Review of Case Studies and Synthesis of Research to Date

Kristy SchmitTuesday, March 9, 2010

Outline• Case Study Review• The Wiki• Cheat Sheet• Future Work

Case Studies Review Process• Located each case study and moved

to one folder– /class_files/completed_projects/case_studies

• Took notes on where case study was found and what information was available (Table 1)

• Analyzed data by comparison of key values (Table 2)

• Summarized each case study• Grouped case studies into

categories based on similarities

Table 1: Case Study Navigation Analysis

Case Study Name Author

What's on the Wiki?Available in Google Group?

Found elsewhe

re? Comments

Sebastian

Model?

Includes project

intro

Date Comple

ted

Abstract/Summary

? pdf?presentati

on?

Long Beach, USA Nathan Chase No No No Yes N/A

Link to Nathan's page only (doesn't link to case study report) Yes yes

1-Aug-09

New Orleans, USA Marieta Hansen No No No Yes N/A This topic does not exist yet No no

1-Dec-08

Auckland, New Zealand Jessica

Hinojosa No No No Yes N/A This topic does not exist yet Yes

yes- needs changes though

11-Dec-08

Bremenports, Germany Henning

Roedel No Yes Yes Yes N/AMost text from report is on the webpage No yes

9-Dec-08

Houston/Galveston, USA Clare Thieke No No No No Yes This topic does not exist yet No yes

11-Dec-08

Corpus Christi, USA Nick McIntyre No No No No Yes This topic does not exist yet No no

19-Mar-09

New York/New Jersey, USA Davison Vivit No No No No Yes This topic does not exist yet No no

1-Mar-09

Chennai, India

Kristen Lence N/A N/A N/A Yes N/A Not on Wiki No

yes- needs changes though

11-Dec-08

Calloa, Peru Adam Pearson Yes No Yes No Yes

Link to doc (broken) and long abstract, strange bar across bottom No no

19-Nov-09

Table 2: Case Study ComparisonCase Study Name

Existing Defense River

Storm Events

Evaluated

Other characteris

ticsSediment Discharge

Protection Strateges

ConsideredConstruction

Cost EstimatesParameters used to

Calculate Totals Total CostTime to

Construct

Long Beach, Ca USA

breakwaterLA & San Gabriel

100 yr and 10,000yr

port protected from waves

59000+49000m3

Seawall and levees, dike with a lock system

see below tables

• Assumed SLR: 2m• Mean high high water: 1.7m• Storm surge: 3.7m• Design wave: 5.5m• Freeboard: 0.5m• Design river flood stage and runoff: 0m• Estimated subsidence: 0m $3.6 billion 5.8 yr

New Orleans, La USAlevees and locks

Mississippi 100 yr

110 mi upstream from gulf, affected by hurricanes

396,000,000 tons per year

closing MR-GO, improving floodwalls, and seawall construction

Port Protector spreadsheet only

• Assumed SLR: 2m (although 1.2 m is discussed in report)

$979 million 1.5 yr

Auckland, New Zealand

None None100 yr and 10,000yr None None

dike with a lock system, storm surge barrier, planned retreat

same material table used, plus port protector spreadsheet

• Assumed SLR: 2m• Mean high high water: 3.3m• Storm surge/tsunami runup: 1.8m• Design wave: 8.4m• Freeboard: 0.5m• Estimated subsidence: 0m

$493.3 million 0.3 yr

Bremenports, Germanydikes

Weser River 100 yr None ?

wet-wet and wet-dry dikes andlocks

see below tables • Assumed SLR: 2m

$2.99 billion 4.4 yr

Houston- Galveston, Tx USA

G- seawallH- Buffalo Bayou 10,000yr

very shallow bay, affected by hurricanes ?

Planned Retreat, Texas City Extension, and Super Dike plans (wet-wet)

Port Protector spreadsheet only

• Assumed SLR: 2m• Mean high high water: 1.7m• Storm surge: 5m• Design wave: 5.5m• Freeboard: 0.2m• Estimated subsidence:

$5.09 billion

2.5 yr (not considering delay for hurricane season)

Table 2: Case Study Comparison (cont’d.)Case Study Name

Existing Defense River

Storm Events

Evaluated

Other characteristi

csSediment Discharge

Protection Strateges

ConsideredConstruction

Cost EstimatesParameters used to

Calculate Totals Total CostTime to

Construct

Corpus Christi, Tx USAMustang Island (3-kilometer wide barrier island)

Nueces River 100 yr

bay and approaches very shallow, affected by hurricanes large

3 differnet dike designs

Port Protector spreadsheet only

• Assumed SLR: 2m• Mean high high water: m• Storm surge: m• Design wave: m• Freeboard: m• Estimated subsidence:

$498 million or $660 million with lock

0.5 yr or 1.5 yr with lock

New York - New Jersey, USA

natural barrier islands at SandyHook, NJ and along the southern coast of Long Island

Hudson River, Hackensack River, Passaic River and Raritan River 10,000yr

multiple ports, bays, and rivers ?

planned retreat, seawall extension, two wet-wet dikes with locks

same material table used, plus port protector spreadsheet

• Assumed sea level rise: 2 m• Mean high-high water: 1.8 m (Lower New York Bay) or 2.6 m (Long Island Sound)• Storm surge: 7.2 m• Design wave: 4.3 m• Freeboard: 0.5 m

Lower NY: $1.26 billion Long Island: $1.5 billion

Lower NY: 1.4 yr Long Island: 1.8 yr

Channai, India Breakwaters for inner and outer harbors

Kuvam (Cooum) river 100 yr

region affected by tsunamis ?

Dike along breakwater w/ lock (wet-wet and wet-dry components), Sea wall along port (vertical) and dry-wet dike

parts of Port Protector spreadsheet used

• Assumed sea level rise: 2 m• Storm surge: 2.375 m• Design wave: 9.39 m

Dike w/lock: $752 million or Seawall-dike: $244 million

Dike w/lock: 0.4 yr or Seawall-dike: 0.2 yr

Calloa, Peru

Isla San Lorenzo, an offshore island, and several breakwaters None 100 yr

vulnerable to earthquakes and tsunamis None

SLR and SS: sea wall, dike and lock. SLR only: raising port infrastructure, sea wall, dike and lock

same material table used, plus port protector spreadsheet

SLR + SS:• Assumed SLR: 2m • Mean high high water: 1.17m• Storm surge: 5.6m• Design wave: 6.48m• Freeboard: 0.5m• Estimated subsidence: negligibleSLR only:• Assumed SLR: 2m• Mean high high water: 1.17m• Freeboard: 0.5m• (Design wave: 1 m)

Raising port: $63 million +labor

Sea wall: < 5yr, dike: up to 25 yr, raising port: 1-5 yr

Case Study Grouping• Case Studies that include 2 or more

ports:– Houston- Galveston, Tx, USA– NY-NJ, USA– Bremenports, Germany– LA – Long Beach, Ca, USA

• Affected by Hurricanes:– New Orleans, La, USA– Houston- Galveston, Tx, USA– Corpus Christi, Tx, USA

• Affected by Tsunamis:– Channai, India– Calloa, Peru

Case Study OverviewEach case study has unique

attributes and many go into great detail on weather, characteristics of the port, and past events

There is a lack of consistency with respect to the project background

There was a variety of port types covered

There is not a Sebastian model for all case studies

Case Study Overview

• Most ports studied have plans to undergo improvements, modifications, or expansions.

• Only 1 of the current plans take into consideration the defenses needed against SLR.

• From review of case study data, it’s clear that SLR will have an impact on ports.

• I think this commonality signifies the importance of the Stanford project

The Wiki• Organization– Fixed Links– Updated Formatting

• Name– Any winners from brainstorming?

• New Template?– If a new webpage is created, I suggest

a different template with a little more flexibility

The Wiki- Format Suggestion

New Student “Cheat Sheet”• Cheat Sheet to include: how to

get access to websites

Future Work

• There is much more that can be done with the Wiki• Webmaster role on project?

• Domain name• Lots of great suggestions!

• Recommended Case Studies?• Areas not subject to severe weather (tsunami,

hurricanes, etc.)

Questions?

http://www.cnsm.csulb.edu/departments/geology/people/bperry/GrantPhotos/CatalinaFeb06/013LongBeachLosAngelesHarborsFeb06L.jpg