Life Cycle Management of Port Structures Recommended Practices for Implementation

PIANC USA Annual Meeting 2009

July 15, 2009 Pittsburgh, PA

Ron Heffron, P.E., Moffatt & Nichol

Agenda
What is LCM? Why Undertake LCM? Life Cycle Stages Performance Parameters Whole Life Costing

What is LCM?
PIANC Working Group 42

What Is It?
A practical management approach with the goal of achieving an optimum cost solution for the development, operation, maintenance, and reuse/disposal of both new and existing port structures over their lifetime. The approach takes into account economic and functional considerations, as well as environmental and safety requirements.

Background
PIANC Working Group 42 (now 103)
Life Cycle Management of Port Structures General Principles (1998) WG 31 Life Cycle Management of Port Structures Guidelines for Implementation (2008)

Reasons for Undertaking LCM

Balancing: Future repair costs against initial cost of preventive measures Cost of improved functionality against higher operational costs Benefit of improved availability against cost of downtime Cost of protecting environment against potential mitigation Cost of improved aesthetics against cost of foregone goodwill

Reasons for Undertaking LCM

Balancing: Benefit of additional structural resistance against potential downtime (lifeline) Benefit of providing access to structural components against added construction cost Benefit of providing ease of maintenance against added construction cost Benefit of future upgradability against higher capital costs

Reasons for Undertaking LCM

Balancing: Benefit of residual functionality against higher capital costs Benefit of ease of future replacement against higher capital cost Societal benefit of using renewable resources against higher capital costs Benefit of ease of future removability against higher capital costs

LCM Life Cycle Stages

Planning and Design Construction Operation and Maintenance Reuse or Removal

Can Re-Evaluate Facility At Any Time

Limited Example

Fourteen LCM Performance Parameters

Performance Criteria
Functionality
The degree to which a structure can fulfill its intended primary mission or function defined by the user 1. 2. 3. Prime requirements Serviceability Availability

Technical Quality
The degree to which the structure achieves the wishes and demands of other stakeholders 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. Safety Security Social compatibility Environmental Aesthetic Durability Sustainability Constructability Inspectability Maintainability Re-use

Usually fully defined by the most important stakeholders, viz.: the owner and the user

More of interest to other stakeholders: e.g. designer, contractor, government, municipality, local residents

Functional Performance Parameters

Prime Requirements Length, Water Depth, Navigation Channel Width, Turning Basin, Mooring & Berthing System, etc.

Serviceability Features that enhance operational efficiency and allow for future upgrades more readily

Availability Features that increase operational availability - e.g., higher extreme event design criteria

Technical Quality Performance Parameters

Safety Wharf edge protection, ladders, fire protection, vehicle impact protection, vessel access/gangways, etc.

Security Features that enhance security such as lighting, surveillance, fencing, controlled access, etc.

Social Compatibility Design to maximize use of local labor, equipment, and resources in both construction and operations

Technical Quality Performance Parameters

Environmental Design, construction, operations and disposal/removal to minimize air, water and noise pollution/disruption

Aesthetics Features or physical location/orientation to minimize visual impact

Durability Design to specific service life goals and to minimize maintenance during operational period

Technical Quality Performance Parameters

Sustainability Design to maximize use of recycled materials and incorporate LEED principles

Constructability Design considerations to ease complexity, incorporate local capabilities, and consider access issues

Inspectability Design to facilitate ease of inspection, avoiding buried or difficult to access elements

Technical Quality Performance Parameters

Maintainability Design to maximize access to utilities and equipment essential to operations

Re-Use / Upgradability Design to consider future upgrades such as dredging to deeper depth

Re-Use / Removability Design to facilitate ease of removal at end of useful service life

Cost / Benefit Analysis

Direct and Indirect Costs Direct: Design Costs + Construction Costs + Inspection & Maint. Costs + Renewal and/or Demolition Costs Indirect Costs typically related to downtime or operational disruption

Direct and Indirect Benefits Direct: Operating Income Stream Indirect: Employment and Affect on the Local, Regional & National Economies

Three-Step Implementation Process

Establish Draft Design Criteria
Draw up Zero-Alternative Performance criteria Identify Alternatives Functionality 1. Prime requirements 2. Serviceability 3. Availability Technical Quality 4. Safety 5. Security 6. Social compatibility 7. Environmental 8. Aesthetic 9. Durability 10. Sustainability 11. Constructability 12. Inspectability 13. Maintainability 14. Re-use

Step 1 Identify Alternatives Step 2 Evaluate Alternatives Step 3 Apply Whole Life Costing

Evaluate Alternatives 1.Calculate extra costs and/or benefits of zeroalternative 2.Calculate costs and/or extra benefits of proposed alternative(s)

Apply Whole Life Costing Compute Net Present Value (NPV) of alternatives

Finalize Design Criteria

Select 1 or 2 best alternatives for further elaboration

Example: Serviceability
Providing a service lane on a container wharf to minimize traffic interference and maximize loading/unloading performance rates Providing additional pavement or subgrade thickness on a container terminal yard to minimize service disruptions Providing a fender system on a wharf that can accommodate both ships and barges to maximize utility of the facility

Example: Availability
Design as a homeport facility to allow vessels to ride out storms at berth Design as a lifeline facility to survive higher seismic criteria so it remains operational after event Provide a breakwater to increase amount of time facility can safely berth vessels Provide additional length of berth to avoid vessels having to wait for available berth

Example: Durability
Providing extra concrete cover over reinforcing steel to delay the onset of corrosion Providing alternatives to black steel reinforcing bars, such as stainless steel, epoxy-coated steel, or composite materials to minimize or negate the effects of corrosion Providing coatings on steel or concrete components to minimize corrosion Numerical modeling of service life using new tools such as STADIUM software

Example: Inspectability
Avoiding buried elements, such as deadmen in tie-back walls, because they are difficult to inspect after an event Allowing a gap at the top of the back row of piles on a pilesupported wharf such that inspectors can gain visual access to the most vulnerable area of these piles Designing the structure such that physical access from a boat or snooper is not impeded by bracing

96'-0" CRANE RAIL GAGE H 21'-0" G 14'-6" F 14'-6" E 11'-6" D 11'-6" C 11'-6

ORIGINAL 16 IN VERTICAL PILIN

Example: Upgradeability

Designing a berth for a deeper depth than is immediately necessary to allow for future dredging without strengthening of the structure Designing a wharf for greater vertical load capacity than what is currently required to allow for future mission enhancement

96'-0" CRANE RAIL GAGE H 21'-0" G 14'-6" F 14'-6" E 11'-6" D 11'-6" C 11'-6" B 11'-6" A

ORIGINAL 16 IN, VERTICAL PILING EXISTING DEPTH EL. -40.0 ORIGINAL 16 IN. PILES CUT-OFF DURING REHABILITAION PROPOSED DEPTH EL. -52.0

NEW 24 IN OCTAGONAL PILING DRIVEN DURING REHAB

PROPOSED SHEETPILE WALL

LCM-Putting it All Together

Define All the Alternatives Establish the Desired Service Life of the Structure Estimate Initial Construction Costs Estimate Future Operation and Maintenance Costs

LCM-Putting it All Together

Establish Loss of Revenue Parameters Estimate Cost of Demolition Define Discount Rate and Consider Tax Implications Use Whole Life Costing to Determine Least Cost Alternative

Conclusions

LCM, while mandated in some European countries, is now gaining more widespread acceptance in the U.S. Most obvious benefit is in durability sophisticated durability models such as SUMMA are now under development LCM principles are equally applicable to 13 other performance parameters PIANC Working Group Report completed in 2005

Life Cycle Management of Port Structures Recommended Practices for Implementation

Questions?
rheffron@moffattnichol.com

Ron Heffron, P.E., Moffatt & Nichol