Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
PIANC
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.
http://www.pianc.org
VAT BE 408-287-945
ISBN 2-87223-168-4
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
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Peter Spragg
High Point Rendel
United Kingdom
Andreas Westendarp
Bundes Ambt Wasserbau
Germany
Ronald West
Ronald West Consultancy Ltd.
United Kingdom
ke Bjurholm
Grontmij-CarlBro
Sweden
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
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
Enrique Urribarri
Alatec
Spain
Piero Ruol
University of Padova
Italy
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 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.
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.
Note: readers with an economic-financial background will recognize in LCM a lot of what is known
to them as Asset Life Management (ALM).
1.6 Abbreviations
PIANC
MarCom
PTC II
WG
LCM
ALM
WLC
MCA
QA
QC
NPV
CD
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
10
11
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.
12
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.
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.
NPVC =
n
Where:
NPVCn =
n
=
r
=
Cn
(1 + r)n
13
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.
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.
1 + rnominal = (1 + rreal)(1 + i)
i = inflation rate
rnominal = rreal + i
14
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
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.
16
17
18
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.
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.
19
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.
Item / Subject:
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
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
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
26
27
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
29
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.
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.
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.
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.
31
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.
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
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
34
35
36
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
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.
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
39
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.
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
41
42
43
A.11 Constructability
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
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
46
47
397.71 m
56.4 m
15.5 m
230 000 t, 11 000 TEU
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-
48
49
50
51
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.
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.
53
54
100%
55
56
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.