The document outlines a coastal engineering project aimed at expanding Port Moín in Costa Rica, including the design of a breakwater and additional wharf facilities to accommodate larger container vessels. Feasibility studies and numerical modeling were conducted to ensure safety, efficiency, and economic viability, projecting significant profit growth. Final designs and construction methodologies were evaluated based on various alternatives to enhance the port's capabilities and meet future demands.

1. Six Pillars Coastal Engineering

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. Project team
Gabriel
Robin Christian Frederic Matthew Luc
Beauchesne-
Malyon Viau Dagenais Mantle Lendrum
Sévigny

4. Project support team
Seth Logan Graham Frank
M.A.Sc. P.Eng Dr. Ioan Nistor
W.F. Baird & Associates Coastal W.F. Baird & Associates Coastal P.Eng
Engineers Ltd. Engineers Ltd. Hydrotechnical Consultant
Coastal Engineering Consultant Coastal Engineering Consultant

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. Location of the project
Caribbean Sea
Panama Canal
Pacific Ocean
Source: Google Earth (2013)

7. Source: US Army Corps of Engineers (2011)

8. Current port layout
Source: Google Earth (2013)

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 Rica's GDP
Source: Autoridad Portuaria del Caribe (2012)

10. Feasibility study - alternatives
Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

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. Numerical modeling of wave
hydrodynamics
• 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. Computational domain
• Mesh generation and interpolation of available
bathymetric data

14. Statistical analysis
• Offshore wave and wind conditions
Wind climate
Wave climate

15. Model results of significant height conditions

16. Model results - wave data
For 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 s
Model 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. Modified and optimized port layout
Design modifications:
• Breakwater rotated
counter-clockwise
by 15º and
straightened
• Southern wharf
elongated to
provide additional
berth

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 19.62
Dense Sand 40 0 22.60

19. Types of breakwater-wharf systems
Pile system type
• Rubble mound breakwaters with
piles
Composite type
• Horizontal composite breakwater
Source: Takahashi (1996)

20. Breakwater armouring – Options
Quarry stones Accropodes
Source: US Army Corps (2005) Source: Behance.net (2009)

21. Design calculations for breakwater with
option 1 – Quarry stone

22. Typical rubble-mound
breakwater cross section
Source: CEM (2011)

23. Selection of allowable
overtopping discharge
Source: Caitlin Pilkington (2007)
Source: CEM (2011)

24. Freeboard
Source: CEM (2011)
Rc = 4.75 m
van der Meer and Janssen (1995)

25. Armour unit weight
Source: CEM (2011)
M50 = 7710 kg
Hudson’s equation, (1984)

26. Toe berm design
Source: CEM (2011)

27. Final design drawing – Quarry stone

29. Design calculations for breakwater with
option 2 – Accropodes

30. Source: Arthur de Graauw (2007)
M = 2400 kg
Source: Concrete Layer Innovations (2012)

31. Final design drawing – Accropodes

33. Final design drawing – Breakwater head
(Accropodes)

35. Final design drawing – Parapet wall

37. 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)

38. 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

39. Slip surface analysis – GeoStudio
F.S (left slope) : 1.64 F.S (right slope) : 1.49

40. 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)

41. 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 18.7
Accropode 208 300 180 81 739 1000 17.5

42. 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,.

43. Video

44. 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.

45. Questions?

46. 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

47. 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.