Traditionally the designer would select the most governing situation to base the design upon using ‘engineering judgement’, but considering 3 different life time scenarios and multiple types of possibly required quays/jetties, vision might get too clouded to make the right decision intuitively. Now, applying LCM, questions of a strategic nature have to be answered: • Is it cost effective to construct the governing quay immediately? Or should a quay of lesser functionality be constructed first and upgraded later? • What is the financial value of a quay being transferred to the city after a 30 year service life? • Will rock-bottom construction price combined with minimum maintenance throughout the lifetime result in unacceptable downtime?

11

PIANC Report 103

• Is it possible to abandon the degraded structure safely after the service life without (extra) costs or disposal required? • etc.

2.7.3 Evaluation of alternatives and WLC After developing all the alternatives, they have to be evaluated and finally one or a few best alternatives have to be selected. For selection the Whole Life Costing method will be used. The steps to be taken comply with the overall LCM procedure:

LCM implementation calls for a more systematic approach; although this may result in a larger amount of alternatives to be worked upon. Analysis will demonstrate whether the choice of an optimal solution is at all sensitive to possible uses 20 or 30 years ahead.

1. Calculate costs and/or benefits of the alternatives; the reference design or zero-alternative and of all proposed alternatives 2. Apply WLC by calculating the Net present Value (NPV) for each alternative 3. Select one or a few alternative(s) with the lowest NPV.

2.7.2 Estimate costs and benefits of alternatives To use whole life costing for decision making, costs and benefits have to be measured or expressed in currency, see next subsection. Engineers, designers or consultants generally are able to produce reliable cost estimates for the technical components of a port project. To determine the future income flow it will be necessary to involve commercial and financial experts to arrive at realistic income predictions. The costs and benefits of all the alternatives have to be established with the same level of accuracy or reliability, which depends on the stage of the design, and, obviously, basic unit rates or calculation methods should be the same for every alternative, to avoid wrong comparison.

Design is a cyclic process, where the following phase builds upon the previous phase. Based on all the work done to develop and evaluate the alternatives sufficing to the draft design criteria, now the final design criteria should be drawn up. The selected alternative, one or a few, will be further elaborated and worked into a tender or detail design.

2.8 WLC in relation to LCM Whole Life Costing (WLC) in financial terms is a technique enabling expenditures and revenues to be discounted over time and normalised to a common base year. As such it can be used to enable owners to appraise projects and assist them in making decisions about:

Note that probabilities may be introduced while computing costs and benefits, by means of simple percentages, see Figure 2.7, or by using more sophisticated probability density functions.

• different strategies for projects and uses • evaluate different projects competing for limited expenditure. Provided the relevant cost figures and a few other parameters are known the technique is very flexible and can, if desired, incorporate many items such as: • • • • • • • •

Figure 2.7: Adding probability to scenarios and/or alternatives

PIANC Report 103

12

Initial capital cost Financial repayment options Revenue streams Maintenance costs Loss of revenue Upgrade costs Demolition costs Lifetime of the structure

By including revenues, all flows of money, both in and out, are taken into consideration. In that case WLC shifts into the category of evaluation techniques known as Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA). Although WLC can be extended to consider the environmental impacts of the whole construction process from raw material extraction to different end of life management scenarios for the structure, the application of non quantifiable costs may add an element of confusion and divert attention from a true financial comparison of the alternatives. For evaluation of qualitative issues the use of a Multi Criteria Analysis is more appropriate. 2.8.1 Stakeholders and institutional set up

however, by cross balancing e.g. the lease of the terminal disappears as cost and/or revenue item. The example is rudimentary at best, but more detail would be beyond the scope of this report. 2.8.2 Factors affecting WLC and required input Besides stakeholders and institutional set up, dealt with in the previous section, there are other factors affecting the WLC. Whilst any parameter or value used in calculating a Whole Life Cost will affect the final value, some are more fundamental to the result than others. Also some are much easier to calculate with confidence than others.

The WLC analysis is greatly influenced by the institutional set up of the port project. This depends on the stakeholders involved and vice versa. In existing ports, public ports (be it a service, landlord or tool port) or private ports (general or captive), the institutional set up may be more readily available, when the existing model is copied or modified, but on the other hand, more complicated because more stakeholders may be involved. For new developments it may take some extra time or effort to define the set up, but fewer stakeholders may be involved.

The formula used to discount costs and benefits is the following:

Stakeholders, public or private organisations or persons with a legitimate interest in the project, can be divided considering their active or passive contributions, or their positive or negative attitude to the project. Contributions and attitudes may change throughout the life cycles.

This section is not a treatise on WLC or NPV but is intended to highlight some of the important parameters, their significance and the accuracy with which they may or should be calculated. The key to making informed comparisons is both the accuracy of estimating the initial variables and knowing their sensitivity on the final result.

An example to illustrate the effects on the WLC: • Given a large public port, organised according to the landlord model, where a new container terminal will be developed. For the owner the costs and revenues as mentioned in Section 2.4 and 2.5 respectively should be reflected in the WLC. The user of the terminal, being the lessee, bares the cost of the lease of the terminal, revenue for the owner, and has revenues through the cargo handling dues. • Now consider a private port and a similar container terminal development.Although owner and user in a private port may be different entities it will be assumed they are the same entity here. In the WLC analysis similar costs and revenues as for the public port owner are reflected,

NPVC = n

Where: NPVCn = n = r =

Cn (1 + r)n

the Net Present Value of costs C in the nth year a future year discount rate

Discount rate: Normally referred to as r. The discount rate is used to discount future costs or benefits back to the base year. Small changes to the discount rate sway the NPV dramatically, hence have a considerable influence on the final decision taken by comparing WLC values. Having this effect on the result, it is sound, and recommended procedure to carry out sensitivity analyses using different interest rates. The discount rate chosen should be in keeping with market interest rates, public or private, and with inflation, the growth of the overall economy. The interest rate often includes a risk premium. In the

13

PIANC Report 103

Risk premium: It is common practice to include a risk premium in the discount rate, for instance for particular forecasting uncertainties, political and/or regulatory risk. Generally public entities will use no or smaller risk rates than private parties.

following these three contributions to the discount rate, influencing each other, are discussed. Public or private loan interest rates: Given the fundamental difference between public and private institutions, public loan rates are smaller than private loan rates. The effect on economic evaluations will be smaller than the effect on financial evaluations, because the actual cash flow, which includes the cost of borrowing money, is being considered in financial evaluations. It is important to keep in mind that that economic evaluations tend to focus on relative differences in costs and benefits, whilst financial evaluations concentrate on absolute cost figures.

In practice the interest rates adopted are generally from 2.5% up to about 10% for transport infrastructure projects in Europe. The expectation of lower real growth rates in national and worldwide economies in the long term has led to a reduction in discounting rates in some countries, while other countries maintain higher interest rates because of a shortage of resources.

Inflation: It is highly recommended to do the evaluation in real terms, i.e. at constant base prices. However, when relative changes in real prices over the lifespan are expected for particular cost items, significantly differing from inflation, such changes should be incorporated into the appraisal. This shall be done by correcting those specific future prices, not by adjusting the rate because that would affect all the other prices as well.

High discount rates have the effect of favouring smaller projects with a short construction phase. The choice of high discount rates for infrastructure projects with long lifespans (which may nevertheless be above-average importance in a wider context) is problematical and can even be inadequate. Big projects with a long construction phase and delayed benefits may therefore be particularly disadvantaged.

In the financial world the nominal or real interest rate are used for discounting procedures. The relation between the nominal, the real and the inflation rate is as follows:

For ports the figures of 25 to 50 years are normally assumed for the technical (physical) life span of structures.



Life span of the structure:

When carrying out whole life costing it makes little sense to forecast beyond 50 years at the most. A normal span to take is 30 years. This is particularly true if a higher figure is taken for the discount rate as costs and benefits further away in time become negligible when discounted back to the net present value.

1 + rnominal = (1 + rreal)(1 + i) i = inflation rate

With negligible error the expression below can be used:

rnominal = rreal + i

The economic life span of infrastructure may be considerably shorter than the technical lifespan. If a shorter life span of 10 to 15 years would be used, a considerable number of projects would not be financially sound. The calculated WLC would be negative because of the generally high initial investments and the pay back period being too short. It could be decided to invest a little extra and increase the functionality of the infrastructure, thus extending the economic life span. Conversely it could be decided to construct a quay for rock bottom price

Using constant base or real prices implies the use of the real interest rate, which is preferred as stated before. If the nominal rate were to be used the costs and benefits in future years should be corrected for inflation. When done properly this should result in the same NPV for alternatives. By no means shall the use of real prices be mingled with the use of the nominal rate for the discount rate or, vice versa, the use of nominal prices, including inflation, shall be mingled with using the real interest rate.

PIANC Report 103

14

with a life span of only 15 to 20 years. Complete reconstruction or a thorough upgrade after the first period would allow for increasing functionality and extending the economic life span as well as the technical lifespan. Depending on the scenarios selected the life span to be taken into account has to be determined. In case of an existing structure that has to be upgraded a careful study of the remaining physical life of the structure may be necessary to obtain a meaningful estimate for the life span to be taken into account for the WLC. Initial capital costs: Relatively easy to calculate. Design engineers are already experienced at calculating the initial costs with a high degree of accuracy (plus or minus 10 per cent). Following current practice, calculations will be done once only to one given specification, however introducing the concept of WLC will demand that a range of options is considered. These will include options on durability, the inclusion of ‘cradle to grave’ costs and incorporating features for the ease of future inspection and maintenance. Maintenance costs: Preventative and Corrective. Considering maintenance generally distinction is made between preventative and corrective maintenance. Preventative maintenance will normally be carried out on a regular programmed cycle, with each year’s program being similar to the previous. Examples would include drain cleaning, repainting of metal structures, fender maintenance. In spite of the routine maintenance program, defects may occur and be of such nature that e.g. loss of loading capacity, collapse, or loss of safety has to be prevented. The maintenance work required will not fit in with the regular program and generally will be classified as corrective maintenance. Often corrective maintenance is of a greater magnitude and more urgent than preventative or routine maintenance. For these reasons alone corrective maintenance is more costly. Resulting (planned) disruption to operation on the structure or associated parts of the port will add to the costs, or loss of revenue. Corrective maintenance is associated with unforeseen events, hence more difficult to plan in advance over the life

span of the structure. Both types of maintenance interrelate with each other, i.e. if routine maintenance is skimped then corrective intervention will become more frequent and costly, and vice versa. Traditionally it has been difficult to quantify maintenance costs for future years, possibly for as long as 25 years in advance. The desire to estimate Whole Life Costs has over the last decade encouraged many major infrastructure owners to gather detailed information on maintenance costs. As time goes by the accuracy of forecasting the future maintenance costs for any specific type of port asset is improving. For example for preventative routine maintenance, materials ageing models can be used after calibration on historic data available by now. Hindcasting results in maintenance costs as a percentage of construction costs, see the Questionnaire in Appendix E. Using WLC results in a better understanding of the increased maintenance costs that can be associated with low initial cost. Loss of revenue and/or ship waiting time: These costs will be port specific but can be easily defined and can be calculated for any project or part of a project using current rates including demurrage. These costs will on most occasions be high, and even more often a number of times greater than the costs of actual maintenance works being carried out. In certain circumstances the loss of throughput on a quay or jetty may be of national importance, e.g. for a single berth serving an LNG Plant or an oil refinery, in which case costs can be far greater than any direct loss of revenue. Environmental/ Sustainability costs: These are difficult to quantify at present, and are outside the scope of this report. This heading of necessity could cover a very wide range of costs. The list could include the effects of mining for aggregates as opposed to using recycled aggregates, the saving in deleterious emissions by changing from one material or method of construction to another, minimisation of marine pollution, loss of wildlife habitat, and many others. At present few steps are taken to quantify or even to list these areas and environmental costs.

15

PIANC Report 103

On the other hand, in a considerable number of countries port infrastructure projects will only be allowed when sufficient mitigation and compensation measures are taken. The costs associated with these measures are direct input into the WLC, they simply increase the initial required investment.

overlap and supplement each other. They encourage the longer term performance of solutions to be examined more closely, and compared with considered objectives, and thus may generate information upon which management decisions can be based. Cost is never the only relevant factor, and in some instances, other reasons may have a strong influence on the final choice. The facility could be of national importance and its loss of use may be critical even for a short period. Unless the costs associated with downtime or closure are included in the WLC analysis; then attitudes to cost may be quite different. Nevertheless, for most organisations, cost is probably the most important factor, with an inclination to delay expenditure as long as possible (unless investments are clearly expected to generate profits). MCA explicitly enables the inclusion of all other selection criteria other than the financial, the environment not being the least consideration.

Disposal or re-use: Whilst disposal will not normally be a significant factor in determining the whole life cost of a structure it should be recognised. Many parts of a port are left in position at the end of their useful life and are frequently re-used for other purposes. Typical of this are commercial ports being re-used as marinas or quality housing developments. A rough figure for demolition costs would be 20% of the initial construction costs. Demolition tends to be far into the future and when discounted back over a period of more than 50 years, the cost generally is minimal. However, when it is accompanied by removal of contaminated land and dredging of contaminated deposits it may turn into a significant cost item. As discussed previously, the (economic) life span of the structure may be much shorter, say 15 years, which significantly changes the contribution of demolition or re-use costs.

The MCA is a methodology by which the relative merits of alternatives can be compared using a range of quantitative and qualitative criteria. MCA is also referred to as multi-objective decision making, a multi-objective decision support system, and a multi-criteria decision aid.

2.8.3 Availability of justifiable input data

For most projects there are many considerations which must be factored in by decision makers. Often, these considerations are reflected in different ways. Criteria like costs and benefits are measured in currency, whilst environmental impacts are at present often measured only in a qualitative way, which complicates comparison of the alternatives. Nonetheless the whole process should result in selection of only one, best alternative.

Whole Life Costing, as with any such process, relies upon the accuracy of the input data for the production of accurate prediction. At the time of writing there are many uncertainties surrounding the performance profiles required for life cycle costing. However, that strengthens the need for the process, rather than invalidates its use. The performance profiles themselves are of critical importance whatever the means by which they influence intervention selection. A life cycle costing process can thus set a framework for recording essential data in a standard format. As the basic data is gathered and refined over a period of time, the predictions themselves can be improved.

Briefly, the steps to be taken within a MCA are as follows: 1. Identify the alternatives to be compared; 2. Identify a set of criteria for comparing the alternatives; 3. Identify the relative importance of each criterion (weighting); 4. Score the alternatives against each criterion; 5. Multiply the score by the weighting for the criterion; 6. Add all the scores for a given alternative and rank the alternatives by their total score.

2.9 MCA in relation to LCM The common denominator of LCM, WLC and the Multi Criteria Analysis (MCA) is the objective of rationalising the selection of investment alternatives for (port) infrastructure. The three techniques

PIANC Report 103

16

MCA is a systematic methodology, which can be replicated and opened up to public scrutiny. Although MCA does not necessarily require quantitative or monetary data, the information requirements to compile the effects table and derive the weightings can, nevertheless, be considerable.

3. PRACTICAL APPLICATION OF LCM Example for a container terminal 3.1 General The main subject of this PIANC publication concerns the practical application of LCM in port structures. Therefore this chapter is aimed at providing an example to illustrate the approach that may be taken in the development of a new or the modification of an existing port structure in managing its life cycle from cradle to grave. Any development requires a promoter or Client from the public or private sector, who has an idea or concept in mind of what facility is required. Ideally, an outline or fully developed Business Plan for the port activity foreseen is available. The project concept can be expressed, verbally or in simple written form, requesting a consultant or contractor to develop the basic ideas or it can be a detailed list of instructions or procedures to be adopted by the consultant or contractor to deliver the Client’s specific requirements. A pre-feasibility study can also be helpful as perhaps alternative options can be explored, compared and a preferred solution developed. Whichever route is adopted the first phase of Planning and Design is initiated through the Client’s Brief. The Contractor or Consultant developing the project will develop this brief into a Designers Brief or Basis of Design to clarify, in engineering terms, the Clients requirements. It is most important, particularly in the case of LCM, for the Client to fully understand and approve the Basis of Design presented to him at this initial phase to ensure that the completed work meets his expectations. For the purposes of this example it is assumed the Client wishes to proceed on the basis of implementing LCM for his project. In Section 3.2, processes important for LCM are listed and in Section 3.3 the example for a container terminal will be presented.

3.2 LCM related processes and actions in consecutive life cycle phases Planning & design phase: As stated previously, two important documents to be delivered are the Client’s Brief and the Designers Brief or Basis of Design. The Client’s Brief should include as minimum: • The type of port facility required, e.g. a container terminal • Where the facility is to be located • When the facility should be commissioned – programme/phasing of facilities • Planned performance of the facility – throughput and phasing • Planned economic life and implementation of LCM • Potential future use for the facility at the end of its economic life or possible alternatives • Likely external influences e.g. Planning consents • The available budget / required phasing of costs Normally a port structure will require some form of Government approval for its development and may well have been subject to a planning inquiry that will have led to certain caveats, or legal requirements, which must be adhered to during the construction and operational phase; for example additional noise restrictions on piling, visual impact – crane heights, transport of construction materials etc. These restrictions and their impact will be summarised in the Basis of Design. Environmental regulations and demands can be crucial to the project development and implementation. They must be carefully considered from the beginning of the project. The Basis of Design should include as minimum: • A recital of the Client’s Brief • Local and site specific physical and environmental conditions • Site geotechnical investigations • The design criteria and design loadings to be adopted • Impacts from external sources e.g. planning conditions or operational conditions

17

PIANC Report 103

• The results of any investigations undertaken and their impacts • A maintenance strategy • Anticipated re-use/removal of the structure at the end of its economic life

own importance in that it continually examines and challenges the decisions and direction that LCM has taken in the Planning & Design Phase. The main relevant topics to be measured and recorded encompass the following: • The Maintenance organisation • Review of Maintenance Strategy • Operational Records • Maintenance monitoring • Maintenance costing • Operational Performance Review.

The Contractor or Consultant will also need to consider and develop: • Budget costs including comparisons with the LCM strategy and Whole Life Costs • Types of construction contract(s), including control of design, specification, quality, cost/ risk

As the use of the structure continues during its normal life span the economics that gave rise to its initial choice may begin to change such that after a certain period it is no longer required for its original purpose. It may be that the size of vessels have outgrown the originally predicted expectation in vessel growth, or the trade for which it was originally designed, may have ceased or moved elsewhere or some other factors have meant that the facility is no longer required. This may well occur before the structure itself has become obsolete and it may be possible to upgrade the facility or bring it back into useful alternative use. At this point the structure enters its final phase in the LCM cycle during which it may be upgraded, disposed of or reused.

At the completion of and agreement on this first and most important phase the Client will be in a position to invite tenders for the next phase of the project viz. construction. Construction phase: The construction phase enables the Client to see his requirements and concepts brought into life. The most important aspect during this phase will be to ensure that the quality requirements, crucial to LCM, are achieved, and seen to be achieved, through a programme of quality control & documentation. Of equal importance is the control of costs and the construction programme. Reviews of the design intent should be carried out to ensure that any effects on the LCM strategy, negative or positive, are taken into account and at the completion of work As-Built documents, drawings, other records and Operation & Maintenance manuals must be completed. The requirements may be summarised as follows: • Quality control • Cost Control • Programme Management • Design Review • As-Built Documentation.

Re-use and/or disposal phase: The first important activity when the structure reaches this phase in its life is to undertake a feasibility study into future use. The feasibility study will enable the various options for the future use of the facility to be studied, developed to a sufficient level to allow cost estimates to be made, (re)establish potential benefits and its future life. It may be that the most economical solution will be to dispose of the structure.

At the completion of this phase the facility is ready for commissioning and to become operational, and moves into the Operation & Maintenance phase.

In summary the activity at this stage in the life cycle is to: • Undertake a feasibility study • If the result is positive the facility returns to the Planning & Design Phase and its new life begins or

Operation & Maintenance phase: The Operation & Maintenance phase assumes its

PIANC Report 103

18

• If the result is negative methods for its removal and disposal may be developed and put into action.

3.3 Typical example based on the construction of a major container terminal To help illustrate some of the concepts and ideas involved in the adoption of the LCM process a typical example is tracked through the various phases of its life cycle. The example chosen is that of a major container terminal but developments large or small and of all types may follow the same logical path. 3.3.1 Planning and design phase Client’s Brief: A container terminal to be constructed within an existing port, (although this could equally be on a “greenfield” site), capable of an annual throughput of 2 million TEU serving main line and feeder vessels. The terminal is to be capable of maximising the use of automation. Planning consent has been gained and thus the next stage of the facility’s development is to continue the Planning & Design phase to enable the terminal development to be completed.

Economic Life: 20 years. Design Life: 50 years. Potential Future use of the facility: ‘Unknown’- to be discussed. External Influences: Planning consent gained but various conditions to be incorporated. Maintenance Strategy: to be determined, see Chapter 4. Budget Cost: € 300 million. Basis of Design: It is assumed a consulting engineering firm has been engaged by the Client to take the development through the Panning & Design phase and the Client has in mind an Engineering Procurement Construction (EPC) approach to the project. The consulting engineering firm in this case is effectively a Project Management Consultant (PMC) and their first major task is to develop the Basis of Design. This document will be used to clarify the client’s requirements and will be used by the PMC to develop the tender documents and appointment of the EPC contractor in order that the client’s concept is developed into a fully functioning and completed facility incorporating the various aspects of LCM. This requires adoption of a systematic approach, as set out below.

This phase of the development, including construction, is expected to be completed within the next 3 years at a budget cost of € 300 million. The planned economic life for the facility is 20 years for the purpose of financial assessment although the actual design life is expected to be 50 years in this example.

Commencement and development of the Design:

Summary of Client’s Brief:

However, paradoxically the most important selection criteria relates to geological and geotechnical conditions. Other important criteria include environmental conditions, i.e. meteorological (wind wave, tide and currents), hydrographic, hydraulic conditions and seismic events. LCM comes into play when using the performance criteria mentioned in Chapter 2, elaborated in Appendix A. As well as design, LCM is an iterative process and should be used to refine the ongoing WLC analysis which will ultimately lead to the final decision on the quay wall design to be adopted.

Development: Container Terminal. Location: Within the existing port. Programme: 3 years. Performance: − 2 million TEU/annum; − 20’ containers: 856 000; 40’ containers: 572 000; − Hence about 1.4 million boxes to be moved. Main line & feeder vessels; maximise the use of automation.

As with all design processes after initial concepts have been established various quay structures and alternatives will be examined in detail. The choice of quay type structure will have a great influence on its life and LCM aspects and vice versa.

19

PIANC Report 103

The example, presented in table format in the following illustrates the LCM approach and identifies critical issues to consider for a number of key elements of the quay structure and container yard. The main headings in the table have been chosen to conform to the performance criteria. Where possible and applicable the issues and reasons for the ultimate choices in relation to the life cycle of the project are described within the table.

Performance criterion:

The example as a whole is not intended to be exhaustive but should serve to assist the reader in tackling in a systematic manner the likely issues to be encountered in the use of LCM. Other items or subjects can and should be added, if appropriate for the design under consideration. Reasons or decisions given in this example do not necessarily have to be adopted in other projects or conditions.

Functionality – Prime requirement

Item / Subject:

Question & LCM considerations

Reasons & Decision

What berth depth is to be adopted? What are the costs compared to the economic benefits for alternative depths?

Berth initially dredged to -16.5 m CD water depth to save dredging costs.

Water depth Basis of design: Design Vessel 2007 or Future vessels as shown below: Design Vessel 2007: LOA: 397.71m, Beam: 56.4m, Draught:15.5m Displacement:230 000t, 11 000TEU

See Appendix B for further elaboration.

Future vessels 2027: 1. Stretched vessel: LOA: 420m, Beam: 56.4m, Draught: 15.5m, Displacement: 245 000 t, 15 000 TEU 2. Malaccamax vessel: LOA: 410m, Beam: 60m, Draught: 18m, Displacement: 295 000 t, 18 000 TEU Quay length Basis of design: 2007: Not all vessels will be of design vessel length. The quay will also need to cater for feeders and transshipment vessels Initial productivity is assumed to be 900 container moves/m of quay/annum

What length of quay should be selected? What is the anticipated increase in berth occupancy? Not all calls will be largest vessel. Initial and future berth productivity, vessel size and frequency of calls need to be considered.

After studies frequency of calls is not considered to be an issue. 1600 m should be adequate for the first phase and will provide berthing for both types of vessels simultaneously. Regarding following phases 1600 m will suffice, assuming increased productivity, hence a larger throughput on the same length of quay.

Crane Basis of design: 2007: 22 boxes wide Front rail loading Front Rail Loading: 815 kN/m 2027: 24 boxes wide. Front Rail Loading: 850kN/m

What size of ship to shore crane should be adopted as larger cranes will increase crane beam / rail loadings?

Design loading for larger outreach cranes, based on 2027 projection as cost increase is small.

Table 3.1: LCM example for a container terminal

PIANC Report 103

20

21

PIANC Report 103

PIANC Report 103

22

23

PIANC Report 103

PIANC Report 103

24

From a the study of the foregoing matters, decisions can be made on the extent of the analysis to be undertaken on alternatives that will affect the life cycle costs and what is to be included in the design. This will enable Whole Life Costing to be undertaken for important alternatives that will affect the overall cost of the project. To ensure this task does not become onerous, alternatives may be eliminated based on judgement or experience. The conclusions drawn from the completion of this exercise will lead to the finalisation of the Design Criteria as input into the Tender Specification. Tender phase: There are normally 2 alternatives in carrying out construction works for a project: • a General Contract (a contract based on Design Drawings and Specifications produced by the Client`s Consultants or • a Turn Key Contract (a contract based on Design Drawings and Specifications produced by the Contractor and his Consultants). It can also be a combination of both alternatives. Implementation of LCM can normally be exercised more easily with a General Contract because the Client is more in control of both the Design Process and Specification.

Inviting national or international contractors can be carried out in different ways. One method is to prequalify suitable and interested marine civil contractors to tender for the work. As soon as the tenders are received, reviewed and a short list is prepared, the Client may undertake negotiations with the tenderer they consider best on all accounts, not merely price but to ensure the specified LCM requirements have been included. 3.3.2 Construction phase Important aspects of this phase of a project, are: • Quality control • Cost control • Programme management • Design review • As-Built documentation From the LCM viewpoint the most important will be the control of the quality of the construction. To achieve this, a formal inspection and reporting procedure needs to be in place. The example being followed is the construction of a container terminal and in particular the quay wall. For the purposes of this example it is assumed that steel sheet and tubular piles in the form of a combi wall is to be installed and capped with a reinforced concrete beam that is capable of taking forces from the front crane rail, fenders and bollards.

25

PIANC Report 103

The development of the concrete with the required characteristics must be described together with a procedure for its installation to ensure a dense homogeneous mass is achieved with the correct minimum amount of concrete cover to the reinforcement. Control of the quality of the concrete must be described to ensure consistency of the quality. The frequency of taking cubes or cylinders and how these are to be tested should be described. These descriptions and the results of the tests need to be reported. Any hold points required by the Client’s representative must be included.

3.3.2.1 Quality The quality control programme will need to review the contractor’s method of installation. For a combi wall piling this will need to include the method of installation and plant to be used, how the accuracy of position and verticality of the piles is to be maintained and how the correct depth and pile resistance is to be measured and tested. It will also need to include a methodology for the collection and recording of information during construction, including the electronic format and hard copy system to be adopted. The means and frequency of witnessing the installation work must be identified and include any hold points that the Client’s representative may require to witness the installation.

All aspects of the physical construction must be witnessed and recorded to assure the quality of the materials and workmanship, and to provide the required information for the As-Built Documentation on completion of the structure. 3.3.2.2 Cost Control

Methods of correcting any defects such as out of verticality and damage to the pile coatings need to be described and listed. The method will also need to include the phasing of the construction of the anchor wall, backfilling and installation of the anchor ties. The final backfilling to the full height behind the quay wall must be described, put in position, inspected and approved before any paving is constructed. Any dredging in front of the quay wall must be considered.

Monitoring and keeping control of the costs of the construction work are most important in order to keep the Client informed of his financial commitment which will include cash flow and out-turn cost compared with the budget. The main potential impact on the LCM aspects, established during the design and planning phase of cost increases, could lead to the downgrading of the specification of elements of the facility to keep the financial commitment within the Client’s preset budget. It is important therefore that the Client does have a realistic contingency within his overall project budget to maintain his original financial planning and commitment to LCM.

Normally such an important structure will require the contractor to describe his method in drawings illustrating the sequence of construction and supported by relevant calculations that test the sensitivity of the structure to load changes or settlements.

The latest Contracts currently in use include the means by which the effects of potential impacts on the costs of construction are monitored, as the contract progresses, on a daily basis. It is important that the contractor notifies the client’s site representative, on a regular basis, of any circumstances giving rise to a potential increase in cost and all relevant evidence of the circumstances is gathered at the time. The cost and programme impact, if any, must be given in a timely manner by the contractor to enable the client’s representative to make any necessary changes as quickly as possible.

Similarly the contractor will describe his method of construction for the capping beam including how quality is to be achieved, how the correct amount of steel reinforcement need to be installed and how the position of the inserts is to be controlled. Drawings illustrating the arrangement of the steel reinforcement will be produced together with bending schedules for the steelfixers to use during construction.

PIANC Report 103

26

Generally changes will be concerned with the method by which the structures forming the facility are constructed and should not affect the overall concept for the construction. Changes affecting the concept and potentially downgrading of the LCM planning should be avoided if at all possible. The Client must be kept informed of financial progress on a regular basis. Monthly reporting is often adopted but this period may be varied. 3.3.2.3 Programme Management Time is inextricably linked with cost and of equal importance to cost control need to insure the timely progress of the works. Modern programming methods are very sophisticated and the contractor has such tools at his disposal to ensure the timely availability of his resources for the construction. He will be able to plan the amount of labour, plant and equipment he needs to progress the works, and when he requires delivery of materials for installation. This will encompass temporary works necessary for the installation of the piles for the quay wall, the anchor wall and the anchor wall tie rods. Constant monitoring of the programme will ensure he can continually respond and mitigate the effects of any delays to the intended programme. The programme is also used to evaluate the financial impact of any delays on the progress of the works. The full length of quay may not be completed for the start of operations of the terminal. Certain phases of the work may be made available on pre-determined dates to concur with the delivery and erection of the container cranes on site. It can be planned that the cranes will be brought to site fully erected and transferred on to the quay from a specialized transport vessel. The effect of this will be to minimise the time between completion of the quay wall container yard and the commissioning of the cranes and yard equipment and bringing the facility into a phased operation. Operators of the container terminal need to know when they are going to receive the completed or

phases of the terminal so they can programme the purchase and installation of container handling equipment in order to enable them to commence operations. Within their planning they will need to include the training of operational personnel so that as the completion of the construction works draws near they have a date at which they can commence receiving container ships. The construction programme or period is one part of the overall master programme for the development of the facility. Management of the programme for the construction of the terminal is therefore a key part in the delivery of the facility on time. 3.3.2.4 Design Review There are two aspects that may come under this heading. At the early stage of the commencement of the contract the contractor or a third party may be invited to undertake a value engineering exercise in which he is invited to put forward ideas on where he sees the possibility to make savings in the construction of the works from his originally submitted price. It must be clear however that the objective of such an exercise is neither to reduce the standard described as being required of the construction workmanship nor to reduce the standard of the specified materials. Any savings accepted by the client are usually shared between the two parties through a previously agreed formula. In a similar fashion it may become apparent during the construction work that the performance of the design may be improved by certain modifications. This may come from the contractor or the designer and again some form of sharing of the savings in costs can be made in accordance with a previously agreed formula in the contract. The intent of such design reviews is to reduce the initial capital investment to the Client’s ultimate benefit without compromising the agreed construction standards or the aims of the LCM approach to the design, construction and operation of the terminal.

27

PIANC Report 103

3.3.2.5 As-Built Documentation Completion of the construction work and commissioning of the yard equipment will enable the terminal to commence operations. To enable the operators to plan their maintenance strategy for the quay wall and container yard it is of vital importance that the contractor completes the record of the works built and makes it available to the client and the terminal operators. To ensure the timely completion of this information separate items of payment can be listed in the payment schedule and completion of the works will not be certified until these data are completed and handed to the Client. Any changes brought about during the construction period need to be accurately identified and recorded. Such changes may well affect the original thinking in the planning and design phase that could affect the maintenance requirements and the overall LCM planning. An extreme example may be the omission of the installation of a cathodic protection system to the piles. The maintenance strategy originally planned will be affected. More frequent surveys of the steel of the quay wall piling will be necessary to monitor the integrity of the quay wall. As-Built documentation together with any operation and maintenance manuals must be made available on completion of the works to allow effective maintenance planning of the facility during the next LCM phase of operation and maintenance. A photographic record of the completed facility showing its condition should also be compiled. 3.3.3 Operation & maintenance phase Chapter 4 provides guidance on the establishment of a maintenance management programme. The information below relates specifically to the example of a container terminal. Engineering and IT personnel will be responsible for the daily maintenance of the container handling

PIANC Report 103

equipment, and infrastructure and the terminal operating hardware and software. Generally speaking the planned preventative maintenance of container terminal plant and equipment is taken for granted. This is generally not the case for the maintenance of container terminal infrastructure. For example a quay structure with the exception of the fenders and quay hardware (bollards, cleats, etc.) will be assumed to perform throughout its design life with little or no maintenance. For quay structures it is often a case of “out of sight – out of mind”. However in order to take account of LCM requirements adopted at the planning and design stage it is essential that the inspection and execution of maintenance of these elements is undertaken on a regular basis. The maintenance of plant and equipment is carried out either by in-house staff or specialist contractors or a combination of both. Most container terminals operate on a 24/7 basis and therefore it is necessary to have personnel available on a 24 hour basis to cover breakdowns and emergency repairs. This is normally achieved by utilising a 2 or 3 shift system. Planned preventative maintenance is normally carried out during the day-shift when all specialist trades are available and hence manning is highest during this shift. Outside of the day-shift minimal manning levels are retained to cover breakdowns and emergency repairs. For other specialist areas such as IT and electronics it is usual to retain in-house personnel due to the specific needs of container terminal systems and equipment. In the case of quay and pavement maintenance work is carried out during the normal working week. Most of this work is undertaken by outside contractors although a small in-house team may be retained for emergency repairs. The services of outside consulting engineers may be required for specific structural design problems.

28

Maintenance Strategy for Quay Wall and Container Yard For the quay wall and container yard the civil engineer responsible will have similar strategies to develop. The strategy adopted will need to consider daily maintenance, dealing with emergencies, periodic maintenance and replacement.

Records of previous maintenance of the quay wall and container yard should be kept. This should include the frequency and nature of the work, together with the level of the expenditure. A typical example of such a strategy is summarized in Table 3.2 .

29

PIANC Report 103

Figure 3.1 : Typical Maintenance Organisation diagram The organisation diagram in Figure 3.1 is typical of the maintenance team required for a container terminal operation. 3.3.4 Re-use and/or disposal phase After a period of time the costs of maintaining the terminal and keeping it operational may not be justified by the returns to be achieved in handling containers. The economic life may be coming to an end. This does not mean that the life of the structure is finished. Investment in upgrading the container cranes at the quay for example may attract additional trade that will keep the terminal open and economically viable. To establish the various alternatives that may be viable, a Feasibility Study should be undertaken by suitably experienced and qualified in-house staff or consultants.

PIANC Report 103

The study should include an analysis of the trade forecast for the terminal and possibly alternative trades that may be attracted to the facility. Estimates of capital costs and maintenance should be established and a financial, and if required, economic analysis undertaken to examine the long term financial viability of the enterprise. If the results of the study suggest that the investment required is too large to enable it to be justified on financial grounds alternative uses for the terminal may be considered. This may for example be as a recreational facility, perhaps for yachts, or development as a marina for pleasure craft or a Cruise Terminal. It may mean that the port still requires the land and the operational water area and decides to remove the physical structures within the terminal. In such cases methods for the removal and disposal may be developed and put into action.

30

4. MAINTENANCE MANAGEMENT 4.1 General

strategies for long term planned maintenance, periodic replacement of moving parts, replacement of consumable items such as tires and for responding to daily emergencies.

In many cases, the lifetime cost of maintaining the infrastructure, will be a percentage in the order of 1025% of the original investment. For equipment the maintenance costs will exceed the original purchase price. Successful maintenance implies a setting of appropriate objectives, determining the right policies and the provision of resources in terms of suitably qualified personnel whether they are retained inhouse or outsourced to contractor(s), or a combination of both. Of equal importance is the provision of suitably equipped workshop facilities, spare parts, materials and equipment all brought together within an effective organisation by a good control system.

Records of work undertaken on the structure, or the mechanical equipment, form part of the continuing evaluation of the performance of the facility. It includes the purchase and storage of spare items. This information is used to evaluate the actual and relative performance of the structure and the equipment and for the pre-ordering and stocking of spare parts.

It is of course possible to over maintain and for example the cost of the occasional breakdown of plant or equipment may be less than that of the maintenance input necessary to prevent it.

4.1.3 Maintenance Monitoring

The maintenance of plant and equipment is usually divided into planned preventative maintenance which is carried out at pre-planned and pre-determined intervals and corrective maintenance which is carried out as necessary when a breakdown or accident occurs. When a machine or part of the infrastructure, e.g. part of a quay has to be taken out of service there may be a resulting cost of lost output. In order to take account of LCM requirements adopted at the planning and design stage it is essential that the inspection and execution of maintenance of infrastructure is undertaken on the pre-determined regular basis. 4.1.1 Review of Maintenance Strategy The organisation of the maintenance strategy will be developed by the respective personnel responsible for the different elements of the facility.

4.1.2 Operational Records

Areas of concern will be identified for evaluation in the operational performance review leading to methods being devised to minimise or eradicate these areas and improve the performance of the facility.

The Maintenance Strategy will require that the maintenance regime adopted and the maintenance undertaken is continuously monitored. In this way feedback from the monitoring will enable the strategy to be reviewed on a regular basis to establish if patterns of similar repairs appear, for example, and where it would be beneficial to the productivity of the port to amend the strategy put in place. Review of the planned maintenance against what is actually happening will soon identify areas that can be modified to improve the existing maintenance regime. 4.1.4 Maintenance Costing The costs of all the maintenance undertaken should also be recorded. Again comparison of actual costs against budgeted cost for items of work will identify areas that may give cause for concern. Reasons for cost overruns and underruns may be established to ascertain if improvements can be made in the original assumptions made for the execution of items of work.

The infrastructure will fall to the civil engineer to devise the required strategies for long term planned maintenance, replacement of items prone to degradation due to wear and tear, and for responding to daily emergencies.

Review of the planned procedures versus what was actually carried out may identify where improvements may be beneficially made.

The mechanical handling equipment will fall to the mechanical/electrical engineer to devise the required

Generally, for most facilities elements of a structure which get the most use and or abuse can be easily

4.1.5 Operation & Maintenance Cost Planning

31

PIANC Report 103

identified. Fenders, for example are sacrificial elements that are installed to protect a structure. In the normal functional life of a facility, i.e. 30 years, fender units will require replacement and/or major repairs at least once within the functional life. Asphalt surfaces usually only last 10 to 15 years due to degradation from use by heavy equipment and exposure to the sun. Sacrificial anodes on steel piles are usually good for only 15 years. Timber decking is usually replaced every 10 to 15 years due to wear and tear. By the same rationale, nothing or very little happens to the fill materials behind a sheet pile wall or buried tie-rods and dead man anchors. If the various components of a wharf facility are considered and the number of times that these components have to be replaced in the functional life of the structure the total operational and maintenance costs can be predicted. By dividing the total operation and maintenance costs by the functional life the “average annual” operation and maintenance budget can be established. Although the results obtained are not necessarily exact, they will be useful in establishing operation and maintenance budgets. Of course the actual year to year operation and maintenance cost will vary. However such a prediction model will at least identify the total operation and maintenance expenditures that can be expected. Once these costs are established for a particular structure type, this information can be used as a planning tool for future proposed developments. Of course this methodology will only account for the regular wear and tear that a facility undergoes. It will not account for accidents that are unpredictable by nature and/or definition. 4.1.6 Operational Performance Review All of the work undertaken in monitoring the maintenance regime and the costs in undertaking the work will form part of a review of the operational performance of the facility. Reviewing the planned procedures and performance against the actual performance achieved will identify areas where improvements need to be made for the benefit of the operation of the facility as a whole. Areas identified will need to be studied and the reasons why performance is not as planned to enable improvements to be implemented.

PIANC Report 103

4.2 Organisation 4.2.1 Personnel Effective maintenance management typically involves a team approach. A designated maintenance manager is usually assigned to oversee the program. The oversight role involves scheduling and prioritizing of activities and generating required reports to management and other stakeholders. In addition to the manager, the maintenance management team typically involves engineering inspection and design staff. Often these are the same individuals. The inspectors collect the required information in the field and produce subsequent reports while the designers prepare plans and specifications for repair of facilities. It is important that manuals are prepared to document the requirements of the maintenance management program are written with the level of training of the implementation staff in mind. 4.2.2 Structures and Facilities Maintenance management programs are routinely developed and implemented for bridges and waterfront facilities around the world. The guidelines provided herein are applicable to all types of port structures, including all types of quaywalls, jetties, and breakwaters. Inspections should be conducted and ratings assigned against distinct structural units. For example, a wooden pier projecting from a steel sheet pile bulkhead should be divided into at least two distinct structures for purposes of inspecting and assigning condition ratings. Structural units should typically be of uniform construction type and material and, in the case of pile-supported structures, should be in a continuous bent numbering sequence. The boundaries of structures must be clearly defined at the outset of the work. For example, whereas a bridge or dam may each be defined as one structural unit, it may be advantageous to break other structures such as large piers, wharves or tunnels into multiple structures. Common boundaries include expansion joints, configuration changes, changes in age or method of construction, changes in direction, or changes in bent numbering sequence.

32

4.3 Inspection Program Baseline Inspections for new structures serve to ver4.3.1 Types and Frequencies of Inspections Consistent with the American Society of Civil Engineers Manual 101, Underwater Investigations Standard Practice Manual, seven inspection types may be considered in Maintenance Management: • New Construction Inspection • Baseline Inspection • Routine Inspection • Repair Design Inspection • Special Inspection • Repair Construction Inspection • Post-Event Inspection Note: Routine Inspections, Repair Design Inspections, Special Inspections, and Repair Construction Inspections define routine maintenance activities. New Construction Inspections are conducted only in association with newly constructed structures/ components to ensure proper quality control. Obviously these inspections should be conducted during construction or installation, as often as deemed necessary.

33

ify that construction plans have been followed and to assure that construction is free of significant defects prior to owner acceptance. For existing structures this inspection serves to verify dimensions and construction configuration details. Baseline Inspections are typically conducted near the completion of new construction, prior to owner acceptance. On existing structures they should be coincident with the first Routine Inspection. Routine Inspections are intended to assess the general overall condition of the structure, assign a condition assessment rating, and assign recommended actions for future maintenance activities. The inspection should be conducted to the level of detail required to evaluate the overall condition of the structure. Documentation of inspection results should therefore be limited to the collection of data necessary to support these objectives in order to minimize the expenditure of maintenance resources. The frequency of Routine Inspections is typically 2 to 3 years for above water structural elements, and as indicated in Table 5.1 for underwater structural elements.

PIANC Report 103

Repair Design Inspections serve to record relevant attributes of each defect to be repaired such that repair bid documents may be generated. By contrast to Routine Inspections, Repair Design Inspections are conducted only when repairs must be performed, as determined from the Routine Inspection. Repair Design Inspections may take considerably longer to execute than Routine Inspections because they require the detailed documentation of all defects to be repaired. By using this two-tiered approach for the inspection process, resources are utilized in a very efficient manner. It is not always required that a Routine Inspection be performed prior to a Repair Design Inspection. In situations where the need for repairs is known or is obvious, or for small facilities, it may be advantageous to conduct the Routine Inspection and the Repair Design Inspection simultaneously. Special Inspections are intended to perform detailed testing or investigation of a structure, required to understand the nature and/or extent of the deterioration, prior to determining the need for and type of repairs required. It may involve various types of in-situ and/or laboratory testing. This type of inspection is conducted only when deemed necessary as a result of a Routine or Repair Design Inspection. Typical, failure prone, innovative, members of the structure may sometimes also call for special inspection. Repair Construction Inspections are intended to assure proper quality of repairs, resolve field problems, and assure proper documentation of payment quantities. Obviously this inspection takes place during the course of implementing repairs. Finally, Post-Event Inspections are conducted to perform a rapid evaluation of a structure, following an earthquake, storm, vessel impact, fire, tsunami, or similar event, in order to determine if further attention to the structure is necessary as a result of the event. The safety of personnel and equipment should be assured as well. The inspection is conducted only in response to a significant loading or environmental event having the potential of causing (severe) damage. The typical flow and context of inspection activities associated with the seven inspection types is shown

PIANC Report 103

in Figure 4.1. The Figure indicates a typical model of how inspection activities may flow, but should not be construed as the only way. In many cases, it may be necessary or advantageous to combine inspection types or deviate from the typical flow of activities in order to tailor the inspection scope of work to the global project requirements. 4.3.2 Rating and Prioritisation Ratings are assigned to each structure upon completion of Routine Inspections and Post-Event Inspections. The ratings are important in establishing the priority of follow-up actions to be taken. This is particularly true when many structures are included in an inspection program and follow-up activities must be ranked or prioritized due to limited resources. The rating system used for Post-Event Inspections differs from that used for Routine Inspections because Post-Event Inspection ratings must focus on event-induced damage only, excluding long-term defects such as corrosion deterioration. An alphabetical scale is used for Post-Event Inspections to distinguish from the numerical condition assessment scale used for Routine Inspections. Condition Assessment Ratings The condition assessment rating should be assigned upon completion of the Routine Inspection, and remain associated with the structural unit until the structure is re-rated following a quantitative engineering evaluation, repairs, or upon completion of the next scheduled Routine Inspection. A scale of 1 to 6 is used for the rating system as shown in Table 4.2. A rating of 6 represents a structure in good condition while a rating of 1 represents a structure in critical condition. Other suitable rating systems may be substituted for a particular owner’s purpose as appropriate. It is important to understand that ratings are used to describe the existing in-place structure relative to its condition when newly built. The fact that the structure was designed for loads that are lower than the current standards for design should have no influence upon the ratings. It is equally important to understand that the correct assignment of ratings requires both experience and an understanding of the structural concept of the structure to be rated. Judgement must be applied considering:

34

• • • •

Scope of damage (total number of defects) Severity of damage (type and size of defects) Distribution of damage (local vs. general) Types of components affected (their structural “sensitivity”) • Location of defect on component (relative to point of maximum moment/shear)

Therefore the qualifications of individuals assigning ratings are important in ensuring that the ratings are assigned consistently and uniformly in accordance with sound engineering principles and the guidelines provided herein.

35

PIANC Report 103

assignment of these ratings uniform among inspection personnel.

Post-Event Condition Ratings The post-event condition rating should be assigned upon completion of the Post-Event Inspection, preferably prior to leaving the site. The rating should be used to reflect whether additional attention is necessary and, if so, at what priority level. Table 4.3 shows the four Post-Event Condition Ratings. A rating of “A” indicates no further action is required, while a rating of “D” indicates major structural damage requiring urgent attention. The following guiding principles should be followed when assigning post-event condition ratings: • Ratings should reflect only damage that was likely to have been caused by the event. Longterm or pre-existing deterioration such as corrosion damage should be ignored unless the structural integrity of the structure is immediately threatened. • Ratings are used to describe the existing inplace structure as compared to the structure when new. The fact that the structure was designed for loads that are lower than the current standards for design should have no influence upon the ratings. • Assignment of ratings should reflect an overall characterization of the entire structure being rated. Correct assignment of a rating should consider both the severity of the deterioration and the extent to which it is widespread throughout the structure. • It should be recognized that the assignment of rating codes will require judgment. Use of standard rating guidelines is intended to make

PIANC Report 103

4.3.3 Recommendations and Follow-up Actions Whereas condition assessment and post-event condition ratings describe the urgency with which, or when, follow-up action should be taken, the recommended actions describe what specific actions should be taken. Recommended actions are assigned upon completion of each inspection type described in Section 4.1, with the exception that New Construction Inspections and Repair Construction Inspections are in-process activities that typically require immediate follow-up action in the event of non-conformance. A description of typical recommended action choice is provided in Table 4.4. Multiple recommended actions may be assigned upon completion of each inspection; however, guidance should be provided to indicate the order in which the recommended actions should be carried out. For example, a structure which has received a Routine Inspection may be assigned recommended actions of Emergency (due to broken piles), Repair Design Inspection (due to deteriorated and broken piles), and Special Inspection (because the cause of deteriorated piles is not known and coring, testing, and analysis is required). In this example, guidance in the report should state that the Emergency action should be taken first (erect barricades/close portion of the structure); then the Special Inspection should be executed to determine the cause of the deterioration; then the Repair Design Inspection should follow.

36

4.4 Repair Prioritization For owners with multiple facilities requiring repair, a prioritization scheme that considers the structural condition, functional condition, and importance of the facility to the owner’s operation can be very useful. Blending these three considerations into a single quantitative number can be problematic since these three considerations are independent of each other. A more useful scheme may involve a numerical measure of the structural condition, a pass/fail or yes/no determination as to whether the facility meets the functional requirements, and a letter designation assignment for the importance factor. A scale of 1 through 6 was presented in Table 4.1 to describe a commonly used structural condition assessment scheme. Other scales are also used by various owners and agencies. Functional condition refers to the ability to satisfy the functional demands of the facility. This can include berth length, live load capacity, water depth, etc. While there are varying degrees to

which these functional criteria are met, it is common to simplify the consideration into a pass/fail criterion. The importance factor is a relative consideration as to how important the facility is to the owner’s operations. A useful example of importance is as follows: A – Vital B – Important C – Useful D – Marginal An example of repair prioritizations for two facilities, which meet the functional requirements established; both require repair: • Example 1: Priority A-3 – indicates an importance of “Vital”, see the above, with a structural condition of “Poor”, see Tables 4.1 and 4.2 • Example 2: Priority B-5 – indicates an importance of “Important” with a structural condition of “Satisfactory” The facility in Example 1 would receive repairs before the facility in Example 2.

37

PIANC Report 103

Repair prioritization must also be defined at the defect level. Not all defects need be repaired with the same urgency. For example, corrosion cracking on a prestressed concrete element should be addressed with some urgency, whereas a corrosion crack of the same dimensions on a non-prestressed concrete component may be of less concern. Prioritization of defects for repair should ideally be assigned by knowledgeable inspectors while recording the defects during the field inspection. Guidelines should be established for the inspectors to follow, allowing the inspectors’ judgment to interpret the guidelines. The guidelines must address the following defect attributes:

original construction costs, maintenance and upgrade costs, historic demolition costs, and historic unit bid prices for repair work. • Demolition Data - may contain information on any structures which were previously demolished to make way for the present structure, including modifications to the structure or fender system; may also contain forensic data on demolished structures, such as corrosion of embedded reinforcing steel, that can assist engineers in understanding processes in order to improve future designs.

• • • • • • • • • • • •

Below a rather limited list of references has been included, focusing on PIANC publications touching the subjects LCM, design of large port infrastructure or maintenance.

Construction material Component type Structure type and function Location of the component on the structure Location of the defect on the component Defect type Defect dimensions Accessibility for repair Feasibility of repair Structural redundancy within the design Severity of defects on adjacent components Presence or absence of anticipated loading on component prior to repair execution.

4.5 Data Management Maintenance management activities generate significant data and also require data feedback to make informed decisions. It is useful to establish a database to manage this data and to facilitate access to the data to all appropriate stakeholders. The database should ideally manage the following: • Inventory Database – may contain information on the location, dimensions, design criteria, designer, constructor, modification history, upgrade history, etc. • Environmental – may contain information as to wind, wave, currents, tidal conditions, seismic accelerations, tsunami susceptibility, etc. • Maintenance Database – may contain information on past maintenance activities and current condition assessment rating. • Operational – may contain information on operational restrictions, load restrictions, etc. • Financial Data – may contain information on

PIANC Report 103

5. REFERENCES

In the academic world, especially in scientific journals, a lot has been published in recent years on LCM and WLC. The reader is referred to traditional university libraries, or nowadays digital equivalents, generally readily available. PIANC PTC II Working Group 12, Analysis of rubble mound breakwaters, published by PIANC, Brussels, 1992, ISBN 2-87223-047-5 PIANC PTC II Working Group 31, Life cycle management of port structures – General principles, published by PIANC, Brussels, 1998, ISBN 2-87223-087-4 PIANC PTC II Working Group 17, Inspection, maintenance and repair of maritime structures exposed to damage and material degradation caused by salt water environment, Revision of PIANC report by PTC II (MarCom) WG 17, 1990, published by PIANC, Brussels, 2004, ISBN 2-87223-145-5 PIANC InCom Working Group 25, Maintenance and renovation of navigation infrastructure, published by PIANC, Brussels, 2006, ISBN 2-87223-156-0 PIANC PTC II Working Group 12, Analysis of rubble mound breakwaters, published by PIANC, Brussels, 1992, ISBN 2-87223-047-3 PIANC MarCom Working Group 28, Breakwaters with vertical and inclined concrete walls, published by PIANC, Brussels, 2003, ISBN 2-87223-139-0

38

PIANC MarCom Working Group 40, State of the art of designing and constructing berm breakwaters, published by PIANC, Brussels, 2003, ISBN 2-87223-138-2 PIANC MarCom Working Group 44, Accelerated low water corrosion, published by PIANC, Brussels, 2005, ISBN 2-87223-153-6 CIRIA Report 122, Life Cycle Costing – A radical approach, published by CIRIA, London, 1991, ISBN 0-86017-322-4 Skipworth, P. et al, Whole life costing for water distribution network management, publisher Thomas Telford, London, 2002, ISBN 0-7277-3166-1 Lifetime Management of structures, published by European Safety Reliability & Data Association, Report, Det Norske Veritas, Høvik, Norway, 2004, ISBN 82-5150302-7 Underwater investigations – Standard practice manual, ASCE manuals and reports on engineering practice no. 101, published by ASCE, Virginia, USA, 2001, ISBN 0-7844-0545-X Life Cycle Cost Analysis and Design of Civil Infrastructure Systems, published by ASCE, USA, 2001, ISBN 0-7844-0571-9

APPENDIX A – Performance Criteria Definitions, clarifications, examples The performance criteria, functionality (or functional quality) and (technical) quality, mentioned in the definition of LCM, see Chapter 2, will be defined or clarified further in the following. Functionality – definitions and/or clarifications Functionality is the degree to which a structure can fulfill its intended main functions as specified in the functional and operational requirements, which are primarily of user interest. For further elaboration in this report the overall criterion functionality has been split up in the following sub criteria: 1. Prime requirements 2. Serviceability 3. Availability

• Prime requirements refer to what is generally the first notion of what port development is needed, be it a berth or a breakwater. This first idea may have been elaborated in writing or even into a conceptual sketch or design by the promoter or Client. Prime requirements for berthing facilities would be: 1. The depth of water to be provided, now and over the lifetime of the structure. 2. The number of berths, which results either in the length of the quay or in the number and length of the jetty, the latter depending on the jetty type. 3. The quay apron or jetty deck loads, which includes the loading unloading equipment, primarily the crane, and the surcharges due to (temporarily) stored cargo. 4. The time the facility should be in service, the lifetime of the structure, generally expressed in years. Prime requirements for a breakwater would be: 1. The size, shape and position of the (water) area to be sheltered for wave and/or current action resulting in the number of breakwaters, breakwater alignment and length. 2. The height of the breakwater, which largely determines the transferred wave action, thus the amount of shelter provided. The cross sectional shape and construction material used also influence wave transmission. Note that distinction between prime requirements, serviceability and availability is not always easily made and definitely is not a goal in itself. • Serviceability is the ability of a structure to operate in such a way that there is an acceptable service or comfort level for the user of the structure. Think about size of the vessels and cranes, deformations, fender and bollard systems for quays and jetties. • Availability is the ability of a structure to operate in such a way that there is an acceptable low level of down-time. Think about inspection, maintenance, or extreme natural conditions. There can also be site specific requirements such as the potential effects of earthquakes and tsunamis or the localised impacts of noise, dust and aesthetics on adjacent neighbourhoods.

39

PIANC Report 103

For quay walls, besides the prime requirements, operational requirements may be defined in terms of available (percentage of) time that the structure may be used or opposite the structure is out of use because of maintenance or extreme natural conditions. Also service-requirements in terms of maximum deformations because of the cranes are possible.

• Security is the ability of a structure to be operated in such a way that it has an acceptable level of risk against terrorism and/or vandalism.

Lack of functionality could for example be the result of an increase in the number and/or size of vessels and cranes, changes in the operational performance due to maintenance or in some cases even due to problems with technical quality caused by degradation which may indirectly lead to loading restrictions.

• Environmental considerations include the ability of a structure to be constructed, refurbished or operated in such a way that there is an acceptable level of environmental risk to the surrounding environs or the general public.

For jetties the main requirements are similar to those for quay walls but only the boundary conditions may differ in that a jetty has no earth retaining properties. For breakwaters the main functional requirements are the protected area, the degree to which waves, wind and tidal current conditions are reduced within that harbour, port or estuary and the width of the entrance. In the case of breakwaters operational requirements are mainly limited to availability. In addition a breakwater may have to withstand extreme natural boundary conditions such as tidal range, earthquakes or tsunamis.A breakwater may also be used as access to facilitate the installation of navigational lights and signs or as a public amenity. In that case there may be service requirements. Technical Quality – definitions and/or clarifications Besides requirements primarily of user(s) interest, there are requirements which are more of interest to other stakeholders such as the designer, builder, owner, maintenance manager, the surrounding, the society, etc. For new and existing structures matters for consideration under the overall heading of quality or technical quality are as follows: • Safety is the ability of a structure to operate in such a way as to provide an acceptable level of personal and material risk to users, owners and the general public.

PIANC Report 103

• Social compatibility is the property of the future user of the structure to construct, operate and maintain the structure using local resources of labour, materials, etc.

• Aesthetic considerations provide the opportunity for a structure to be presented in such a way as to be pleasant to the eye. • Durability relates to the ability of a structure to fulfill its functions during an accepted period of time within its design life. It can also relate to the potential change in use of the structure in the future. • Sustainability is the property of the design, construction, maintenance of a structure to keep open all possibilities for future use making best use of non-renewable resources such as raw materials and fossil energy. • Constructability is the ability of a design of a structure to provide easier and more efficient methods of construction, resulting in reduction of construction costs. It includes improved onsite safety conditions during construction. • Inspectability is a property of the structure to provide safe and easy access for future visual or measuring inspections. • Maintainability is a property of the structure to provide safe and efficient means to carry out future maintenance and repair, on both a regular and continuous basis or after a significant loading event. • Upgradability is a property of the design of a structure or a piece of infrastructure to facilitate upgrading at a later stage.

40

• Remove ability is a property of the structure to be more easily removed in the future. This may include re-use, either upgraded or downgraded, in main parts or as a whole for other purpose. In case of downgraded re-use the ease of replacement and/or disposal of structural parts come into play. Decisions or measures to enhance performance In the following the performance criteria will be reviewed giving examples of design alternatives, possible decisions or other measures that can be taken to enhance performance. A.1 Prime requirements A common prime requirement regarding berthing facilities and breakwaters is the sheer number of berths or the number of breakwaters to be provided. Prime requirements for berthing facilities would be the depth of water, the length of the quay or jetty, the quay or jetty deck loads and, last but not least for LCM, the lifetime of the structure. Prime requirements for a breakwater would be the horizontal layout, which determines the length of the breakwater, and the required crest level of the breakwater. Regarding prime requirements, e.g. the number of berths or breakwaters, alternatives or measures to enhance performance, are of a different order of magnitude than all what is mentioned for the criteria under technical quality. Reference is made to Appendices B and C, where an approach to get to a decision is presented. A.2 Serviceability Serviceability is the ability of structure or facility to operate in such a way that there is an acceptable level of productivity or comfort level to the user. Examples of enhanced serviceability include the following: • Providing a service lane on a container terminal quay to minimise traffic interference and maximise loading and unloading performance rates • Providing additional pavement or subgrade thickness on a container terminal yard to minimise service disruptions resulting from pavement “failure”

• Providing a quay face fender system that can accommodate both seagoing vessels and inland barges thereby maximising the operational use of the quay • Construction of the facility at a location where either deep water access is more easily obtained or better hinterland connections are more easily provided For breakwaters, depending on the function(s) and type of the breakwater either a simpler structure (rubble mound) or a more complicated structure (horizontally composite) will be designed and/or constructed. This has great bearing on the serviceability requirements. There is a tendency to open up breakwaters and their immediate surroundings for public access and create e.g. recreational facilities. This is positive for the port’s public image improvement, but adding to the existing serviceability requirements. Examples of enhanced serviceability include the following: • Provide longer or larger breakwaters to obtain better shelter or a larger sheltered area • Reduce overtopping by construction of a higher breakwater, construction of a crown-wall on top of the breakwater crest, or by means of enlarging the sub- or emerged berm of the structure • Use correctly graded materials; too coarse material allows larger wave transmission A.3 Availability Availability may be defined as the ability of the structure or facility to be operated at an acceptable level or frequency to accommodate the needs of the owner. Examples of enhanced availability include the following: • Siting a facility such as a container terminal behind a suitable breakwater such that downtime due to long period waves is minimised • Deepening the approach channel to a quay or jetty such that the ingress and egress of vessels is not tide dependent • Strengthening a structure beyond minimum design codes to provide for continued, unimpeded usage following a major loading event such as storm, earthquake or tsunami

41

PIANC Report 103

• Strengthening a structure beyond that required to meet the design codes to provide a continued and unimpeded operation during a moderate storm event • Designing elements of the structure to be sacrificial, such as decking that is allowed to be torn off during a storm event thereby preserving the piling and bracing allowing a relatively rapid restoration of service A.4 Safety Safety is the ability of a structure to operate in such away as to provide an acceptable level of personal and material risk to users, owners and the general public. Naturally in all countries the requirements for safety are documented and codified in law to varying degrees and these requirements will have to be met for the structure to be legally acceptable and hence insurable. Building codes will dictate minimum requirements that a structure must meet. Subsequently loading conditions and the environment will dictate the main parameters to be included in the design. However there may be times when it is appropriate to enhance the performance of the structure beyond the minimum levels, such as: • Designing the structure as a lifeline facility for the region, thus designing it such that it remains operational with minimal disruption following a major seismic event • Recognising the economic necessity of the facility to the region or to society and thus designing it to withstand environmental loading conditions beyond the minimum levels dictated by codes • Designing the structure to accept plausible scenarios that may give rise to extreme forces from terrorist acts Further examples, paying attention to detail requirements to promote safety, are given below: • Light levels: ensuring a well designed layout not leaving pockets of reduced illumination that could create a safety hazard. Container stacking areas are an example • Access to and from the shore for personnel, such as customs officials and maintenance crew. Ladders, landing stages to meet varying tide levels, hydraulic access towers • Safe walkways that promote good visibility for operational personnel to see potential hazards and to be seen

PIANC Report 103

• Firefighting safety capability may be enhanced by for example ensuring easy access for a fire hose by leaving a hole through the structures deck to sea or river water • In breakwaters, use massive and bulky armour elements rather than slender ones, to prevent fatigue by rocking • Construct a strong toe at the foot of the breakwater (to counteract scour at toe) • Use correctly graded materials (too coarse material leads to uplift from water seeping through, and larger wave transmission) • Prevent (partial) loss of breakwater stability and avoid unacceptable settlements due to soil conditions, by careful geo-technical investigations and analysis • Perform the extra physical model tests on breakwater stability using random, irregular wave loading A.5 Security Security is the ability of a structure to be operated in such a way that it has an acceptable level of risk against terrorism and/or vandalism. To ensure operation at the selected risk level 2 strategies can be distinguished. The first strategy is based on prevention, the second on providing that much more redundancy to the design as is required to remain in operation in spite of a security breach. Obviously, combination of the strategies is possible. • Examples of enhanced security adopting the prevention strategy are similar to the examples listed under A.4 Safety and A.12 Inspectability. • Examples of enhanced security adopting the redundancy strategy are the same as the examples listed under A.2 Serviceability, A.3 Availability, A.13 Maintainability and A.14 Re-use. A.6 Social compatibility Social compatibility is the property of the future user of the structure to construct, operate and maintain the structure using local resources of labour, materials, etc. Examples to enhance the social compatibility of the facility include the following: • Use of indigenous materials, be it of a lesser quality, instead of higher quality import material. Durability of the structure would have to be ensured e.g. by larger dimensions

42

• Inclusion of a scheme to train the construction work force for work in the port or port related industry • Siting the facility at a manageable distance from residential areas with a (large) potential work force A.7 Environment Environmental considerations include the ability of a structure to be constructed, refurbished or operated in such a way that there is an acceptable level of environmental risk to the surrounding environs or the general public. To reduce the risk for the environment numerous measures, design and structure wise, have been invoked in the recent past all over the globe. Below only a few are mentioned: • Siting of a potentially hazardous facility such as LPG or petrochemical jetty away from populated areas to minimize exposure in the event of an accidental release • Providing extra precautions on a liquid bulk facility to minimize any oil spillage in the event of a structural failure, such as automatic check valves or additional containment capabilities Rubble mound breakwaters as such normally do not present environmental problems (other than the aesthetic one), being passive structures, built of environmentally friendly materials. Alignment and configuration shall aim at reduce coastal morphological problems such as upstream accretion and downstream erosion. Such effects should be mitigated in the operational/maintenance stage. A.8 Aesthetics Aesthetics is the ability of the structure or facility to be recognised as pleasing to the eye or at least minimally intrusive to the spectator. Aesthetics are generally driven by community concerns and mitigating aesthetic concerns are often necessary in gaining project approval during the planning process. Enhanced aesthetics may include the requirement to: • Provide landscaping to conceal a facility or to soften the visual impact • Provide a unique or “signature” design such that the facility becomes a focal point for community pride • Supplying cranes that feature an ability to minimise their height impact by having the ability to “kneel” • Provide a breakwater alignment, as far as possible, in harmony with existing coastal features,

and in itself of good architectural expression • Provide a crest height as low as possible (conflicts with acceptable wave run-up and overtopping) • Limit the visual impact of these structures, some solutions based upon the combined use of natural stones above water level and concrete units below it • Use ecological artificial elements allowing growth/ development of natural habitats of sea life A.9 Durability Durability may be defined as the ability of the structure or facility to fulfill its defined function for an acceptable period of time. When considering this function, future reuse intentions may also be examined. Examples of enhanced durability include: • Providing additional concrete cover to the steel reinforcement to delay the onset of corrosion • Providing alternative reinforcement to carbon steel reinforcement such as stainless steel, stainless steel clad carbon steel, epoxy coated steel, to minimise or prevent the effects of corrosion • Adopting the use of ground granulated blast furnace slag (GGBFS) or pulverised fuel ash (PFA) cement replacement or to include for the use of silica fume • Consider coatings to the surface of the concrete to delay the onset of corrosion • Provide additional steel thickness above minimum strength requirements for steel components to allow for future corrosion. Piling is a typical example where such action can be readily taken • Adopting the use of block paving to container and Ro/Ro yards in lieu of reinforced concrete or asphalt. The blocks provide a degree of flexibility and resist the effects of hydraulic oil and impact. They are relatively straightforward to replace and are cost effective • Use of massive and bulky armour elements instead of slender shaped armour • Use of durable stone materials or concrete armour units, tested against wear, tear and chemical deterioration • Use effective corrosion protection in the form of surface coating, combined with cathodic protection of a suitable type, for steel elements etc. and reinforcement in concrete structures at the breakwater structure and crest

43

PIANC Report 103

A very important aspect to durability is an active maintenance programme. Many owners have implemented maintenance management programmes based on establishing an extensive database of information that may be continuously analysed to assist in defining maintenance priorities and allocating resources to maintenance in a rational and cost effective manner. A.10 Sustainability

A.11 Constructability

Sustainability is the degree to which a structure or facility is designed to maximise the use of renewable resources and minimise the use of scarce or non-renewable resources. Examples of enhanced sustainability may include: • The materials, mainly stones, gravel, sand, cement, steel, possibly some timber, are without significant polluting effects. The most important question is, whether the basic materials mentioned are produced in a nature-friendly and sustainable manner, which is normally the case. The other aspect has much to do with a prioritisation of natural coastal/riverine etc. values against the needs to have harbour facilities for the economic activities of the world. • Crushed concrete from demolished structures recycled as aggregate and backfill materials. When recycled particularly as aggregate, attention should be paid to contamination from chloride ions and the strength of crushed aggregate particles. Some standards have been proposed to specify the qualities of recycled aggregate • Recycled reinforcing bars and steel members from demolished structures • Soil, gravel, blockwork, bricks and rock re-used for backfilling, constructing mounds, reclaiming land etc. • Maximising the use of recycled plastic components for light duty applications such as handrails, benches or light duty decking, as well as moderate duty applications such as fender piling • Maximising the use of composite components, such as fibre reinforced plastics and spun glass epoxy structural elements, such as piles, in order to maximise durability and postpone future reconstruction • Re-using asphalt by using special machines to lift off the old asphalt and combing it with new

PIANC Report 103

thus reducing the demand for all new asphalt when resurfacing • Ensuring that timber is sourced from managed forests thus being certain that new trees are being planted to replace those used for the new structure. Timber sufficing to this demand often has the Forest Stewardship Council certificate • Re-using dredged material wherever possible rather than dumping it to waste

Constructability is the ability of a design of a structure to provide the easiest method of construction. It includes improved on-site safety conditions during construction. The objective should be to create an optimum balance of labour, equipment and materials to construct a structure or facility, assuming that it is feasible given the necessary resources. By its very nature constructability is dependant upon the available local resources. The design of a structure and its construction in a high labour cost area such as a capital city, like New York or London, may differ substantially from construction in a low labour cost country such as India. Labour unions, local and regional fabrication capabilities, skills of the local labour force, availability and standard of raw materials and the availability of special construction equipment must be taken into account for constructability. Examples of the choices to be made may include: • Undertake aggressive soils exploration program to avoid construction surprises, delays, and claims • Labour intensive versus equipment intensive construction methods • Using in-situ construction in lieu of pre cast • Using land based equipment to undertake construction rather than exclusively marine based plant • Minimising the weight of elements where large cranage is unavailable or the site too remote for its use • The construction of caisson at a sheltered location in the vicinity of the breakwater to be • The size of core material in a rubble mound breakwater must be conditioned to the local wave climate. Core material of quarry run including fine particles needs calm weather periods for construction. Larger diameter quarry run enlarges the available weather, wave or tidal window for construction

44

A.12 Inspectability The ability to inspect easily and efficiently a structure, either on a periodic basis or as the result of an extreme event, promotes the inspectability of the structure. Examples of typical inspectability include: • Avoiding the use of buried elements such as anchorages in bulkhead walls. The structural capability of such elements may be very difficult to assess following an event such as an earthquake • Building in to the structure monitoring instruments to enable this activity to be continuous or intermittent but on a regular basis • Including a gap at the top of the back row of piles in a pile supported marginal quay such that inspectors can gain visual access to the most vulnerable area of these piles • Avoiding the siting of structural members near to the waterline such that access for a small boat to the underside of the structure is impeded • Ensuring generous pile spacings to enable an inspection boat to gain access beneath the soffit of the quay • Promoting ease of access for inspection of structures for security checks • Ensuring the design can easily accommodate a special inspection vehicle for remote sections of the structure. Such vehicles would include “cherry pickers” and “snoopers” • Where unavoidable promote the ease of use of inspection by divers or Remotely Operated Vehicles (ROV) • In situations where mechanisms are used to operate a structural element use “Closed Units” such as hydraulic jacks A.13 Maintainability Maintainability is a property of the structure to provide safe and efficient means to carry out future maintenance and repair, on both a regular and continuous basis or after a significant loading event. Examples of enhanced maintainability may include, but are definitely not limited to: • Designing anchor bolts for equipment to survive loss of the equipment without severely damaging the supporting structure; holding down bolts to bollards may be chosen with pre set values at which they shear under excessive load thus not overloading the supporting structure • Providing access to structural elements such

• • •

• • • •

that they can be not only inspected but also maintained Designing the elements of a structure to be easily maintained commensurate with the skills and experience of the local workforce Enabling remote areas of the structure to be inspected and maintained using simple equipment such as a bosun’s chair Considering the merits of the type of cathodic protection to be installed for the locale of the structure; continuous maintenance impressed current system versus a sacrificial anode system Designing and selecting a fender system that can be easily maintained or be easily modified to enhance maintainability Laying out and detailing services to promote expeditious and easy maintenance with the minimum of interference with traffic Adoption of the use of concrete or concrete blocks to eliminate the maintenance of asphalt surfaces susceptible to damage from hydraulic oil Insufficient armour layer design will lead to frequent need for replacing of stones and armour units, obviously this should be avoided.

A.14 Re-use Re-use is the property of the structure to be (easily) reused in future, either upgraded or downgraded, in main parts or as a whole for other purpose. As such the ease of replacement and/or disposal of structural parts come into play. Marine structures are often designed for lifetimes in excess of 50 years although their economic life may be shorter than this. Examples promoting the re-use of the structure as a whole or parts of it include: • Planning for a facility to be reused safely for a down graded load carrying capacity, such as community recreation pier in the latter stages of its lifespan • Planning for a facility to be used as an environmental habitat through partial demolition at the end of it’s design life • Use the breakwater as a cofferdam around a reclaimed area • Use the breakwater as border of the port’s depot for contaminated harbour dredging material which could eventually be dried out and used as dry land area • Use the breakwater as foundation for coast-line based windmills for energy production

45

PIANC Report 103

Examples for upgraded re-use: • Designing a berth for a deeper water to be available at the quay face in the future, after additional dredging, than is immediately required for its current design use, without the need to undertake strengthening work • Designing a quay for greater vertical load than that required to satisfy the immediate use of the berth

• Use sand to fill caissons (that can be pumped in/ out for modification/movement of the structure), instead of lean concrete • Blockwork quay without interlocking elements for sections where individual movement of blocks shall take place during consolidation of the structure

Examples using reconstruction and/or replacement to re-use the structure as a whole or parts of it: • Providing for components of the structure to be readily removed to accommodate the future replacement structure • Designing components such as foundation elements for a longer service life such that they may be reused for in the replacement structure • Designing pile spacing such that a future pile supported structure may have new piles driven between the pile bents of the original structure • Designing to use an existing type of structure such as caisson versus installing new piling • Cover a breakwater with another layer of armour to increase the crest height, therefore reduce wave overtopping, and reduce wave transmission • Construction of a milder slope or berm at the outside of a breakwater • Extend a breakwater to shelter a larger water area

LCM decision on berth depth A range of principle LCM-decisions and qualitative arguments is given in Table 3.1 of Chapter 3. This appendix will focus on the berth depth to be provided along the quay structure because this has far reaching cost consequences.

If the structure is a rubble mound type of breakwater, large fractions of the material (e.g. 50-60%) can be reused, mainly for building the new structure core; if the structure is a caisson type, it is only possible to re-use the elements if they have been filled with sand and not with lean concrete. Removal and/or disposal of the structure would allow the site to be returned to its original state or the preparation for new purposes. The removed structure, or parts of it, may be disposed of or re-used at the new location. Examples of enhanced removal would include: • Selecting a structure type that may be more rapidly removed than other types, such as a caisson structure or gravity block wall as opposed to a pile structure. Piles would be cut off at bed level as it would require large forces to extract piles • Providing for the potential to partially demolish the structure leaving the remaining portions to serve new purpose such as a recreation pier

PIANC Report 103

APPENDIX B - New quaywall

The quay structure, water depth and resulting investment costs The required water depth along the quay is determined by the draught of the vessel, the required keel clearance, construction and dredging tolerances. Water depth, tidal variation, to a minor extent wave action and freeboard, determine the retaining height of the quay structure. The relation between retaining height, required strength or size of the structure and subsequently costs is well known. For completeness sake: although the draught of the ship is the main parameter determining the required quay structure, the beam of the ship (influencing the reach, thus the wheel loads of the crane) and total mass of the ship (berthing and mooring loads), also have their effect on the required strength of the quay structure. There is a nearly linear relation between the investment costs and length and depth of the quay: €1000 - €2000 per m quay and meter depth (indicative 2007 prices). The larger the required depth of water, the larger the quay structure, the more the price per square meter quay moves to the upper boundary and the higher the required investment in the quay. Technical versus economic lifetime of the quay and profitable use For a new quaywall structure the technical design life Td usually is in the order of 30 - 50 years. The selected technical lifetime will affect the quality and size of the concrete cover, thickness or protection of the steel parts, etc. The longer the technical lifetime, again, the higher the cost of the quay.

46

The technical design life is at least equal, but most of the time longer than the expected period of economic use. In the economic lifetime, roughly spoken, the costs of direct investment to build the new quay (Cinv.) plus the expected maintenance costs (generally having a NPV in the order of 5 -10% of Cinv.) will be paid back by the yearly direct incomes of quay dues (e.g. based on square meters), a part of the harbour dues (e.g. based on tonnage), terrain dues (e.g. based on square meters) and some more indirect incomes via taxes, added values, employment, image, etc. (see Figure 2.5 – Costs versus time in Chapter 2). The period of beneficial use of the facility is strongly dependent on the match between the available structure, or facility as a whole, and the ship to be expected. A too large and expensive quay, for the expected ship, will either result in higher port dues to earn it back in the same time or require a longer pay back period than a less expensive quay. However, the penalty on an under designed quay not being able to accommodate the expected ship may be more severe. The business or trade may move to another port leaving the quay under utilised. On numerous occasions the growth of the shipsize (in tonnage or TEUs) took an unpredicted course, rendering the quay less productive than assumed.

ing the future. Although it is not a primary task of civil engineers or investors, they should have a rough idea about ship size developments, because it strongly affects the design water depth and finally the investments. Since 1990, especially for container-vessels, there has been a boom in loading capacity and related draught (see figure D2), which so far has not been limited by the physical depth of natural sea channels, look e.g. at the Atlantic connections, or by manmade approach channels. However, “growth in the past is no guarantee for the future”, not only because of natural limits like those of the Malacca Strait, but also due to moving producer or consumer markets, development in logistics or because shipbuilders may reach the limits in ship construction related to strength or propulsion with one single engine.

The previous is illustrated in Figure D1 below.

Figure D2: Maximum draught of container vessels Design vessel Though there is a wide spread and thus much uncertainty in the prediction of the size of future vessels, the owner together with the designer have to select one or a few design vessels at a certain time horizon. Suppose, to proceed with the design and LCM process, the following has been selected, as in example Table 3.1:

Figure D1: Quay, depth of water, loads, past present and future Future vessels Given the importance of selecting the right water depth, as briefly explained in the above, it is common practice to try to predict the future design vessel. Generally the past is not a big help for predict-

Design Vessel 2007: LOA: Beam: Draught: Displacement:

47

397.71 m 56.4 m 15.5 m 230 000 t, 11 000 TEU

PIANC Report 103

Future vessels 2027: 1. Stretched vessel: LOA: 420 m Beam: 56.4 m Draught: 15.5 m Displacement: 245 000 t, 15 000 TEU

sion tree, reaches the maximal positive value. Or roughly speaking the sum of the negative NPV of the direct investment in extra depth plus future costs for maintenance, adaptation, etc., plus the positive NPV of the expected extra future benefits of accommodating bigger vessels at the berth, hopefully more cargo handling, more added value, etc. minus the NPV of possible loss of rejected ships, missed cargo or damage to the ports image (if the draught of future vessels is more than the installed depth) must be as large as possible.

2. Malaccamax vessel: LOA: 410 m Beam: 60 m Draught: 18 m Displacement: 295 000 t, 18 000 TEU Alternatively, more sophisticated, probabilities may be selected that a (fully loaded?) vessel of certain size with related draught will use that particular quaywall (at low tide?) or just a specific dedicated part in the length of that quaywall. Fundamental issues regarding quaywall design The design vessels may have been decided upon but to arrive at the berth or water depth to be adopted quite a number of other questions still have to be answered first, for instance: 1. whether or not to provide the same water depth along the whole quay wall 2. the ship to be selected as design vessel for the whole quay or particular sections 3. acceptable frequency of sea level below minimum water level adopted for design 4. whether or not to provide the water depth required in the future immediately or at a future time This list is not intended to be complete, nor to be limiting. In this Appendix Question 3 will not be dealt with, Question 4 is the subject of Appendix C, and, for reasons of operational flexibility, it is decided to provide the same water depth along the whole quay structure (Question 1). To check the initial selection of design vessels and time horizon a decision tree will be used. See Figure D3. The matter to be decided upon is rephrased into the question ‘whether or not to provide some extra berth depth X’. The optimal solution for X will be found when the sum of the NPVs, for all three branches of the deci-

PIANC Report 103

Figure D3: Decision tree for extra water depth at the quay Because the uncertainty in future vessel capacity and in the translation to future draughts will increase in time and opposite the NPV of the expected extra incomes will decrease very fast in time especially with high rates, there is a tendency, especially in private ports, not to invest extra for the far future (> 10 years). But there is still another direction possible, namely to invest in a, with respect to depth, upgradable solution or even in more aspects flexible and/or (partly) re-useable solution.

48

APPENDIX C - New quaywall LCM decision on upgradability A range of principle LCM-decisions and qualitative arguments was presented in Table 3.1, Chapter 3. This appendix will focus on the technical question whether to construct the berth immediately at the depth required in the future or to provide the means to upgrade the berth fairly easily when the time comes. General reference is made to Appendix B. LCM question and considerations The financial dilemma is to invest immediately in future growth or to postpone investment. For either decision, a good balance between the levels of expected extra investment and the expected extra income will be required. The decision tree for the dilemma is presented in Figure C1. The scenario that ships are not getting larger in the future has a probability P1, hence the opposite has a probability 1-P1. Generally a structure being able to facilitate future vessels with a larger draught will generate extra income by means of direct dues, but also added values of the extra goods and a better image for the port (able to facilitate bigger ships). However, there is a (small) probability that no extra income will be generated. The structure not being able to accommodate the larger future vessels is expected not to generate extra income in the future or even suffer loss of income because of losing the cargo to other ports. Upgrading in the future is much more expensive, but this is discounted in an NPV analysis of alternatives, and there is also loss of income due to non-availability during construction. However, when upgraded at the right moment, just in time here means before cargo has moved to another port, it is probable that extra income will be generated. A related technical dilemma is the following: Should design be for a durable structure with a design life that is at least equal or longer than the expected time of use including possible future upgrading, or should design be for a relatively short term and cheaper structure?

Figure C1: Decision tree for immediate or postponed investment The quaywall design In this case the quay wall with a length of 300m is of the concrete deck type (see figure C2) and prepared for future deepening of the harbour basin from 11 to 13 meter. Also the front beam of the quay is prepared for a future gantry crane rail. To guarantee strength and durability in the marine environment the steel tube piles are partly filled with sand and reinforced concrete from top to 5 meter below the present seabed level and there are also concrete filled steel tubes jackets to 1 m below mean low water level to resist corrosion and ice attack. LCM based decision In line with LCM procedures, described in this report, sufficient data has been gathered during design to draw up and evaluate quaywall development scenarios. To select one of the scenarios WLC will be used. In the following first the necessary cost figures and other required information/data, and some calculations to test the sensitivity of NPV’s for the discount rate:

49

PIANC Report 103

• Total cost for 300m quay was about 16 000 000 €. • Cost of the extra 2m depth was about 5000 €/m, so total extra costs 1 500 000 €. • Estimated probability that vessels will need that extra 2 m within 10 years is 40 %. • That will result in yearly visits of about 50 vessels with maximum draught. • Extra incomes are estimated to be 1 euro per ton of transshipment. • Estimated extra income per year 40% * 50 * 200 * 30 * 2 * 1 = 240 000 €/yr. • With a rate of 5 % the discount factor after 10 years is (1/1,05)10= 0.61. • With a rate of 5 % the discount factor after 20 years is (1/1,05)20= 0.38. • With a rate of 5 % the discount factor after 30 years is (1/1,05)30= 0.23. • Investment cost at the moment the extra 2 m depth is really needed: 7 800 000 €. • The NPV of this extra investment after 10 years is 0.61* 7.8 = 4 800 000 € The figures used are fair estimates, although the calculations in the following are not as detailed or exact as they could be. However, greater accuracy does not always result in better conclusions.

It has to be concluded that immediate investment, required to provide the extra depth when the structure is newly constructed, is the right course of action. Note: This one-dimensional example may help decision making, but may also be misleading to decision makers and others. The final decision must be based on a wide scale of considerations, such as growth of markets, logistic changes, image of the port, etc. Most probably not all these factors are easily translated into a financial framework based on discount factors, uncertainties or probabilities, but they may be weighted in a MCA.

All costs and revenues are expressed in constant (2007) prices, without inflation. The selection of the discount rate reflects this. Scenario A: Extra investment at t = 0 year and possible pay back from t = 10 year. At time t = 0 yr the extra investment costs are 1500 000 €. The NPV of the possible extra income between 10 and 20 yr is about (0.61 + 0.38)/2 * 10 * 240 000 = 1200 000 € and between 20 - 30 yr about (0.38 + 0.23)/2 *10 * 240 000 = 720 000 €. So based on just these limited financial aspects the break even point will be reached. Scenario B: No extra investment at t = 0 year, but with possible investment at t = 10 year. The NPV of the possible extra investment at t = 10 yr may be 40% * 4800 000 = 1920 000 €. The NPV of the possible extra income between 10 and 20 yr is about (0.61 + 0.38)/2 *10 * 240 000 = 1200 000 € and between 20 - 30 yr about (0.38 + 0.23)/2 *10 * 240 000 = 720 000 €. So based on just these limited financial aspects, loss of income has not been taken into account, a break even point will be hardly reached.

PIANC Report 103

APPENDIX D – Existing Quaywall LCM decision on lifetime extension and re-use The quay walls bordering the Noordereiland in the old port of Rotterdam, a total length of about 2600 m, with an average retaining height of about 7 m, were built from 1897 up till 1978. See Figure D1 for a typical cross section of the quay. In the recent past, on a number of occasions suddenly

50

holes in the quay deck appeared, resulting in the risk of people and/or equipment having an accident. Throughout the years the frequency of local, quick and simple repairs with big bags, sand and repaving showed a steady increase, as did the required repair budget and the disturbance in the day to day use of the quay. It became obvious in 1999 that something had to be done.

extreme strategy would be to do only the common corrective repair, which would not change the existing situation and practice, and should be considered as the zero-alternative. Another extreme would be to construct a slope in front of the quay, which was to be demolished partially, provided the operational requirements would allow the reduction of functions in this particular situation. In between were alternatives based on preventative repair by means of a carpet of big bags, partly renewing by bridging the old wooden floor by a concrete slab. A completely new sheetpile wall structure with an old fashion styled riverfront was considered as well. The first thing to be done, which is of more traditional design nature, was to elaborate the alternatives and work them all into the same level of detail to allow preparation of accurate cost estimates for materials, construction and future maintenance. The problem was how to compare the alternatives with respect to the differences in expected (remaining) lifetime, maintenance costs and risk, which is a more economical problem. Basically the solution to this more economical problem was to use the technique of Whole Life Costing, specifically comparing the alternatives by means of their Net Present Value (NPV).

Figure D1: Original situation; sand leakage occurs The main cause of the settlements was leakage of water and sand through the old timber floors. Wear and tear during the long life span deteriorated their condition and resulted in numerous cracks, holes and openings in the wooden relief slab. However inspection of the wooden piles and beams supporting the floor showed that this part of the quay structure, which is permanently below the (minimum) water level, is still in a reasonably good condition and have a remaining lifetime of 30 years or more. To address the problem the maintenance manager prepared a wide range of alternative solutions. One

The following alternatives were taken into consideration: 1. Do nothing except the common corrective repair, ever more frequent, accepting the risk of accidents caused by holes in the quay deck or pavements. 2. Preventative maintenance installing a mattress of big bags or geotubes on the timber floor blocking sand leakage. 3. Partly renewing the quay structure by construction of a concrete slab above the existing timber floor, using new piles near the front wall and a sheetpile skirt at the rear as support. 4. Complete renovation constructing a new sheetpile wall, however, maintaining the historic old fashioned look of the waterfront. 5. Replacement by a simple slope, eliminating berthing facilities and creating a waterfront of a character quite different from that of the existing old fashioned waterfront.

51

PIANC Report 103

For comparison the total lifetime was set at 50 years for all alternatives. Thus for alternative 1 the replacement costs within the period of 50 years were taken into consideration, for alternative 3 the front wall costs after 30 year had to be added. Discounting had a significant effect on the resulting NPV.

Figure D2: Alternative 2 In case of the first alternative it was assumed that after another ten years of increasing repairs it would be inevitable to replace the structure. In case of the second alternative it was assumed that reconstruction would be necessary after 20 years. In the third alternative it would be necessary to replace the front wall at a later stage. Alternatives 4 and 5 were based on a design life of at least 50 years.

PIANC Report 103

As shown in Table D1 the third alternative with the partly renewed structure gives the lowest NPV, using a discount rate of 5 % and a period of 50 years. However, the figures show only a rather marginal difference with alternative 5, the slope, or alternative 2, a mattress of big bags or geotubes. However, on top of the small NPV difference, for the municipality of Rotterdam alternative 5 was not acceptable because of the change in appearance of the old harbour front. Thus, alternative 5 was discarded. The potentially lower NPV of alternative 3 resulted in selection of this alternative, in spite of the larger spread in the computed NPV. During construction the cost of alternative 3, aiming at partial renewal to delay a considerable part of the required investment for complete renewal, more than doubled. Extra piles were needed to support the concrete slab.

52

Conclusions 1. The awareness of the PIANC WG 31 Report which sets out the principles of Life Cycle Management is rather poor with only 26 % acknowledging awareness of the report. 2. Of those who are aware of the report, use of life cycle management by approximately 14 % of participants is a step in the right direction although it is interesting to note 67 % of ports who are aware do not believe the use of life cycle management to have been of assistance when planning a port.

This is more likely to be due to these ports not wishing to consider the concept as a potentially useful tool in the first place rather than having used LCM and found it to be ineffective.

3. Despite these responses, in answer to question 3.4, 59 % would (and 12 % may) consider the use of life cycle management in the future. Figure D3: Alternative 3 In hindsight one could wish alternative 2 had been selected instead of alternative 3 that doubled in price. However, during construction of the quay according to alternative 2, setbacks might also have occurred and it remains to be seen what would have been the best alternative to select. Most important for LCM is storage of all the data and to use the information in future projects.

APPENDIX E – Questionnaire Questionnaires were returned from a total of 91 ports, of which: • 74 were from ports in Europe; • 10 were from ports in Japan; • 3 were from ports in North America, including Canada; • 2 were from ports in South America; • 2 were from ports in Africa. Having reviewed the results from the questionnaires returned, a number of conclusions have been drawn from the results as set out below.

4. In response to question 2.1 a very high number of ports (93 %) carry out periodic inspections (although the frequency of inspections is not defined) and in answer to question 2.2 all ports believe inspections to be important. 5. Although 96 % of ports use these inspection results for maintenance planning of this only 48 % appear to use such inspections in the prioritisation of work. 6. Approximately two thirds of ports use in house staff to carry out inspections and subsequent maintenance work with the remainder using external consultants and contractors. 7. Some 43 % of ports do not use inspections as the basis for budget preparation but appear to rely on an arbitrary annual fixed amount based on historical expenditure. 8. Although a large number of ports are not aware of a formalised approach to life cycle management some 82 % consider the effects of future maintenance requirements at design stage.

53

PIANC Report 103

9. Only 23% take a formalised approach in terms of value engineering, which may be used in conjunction with WLC and/or incorporated in the LCM process. 10. With such a broad spread (0.1% - 10%) of the annual budget expressed as a percentage of the asset value attributed to maintenance, it is difficult to conclude if the calculations are based on a like for like basis. For example, some may include dredging and /or plant and equipment maintenance costs and others not. It is widely recognised that the annual maintenance expenditure expressed as a percentage of asset value is 1 % for breakwaters, 1-3 % for quays and 5-10 % for plant and equipment. Recommendations 1. Priority needs to be given to bring this report and its predecessors PIANC WG17 and WG31 to the attention of Port Directors and Managers in order to allow the concept of life cycle management to be adopted more widely. 2. There appears to be a need for ports to adopt more logical and quantitative procedures in the prioritisation and budgeting of maintenance costs linked to operational needs, including the use of the general concept of life cycle management. 3. There is a need for improved inspection methods, linked to prioritisation and costing to assist in providing informed decisions on whether higher maintenance costs or replacement of an asset is the optimum solution.

PIANC Report 103

54

100%

55

PIANC Report 103

PIANC Report 103

56

PIANC WG 103 (ex 42)

Front cover: The life cycle process of port structures, encompassing the planning, design, construction, operation, maintenance, disposal and/or re-use is succinctly illustrated through the comparison of London Docklands, UK which in the 1950’s were one of the busiest in the world, with their change of use into the major commercial, housing and leisure facilities prevalent today.

PIANC Secrétariat Général Boulevard du Roi Albert II 20, B 3 B-1000 Bruxelles Belgique http://www.pianc.org VAT BE 408-287-945 ISBN 2-87223-168-4