Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Final presentation

1,925 views

Published on

This is the final version of our project presentation. The two videos do not work, since they are not uploaded with the PPT.

Published in: Education, Technology, Business
  • Be the first to comment

Final presentation

  1. 1. Six Pillars Coastal Engineering
  2. 2. Outline• Project overview • Team • Objectives • Feasibility• Design • Numerical modelling • Field data • Choices & methodology Source: Maritime Information Services Ltd. (2011)• Conclusion • Economic impact • Review • Video tour
  3. 3. Project team Gabriel Robin Christian Frederic Matthew Luc Beauchesne-Malyon Viau Dagenais Mantle Lendrum Sévigny
  4. 4. Project support team Seth Logan Graham Frank M.A.Sc. P.Eng Dr. Ioan NistorW.F. Baird & Associates Coastal W.F. Baird & Associates Coastal P.Eng Engineers Ltd. Engineers Ltd. Hydrotechnical ConsultantCoastal Engineering Consultant Coastal Engineering Consultant
  5. 5. Objectives• Increase the capacity of Port Moìn, Costa Rica• Design a breakwater to protect the newly expanded port• Provide accommodations for Post-Panamax class container vessels• Construct 1.5km of new wharf and expand existing channel• Provide 50 hectares for container yard and facilities
  6. 6. Location of the project Caribbean Sea Panama Canal Pacific Ocean Source: Google Earth (2013)
  7. 7. Source: US Army Corps of Engineers (2011)
  8. 8. Current port layout Source: Google Earth (2013)
  9. 9. Project justification Agriculture Other 7% 1% Manufacturing 25%• Costa Rica’s economic situation• Increase in global middle class Port Moín exports• Globalization of the food Tourism industry Plants Others 67% 1% 23%• Expansion of Panama Canal Vegetables 4% Fresh fruits Coffee 70% 2% Costa Ricas GDP Source: Autoridad Portuaria del Caribe (2012)
  10. 10. Feasibility study - alternatives Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3
  11. 11. Preferred alternative Criteria: Alternative 3 Traffic • Cost Efficiency 17% Cost • Safety Material Avail. 33% 6% • Environmental impact • Material availability Env. Impact 11% Alternative efficiency • Traffic Cost Safety Env. impact Material avail. Traffic efficiency Final score 1 1st 3rd 1st 1st 3rd 2nd Safety 2 2nd 2nd 2nd 1st 1st33% 3rd 3 3rd 1st 3rd 1st 2nd 1st
  12. 12. Numerical modeling of wavehydrodynamics• Spectral Wave module – MIKE21 • Simulates growth, decay and transformation of waves • For analysis of wave climates in offshore and coastal areas• Provides details of wave-harbour interaction • Fast simulation times allow for iterative design and optimization • Breakwater was modelled as land; a limitation of MIKE 21
  13. 13. Computational domain• Mesh generation and interpolation of available bathymetric data
  14. 14. Statistical analysis• Offshore wave and wind conditions Wind climate Wave climate
  15. 15. Model results of significant height conditions
  16. 16. Model results - wave dataFor the 200 years storm event approaching from 60 degrees direction (nautical) with following offshore wave characteristics: • Significant wave height: 5 m • Significant wave period : 12 sModel results, breakwater location: • Significant wave height, Hs : 3.41 m • Wave period, T01 : 8.92s • Maximum wave height, Hmax : 6.25 m • Peak wave period, Tpeak : 12.21s
  17. 17. Modified and optimized port layout Design modifications: • Breakwater rotated counter-clockwise by 15º and straightened • Southern wharf elongated to provide additional berth
  18. 18. Field data – Geotechnical • Deep silty sand layer underlain by 3m of dense sand • Bed rock (limestone) located at approximately 17m below seafloor Soil layer Angle Cohesion (c) Unit Weight (γ‘) of friction (º) (kPa) (kN/m³) Silty Sand 32 2 19.62Dense Sand 40 0 22.60
  19. 19. Types of breakwater-wharf systemsPile system type• Rubble mound breakwaters with pilesComposite type• Horizontal composite breakwater Source: Takahashi (1996)
  20. 20. Breakwater armouring – Options Quarry stones Accropodes Source: US Army Corps (2005) Source: Behance.net (2009)
  21. 21. Design calculations for breakwater with option 1 – Quarry stone
  22. 22. Typical rubble-moundbreakwater cross section Source: CEM (2011)
  23. 23. Selection of allowableovertopping discharge Source: Caitlin Pilkington (2007) Source: CEM (2011)
  24. 24. Freeboard Source: CEM (2011) Rc = 4.75 m van der Meer and Janssen (1995)
  25. 25. Armour unit weight Source: CEM (2011) M50 = 7710 kg Hudson’s equation, (1984)
  26. 26. Toe berm design Source: CEM (2011)
  27. 27. Final design drawing – Quarry stone
  28. 28. Design calculations for breakwater with option 2 – Accropodes
  29. 29. Source: Arthur de Graauw (2007) M = 2400 kgSource: Concrete Layer Innovations (2012)
  30. 30. Final design drawing – Accropodes
  31. 31. Final design drawing – Breakwater head (Accropodes)
  32. 32. Final design drawing – Parapet wall
  33. 33. Potential failure modes – Rubble section• CEM recommends using the following “performance function” : G = Factored resistance – Factored loadings Where “G” must be greater than 0 for stability• Armour stability • G = 0.08• Toe berm stability • G = 0.26• Run-up • G = 0.02• Scour for steady stream • G = 0.06 Sources: Caitlin Pilkington (2007), Baird (2010)
  34. 34. Potential failure modes – Caisson section• Sliding • F.S.=4.91• Overturning • F.S.=5.62 Source: Van De Meer (2007)• Bearing • F.S=3.02
  35. 35. Slip surface analysis – GeoStudio F.S (left slope) : 1.64 F.S (right slope) : 1.49
  36. 36. Economic analysis• 2010 • Port Moìn container traffic: 850 000 TEU • Total Port Moìn profits: 29 550 000 US$• 2016 • Projected Port Moìn container traffic: 2 500 000 TEU • Projected Port Moìn profits: 87 000 000 US$ (an increase of almost 200% over a period of six years) TEU = Twenty foot equivalent container unit Sources: The Guardian UK (2010), Latin Infrastructure Quarterly (2011)
  37. 37. Cost analysis Armouring Cost/ linear Cost of Cost of Cost of add. port Project cost Return meter of Breakwater dredging and harbour period Breakwater facilities (i=5%) (US$) (M US$) (M US$) (M US$) (M US$) (years)Quarry stone 250 300 216 81 739 1036 18.7Accropode 208 300 180 81 739 1000 17.5
  38. 38. Conclusions• SAFETY: The redesigned port will meet or exceed all safety criteria, providing safe harbour for years to come• EFFICIENCY: The harbour has been optimized for the protection of traffic and the minimization of downtime• PROFIT: The additional revenue will provide an acceptable return period, justifying the investment,.
  39. 39. Video
  40. 40. Acknowledgements• Dr. Ioan Nistor• Baird & Associates• DHI Water & Environment• Faculty of Engineering, University of Ottawa• Video music track: “Ave Maria”, composed by Franz Schubert (1825), performed by Daniel Perret (1995). All rights reserved.
  41. 41. Questions?
  42. 42. References• Administracion Portuaria. (2012). Panorama Portuario en Cifra 2011. Retrieved November 2012, from Autoridad Portuaria del Caribe: http://www.japdeva.go.cr/adm_portuaria/Estadisticas.html#223• Allen, R. T. (1998). Concrete in Coastal Structures. London UK: Thomas Telford.• Allsop, N. W. (2005). International Conference on Coastlines, Structures and Breakwaters. Maritime Board of the Institutes of Civil Engineers. London UK.• Autoridad Portuaria del Caribe. (2011). Panorama Portuario en Cifras 2011. Retrieved October 2, 2012, from TERMINAL DE MOÍN: http://www.japdeva.go.cr/adm_portuaria/estadisticas.html• Bischof, B. (2008). Surface Currents in the Caribbean. Retrieved October 2012, from http://oceancurrents.rsmas.miami.edu/caribbean/caribbean_2.html• Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs. (2012, April). Background Note: Costa Rica. Retrieved November 2012, from U.S Department of State: http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/2019.htm• Canadian Society of Civil Engineers. (2006). whatiscivilengineering.csce.ca. Retrieved September 24, 2012, from http://whatiscivilengineering.csce.ca/coastal_breakwaters.htm• Christian, C. D., & Palmer, G. N. (1997). A Deforming Finite Element Mesh for use in Moving One-Dimenstional Boundary Wave Problems. International Journal for Numberical Methods in Fluids , 407-420.• CIRIA. (2007). The Rock Manual 2nd Edition. London UK: CIRIA.• Delta Marine Consultants. (2012). Retrieved September 37, 2012, from xbloc.com: www.xbloc.com• Fisheries and Oceans Canada. (2010). Guidelines for the safe design of commercial shipping channels . Retrieved 10 28, 2012, from http;//www.ccg-gcc.gc.ca/folios/00020/docs/gdreport01-eng.pdf
  43. 43. References• Jordan, M. (1995). Tandem-40 Dockside Container Cranes and Thier impact on Terminals. Retrieved November 15, 2012, from http://www.liftech.net/Publications/Cranes/Procurement%20and%20New%20Developement/Dockside%20Container%20Cran e.pdf• Jorgen Fredsoe, R. D. (1992). Mechanics of coastal sediment transport. Singapore: World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd.• Kamphuis, J. W. (2000). Introduction to coastal engineering and management. Singapore: World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd.• Kweon, H., I.H, K., & J.L., L. (2010). Rip Current Control Behind Steel-Type Multiple Breakwaters. Journal of Coastal Research , 1779-1783.• Mangor, K. (2012, October 1). Detached Breakwaters. Retrieved from Coastal Wiki: http://www.coastalwiki.org/coastalwiki/Detached_breakwaters• Marle, G. v. (2012, March 23). Port Technology International. Retrieved November 2012, from http://www.porttechnology.org/blogs/moin_deal_means_a_new_era_for_costa_ricas_farmers/• Muttray, M., Reedijk, B., & M, K. (2003). Development of an Innovative Breakwater Armour Unit. Coasts and Ports Australasian Conference. New Zealand.• Takahashi, S., (1996). Design of Vertical Breakwaters. Port and Airport Research Institute, Japan.• Torum, A., & Sigurdarson, S. Guidlines for the Design and Construction of Berm Breakwaters. Proceedings of the International Conference, ICE, (pp. 373-377). United Kingdom .• US Army Corps of Engineers. (2011). Coastal Engineering Manual. Washington DC.• US Army Corps of Engineers. (1994). Numerical Model Study of Breakwaters at Grand Isle, Louisiana. Vicksburg: US Army Corps of Engineers.

×