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

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.