Cost Elements to be considered in the

Design of Marine Infrastructures –

Jetties and Dredging
Kenneth Wong
Singapore Institute of Surveyors and Valuers

ABSTRACT
Urbanisation (cities, interconnectivity), demographics (population trend), economy (Gross Domestic
Product, consumption) and geopolitics (trade blocs vis-à-vis gated community, shifting powerhouses)
will be the main drivers that will increase the demand for seaborne trades and shipping activities in the
future as forecasted in the Global Marine Trends 2030 report published by Lloyd’s, et al. (2013). With
seaborne trades representing about 90% of world trade, and with the increasing demand for dry cargo
(break bulk, commodity, container) and wet cargo (liquid bulk), the growth of the shipbuilding-related
industry (bulk carrier, containership, tanker, Liquefied Natural Gas carrier) and energy-related industry
(fossil energy, renewable energy) is set to continue (UNCTAD, 2014; Lloyd’s, et al., 2013) - the maritime-re-
lated infrastructure industry being no exception. The financing of marine infrastructure developments
can be capital intensive. For a rough order of magnitude example, the construction of new jetties and
capital dredging works for a petrochemical storage terminal located in the Southeast Asia region may
require capital expenditure of circa US$200 million. With tight budget constraints, a quadripartite pro-
curement structure comprising the lender, owner, consultant and contractor, will be pressured to multi-
discipline design optimise. This paper examines at macro level, the cost elements to be considered in the
design of marine infrastructures specifically jetties and dredging with emphasis on value engineering
aspects and whole life cost.

Keywords: Cost, Design, Jetty, Dredging

INTRODUCTION

BSI (2010, p.3) defines a jetty as a “structure providing a berth or berths at some distance from the shore
(a jetty may be connected to the shore by an access trestle or causeway, or may be of the island type)”
while a wharf (also called a quay) is defined as a “berth structure backing on to the shore or reclaimed
land”. Jetties and quays are used interchangeably in this paper. They are similar except that a jetty is
extended further from the shore into deeper waters. A jetty is commonly constructed of an open deck
supported on piles or as a solid structure with vertical marine frontage. Concrete deck is typically used,
alternatively may be of steel or timber, mainly because concrete is more economical than steel and more

1244
durable than timber. The main function of a jetty is to provide berth accommodations to a watercraft for
the loading/unloading of goods or the embarking/disembarking of passengers.

Dredging is defined by BSI (1991, p.10) as “the removal from beneath water and raising through water of
soil, rock or debris”. Examples of equipment used for dredging include cutter suction dredgers, trailing
suction hopper dredgers, grab dredgers, hopper barges and hydrographic surveying equipment. There
are many reasons to dredge. Dredging can be carried out to provide a navigable waterway while dredged
material can be used as fill for land reclamation or beach nourishment.

LEVELS OF COST ESTIMATE

Order of Magnitude estimates at Level 1 for jetties can be quickly build up based on functional unit rate
analyses in the form of Cost per LOA, Cost per Displacement, Cost per Deadweight Tonnage (DWT) or Cost
per Draught, applying relevant cost indexes where relevant. Location factors are typically used as most
cost data for jetties are from international sources due to the nature of the works.

Level 2 (Concept) cost estimates are based on approximate quantities referenced to preliminary layout
plans, typical cross section drawings and soil investigation data. Table 1 describes an example of a Level
2 (Concept) cost estimate summary for a jetty development. Piling and dredging works are shown as the
cost drivers, which typically would be the case.

Level 3 (Front End Engineering Design (FEED) or Detailed Design) cost estimates depending on the level
of development should give an accuracy rate of ± 20 per cent and ± 10 per cent, respectively. While the
accuracy rate may seem low, it will diminish further when the project location is foreign to the estimator
due to factors such as lack of local pricing knowledge, limited availability of cost data for comparison and
fluctuating foreign exchange risk.

Example of a Level 2 (Concept) Cost Estimate Summary for a Jetty Development (25,000 to 320,000
DWT)

Scope of Works

 Capital Dredging of 2,000,000m3;

 Causeway with Armour Rock Protection, 480m Long x 44m Wide;
 Steel Pipe Piles, 1,200mm Outside Diameter x 19mm Thick;
 1 no. Approach Trestle, 2,100m Long x 17m Wide, 24m Typical Span;
 1 no. Loading Platform, 64m Long x 35m Wide;
 6 nos. Breasting Dolphin;
 8 nos. Mooring Dolphin; and
 Exclusion: Jetty Top-Side Equipment, Professional Fees, Financing Charges, Authorities Plan
Processing Charges, Legal Cost, Navigational Aids and Contingencies.

1245
Figure 1 Level 2 (Concept) Cost Estimate Summary for a Jetty Development (25,000 to 320,000 DWT) (Source: Author)

Budgetary
Item Description
Amount (USD)

1 Dredging USD 16,000,000.00

2 Causeway USD 4,000,000.00

3 Piling Works USD 22,000,000.00

4 Approach Trestle USD 12,000,000.00

5 Jetty Structures USD 4,000,000.00

  Total Budgetary Cost USD 58,000,000.00

VESSEL SIZE

The cost of constructing a jetty correlates with the range of vessel sizes in which the jetty is able to
accommodate. PIANC (2008, p.46) viewed the relationship between the investment costs of jetties and
the sizes of vessels as almost linear. As the size of a vessel increases in terms of Length Overall (LOA),
displacement and draught, the functional requirements of the jetty facility for berthing and mooring be-
comes more demanding. Table 1 describes the likely impacts of the increase in vessel size to the elements
of a jetty.

1246
 Table 1 Increase in vessel size and the likely impacts to jetty elements (Source: Author)

Increase in Vessel Size Impact Jetty Elements

 More dolphin structures

LOA  Longer berthing frontage
 Longer walkways

 Increase in structural strength

Displacement  Greater fender energy absorption
 Increase in bollard anchor pull out

 Longer trestle
Draught  Potential dredging works
 Higher deck clearance

Figure 2 depicts a jetty with berthing capacity of 3,000 to 80,000 DWT. The colour contrast of the struc-
tures indicates that additional mooring dolphins are required to secure the larger 80,000 DWT vessel.

Figure 2 Plan view of jetty elements required for 3,000 to 80,000 DWT vessel (Source: Author)

80,000 DWT
10,000 DWT

3000 DWT
STERN
LINE BOW LINE

PLATFORM
BD BD BD BD

MD MD MD MD
TRESTLE
SHORE

BD (BREASTING DOLPHIN)
MD (MOORING DOLPHIN)
DWT (DEADWEIGHT TONNAGE)

1247
DREDGE MORE TO DREDGE LESS

When planning for future deepening and widening, it is economically practical to increase the current
dredged depth at current dredging cost rather than deepening and widening in the future. However, own-
ers will tend to be subjected to the justification dilemma of pay more now relative to future plans which
are sensitively dependent on business and operation needs. In particular, PIANC (2008, p.48) found that
private operators are less inclined to consider future uncertainties beyond a period of 10 years. Some of
the factors that influence dredging decision are shown in Table 2.

The criterion in Table 2 can be quantified into monetary terms to yield reliable dredging decision-logic
vis-à-vis cost threshold.

Table 2 Examples of factors influencing dredging decision (Source: Author)

Marine infrastructure owners tend to dread carrying out dredging works because they are expensive, in-
tangible and time consuming. Dredging works also have the potential to be highly complex works when
major environmental damages occur such as destruction of coral reefs, adverse sediment plume and oil
spill. Sovereignty disputes may also occur where dredging works are close to territorial waters.

As such, dredging decisions are stringently made from the perspective of cost and benefit with opera-
tional needs being secondary. For example, vessels entering or exiting a port need to wait for sufficient
tide due to insufficient depth of the access channel. The port operator may accept the increase in turn-
around time due to lack of funding to deepen the channel and instead increase the port’s operational
efficiency to reduce dwelling time.

Where dredging works will benefit two or more parties, a shared cost apportionment approach between
the parties is typically negotiated in order to share the financial burden of the works.

1248
LONG TRESTLE, LESS DREDGING OR SHORT TRESTLE, MORE DREDGING

The decision to extend a trestle seaward or to reduce its length is highly dependent on the dredge volume
required for safe berthing and unberthing operations. Against metocean conditions, the decision-logic of
trestle optimisation against dredging strategy can be narrowed to a matter of dollars-and-cents.

Ordinarily, the cost of dredging will outweigh the cost of extending the trestle – the dredge volume will
be greater than the quantum of concrete, steel and topside equipments relative to cost. For example, for
a new terminal it is more cost-effective to have a longer approach trestle with reduced dredging as com-
pared to an approach trestle closer to shore but with greater deepening and widening of the access chan-
nel, berthing and turning basin – not forgetting the life cycle cost of periodic maintenance dredging. One
example is the Progreso Pier shown in Figure 3, located in the Mexican state of Yucatán is the longest pier
in the world, measuring 6.5 kilometres long. Such a long pier was necessary due to the existing limestone
shelf forming the seabed, which required challenging dredging methods, ergo more costly.

On top of that, the cost of dredging will be further exacerbated should it entail complex environmental
protection measures such as the need to relocate coral reefs and continuous real-time turbidity mea-
surements. A case in point is the deepwater Khalifa Port shown in Figure 4, located in the United Arab
Emirates city of Abu Dhabi, which is interconnected with the shore via a causeway stretching some more
than 4 kilometres in length, in order to avoid encroaching on the Ras Ghanada coral reefs.

Dredging cost is highly influenced by project timeline as tight timeframes with short operation windows
will entail mobilisation of additional dredging equipment. Another strong cost influence would be the lo-
cation factor in relation to: distance between working area and dumping ground; and distance between
working area and mobilisation position.

1249
Figure 3 Satellite image of Progreso Pier (Source: NASA, 2014)

1250
 Figure 4 Satellite image of Khalifa Port (Source: Google Earth, 2016)

SPAN OF THE APPROACH TRESTLE

The span of the longitudinal beams supported between headstock beams in an approach trestle can be
a significant cost driver. As the trestle extends seaward, shorter longitudinal beams will need to be sup-
ported by headstocks which translate to more piles required to be driven and vice versa.

Contrarily, longer longitudinal beams will require structurally stronger piled foundations and cross sec-
tion geometry of longitudinal beams and vice versa. The question of adopting longer beams would then
be: are the cost savings of headstock and pile quantities greater than the cost of increased structural
strength of piles and beams? It is often more economical to adopt longer span beams as marine piling
works are costly and pile quantities should be reduced to wherewithal.

Typical trestle span ranges between 12 metres and 24 metres. With the use of precast prestressed con-
crete, longer beams and slabs can be achieved with greater material savings in concrete and reinforcing
steel. Yee (2001a) stressed that the use of precast prestressed concrete beams and slabs enables struc-
tures to be built: with speed; leaner; with better quality control; and more economical while Yee (2001b)
underscored significant benefits to social and environment.

1251
An exemplification of the advantage of longer beams can be found in Lekir Bulk Terminal shown in Figure
5, located in the Malaysian state of Perak, it consists of an approach trestle measuring 2 kilometres long
constructed of prestressed precast concrete T-Roff girders measuring 33.5 metres in length. The long
girders significantly reduced the number of pile bents and proved to be a cost effective solution.

Figure 5 Satellite image of Lekir Bulk Terminal (Source: Google Earth, 2013)

CAISSON OR PILE DECK

The option of either adopting a caisson or pile deck is mostly not driven by cost but mainly on the in-
herent characteristics of the structures in relation to operational suitability. It is therefore not advis-
able during the concept stage to decide between the two structures purely on cost-effectiveness basis
as these two structures both have their pros and cons, which will require careful analyses of individual
structure’s performance.

Figure 6 depicts a decision tree model which can be applied as a process of elimination, when evaluating
the feasibility between caisson and pile deck structures. Based on Figure 6, the structural analyses of the
options is critical in determining the most suitable solution. If both options are able to perform structur-

1252
ally, the elimination process will be narrowed down to a matter of cost and time.

Table 3 presents a comparison of the characteristics between caissons and pile deck jetties. These com-
parisons represent the generally accepted viewpoints of the two structures, however they should not be
taken as conclusive as each analysis should be treated on a case by case basis, due to varied factors such
as ground condition, dredge volume, cost of soil improvement, transportation difficulties and etcetera.

Figure 6 Decision tree diagram for the selection between caisson jetty and pile deck jetty (Source: Author)

Note

On the assumption that all other resources are fully available and
that there are no other design constraints, else design option will be
eliminated.
DECISION
Fully available resources include:
- Precasting yard and laydown area
- Specialized skill and experience
- Transportation and installation equipment
- Suitable material Comparison
- Working area and period Matrix

Estimate Cost

Pile Deck
Estimate
Schedule

Structural Develop Preliminary Measure

OPTIONS YES Identify Scope
Performance Design Quantities

- Vessel Type - Work Breakdown Structure

- Design Load - Activity List
- Metocean - Construction Sequence
- Hydrology
- Seismic
Caisson - Ground Condition
- Future Use

NO

Eliminate Option

1253
 Table 3 Comparison of the characteristics between caisson jetty and pile deck jetty

VALUE ENGINEERING WITH EARLY CONTRACTOR INVOLVEMENT

It can be said that the sole objective of an Early Contractor Involvement (ECI) exercise is to appreciate and
utilise contractors’ expertise. As Quantity Surveyors may not be well equipped with actual construction
technicalities, the ECI exercise will prove to be a great degree beneficial to a project, particularly so when
the project is of a foreign location to the Quantity Surveyor. Some of the advantages experienced by Seah
(2014, pp.1-6) through ECI exercises within the building industry include: greater commitment from the
contractor; value engineering advises; better control of project risks; and shorter tender period. CIRIA,
CUR, CETMEF (2007) ratified the adoption of ECI and found that ECI can provide significant cost savings
to rock works within the hydraulic environment while IADC (2015, p.57) emphasised EPC contracts and
ECI exercises as “more successful ways of approaching mega-infrastructure projects”. Some examples of
the advantages experienced by the author through ECI exercises include:

1254
ANCILLARY SITE CONSIDERATIONS

The location for the construction of marine infrastructures is often dictated by the underlying function
to which it serves. For example, a jetty serving a coal mine will be used to load coal unto dry bulk barges
while a quay serving a container terminal will be used for the storage and transfer of container goods.
The location of the underlying function is subjected to operational and business needs which may in-
clude criterion such as navigation route, proximity to feedstocks or refineries, intermodal transport ac-
cessibility and hinterland connectivity.

The characteristics of the construction site can often be overlooked during the design stage possibly
because Quantity Surveyors tend to view them as the contractor’s responsibilities to ascertain and scout
for potential site issues. Ideally, Quantity Surveyors should be aware of the interface points between
design, constructability and site condition as these criterion have their individual cost implications. The
following are some examples pertaining to site considerations during the planning and design stage:

1255
Availability of Laydown Area

Laydown areas for marine construction are typically provided for facilities such as site office; fabrication
yard; equipment and material storage; temporary jetty for loading/unloading; temporary mooring facili-
ties for service vessels; and stockpile for large volume of material e.g. armourstones, precast beams, piles
and caissons. The suitability of the laydown area in terms of size and accessibility should be considered
during preliminary cost estimate as the cost of constructing and maintaining temporary facilities such as
stockpiles, roads, bridges and jetties can be very high.

Existing Environmental Conditions

Activities (Environmental Impact Statement, Environmental Impact Assessment and Environmental

Monitoring and Management Plan) to safeguard the sustainability of the existing construction site and
surrounding environment should be carried out at the earliest possible stage preferably during initial
planning so as to establish: the approvability of planning and development permit; and the individual
responsibilities of the contractor, environmental consultant, owner and authorities.

An environmental assessment (typically required for petrochemical jetties, dredging, coastal protection
and reclamation) evaluates an established environmental baseline with potential impact to environmen-
tal features such as ecology, socio-economy, marine facilities, vessel navigation, cross-border impact and
aquaculture.

The cost of conducting environmental assessment and monitoring can be costly and time consuming,
mainly dependent upon the location of the site. For a sense of scale, these costs usually constitute circa
10-15 per cent of the overall dredging cost for a project located within the South East Asia region. Exam-
ples of typical monitoring activities may include monitoring of: oil spill; sediment plume; water quality;
Secchi disc depth; and habitat while examples of typical mitigation measures may include installation
of silt curtains, side-scan sonar, improvements to dredging methodology and deployment of oil booms.

The significance of proper environmental management should not be overstated. Owners will tend to
be inclined to view these extra costs as a financial burden, however, the lack of properly addressing the
construction impact to environmental receptors can drastically delay authorities’ approvals (specifically
in countries where the environmental regulations are well defined and controlled) which may lead to
detrimental multiplier effects to the end users.

Geographical Risks

Certain countries may carry more risks than others in terms of political, economy and social. Quantity
Surveyors will need to identify these country risks when reviewing the financial feasibility models for
marine infrastructure projects particularly so for international projects. Contingency sum (usually less
than 5 per cent of construction cost relative to geographical area) in the construction cost estimate
should be allowed for these uncertainties.

For instance, jetty developments within the Southeast Asia region often disrupt the livelihoods of fisher-

1256
men and their fishing villages through: interruption of usual navigation route resulting in fishermen hav-
ing to circumnavigate; threatening the sustainability of marine life; noise disturbances from pile driving
works; traffic nuisance due to increase of construction vehicles; and creating aesthetic impacts which do
not blend in with the surrounding landscape. When such events occur, negotiations between the project
owner and the affected parties with the assistance of the local authorities should provide solutions that
are mutually beneficial. Remedial actions can include monetary compensations for losses and interrup-
tions, building alternate traffic routes, traffic planning and management, limiting pile driving activities
to day time and installing navigational aids to prevent fishing trawlers from being too close to the con-
struction area.

WHOLE LIFE COST

It is common for Quantity Surveyors to estimate first cost (capital cost) rather than calculating the life
cycle cost for marine infrastructures because the former is relatively simple to estimate while the latter
requires accurate maintenance expenditure data which can be difficult to obtain due to lack of well doc-
umented records. It is also difficult to justify a decision comprising a higher initial cost but with lower
future costs due to uncertainties in the future operational needs of the structure. For example, during
the design of a container terminal, it may be prudent to consider stronger beams for the ship-to-shore
cranes in light of future increases in vessels’ beam length. However, due to the uncertainties in project-
ing future growth of vessel size, private port operators tend not to invest for a period beyond 10 years as
viewed by PIANC (2008, p.48). It is interesting to note that a survey conducted by PIANC (2008) indicated
that a high number of port operators do not view life cycle management (LCM) as providing positive as-
sistance during planning stage but all the port operators had acknowledged that life cycle management
is important.

While LCM can be adopted at every stage of a project, it is most beneficial to be done during the design
stage as supported by Seah (2014) due to greater opportunities for change, lower cost of change and less-
er resistance to change from the project team.

Without good maintenance cost data, an estimate based on percentage of construction cost can be ad-
opted. Annual maintenance cost for jetties is usually taken to be circa 3 per cent of the overall cost of
construction. Cost of maintenance dredging can be calculated based on estimated sedimentation rate,
likely to be within a cycle of every 3 or 5 years.

Some examples of generally adopted LCM design parameters for a jetty include the following:

1257
Some examples of LCM considerations when planning for a dredging framework include the following:

CONCLUSION

The cost elements to be considered in the design of jetties and dredging as discussed in this paper are:
size of vessel; dredging framework; length and span of trestle; comparison between caisson and deck on
pile; ECI benefits; site characteristics; and whole life cost. The aforementioned cost considerations are
not exhaustive; rather, it will provide Quantity Surveyors, Engineers and Project Managers with a struc-
tured plan in design optimisation process by narrowing onto key cost drivers.

While this paper examined cost considerations at a macro level, investigations on cost and benefit at a
micro level will undoubtedly produce holistic cost estimates of marine infrastructures. This will include
research on areas such as: comparison of fender types and brands; comparison of Quick Release Hook
types and brands; statnamic load test versus static load test; spun piles versus steel piles; sacrificial
anode versus impressed current cathodic protection systems; various dredger capabilities; and environ-
mental management costs vis-à-vis geographical areas.

REFERENCES
BSI, 1991. BS 6349-5:1991 Maritime works – Part 5: Code of practice for dredging and land reclamation.
London: BSI. 
BSI, 2010. BS 6349-2:2010 Maritime works – Part 2: Code of practice for the design of quay walls, jetties
and dolphins. London: BSI. 

1258
IADC (2015). Beyond Sand & Sea. 50 Years of Maritime Masterpieces. [pdf] The Hague: International As-
sociation of Dredging Companies. Available at: <https://www.iadc-dredging.com/ul/cms/fck-upload-
ed/50/iadc-book-beyond-sand-and-sea.pdf> [Accessed 23 December 2015].
CIRIA, CUR, CETMEF (2007). The Rock Manual. The use of rock in hydraulic engineering (2nd edition). Lon-
don: C683 CIRIA.
CED, 2004. Port Works Design Manual – Part 2: Guide to Design of Piers and Dolphins. [pdf] Hong Kong:
Government Publications Centre. Available at: <http://www.cedd.gov.hk/eng/publications/ceo/
manu_pwdm2.html> [Accessed 14 December 2015].
Dysert, L. R., 2008. An Introduction to Parametric Estimating. 2008 AACE International Transactions,
[online] CostAndValue. Available at: <http://www.costandvalue.org/download/?id=1554> [Accessed
10 December 2015].
Google Earth, 2016. Khalifa Port 24°47’49.53”N, 54°40’12.36”E, elevation -3M. Available through:<http://
www.google.com/earth/index.html> [Accessed 5 September 2016].
Google Earth, 2013. Lekir Bulk Terminal 4°08’40.88”N, 100°37’52.78”E, elevation -7M. Available
through:<http://www.google.com/earth/index.html> [Accessed 5 September 2016].
Lloyd’s Register, QinetiQ, University of Strathclyde & Marine Strategies International, 2013. Global
Marine Trends 2030. [pdf] Lloyd’s Register. Available at: <http://www.lr.org/en/marine/projects/glob-
al-marine-trends-2030.aspx> [Accessed 6 December 2015].
NASA, 2014. Progreso’s Prolonged Pier. [image online] Available at: <http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/
IOTD/view.php?id=85004> [Accessed 4 September 2016].
PIANC, 2008. Life Cycle Management of Port Structures - Recommended Practice for Implementation.
MarCom WG 103. Brussels: PIANC.
Seah, E., 2014. Construction Procurement, Contract Administration and Law. Singapore: LexisNexis.
UNCTAD, 2014. Review of Maritime Transport 2014. [pdf] Geneva: United Nations. Available at: <http://
unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/rmt2014_en.pdf> [Accessed 6 December 2015].
Watson, R. and Kwak, Y. H., 2004. Parametric Estimating in the Knowledge Age: Capitalizing on Tech-
nological Advances. [pdf] ResearchGate. Available at: <https://www.researchgate.net/publica-
tion/251779281_PARAMETRIC_ESTIMATING_INTHE_KNOWLEDGE_AGE_CAPITALIZING_ON_TECH-
NOLOGICAL_ADVANCES> [Accessed 14 December 2015].
Yee, Alfred A., 2001a. Structural and Economic Benefits of Precast/Prestressed Concrete Construction.
PCI Journal, [online] Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute. Available at: <http://www.pci.org/up-
loadedFiles/Siteroot/Publications/PCI_Journal/2001/DOI_Articles/jl-01-july-august-3.pdf> [Accessed
16 December 2015].
Yee, Alfred A., 2001b. Social and Environmental Benefits of Precast Concrete Technology. PCI Journal,
[online] Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute. Available at: <http://www.pci.org/uploadedFiles/
Siteroot/Publications/PCI_Journal/2001/DOI_Articles/jl-01-may-june-2.pdf> [Accessed 16 December
2015].

1259