Introduction Dong Lam Cement Factory is developing a new clinker plant in Thua Thien-Hue Province, Vietnam. The clinker has to be exported towards Ho Chi Minh City, where it is grinded into cement and used for the construction industry. For the clinker production coal is needed and has to be imported. To make the in- and export possible a new dedicated seaport is required to allow for 15,000 dwt clinker vessels and 7,000 dwt coal vessels. Objective The objective is to design a port with sufficient capacity to handle the predicted cargo flow and which offers acceptable conditions for the ships to enter. The effective berth and hinterland capacity have to be determined such, that turnaround times are within limits. To create safe conditions, the vessels need to have enough space for manouevring in the wet port area. These manoeuvres can be seriously disturbed by wind, wave, currents and siltation on the long term. To ensure the workability of the port these effects have to be limited. Analysis To determine the effective berth capacity the queuing theory is applied. In phase 1 and 2 one clinker and one coal berth satisfy with effective capacities of respectively 700 and 175 t/h respectively. In phase 3 two clinker and two coal berths are needed with the same loading/unloading rates. To get insight in the environmental boundary conditions, field data is collected and analysed thoroughly. In Vietnam the wind climate is governed by the South-East Asian monsoon system, with a dominant SE direction and strong NNE winds. The wave climate is directly influenced by the wind climate and shows a similar pattern. With regard to extreme conditions, once a year a tropical storm lands in the vicinity of the port site. These storms are accompanied by strong wave conditions, coming from E to SE direction. Having frequent waves from the NNE and SE, littoral transport is generated in north- and southward direction. Nevertheless, the northward transport is clearly dominant. Currents are heading SE for most of the time. Synthesis Four different layouts are developed for phase 3 of the project. Two of them are dismissed in an early stage, because of unfavourable conditions. The other two layouts – the 'coastal' and 'offshore' alternative, are evaluated with a cost-value approach. In this approach the value of each design is assessed by means of a MCA. Evaluation The following criteria are taken into consideration: navigation, tranquillity at berth, coastal impact, sedimentation, ease of cargo handling, safety and flexibility. Regarding navigation and wind, wave and current hindrance, no significant differences are found. It turns out that the most important difference is found in the coastal impact. The coastal alternative will cause erosion along 7.5 km of coastline with a maximum retreat of 100 m. Instead, the offshore alternative affects 'only' 3 km with maximum retreat of 70 m. The other element of the cost-value approach is the costs. The investment costs for the coastal alternative are 64.1 M$, which include the dredging works, breakwater and quay construction. The costs for the offshore port amount 77.5 M$, which entails the dredging works, breakwater, jetty quay and trestle construction. The relative low costs for the coastal alternative are achieved by applying the cut-and-fill balance; the dredged sand is used as breakwater foundation. Maintenance dredging costs are 1.75 M$ and 0.9 M$ for respectively the coastal and offshore alternative. To finish the cost-value approach the value/costs ratio is taken for both port layouts. The coastal alternative (0.9) turns out to be a better port layout than the offshore alternative (0.77).