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 Secrtariat Gnral

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

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.

ke Bjurholm
Grontmij-CarlBro
Sweden

Reviewing, corresponding and temporary members:

Gunnar Bjrk
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 Anlggnings Konstruktrer 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

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.

WG31s 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:

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
facilitys 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

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.

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

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 ships
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

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 childrens
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 years 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 Clients
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 Clients 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 Clients Brief and the Designers Brief or Basis of Design.
The Clients 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 Clients 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
Clients 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 facilitys 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 clients requirements and will be used by the PMC to
develop the tender documents and appointment of
the EPC contractor in order that the clients 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 Clients 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 Clients
representative must be included.

3.3.2.1 Quality
The quality control programme will need to review
the contractors 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
Clients 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 Clients 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 clients 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 clients 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 Clients 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 owners
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 owners 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 owners 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, Hvik, 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 ports 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 bosuns 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 its design life
Use the breakwater as a cofferdam around a reclaimed area
Use the breakwater as border of the ports 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 NPVs 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 1950s were one of the busiest in the world, with
their change of use into the major commercial, housing
and leisure facilities prevalent today.

PIANC Secrtariat Gnral

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