Impacts of Hurricane Katrina & Boxing Indian Ocean Tsunami on Ports
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Impacts of Hurricane Katrina & Boxing Indian Ocean Tsunami On Ports & Harbors Facilities Engineering Seminar American Associate of Port Authorities January 11-13, 2006 By John Headland We learn from history, that we learn nothing from history.” George Bernard Shaw Author, Playwright TRINCOMALEE COLOMBO GALLE DayDay 11 #13#13 TypicalTypical SriSri LankanLankan SceneScene NearNear PanaduraPanadura TsunamiTsunami InundationInundation == 3.33.3 mm East Sri Lanka (AP Photo): Raging water at beach front properties. DayDay 44 #19#19 HambantotaHambantota SriSri LankaLanka Runup=Runup= 11m11m Thailand Sumatra Runup by Philip Liu Tsunami Impacts On Ports & Harbors Port of Colombo •General cargo terminal and 2 container terminals •12-15 m draft (Jaya) and 9-11 m draft (SAGT) •2 million T.E.U in 2004 •Reinforced concrete deck on piles •200 Ha water area, 130 Ha land area Tsunami Height = 2.6 m DayDay 22 ## 55 PortPort ofof ColomboColombo SriSri LankaLanka NoNo DiscernableDiscernable DamageDamage DayDay 22 ## 3737 PortPort ofof ColomboColombo SriSri LankaLanka AA ShipShip LostLost ControlControl InIn ThisThis EntranceEntrance DuringDuring thethe TsunamiTsunami Tsunami Height= 5.3 m DayDay 11 #100#100 SriSri LankaLanka PortPort ofof GalleGalle 2m2m SedimentationSedimentation DuringDuring TsunamiTsunami DayDay 11 #108#108 SriSri LankaLanka PortPort ofof GalleGalle WarehouseWarehouse DamageDamage DayDay 11 ## 115115 SriSri LankaLanka PortPort ofof GalleGalle DredgeDredge GroundedGrounded OnOn WharfWharf TsunamiTsunami Height=Height= 5.35.3 mm Areas Visited Port of Chennai Port of Chennai Meas. Height = 2.8 m Runup In Area = 5 m 2nd Ship Container Berth- Port of Chennai 2nd Ship Container Berth- Mooring Lines Parted Mooring Dolphin SecondSecond ShipShip BeingBeing DrawnDrawn OutOut ofof EntranceEntrance WillWill KnockKnock OutOut MooringMooring DolphinDolphin Ship Held By One Line InnerInner HarborHarbor BerthBerth PortPort Blair-Blair- TsunamiTsunami HeightHeight ofof 3m3m Flood Damage To Utilities – Container Wharf Dry Dock - Port Blair Junglighat Harbor Pier PheonixPheonix BBayay DrydockDrydock Roads, Bridges & Railroad DayDay 1#341#34 KosgodaKosgoda SriSri LankaLanka DayDay 11 #49#49 AmbalangodaAmbalangoda SriSri LankaLanka TsunamiTsunami Runup=Runup= 4.74.7 mm DayDay 44 #105#105 ArugamArugam BBayay SriSri LankaLanka DayDay 44 ## 108108 ArugamArugam BBayay SriSri LankaLanka CausewayCauseway LostLost NoNo FoliageFoliage OnOn TreeTree Coastal Structures DayDay 33 ## 1111 MoratuwaMoratuwa SriSri LankaLanka Runup=Runup= 4.44.4 mm DayDay 11 ## 102102 GalleGalle SeawallSeawall SriSri LankaLanka DayDay 33 ## 141141 HikkaduwaHikkaduwa FFishingishing HarborHarbor -- SSriri LankaLanka BacksideBackside BreakwaterBreakwater DamageDamage TsunamiTsunami InundationInundation == 4.734.73 mm Locally Generated Tsunami propagation Into Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles Tsunami Source Locations Catalina Source Characteristics Numerical Model Setup Bathymetry 1000 900 800 700 r) e t 600 e m 0 1 ng i pac d s ri 500 G ( 400 300 Bathymetry [m] Above 4 0 - 4 200 -4 - 0 -8 - -4 -12 - -8 -16 - -12 -20 - -16 -24 - -20 -28 - -24 100 -32 - -28 -36 - -32 -40 - -36 -44 - -40 -48 - -44 -52 - -48 Below -52 0 Undefined 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 (Grid spacing 10 meter) 1/1/1999 12:00:00 PM, Time step: 0, Layer: 0 Bathymetry Animated Results Lasuen Knoll Earthquake Palos Verdes, No Breakwater Catalina 7 Segment Earthquake Gage Locations Palos Verdes Landslide II POLA 3.00 Pier 400 C Pier 400 E Pier 300 LA Main Channel 2.00 VT Bridge LA East Basin ) L 1.00 S M , m ( e c 0.00 a rf r Su e t a -1.00 W -2.00 -3.00 12:00:00 12:09:00 12:18:00 12:27:00 12:36:00 12:45:00 12:54:00 13:03:00 13:12:00 13:21:00 13:30:00 13:39:00 13:48:00 13:57:00 Time Palos Verdes Landslide II POLB 3.00 Pier J South Pier J LB SE Basin LB East Basin 2.00 Pier T Near Gap L) 1.00 S M , m e ( 0.00 ac rf u r S e -1.00 Wat -2.00 -3.00 12:00:00 12:09:00 12:18:00 12:27:00 12:36:00 12:45:00 12:54:00 13:03:00 13:12:00 13:21:00 13:30:00 13:39:00 13:48:00 13:57:00 Time Okushiri Tsunami 1993 5 ch9(cm) MIKE21-BW 4 3 m) c Okushiri Tsunami ( l ve 2 Le r te Wa 1 0 Comparison between -1 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 Tim e (Second) Physical Model 5 ch7(cm ) MIKE21-BW Results and 4 3 ) Numerical Model m (c 2 l eve L r e Results t 1 a W 0 -1 -2 0 2 4 6 8 1012141618202224 Time (Second) 4 ch5(cm) MIKE21-BW 3 2 ) m c ( vel e 1 L r e t a W 0 -1 -2 0 2 4 6 8 1012141618202224 Tim e (Second) CONCLUSIONS-TSUNAMI • Risks Can Be Quantified and Managed • Port of Chennai Survived 3-5 m Tsunami, Back In Operation Within Days • Moorings Vulnerable to Water Level Rise • Tsunami Currents Important (Scour, Navigation) • Manageable Risk of Ship Impact Damages • Properly Built Ports Can Survive • Utility Systems Vulnerable Priorities 1. Education 2. Warning System (Communications & Measurements) 3. Inundation Mapping 4. Evacuation Planning 5. Better Zoning/Building Practices ASCE/COPRI Post Katrina Damage Assessment Trip Post-Disaster Assessment Teams • Overall – New Orleans (T. Dalrymple) – Mississippi Ports (S. Curtis) – Louisiana Ports (N. Pansic) – Alabama/Mississippi Shoreline Areas (S. Douglass) New Orleans Team • ASCE- COPRI – T. Dalrymple, Johns Hopkins University – J. Battjes, TU Delft, The Netherlands – S. Tanaka, Public Works Research Institute, Japan – J. Headland, Moffatt & Nichol Mission • Collect perishable data and observations; • Gain on-site understanding; and • Pass along observations and lessons. ADCIC HINDCAST Hassan Mashriqui LSU Contact [email protected] ICWW London Street N & S 17th Street London Street Air Products N & S Bienvenue Gate Inner Harbor Navigation Canal: France Street N&S Inner Harbor Navigation Pipeline Canal: 9th Ward Canal Tidal Gate 17th Street Canal 17th Street Canal 17th Street Canal 17th Street Canal Elevation ~+ 14’ No Scour Behind Wall Port of New Orleans …and crane damage at the APM Container Terminal. Inner Harbor Navigation Canal: France Street South Elevation ~+ 14’ Inner Harbor Navigation Canal: France Street South Scour From Overtopping Inner Harbor Navigation Canal: France Street South Scour From Overtopping & Breach Earthen Levee Failure Inner Harbor Navigation Canal: France Street South Inner Harbor Navigation Canal: France Street South Inner Harbor Navigation Canal: France Street South Inner Harbor Navigation Canal: France Street South New Orleans Industrial Canal Hurricane Wave Forces On Piers and Bridges Huntington Beach Pier, California (1988 Storm) Catalina Island Ferry Terminal, 1960’s Hs= 10 feet, Tp = 7 sec, Still Intact White Beach Pier- Still Intact Paulus Hook Ferry Terminal, Jersey City, NJ US 90 Bay St Louis-Pass Christian US 90 Ocean Springs-Biloxi (West View) I-10 Bridge, Lousianna I-10 Bridge, Lousianna Design Conditions • All Variables For A Range of Return Periods – Tide Levels – Storm Surge Levels – Wave Conditions • Wave Height, Period, Duration By Direction • Hmax is Typically Used For Design – Tidal/Hurricane Induced Currents – Bathymetry (including short and long-term scour effects • Basis For Selecting Design Frequency – Safety (Prevent Loss of Life) – Economics (How Often Can You Afford To Repair/Replace) Vertical (Uplift) Loads • Slowly Varying (Quasi-static) And Peak Impulse Wave Loads on Decks and Beams – Model Tests – El Ghamry (1965) – Wang (1970) – French (1971) – Overbeek and Klabbers (2001) – HRW, McConnell et al (2005) Hs= 5 ft, Tp= 4sec, h= 22 ft, WL @ Deck (+10 ft mllw) 1000 900 sf) 800 re (p 700 600 Quasi-Static Uplift Pressure (psf) 500 Vertical Impact Pressure ave Pressu 400 (psf) 300 200 Vertical W 100 0 O&K HRW HRW-Max Hs= 5 ft, Tp= 8sec, h= 22 ft, WL @ Deck (+10 ft mllw) 1000 900 sf) 800 re (p 700 600 Quasi-Static Uplift Pressure (psf) 500 Vertical Impact Pressure ave Pressu 400 (psf) 300 200 Vertical W 100 0 O&K HRW HRW-Max Lateral Loads • Wave Loads On Slender Members (e.g., piles, beams) – Loads Dominated by Flow Separation (drag) – Stream Function or Fenton Wave Theories – Morrison Equation (u, du/dt with depth for lateral loads) • Wave Loads On Plates and “Large” Structures – Loads Dominated by Wave Pressure – Minikin, Miche-Rundgren – Goda Wave Pressure Equations – McConnell et al (2005) • Current Loads On Submerged Bridge Superstructure Hs= 5 ft, Tp= 4 sec, d= 22 ft, WL @ Deck (+10 ft mllw) 500 450 sf) 400 re (p 350 300 Quasi-Static Seaward Horizonal Pressure (psf) 250 ave Pressu Horizontal Impact 200 Pressure (psf) al W t 150 n rizo 100 Ho 50 0 Goda HRW HRW-Max Stream Function Theory, Wave Profile (H= 9 ft, T= 4 sec, d= 22 feet) 6 5 4 ) t f 3 Structure Width= 40 Feet n ( o i 2 1 evat El 0 est r -1 0 10203040 C -2 -3 -4 Distance From Crest (ft) Stream Function Theory, Wave Profile (H= 8.2 ft, T= 8 sec, d= 22 sec) 6 5 4 3 Structure Width= 40 Feet 2 1 0 -1 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Crest Elevation(ft) -2 -3 -4 Distance From Crest (ft) CONCLUSIONS- HURRICANES • Ports Extensively Damaged – From Wave and Water Levels – From Scour and Overtopping • Moorings/Ships Vulnerable to Water Level Rise and Currents • Extensive Building & Yard Damage • High Risk of Ship Permanently Moored Vessel Impact Damages • Properly Built Ports Can Survive • Utility Systems Vulnerable Recommended Actions For Moving Forward • “Learn From History” • Invest In Hurricane/Tsunami Risk Studies – Similar To Bridge Evaluations – Both Engineering and Economic Efforts – Estimate Damages Due Events – Prepare Damage/Service Interruption Cost – Weigh Corrective Actions Against Potential Damage/Interruption Cost – Invest In Cost-Effective Corrective Actions – Prepare Detailed Emergency Response Plans Recommended Actions For Moving Forward • A Silver Lining… – Forensic Studies Important… – Opportunity to promote the dialogue • Cost-Benefits For Ports & Waterways • Same For Flood Protection.