Following the field assessments, the teams performed engineering analyses to determine the resiliency level of each asset against hur- ricane, wind, and flood hazards as per the applicable building code at the time of construction. The resiliency level of each asset against hurricane, wind, and flood hazards as per the current building code (IBC 2018) was also determined. A comparison was made between the resiliency level of each asset as per the applicable building code at the time of construction and as per the current building code (IBC 2018). An example for an individual facility is shown below. These comparison tables were used as a part of process to determine whether the individual facility is sufficient or deficient per current building standards. Recommendations to Improve Resiliency Based on holistic evaluation including but not limited to engineering analyses and architectural review, recommendations were provided for each asset to improve resilience against probable future hurricane, wind, and flood events. Repair recommendations were also provided for distressed items observed during field assessments. While it is not possible to provide an exhaustive list of all the recom- mendations for 52 facilities here, a brief list is provided below: • Partial or full roof replacement (particularly at existing ballasted roofing systems) including repairs to roof support members. • Hurricane-rated storm shutters on doors or windows that were de- ficient to meet current building code requirements for wind loading. • Removable flood barrier walls instead of retrofitting existing buildings to meet current building code requirements at defi- cient facilities. This recommendation provided a cost-effective alternative to retrofitting the building and allowed operational space outside the building during a flood event. This recom- mendation also allows a future liner addition over the removable barrier walls to protect against scour and erosion. • Sectional and rolling door replacement in places where storm shutters were not feasible. • Positive anchorage of rooftop equipment in places where an- chorage was not sufficient. • New emergency generator system in places that didn’t have one. • New emergency generator enclosure in places with inad- equate enclosures. • Standby generator to cover for potential malfunctioning of the emergency generator. A cam locking box was also recom - mended to facilitate a back-up portable generator connection. • Independent water supply such as a well or on-site water stor- age at emergency operation facilities. • Protection of storage tanks, piping and pumps against wind- borne debris using either protective enclosures or placing them underground. • Portable toilets placed inside the facility before the onset of a hurricane. • Addition of backflow preventers to sewer lines. • Addition of walls and hurricane-rated overhead doors at cur- rently open equipment sheds. • Periodic inspection of various systems and facility components.
In addition, an Engineer’s Opinion of Probable Cost (EOPC) was also provided for the recommendations (example for an individual facility below).
Sample EOPC for an individual facility
Conclusion In August, Hurricane Ida came ashore 60 miles south of New Orleans as a Category 4 hurricane and made landfall on the 16th anniversary of Hurricane Katrina. According to news reports, New Orleans didn’t suffer the kind of catastrophic flooding that happened during Hurricane Katrina. It is not just a result of good fortune, but it is at least in part the result of flood protection measures put in place after Hurricane Ka - trina. However, in the hurricane’s aftermath, significant parts of New Orleans suffered loss of power. Understanding this issue, our project team not only recommended barrier walls but also backup power generators with camlock boxes to improve the resiliency of TxDOT coastal facilities. It is my sincere hope that this project will show the way to other DOTs, public agencies, and private corporations to consider the potential negative effects of climate change seriously and ensure that resiliency is built into their facilities and infrastructure. By building in resiliency, we can reduce mass suffering, property damage, injuries, deaths, and disruptions to public life during extreme events.
ASHISH D. PATEL, P.E. is a senior structural engineer and a subject matter expert with Lockwood, Andrews & Newnam, Inc (LAN), a national planning, engineer- ing and program management firm. He can be reached at apatel@lan-inc.com.
27
elevateaec 2021 csengineermag.com
Made with FlippingBook Annual report