This article was published in the October 2010 issue of World Port Development. To receive a pdf of the article in its original format including charts and pictures please send an email to archive@worldportdevelopment.com

What lies beneath

Back in 1985 the first order for protection of quay walls against severe corrosion was performed by Acotec’s mother company General Coatings nv at quay walls north of the Belgian town Ghent. The Port of Ghent is connected with the North Sea via the 19-mile long Ghent – Terneuzen canal and the mouth of the river Scheldt. A sea lock system at Terneuzen provides passage between the canal and the Scheldt estuary. The berth walls which were completed in 1968 were steel pilings. The Z-profiles had copper added to the iron and were coated with coal tar at the steel mill. Severe corrosion of the steel piles  must have started somewhere in the 70’s, less then 10 years after the construction and exposure of the bulkheads, as subsidences at the bank were noticed in 1978, indicating pile holing below water. The canal water was seriously polluted by industrial waste water in that period. The composition of the bulk water was at the edge of fresh and slightly brackish water, containing around 1000 ppm (parts per million) of salts. In 1978 underwater corrosion was incidentally observed. Acotec’s mother company started to investigate and discovered for the first time a strange form of severe corrosion, which was unknown at that time by the Authorities and was considered as an anomaly, an unusual but local phenomenon of pustule formation inside the biofilm covering the piles below water, and supposed to be caused by water pollution. Investigations were based on observations by divers, steel coupons cut out of the piles and samples of the biological film and tubercles that were covering the underwater part of the pilings, as well as research by the Brussels Pourbaix laboratories CEBELCOR. In that period corrosion speeds were considered to be of the order of magnitude of 10 microns per year, and thus hardly significant for strength calculations in comparison to plate thicknesses of 10 mm. Corrosion below water was not considered as a harmful phenomenon.  It became clear that the severe corrosion with linear speeds of corrosion of about 1mm per year (10 mm of steel had been perforated over 10 years at these bulkheads) revealed a new and extraordinary form of corrosion. Pourbaix’s institute CEBELCOR discovered that the origin was bacterial and that it was MIC or Microbially Induced Corrosion.   

The photo to the left shows, after local dry setting of the bulkhead, the biofilm covering the steel profiles below water. The bulge of a tubercle is visible in the centre of the photo and reaches a height of 5cm (2 inches). The tubercles are built up by iron oxides from the destructive activity of micro-organisms or their by-products, decaying the iron at an unusual speed (photo below shows the build-up of an example of a tubercle). Professor Hector Videl, in his Manual of Bio-corrosion published in 1996 calculated that “..by the presence of micro-organisms, (and) corrosion rates can be 1,000-100,000 times greater than in their absence.” The photo to the right is taken after removing biofilm and tubercle by high pressure water jet and shows the imprint of the bacterial tubercle, the craterlike corrosion pattern, where a steel loss of 4,5 mm (180 mils) has been measured.

Pioneering work

Acotec became the pioneer in bacterial corrosion research in the marine environment. Due to the seriousness of the damage and the very high speed of corrosion, the Authorities issued a Request for Proposal in 1978 to stop the severe corrosion. No working solution was however available at that time. Acotec continued research and developed a method to stop permanently the biological corrosion, based on 2 decisive inventions. The method consists on a purposeful patented Dry Setting Installation DZITM and a proprietary chemical coating system HUMIDUR® specially developed for the target of lifetime protection of steel pilings against severe corrosion. The photo above left shows the fully operational DZI set, put together on a barge at a busy port at low tide. The 5 floors DZI is hanging at the hoisting equipment, ready for dewatering a new section of the quay wall. The wall to the left of the DZI has been protected down to 7.5 m (25 feet) below the mean high water level (MHWL). To the right of the DZI, is the not yet treated zone which is marked by the splash zone between the brown atmospheric zone and the dark fouling to high water level.

The photo to the right shows a view within the DZI. The cofferdam has been dewatered and is in operation.

A global threat

Over the years it became obvious that the first sites protected by the HUMIDUR® system, were not isolated cases of Microbially Induced Corrosion but just local infections forming part of a global threat for steel structures in marine environment. This global problem of ALWC happens also to steel sheet pilings exposed to seawater as to fresh water. The formation of tubercles is a phenomenon that does not appear on steel surfaces exposed to tidal activity. Due to shear stresses of the waves the build-up of tubercles is inhibited or impossible. Corrosion holes are tightened and insufficient residual steel thickness is repaired by means of welding patch plates or pre-folded reinforcement plates. The HUMIDUR® system proved its excellence in permanently stopping corrosion.

Proven technology

In these last 25 years Acotec has gained extensive knowledge and experience in fighting marine corrosion and structural repair techniques. As a pioneer in this industry, Acotec continues to work in Europe and have expanded their activities worldwide. Testimony to their success in this field is that more than 25 years later, exactly the same corrosion pattern of the piles at Terneuzen can be seen at the coating surface. It is evident that not one single micron of steel has been lost thus demonstrating the quality and durability of the Humidur® coating system.

We were chuckling about this question. I’m past the splash zone and out into deep water with big waves that sometimes roll me over, but I keep popping back up. But, I really interpret your question this way: Sometimes the CEO has to roll up her sleeves and make it happen by working with the staff. That gives them the opportunity to feel the passion and excitement I have for my job, which I try to pass on to them.

In a few short months, it will be five years since you joined POLA as its CEO. What do you consider your greatest achievement in that time for the port?

The fact that we were able to green and grow the port at the same time. We now have a 52% reduction in diesel particulate matter from all port activity and that’s like cutting the health impact of the port in half. That allowed us to expand the port.

Ports the world over are drawing more and more attention because of their environmental impact on their surrounding communities. How has POLA under your guidance been a leader in reducing your port’s carbon footprint?

I think it has been our efforts to electrify port operations with such things as cold ironing, equipment conversion and even developing an electric truck. Generally, you hear from the local community when they’re unhappy, but occasionally they do say we are doing a good job and that is reflected in the environmental awards we have won . . . too many to count, but we definitely have been noticed.

How realistic is the IAPH World Ports Climate Initiative for POLA?

I am Chair of the World Ports Climate Initiative and it has been a very effective way of bringing ports around the globe together to work on problems. We have had ports join this group because they wanted to be part of solving the issues. We felt there was a need for something like this to bring the ports together because it is a global issue.

What other environmental improvements would you like to achieve in the POLA?

I’d like to move further on electrifying our operations. We also recently adopted a water resource plan, although we do already have very good water quality. And we have started an ambitious solar plan which will be dedicated in October and I’m looking to expand on that effort.

Is AMPing (alternative maritime power) a realistic goal for the total fleet calling on the POLA including container vessels, bulk and cruise? What should be the timetable for such a move?

I would say it’s realistic for container and cruise ships as they call here regularly. Some cargo ships, like bulk vessels, only call once a year and it may not be financially feasible for them. So we are looking at other ways of AMPing or reducing reducing emissions while ships are hotelling. Our goal is to AMP all of our major terminals by 2012; the California Air Resource Board deadline is 2014 so we must be done before then.

You have worked at a senior level for the rival Port of Long Beach. How are the ports working together for the benefit of Los Angeles, California, and the nation?

The ports have always worked together on security, transportation, and the environment. The POLB is working to replace the Gerald Desmond Bridge and that is an important project for the POLA, too. We, along with other regional transportation agencies, rallied around a goal to seek another USD200 million from the State for the bridge. Co-operation will always be on-going. We’ll have another joint ports meeting this Fall to update the Clean Air Action Plan and adopt bay-wide health standards. We believe that will be a first for ports worldwide.

Is there any merit or move toward a ports merger for POLA and POLB?

No.

Are you losing business to other West Coast ports, including Port Metro Vancouver in British Columbia?

No. We haven’t lost market share. We track the market share data every quarter, but we’re always looking at our competitiveness.

Is the threat of the widened Panama Canal by 2014 causing angst for the POLA with the prospect of losing business?

I don’t know if angst is the right word. We recognize our customers have options and those options will increase when the Panama Canal is widened. We deliver what our customers want as far as physical facilities. We have to be more cautious when we propose new fee programs, and promote the advantages Los Angeles has, which we feel are unsurpassed by any port.

What is your vision for the POLA?

Clean, busy, profitable.

What would you hope to achieve as your legacy for your time at the POLA?

Greening and growing the Port together. And that we have helped push the maritime industry and other ports worldwide to do the same.

Exports increased more than 8% to 9.2 million tonnes, led by a big boost in forestry products, which jumped 19% to 6 mt. Grain and dairy food supplement imports were up 27% to almost 850,000 tonnes. Container traffic was down 6.5% because of shipping line rationalisation at 511,343 TEU (20-foot equivalent units). “We have increased our market share as New Zealand’s largest port and this has been confirmed by a number of measures – trade volume, productivity and profitability,” says Mark Cairns, Port of Tauranga Chief Executive. “We now handle 80% more international cargo volume than our nearest competitor (up from 56% from the previous year) and three times the volume of international exports.” In fact, Tauranga is currently the most productive port in all of Australasia with crane productivity and truck turnaround times well ahead of other major ports.  At Ports of Auckland, after tax profit defied the recession and reached NZ$37.2 million in the fiscal ending June 30, 2010, and that was a massive increase over the NZ$5.4 million in the previous fiscal, albeit helped by the sale of Queen’s Wharf. As New Zealand’s busiest container port, Auckland lifted its container handling count by 3% to 867,368 TEU.  And Auckland saw possible signs that consumer spending is returning to normal with a 17.5% rise in vehicle imports, although Ports of Auckland Managing Director, Jens Madsen, says it was difficult to tell if this was restocking after plant and stock rundown, or an ongoing trend. “Ports of Auckland achieved some good market gains through the year, but the operating environment remains very dynamic and competitive,” Madsen cautions. And in a dilemma facing New Zealand’s major ports, fewer ships are calling, but those that do are becoming larger and larger vessels. Auckland handled 1,530 ships in the latest fiscal year and that was down 5.6%. “The impact of the global financial crisis on world trade has led to shipping sector changes including consolidation, vessel-share arrangements, slow steaming and the move to hubbing – with larger vessels making fewer visits,” says Madsen. The global shipping changes are forcing New Zealand ports to adapt to new realities. This new environment currently has two South Island ports in talks about a possible merger – the Port of Christchurch at Lyttelton and the Port of Otago further south – and both are behind closed doors to determine if there are any long-term benefits to becoming a single entity.  And the changing world of trade has prompted the Port of Tauranga to seek to deepen and widen its shipping channel so that it can handle container vessels up to 7,000 TEU in size. Earlier this year, the 4,578 TEU OOCL New Zealand called at Tauranga and became the largest container vessel in the kiwi trade. Previously, the largest vessels on the run were 4,100 TEU, while the average vessel is closer to 3,000. The channel improvement work was recommended for resource consent and is now before the Environment Court.  By deepening the harbour channel to allow ships of 14.5 meter draught, Tauranga’s port chief Cairns says the port has underscored its determination to become the North island’s hub port for both export and imports. And his case was strengthened late in August when the New Zealand Shipping Council in its report on the international supply chain named Tauranga as “the logical choice” to be first to make the investment needed to accommodate the 7,000 TEU vessels. Most New Zealand ports see the move to even larger ships as inevitable – the 8,500 TEU CMA-CGM Figaro recently had its maiden voyage to the Port of Los Angeles – and shipping lines are redirecting once large vessels Down Under to make way for the new giants of the trade on the lucrative North American runs to and from Asia. Meanwhile, the Port of Otago has lodged a resource and consent application for consideration of its “next generation” project to deepen and widen a 13 kilometer channel from Port Chalmers to the Aramoana salt marshes to allow it to handle larger container ships up to 8,000 TEU. The three-stage, NZ$100 million project, also involves disposal of about 7.2 cubic meters of dredge spoil at sea, and extending berths at Port Chalmers. Ports of Auckland contends that its “prudent dredging programme” already has the Auckland facilities “well positioned for the future.”  The recent completion of the consolidation of the Fergusson and Bledisloe container terminal operations was hailed as a strategic milestone, along with the opening of a new freight hub rail exchange at Wiri. There is still talk about the need for the consolidation of New Zealand ports so that future investment can be commercially driven and not at the whim of regional interests. One of those pushing the rationalisation is Tauranga’s Cairns who says that over time “we believe that a hierarchy of ports will develop in New Zealand. This will happen naturally and rapidly if ports can simply apply commercial principles to their investments.” Tauranga has significant land holdings which will allow expansion at both its major container terminal and bulk freight wharves.”We have none of the space constraints or pressure from urbanisation of city waterfronts that other ports are facing,” says Cairns.But others aren’t so sure. Port rationalisation talks so far have “lacked key information and seemed likely to generate more noise than substance,” according to Blair O’Keeffe, Chief Executive of CentrePort in the capital city of Wellington. While he acknowledges there will be changes among the nation’s ports, O’Keeffe says “their speed and nature is likely to be more subtle than dramatic.”               

The major ports across the United States and in other parts of the world have seen their throughput drop thirty to forty percent or more. The financial woes of the shipping industry have continued over several months with a series of warnings about the extent of the downturn and how long it will last. The economic conditions are not expected to improve significantly until after 2010. Port authorities and terminal operators across the globe have substantially curtailed their capital expenditure and, in some cases, frozen it outright. However, some operators are faced with having to invest in equipment to improve terminal productivity, promote new business, or replace obsolete equipment. The price of new ship-to-shore cranes has increased significantly over the last five years due to the increase in fuel and energy prices and changing market conditions. The financial crisis has not significantly reduced the price of new cranes. Terminal operators are taking a serious look at recycling existing cranes or investing in used equipment. Upgrading and recycling existing cranes may be worth consideration financially, with the added benefit of conserving precious resources. Money for recycling cranes is also primarily spent locally thus helping the local economy, whereas new cranes are purchased from foreign suppliers.

Recycling
Recycling cranes includes refurbishing, modification, modernisation, and relocation.  Refurbishment could include catching up on deferred maintenance and correcting any existing problems with the crane’s physical condition. The modifications generally involve geometry changes, which are primarily driven by the deployment of larger vessels or the requirements of a new terminal if the crane has been relocated. Modernisation generally involves capacity and speed increases, which are driven by productivity and obsolescence. Relocation could be local, where the cranes are moved between berths or terminals, or across oceans. Relocating cranes frequently involves geometrical changes to adjust to the new terminal such as changing the crane’s rail gauge, adding and relocating stowage pins and tie-downs, or both. Recycling costs vary a great deal depending upon the type of work and the new location of the equipment. The cost of moving cranes large distances is often a deterrent to crane recycling. The best way to demonstrate recycling cranes is to review what has already been done. The following examples are taken from Liftech’s crane modification projects that are either recently completed or are underway.

Three Hitachi Cranes
Matson Navigation and Horizon Lines vessels call at a terminal in Guam. The existing container cranes were too small and too slow to service the newer vessels and impractical to modernise. The Port Authority of Guam considered purchasing one or two new cranes at USD10 million each. Matson and Horizon located three retired cranes at the Port of Los Angeles, modified them for operations at Guam, and transported them to Guam. The Hitachi cranes were built in the mid-1980s and provided satisfactory service for the Port of Los Angeles until they were recently replaced by new cranes able to serve the larger container vessels. The total cost of USD18 million to purchase and modify the three Hitachi cranes and wharf at Guam was less than the cost to purchase two new cranes for USD20 million, plus the cost of modifying the wharf at the stowage areas. Although the new cranes would have larger outreach, lift height, and capacity, the modified Hitachi cranes met the users’ needs for the next 10 years. The extra crane will allow faster ship turnaround and provides redundancy. Matson and Horizon also installed new tie-down and stowage sockets for the cranes, and modified the crane rail girders in the stowage areas. The three Hitachi cranes are sister cranes to an existing crane at the same terminal and thus provide the benefit of having common parts, maintenance, training, and operations features. A significant benefit was the faster delivery of the three Hitachi cranes than the new cranes. The three cranes were transported on one barge. Significant voyage bracing was required because of the long voyage across the open ocean. Ship transport was not an option since there were no US ships available that are capable of transporting the cranes.

Drive upgrade
A terminal operator operates four dockside container cranes: two built in 1980 and two built in 1994. The operator is experiencing difficulty obtaining mechanical and electrical parts, leading to high maintenance costs and unacceptable crane downtime. Replacing the cranes with new cranes was an expensive proposition as new cranes could cost USD10 to 14 million each. The terminal operator opted to modernise the drives and controls of the existing cranes. At the time of writing this paper, bids have been issued to modernise four cranes with state-of-the-art drives, controls, and communication systems. The decision on how many cranes to upgrade will be made based on the bid price for the work. The average cost to upgrade one crane is estimated at USD1 million and the work is expected to be completed in early 2010. The two 1994 vintage cranes would be modernised at a fraction of the cost to purchase new cranes. The modernised 1980 vintage cranes would provide reliable supplements until the operator is able to replace them.

Two A-frame cranes
SSA Marine operates container terminals in many parts of the world including Panama and Mexico. Their terminal in Manzanillo, on the west coast of Mexico, needed two dockside container cranes in a few months. Their terminal in Colon, on the Atlantic side of Panama, could spare two cranes. The two cranes, supplied by Hyundai Heavy Industries in 2000, were in good operating condition and met the operating demands at Manzanillo. Liftech reviewed the structural design of the original cranes for Panama. The rail gauge at the Mexico terminal is 55 feet versus 75.8 feet at the Panama terminal. The Mexico terminal is also located in an active seismic area. The following modifications were made to operate at the Mexico terminal. Reduce the rail gauge of the two cranes. The portal beam was deepened and the landside legs were shortened and relocated from the 75.8 feet position to the 55 feet position. Since the rail gauge was reduced, the cranes needed approximately 75 tonnes of ballast at the landside for operating stability. Storm tie-downs on the cranes were added. As the legs were relocated, the elevator needed to be relocated also. The existing landside leg was used to support the elevator tracks up to the portal beam. A new column was added above the portal beam to support the elevator track. The two cranes were moved on a barge from Colon, Panama, to Manzanillo, Mexico. The barge transited through the Panama Canal. In order to clear the Americas Bridge at the Pacific side of the canal, the crane legs below the portal beams were cut off and the crane lowered to the deck. The cranes were raised upon arrival at Manzanillo, Mexico.

Too old to recycle?
At some point, recycling a crane is no longer economically practical. The owner must consider all the costs of the recycling project including the desired life of the crane. Often the question is asked: but what about the structural life of the crane? Structural failures, other than accidents, can be sorted into two groups: infant failures and aging failures. Infant failures occur during the initial operation of the crane and are due to faulty design, workmanship, or a combination of both. Infant failures are not of concern for cranes that have been operating for a few years. Aging failures occur over time and are due to slow crack growth. The application of fluctuating stresses causes small undetectable cracks to grow. If uncontrolled, these cracks grow until fatigue failure occurs. Although the phenomenon is called “fatigue,” it is only crack growth due to fluctuating stress. The steel does not get tired. The material beyond a crack is like new and is not affected by a nearby crack. If the crack and the s
mall yield region in front of the crack are removed and the weld is repaired, the life of the structure starts over. When considering recycling a crane, maintenance and reliability need to be considered. How reliable are the existing details? How often have cracks been found and repaired?

Costs
The cost of crane modernisation and relocation depends a great deal on the extent of modifications and differences in the site-specific conditions. For example to increase lift height by 20 feet costs an estimated USD900,000, to increase outreach 20 feet an additional USD 1 million and upgrade drives and controls a total of USD 1 million. The cost to dispose of a dockside crane depends on the type of crane and the price of scrap metal. In 2009, the cost of dismantling and disposing of a typical A-frame crane was about USD150,000.

Conclusion
Recycling existing cranes may be the most economical and expedient option for some terminal operators if they need larger, faster, or more modern cranes. The size and performance of existing cranes can be increased often for a fraction of the cost of new cranes, but not always. The economics and practicality of modernising the cranes depend on many factors. Each case should be looked at carefully. Recycling cranes may have the advantage of helping the local economy as much of the work is performed locally.