hurricanes and our feable attempt to withstand them 5

[msucog]

does anyone think it is realistic that absolutely enormous amounts of money be poured in to trying to build levees to withstand such an awesome force as a CAT4 or 5 hurricane?

i, as previously stated in threads, am against spending infinite amounts of money in to building/rebuilding levees against something that cannot be tamed...it's simply foolish. it is unfortunate for those that have ties to new orleans (my family does) but what will it take to see that some things are simply beyond our control. (and i see that a previous thread on the topic was deleted a few days ago...i, for one, am against deleting such threads simply becuase the topic is controversial. we, as engineers, have the responsibility to the public to openly discuss the topic and address such important issues head on...our job is tough and we must have "tough" discussions sometimes).

let's put this in to a different perspective...should we build all buildings to withstand a M7.5 earthquake or impact from a fully fueled 747 airplane? at some point, we must accept our own limitations (and probabilities of occurance) and move forward with "things" that we can effectively control on a regular basis.

 

[msucog]

i suppose the "politics" and "engineering principles" don't mix well when it comes down to it. that is probably much of the point of my starting this thread. the corp has their hands tied by political posturing. likewise, the general public doesn't have the capacity to fully understand the engineering and funds involved with what they want. i suppose that if someone told them the true costs and told them that they must pay for it and vote prior to proceeding, the vote would not pass it. i do like the idea of having big oil pay for it. i had not thought of that before but that's a heck of an idea. maybe if the dems will stop blocking it, the next refinery could be built away from the coast...simply have a transfer port on the coast and send it inland to non flood prone areas.

thanks for everyone's opinion...i learned a few new ideas in this thread. any thoughts on how to cost effectively improve things along the coast?

 

[concretemasonry]

The coast and water have always attracted people, plants, processors and commerce. Water shipping is so efficient and cheap that is it difficult to avoid taking advantage of. This applies to oil, grain, aggregate and even kids clothing.

A minor problem is the size of the new transports and limitations - Canals (Panama, Suez, etc.), river barges vs. ocean ships and topography for pumping and construction (costs) of pipelines for oil, gas, etc.

The transportation cost is real on a global scale and even locally.

Locally, we were buying lightweight aggregate from a company we owned that was about 40 miles away by truck and determined that we could by lightweight aggregate shipped by river barge from Louisiana (800 miles) with a 4 mile truck haul. - The reason was the production of the aggregate used transported fuels and the down river aggregate was a cheap "back haul" rate up the river for the barges since the main traffic was down river to the gulf at that time.

Globally, we bought pumice aggregate from Greece and produced bestter products in Virginia cheaper than using locally processed materials, some from 80 miles away. - I also understand some Alaskan oil ("our oil") is sold to Asian countries because it is cheaper to supply oil needs for the east coast and gulf from foreign suppliers in Mexico, Venezuala and the middle east. - This may have changes recently.

Walmart is currently using a super ship for shipments from Asia to the west coast. It is so big it will not fit though the canal, so it limited to the west coast because long distance truck shipments are are not feasible. - The ship cuts about 4 or 5 days off a trans-Pacific crossing with a crew of 13 (not incuding cooks), so labor is not a factor.

The bottom line is that as long as we need materials and commerce, the challenging coastal areas make practical and economic sense for the entire country. These sites will attract business and money spent prudently in facilites and protection will be paid for by consumers untimately. If you have a local politically oriented area controlling design concepts, designs and construction, this voids the benefits. People will follow work. - About 6 months after Katrina, many restaurants (McDonalds, Burger Kings, Shoneys and not Brennans) in the New Orleans area were not open because there was no one that could get to work. I could not find abreakfast, so I had to drive 10 miles to a dister center instaed of across the stret just to start work and pick up a box lunch.

Dick

 

[drsensei]

This is an interesting narrative about the Mississippi River.

http://www.newyorker.com/archive/1987/02/23/1987_02_23_039_TNY_CARDS_000347146

It basically says that the Mississippi is being held in place against nature, which wants it to be where the ATCHAFALAYA River is. Of course, we can't let that happen because New Orleans would be ruined (economically). But one day, nature will win and the river will move, and it will be catastrophic because we've stopped it for so long.

 

[concretemasonry]

drsensei -

That is very accurate and was an option many, many years ago, but politicians (and local money) vetoed it.

In an ideal world, engineers can design to resist most forces.

Unfortunately, most flatland ports are located on low, poor, unstable soil. The only good rock in New Orleans is the old ballast from the sailing ships and that is used for hardscaping. If you want good sand, you need to barge it in from 100-300 miles upstream.

A portion of the river flow could be diverted and may improve the delta storm barrier situation.

The combination of the poor soils, low elevation AND hurricanes makes for a costly and difficult solution. The city is in wrong place for people to live unless they want to drive further.

 

[jheidt2543]

Here is an interesting story on a house that survived the recent hurricane in Galveston:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/09/18/ike.last.house.standing/index.html

 

[mdavis1]

First, I would like to say this is a good post and very relevant and applicable to what engineers do. In an ideal world with infinite money and resources engineers could design structures to withstand enormous forces. But we have to take into account probabilities of occurances, and the financial aspect of construction and maintainance of our projects. Levees could have been designed to protect New Orleans, but with a public works operation to build those levees would have cost the city a small fortune which means people would have to incurr a tax increase which would have to be voted on and would probably never pass because more taxes does not make people happy. Now I know its not the exactly the same thing, but I live in Missouri and the condition of our highways is abismal. MoDot could easily fix the problem with the correct funds, but thats never going to happen because of the state's budget and fixing the problem requires higher taxes.

Yes, public safety first but we can not treat every job as if there is unlimited funds for it. Money is always a factor in any job. there is no point in designing a building to withstand the force of a 747 plummeting from the sky. If the building you designed gets hit, well thats just bad luck. I am not saying we shouldn't try to protect against hurricanes and other powerful natural forces, but we need to be realistic about the situation.

 

[msucog]

i'm glad this thread has gotten such attention from all sides. i suppose it's even more relevant now in our struggling market where government funded projects have dried up significantly. i guess that you could always look at it from a "job creation" perspective as well so maybe it would be good...but the money has to come from somewhere and we can't even fund our own projects in our state much less 10 hours away. it's all about "absolute critical infrastructure" versus "critical infrastructure" verus "necessary infrastructure" and so on and so on as to which projects are funded and which ones are postponed or even cancelled (even after the project has been awarded). we, as engineer, and other such as the public and government folks have got to set priorities instead of handing out money to everyone with their hand out. i think the next year will be a real eye opener as to how our (country as a whole) perspective is really sort of ass backwards right now. it's now all about special interest groups and free handouts whether you earn them or not. and unfortunately, engineering will likely take a back seat to "we got to have it cheap"...and "cheap" they will get but at a significant price.

thanks for the posts.