FINAL REPORT- Case Study Jamaica_Spandana Nakka

8/6/2019 FINAL REPORT- Case Study Jamaica_Spandana Nakka

1/30


2/30


3/30


4/30


5/30


6/30


7/30


8/30


9/30


10/30


11/30


12/30


13/30


14/30


15/30


16/30


17/30


18/30


19/30


20/30


21/30


22/30


23/30

Engineering Response to Global Sea Level Rise- Case Study, Port of Kingston, Jamaica, Dec 2010

- 22 -

Typical cross-sections

Figure 24 Cross-section of Wet-Wet dike (Port Protector Spreadsheet)

Materials (Port Protector Spreadsheet)

Material Quantities

Component Material Volume Component Material VolumeDike Foundation Concrete 2,401,926 Dike Foundation Concrete 437,526 Dike Toe Structural Fill 378,540 Dike Toe Structural Fill 68,954 Dike Core Concrete 1,089,737 Dike Core Concrete 198,503 Dike Structural Fill 5,838,232 Dike Material Structural Fill 1,063,471 Dike Armoring Rip Rap 1,910,860 Dike Armoring Rip Rap 348,075

Component m3Concrete 4,127,691 Structural Fill 7,349,196 Riprap 2,258,935

Wet- Wet Dike Wet- Dry Dike

Total Materials

Figure 23 Cross-section of Wet-Dry Dike (Port Protector Spreadsheet)

Table 10 Individual material uantities for Wet-Wet & Wet-Dr Dike + Combination Port Protector S readsheet


24/30


- 23 -

Cost Data

Cost

Component $ Component $Dike Foundation 208,967,534.01$ Dike Foundation 38,064,746.53$Dike Toe 6,435,186.12$ Dike Toe 1,172,209.50$Dike Core 94,807,153.80$ Dike Core 17,269,717.50$Dike Material 99,249,942.14$ Dike Material 18,078,999.25$Dike Armoring 99,364,734.38$ Dike Armoring 18,099,909.38$

508,824,550.44$ 92,685,582.16$

Total Cost 601,510,132.60$


Table 11 Cost Data for Wet-Wet & Wet-Dry dike (Port Protector Spreadsheet)

Time to construct (Man-hours)

(Based on a 40 hour work week, year round construction, 200 person crew size) wet wet dike

Labor (Man-Hours)

Component Man-hours Component Man-hoursDike Foundation 36,028.89 Dike Foundation 6,562.89 Dike Toe 5,678.11 Dike Toe 1,034.30 Dike Core 16,346.06 Dike Core 2,977.54 Dike Material 87,573.48 Dike Material 15,952.06 Dike Armoring 16,346.06 Dike Armoring 5,221.13

161,972.59 31,747.91

Total Man-Hours 193,720.50


Schedule (Years)

Component Years Component YearsDike Foundation 0.07 Dike Foundation 0.01 Dike Toe 0.01 Dike Toe 0.00 Dike Core 0.03 Dike Core 0.01 Dike Material 0.17 Dike Material 0.03 Dike Armoring 0.03 Dike Armoring 0.01

0.31 0.06

Total Years 0.37


Table 12 Man-hours for the construction of Wet-Wet & Wet-Dr Dike Port Protector S readsheet

Table 13 Years to construct Wet-Wet & Wet-Dry Dike (Port ProtectorSpreadsheet)


25/30


26/30


- 25 -

Typical cross-sections

Figure 27 Cross-section of the vertical Seawall (Asia Hub)

Material Quantities

Material Quantities

Component Material Volume Component Material VolumeSeawall core Concrete 169,908 Dike Foundation Concrete 1,475,384 Seawall Material Structural Fill 951,815 Dike Toe Structural Fill 307,890 Seawall Armoring Riprap 571,767 Dike Core Concrete 886,350

Dike Material Structural Fill 1,615,396 Dike Armoring Rip Rap 1,088,216

Component m3Concrete 2,531,642 Structural Fill 2,875,101 Riprap 1,659,983

Vertical Sea Wall Wet- Dry Dike

Total Materials

Figure 26 Figure 15: Design cross-section of wet-dry dike. (Source: Port Protector

spreadsheet)

Table 14 Material quantities for Vertical Seawall & Wet-Dry dike + Combination(Port Protector Spreadsheet)


27/30


- 26 -

Cost Data

Labor

Time to construct

(Based on a 40-hour work week, year round construction, 250 person crew size)

Labor

Component Man-hours Component Man-hoursSeawall core 2,549.00 Dike Foundation 22,130.76 Seawall Material 14,277.00 Dike Toe 4,618.35 Seawall Armoring 8,577.00 Dike Core 13,295.25

25,403.00 Dike Material 24,230.94 Dike Armoring 16,323.23

Total Manhours 24,900.23 80,598.54


Schedule (Years)

Component Years Component YearsSeawall core 0.005 Dike Foundation 0.04 Seawall Material 0.03 Dike Toe 0.01 Seawall Armoring 0.02 Dike Core 0.03

0.05 Dike Material 0.05 Dike Armoring 0.03

Total Years 0.20 0.15


Cost

Component $ Component $Seawall core 14,781,953.00$ Dike Foundation 128,358,408.00$Seawall Material 16,180,847.00$ Dike Toe 5,234,130.00$Seawall Armoring 29,731,884.00$ Dike Core 77,112,450.00$

60,694,684.00$ Dike Material 27,461,735.40$Dike Armoring 56,587,212

294,753,935.41$Total Cost 355,448,619.41$


Table 15 Cost data for Vertical Seawall & Wet-Dry dike (Port Protector Spreadsheet)

Table 16 Man-hours for construction of Vertical Seawall & Wet-Dry dike (Port ProtectorS readsheet

Table 17 Years to construct Vertical Seawall & Wet-Dry dike (Port ProtectorSpreadsheet)


28/30


- 27 -

5.3 Alternative Selection As the Port of Kingston moves towards adapting to sea level rise, consideration should bealso given to the infrastructure which surrounds the port, or its contiguous community.The Port of Kingston Causeway is the most prone infrastructure to the SLR. As theCauseway is an important link of ground transport between the port and the other part of

the island, it should also be protected.The Jamaican government has specified several areas as protected areas distributed acrossthe island. Invariably, these protected areas have biological significance, but all areentwined with the physical environment. (Figure 28).

Figure 28 Protected Areas of Jamaica

Figure 29 Cost comparison of

both alternatives Figure 30 Schedule comparisons of both alternatives

Based on the primary objectives, and the above cost, schedule data, (Figures 29 & 30)Alternative #2 seems a more viable option. Thus Selecting Alternative #2, we have,

Pros:

Protects the Port of Kingston Causeway. Since this causeway is an important link for the Tinson Pen airport as well, support

could be expected from the aerodrome authority as well.
http://www.monagis.com/files/Presentations/ATLAS.pdfhttp://www.monagis.com/files/Presentations/ATLAS.pdfhttp://www.monagis.com/files/Presentations/ATLAS.pdf


29/30


- 28 -

Does not intrude into the protected areas.Cons:

Protects just the port infrastructure and not the adjacent community, Hence support is mainly expected from the stakeholders

Lesser chances of funding from other sources, as the protection is intended to keeptrade going

6 Schematic Design Development 1. Design-

Source of funding is a major concern, considering Jamaica is a developing nation.The funding would have to be mainly from the ports stake-holders, who may or maynot be interested. The design could also be proposed to seek funding through NAPA,to protect the coastal infrastructure. The port authority is also not completely awareof the risks posed.

2. Planning

-Resources: Proper resources required for the construction should be planned, eitheravailable on site or transported from elsewhere. Since Port of Kingston itself exportscement in large quantities, concrete should be locally available.

-Transportation: Transportation to the site is also a problem, since, the landtransportation is limited to just Port of Kingston causeway, with the airport on the other

side of the port.- Equipment: The construction hauling and lifting equipment should be present on site.

This leaves it to getting the concrete mixers, compactors etc.

3. Temporary trade relocation

Though this is not a convenient option, but during the construction the trade couldbe shifted to the adjacent terminals, or to the nearby Port Royal.

6.1 Societal Impacts

The following societal impacts should be expected from the dike project:- change in recreational use of the ship channel- change in property ownership and property values along the span of land

adjacent to the shipping channels- change in aesthetics of the harbor area, which may negatively affect cruise

tourism, for example


30/30

FINAL REPORT- Case Study Jamaica_Spandana Nakka

Documents

Transcript of FINAL REPORT- Case Study Jamaica_Spandana Nakka