PIANC Life Cycle Management of Port Structures

7/30/2019 PIANC Life Cycle Management of Port Structures

1/26

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


2/26

2

Agenda

What is LCM?

Why Undertake LCM?

Life Cycle Stages

Performance

Parameters

Whole Life Costing


3/26

What is LCM?

A practical management approach with the goal ofachieving 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 functionalconsiderations, as well as environmental and safety

requirements.

PIANC Working

Group 42

What Is It?


4/26

Background

Life Cycle Management of

Port Structures General

Principles (1998) WG 31

Life Cycle Management of

Port Structures Guidelines

for Implementation (2008)

PIANC Working

Group 42 (now 103)


5/26

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 goodwil l


6/26


Balancing:

Benefit of additional structural resistance against potentialdowntime (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 upgradabil ity against higher capital costs


7/26


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 removabil ity against higher capital

costs


8/26

LCM Life Cycle Stages

Planning and Design

Construction

Operation andMaintenance

Reuse or Removal


9/26

Can Re-Evaluate Facility At Any Time

Limited Example


10/26

Fourteen LCM Performance Parameters

Technical QualityFunctionality

The degree to which the structure achieves

the wishes and demands of other

stakeholders

The degree to which a structure can fulfill

its intended primary mission or function

defined by the user

More of interest to other stakeholders: e.g.

designer, contractor, government,

municipality, local residents

Usually fully defined by the most important

stakeholders, viz.: the owner and the user

4. Safety

5. Security

6. Social compatibility

7. Environmental

8. Aesthetic9. Durability

10. Sustainability

11. Constructability

12. Inspectability

13. Maintainabi lity14. Re-use

1. Prime requirements

2. Serviceability

3. Availability

Performance Criteria


11/26

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 availabil ity - e.g., higher

extreme event design criteria


12/26

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 Compatibili ty

Design to maximize use of local labor, equipment, and

resources in both construction and operations


13/26


Environmental

Design, construction, operations and disposal/removal to

minimize air, water and noise pollut ion/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


14/26


Sustainability

Design to maximize use of recycled materials and incorporate

LEED principles

Constructability

Design considerations to ease complexity, incorporate local

capabil ities, and consider access issues

Inspectability

Design to facilitate ease of inspection, avoiding buried or

difficult to access elements


15/26


Maintainability

Design to maximize access to uti lit ies and equipment essential

to operations

Re-Use / Upgradabili ty

Design to consider future upgrades such as dredging to deeperdepth

Re-Use / Removabili ty

Design to facili tate ease of removal at end of useful service life


16/26

Cost / Benefit Analysis

Direct and Indirect Costs

Direct: Design Costs + Construction Costs + Inspection &

Maint. Costs + Renewal and/or Demolit ion 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


17/26

Three-Step Implementation Process

Evaluate Alternatives

Apply Whole Li fe

Costing

4. Safety

5. Security


7. Environmental

8. Aesthetic

9. Durability

10.Sustainability

11.Constructability

12.Inspectability13.Maintainability

14.Re-use


2. Serviceability

3. Availability

Finalize Design Criteria

Select 1 or 2 best alternatives for further elaboration

1.Calculate extra costsand/or benefits of zero-alternative

2.Calculate costs and/or

extra benefits ofproposed alternative(s)

Compute Net PresentValue (NPV) ofalternatives

Identify Alternatives

Establish Draft Design Criteria

Draw up Zero-Alternative

Performance criteria

Functionality

Technical Quality

Evaluate Alternatives

Apply Whole Li fe

Costing

4. Safety

5. Security


7. Environmental

8. Aesthetic

9. Durability

10.Sustainability

11.Constructability

12.Inspectability13.Maintainability

14.Re-use


2. Serviceability

3. Availability

Finalize Design Criteria

Select 1 or 2 best alternatives for further elaboration

1.Calculate extra costsand/or benefits of zero-alternative

2.Calculate costs and/or

extra benefits ofproposed alternative(s)

Compute Net PresentValue (NPV) ofalternatives

Identify Alternatives

Establish Draft Design Criteria

Draw up Zero-Alternative

Performance criteria

Functionality

Technical Quality

Step 1 Identify

Alternatives

Step 2 Evaluate

Alternatives

Step 3 Apply Whole

Life Costing


18/26

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


19/26

Example: Availability

Design as a homeport facility

to allow vessels to ride out

storms at berth

Design as a lifeline facility tosurvive higher seismic criteria

so it remains operational after

event

Provide a breakwater to increaseamount of t ime facili ty can safely

berth vessels

Provide additional length of

berth to avoid vessels having towait for available berth


20/26

Example: Durability

Providing extra concrete coverover reinforcing steel to delay

the onset of corrosion

Providing alternatives to black

steel reinforcing bars, such asstainless 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 servicelife using new tools such as

STADIUM software


21/26

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 pile-

supported wharf such that

inspectors can gain visual

access to the most vulnerablearea of these piles

Designing the structure such

that physical access from a boat

or snooper is not impeded bybracing

96'-0" CRANE RAIL GAGE

21'-0" 14'-6" 14'-6" 11'-6" 11'-11'-6"

ORIGINAL 16 I

VERTICAL PILI

G FH E D C


22/26

Example: Upgradeability

Designing a berth for a deeper

depth than is immediatelynecessary to allow for future

dredging without strengthening

of the structure

Designing a wharf for greatervertical load capacity than what

is currently required to allow for

future mission enhancement

B A

96'-0" CRANE RAIL GAGE

21'-0" 14'-6" 14'-6" 11'-6" 11'-6" 11'-6"11'-6"

PROPOSED

SHEETPILE WALL

EXISTING DEPTH

EL. -40.0

PROPOSED DEPTH

EL. -52.0

ORIGINAL 16 IN. PILES CUT-OFF

DURING REHABILITAION

ORIGINAL 16 IN,

VERTICAL PILING

G FH E D C

NEW 24 IN OCTAGONAL

PILING DRIVEN DURING

REHAB


23/26

LCM-Putting it All Together

Define All the Alternatives

Establish the Desired Service Life of the Structure

Estimate Init ial Construction Costs

Estimate Future Operation and Maintenance Costs


24/26

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


25/26

Conclusions

LCM, while mandated in some European countries, is now

gaining more widespread acceptance in the U.S.

Most obvious benefit is in durability sophist icated 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


26/26

Life Cycle Management of Port Structures

Recommended Practices for Implementation

Questions?

[email protected]

Ron Heffron, P.E., Moffatt & Nichol

Documents

PIANC Life Cycle Management of Port Structures