Ud (S.A remy Coast Eng Res . MP 3-75 CAD -Ao\z. S43) Features of Various Offshore Structures by Joseph Peraino, Burr L. Chase, Tomasz Plodowski, and Lydon Amy MISCELLANEOUS PAPER NO. 3-75 APRIL 1975 i COLLECTION / as ae <— a DOCUMENT | 4 Approved for public release; distribution unlimited. Prepared for U. S. ARMY, CORPS OF ENGINEERS 4, COASTAL ENGINEERING 50 RESEARCH CENTER 43 Kingman Building Uo. 3-75 Fort Belvoir Va. 22060 Reprint or republication of any of this material shall give appropriate credit to the U.S. Army Coastal Engineering Research Center. Limited free distribution within the United States of single copies of this publication has been made by this Center. Additional copies are available from: National Technical Information Service ATTN: Operations Division 5285 Port Royal Road Springfield, Virginia 22151 Contents of this report are not to be used for advertising, publication, or promotional purposes. Citation of trade names does not constitute an official endorsement or approval of the use of such commercial products. The findings in this report are not to be construed as an official Department of the Army position unless so designated by other authorized documents. iA ill (UNA 0 0301 O089744 ¢ SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE (When Data Entered) READ INSTRUCTIONS REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE BEFORE COMPLETING FORM 1. REPORT NUMBER 2. GOVT ACCESSION NO.| 3. RECIPIENT'S CATALOG NUMBER MP 3-75 4. TITLE (and Subtitle) 5. TYPE OF REPORT & PERIOD COVERED FEATURES OF VARIOUS OFFSHORE STRUCTURES Miscellaneous Paper 6. PERFORMING ORG. REPORT NUMBER 8. CONTRACT OR GRANT NUMBER(s) 7. AUTHOR(s) Joseph Peraino, Burr L. Chase, Tomasz Plodowski, and Lydon Amy DACW 72-73-C-0011 10. PROGRAM ELEMENT, PROJECT, TASK AREA & WORK UNIT NUMBERS B31234 12. REPORT DATE April 1975 13. NUMBER OF PAGES 113 15. SECURITY CLASS. (of this report) 9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS Raymond Technical Facilities, Incorporated Two Pennsylvania Plaza New York, NY 10001 CONTROLLING OFFICE NAME AND ADDRESS Department of the Army Coastal Engineering Research Center (CEREN-DE) Kingman Building, Fort Belvoir, Virginia 22060 - MONITORING AGENCY NAME & ADDRESS(if different from Controlling Office) UNCLASSIFIED 1Sa. DECL ASSIFICATION/ DOWNGRADING SCHEDULE DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of this Report) Approved for public release; distribution unlimited. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of the abstract entered in Block 20, if different from Report) - SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES KEY WORDS (Continue on reverse side if necessary and identify by block number) Break waters Oil Drilling Islands Coastal Engineering Oil Drilling Platforms Offshore Structures 20. ABSTRACT (Continue on reverse side if necesaary and identify by block number) The growing shortage of suitable waterfront sites for industrial complexes, transportation facilities, marine terminals, and recreation, and the increasing concern to preserve our natural coastal environment, and the continuing need to obtain the advantages of such locations has forced a consideration of artificial means to satisfy this need. In addition, the economics of larger-capacity, deeper-draft vessels have outmoded our present U.S. harbors and possible coastal sites for these newer ships. This report provides a means of comparison for various offshore structures from the technical, environmental, and economic aspects through the classification and identification of some existing structures. DD ' Ares 1473 EDITION OF 1 NOV 65 IS OBSOLETE UNCLASSIFIED SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE (When Data Entered) 1 et eel sees vie sper innii rime th acral eer is ae ace treeka emt aL * Repo’ re al ya gloria Ge Fri enters nolan pipe cinuowo 8 ae ean a tage BH Y Sagi dah jude a as The one aa se Sich ENE bairfoo'y ate a hoon stare ta sda toi : cemwcta! aba ‘Sait * “i sche or ip kala eto pas edicts wo eae” iu rec yx le lpm Am Foelielile els bia Yor sea iD ide Sed a err Ser a - Sac cane Rejbonad) il oN ws i rae! vai mil odbhicbaninier ot Drs as payecnsegrte CEUs ian ¥ apleient (eye att tape ah, Fionehyn teed PAGES er sderlioit le SHaeeds hie, ey afhvsh as i eit Ain Pant abbey he edad 4 + ie cate Figen Tk Oe aie with Sih yi te waa oe T Li A seremreeenapty renames Bes: iy ve Poet ie maT ci eT; sty ot PREFACE This report is published to provide coastal engineers, through the classification and identification of some existing offshore structures, a means of comparison for the various structures from the technical, environmental, and economical aspects in investigating the feasibility of designing and constructing deepwater ports to accommodate deep-draft ocean vessels. The work was carried out under the coastal construction research program of the U.S. Army Coastal Engineering Research Center (CERC). The report was prepared by Joseph Peraino, Burr L. Chase, Tomasz Plodowski, and Lydon Amy, under CERC Contract No. DACW72-73-C-0011 with Raymond Technical Facilities, Inc. The authors gratefully acknowledge the generous assistance and encouragement provided by CERC personnel during preparation of this study. Also invaluable were the cooperation and assistance furnished by the U.S. Army Engineer Districts, and the owners, engineers and contractors who were contacted on many details of the study. Engineering data for a few offshore structures are incomplete and were unobtainable from the sources contacted. It is hoped that users of this report can expand or update its content by identifying or submitting data sheets on these or other offshore structures. Dr. J. Richard Weggel was the CERC contract monitor for the report, under the general supervision of Mr. Robert A. Jachowski, Chief, Design Branch, Engineering Development Division. Comments on this publication are invited. Approved for publication in accordance with Public Law 166, 79¢4 Congress, approved 31 July 1945, as supplemented by Public Law 172, 88¢4 Congress, approved 7 November 1963. JAMES L. TRAYER Colonel, Corps of Engineers Commander and Director CONTENTS [,, INTRODUCTION joc iies ecsnicitephent Binoche a Sites) rate, Mug ue eour eek at oa nee Ik (GRAVITY SERUWGTURES) pct ue! asec oue tite wees ine durin tones ie aeies thelr See mne 1. Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel, Portal Islands, Capesenry— Cape Gharles;sVarciniag ewe le culo iets alee nee eee Literature Cited/and Bibliosraphiys 40.97) i) | es eee 2: //Rermanent Drilling Islands). eewsneticutea cil tal sce e076) Ce eer a. Long Beach, California—THUMS Islands ................ Bibliography sf c.cs eectee eee ote ote ct cathe ec a ea b. Punta Gorda, California—Rincon Island ................ Literature Cited|and Bibliography) <0." 3... . 2). 0) -) eee cusealeBeach iGalifornianay-wanceei ck oreo eer ee ee ee Literature Cite d/andjBibhiographiygs ci e010) ll eee 3) Oftshrore: Break:watersi vege sustiwaddeten poits wsaen ges hos uals Shai ok deat Sn ae a> sandy, Bay, Cape Ann. Massachusetts sa05) ecu) a) eee hiterature Cited and Bibliosraphyo).. .) susan. ce) ee ene b: (CapesHenlopen; Delawaret.c 2.) .). 34s 2. + is) see eee Literature Gitedand|Bibliocraphy, 0s. - 41) eo ee es "Venices'Galifornia se ft FE Pee BY ELT O RE, SR ONE eee Literature Gitedtand)Bibliographiya. Sst.) 5). ee: ane ds, Winthropy,Massachusettsaye 13): enon. of: Peete tee eee Miterature|Cited and Bibliography, <)> 26:) 0-0-0 2) eee 4. Detached Breakwater—Middle and Long Beach Breakwaters Long: Beach? California wieyoy ssp eee wench uo ao hn enon Cea ee literature Cited andiBibliocraphy, 5.11.5) 1 al nel a TH PILE-SUPPORTED STRUCTURES 2.05) 5 27 osc) ake 2s os ee 1. Diamond Shoals Light Station—Cape Hatteras, North Carolina ....... Literature Cited (and! Bibliography...) vewen eee at coat nee 2. Offshore Production and Gathering Facilities— EugenemslandArea, Louisianay.. 1), 29 femeidive) a. Pell chpemioueabte | irs emo Bibliographypiey 3: 2A8 SESE due) Sa ond Bea poaelheaiasg oem 3), Drilline-Production Platiormss .c:.seasn culdns yen seston ar ee a. “Monopod” Platform—Cook Inlet, Alaska ............... Miterature! Citediand Bibliooraphivaycy-n-0 nen tinsel eee b. Platform B, Mississippi River, South Pass, Venice, Louisiana ..... . literature Citediand Bibliography emu alesis ke ie a ene TABLES 1 RegionaltOccurrencerofyBishes i. ewe ainsi lon caine 2, Biota CommonytorbrojectyAredrs - acu wearin Wate mic ncn Cn acarnen alent mene 3) Summany7os Construction’ Data sienna oman oara melee irehtolne irom temo SONI DN Fw hd — =) 11 12 13 14 15 16 lg, 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 20 28 29 30 31 CONTENTS—Continued FIGURES Aerial oblique view of Portal Island No. 1 from northwest. ............ ocation plans gic catenin apes ee fs AS Rree OTN SRS LVRI aD OTE Meni ee ANCA Nera CAB Wl My oi calgplamyofgislamasey ary oe ells iar e oy ts: else) ici! lie) \Pehy Oey nem eninenem CARE RESIDE EE hy picalcrossisectionythroughiislandsyy cian cuars (ike tere edion tieniomeedlicttcns.mrawis: oh) ots Scourjconditions at-Island Nowa) fe sa ga ee WO View of Island White from Long Beach waterfront. ............... MOCatrons plans RU Way AUST TAI, Cel ohenas ara Wey RGIS SAUCES aD nw aayatces rams ar ana Mers te hypical;sections—armoriprotection:, 17.9211.) tapenciis. fo) Sais ela teemetneuetrnnetnien aia Rypicaliplan view/or Island! Grissom). 15) /.ie sy Aelis) oo) out othe) seem aiie in pratee nants Typical view of island shoreline showing landscaping along top of armor protection and buildup of encircling berm to conceal most of the operational’ activity irom) the mainland:)) 2) 2) ) op oacaccie acy ancien Acrialkobliquewiewsotehinconglsland yr seis sow spi eis diouciils kik en och ca clae eloaoel MO CATIONAL AT sthench yg teh et yee ny eh Ma oP aes ciate e asia co Dec: An tects ao ee ete Planyotghinconrlsland nui jea/s psi ok sa ome EC anti Pulses eeis voinsuhe Boba cotcien oleh Funconglslandisecti ons myers: ty skcwis Goi lertccuo cf ania us bis Meciciaa ely ea MMR ae View of north side of island showing unusual configuration and good CONGILON OfiaGIMOr TOC ut eey cel lon outpaces eee te Mla uu. sutom ell ceca SealéBeach—permanentdrillingssland-.y ey e yeaeies oe) ls = aces on: MFOCAtL OMG AM gg et asad ier cca Me Vet ties ibe tans UB nc UU he ol ay Sandhu mic sk wih las Bet oak adie Plan and cross-sectional drawing of filledislands. ................. Wiewsotisteelisheet: polling scjp yaks Mies io spectro vice oy oka Gol coe oR een cut ce be Nerialiview) ot, sandy, Bay, breakwaters oo iri) ueie fous pcuusnttuches) gsa.ce ciisihene-d coicpre MO CatlOnyplane a Nis etude osubeles oy thei oi enjoy) cic silent bn at michele als ee ctucnt iy acd aulofuslies My picalgproposedicross sechOM=wr..ulo Chai sckcrioucyulis- all) civck ies) Gk secsecems Looking north along the granite block superstructure of the breakwater. Aerial view southeastward towards Cape Henlopen. ............... Wocation: plan vi sus Ge ens cable ay: aplinluew cy ebuneclbeune) uaied Glee eine aC aisl nuaran aa First rock-mound breakwater constructed in the United States— theyDelaware-breakiwatense wis eee cicolinur en cirecutawin cute a eee eins el iis chess GONStrUCtIONISEAGES Wy hock eis ele at eu Olea seulaa eu) lols eA Ment elh anita tell lea Delaware BreakwatergHarbOraruan ieee ais eae ueiemay eee uel hte aera stiches Vertical curves of current velocities, Delaware Breakwater Harbor. ........ SectionsjoisDelawareybreakwaterwereen een nein ae meinen pen iene Delaware) Breakwatersubstructunes yy eee ey celeee cues oil eyireunrcn ae 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 4] 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 ol 52 53 34. 59 56 o¢ 58 59 60 61 62 FIGURES—Continued Page View northward along top of ““Gap” construction with ice breaker in backerown diss gai ss stus toueo (ee caved) Mogae t Mensa tnch rea) co Ysera acon seen aaa 59 View southward along harbor side of “Gap” construction. ............ 60 Aerial oblique photo of Venice Breakwater. ................0... 63 ocationyplansy aimee. verre: (2) 0s) 8) ve yer ours) Ge) evaiile coc.) a FSeic tae mee 64. Venice Pier Breakwater showing the effect of a detached breakwater on adjacent beach avi)... 3 \s.2) 2 /s\a.2 he yee aioe iets! am erie Creare 66 View of breakwater from! northeast. yi.-) 9 ssi rmous | laren oeiieue lara) eas 69 General plan and location of survey profiles. ................2.-. 71 Comparative survey profiles 9 through 13.) :). casa) sins) siete 74 Comparative survey profiles 14 through 19... .................. 75 View of west end of middle breakwater. ..................0.5 77 Location: plan sy, faite Tae PO ie rates LUM Niat) AWA eer eAe IRSA SP PRR) URES 281) ASI aie ee 78 Ty picaltsections ofibrealkswaterssam 3 fs! s ess tee ee) ee tee 80 Generalplanvofebreakkwaterss= ns tees ee ee ee at ee yee 81 View on ocean side of middle breakwater showing capstones. .......... 82 Aerial view of Diamond Shoals Light Station. ................0.. 85 Basic structural featuresiiy ihe os chorale (ce SRA eye eae eee an ee 87 View showing marine lite beneath towers, siemens on) enon no ete en 89 Aerial 'viewsoi:Eugenemcland area facilities) <2) yrs ye te Caen Dil Location plang Susie weil Mapu tnemiticomin see cate tier cere Veltray certcal ooo estos aS 92 Proposed layout of platforms and walkway. .............++20-. 94 Proposed oil storage tank platform, heliport platform and living quarters. .... 95 Proposed separator, pump, and compressor platforms. .............. 96 Viewsotioilstorageiplattonm) jarary erp Sree a tee te seen 97 Aerial view of “‘monopod” platform. ............ Dae marie Reishi. 100 Location plane eter crs cscs st rire aoe euine Moareuien el tem) feats eer te cee eaten tn mee 102 Structuralifeatures—elevatlony AN esc, ttc oy cyuren alte ta) ea ciel (ete. iro ner 103 Structural sfeatures—elevation | Byga.aey onion sa eo) sen er toe oie) src eerste 104 View showing effect of surface currents around “monopod” post. ........ 106 StructurelasnnstalledintLOGSe ai peieucntaol elas ucus) clot eis oejiel enue 109 Locatiomyplam eye iivccs: «: ermalcsrohr cutee to poate ueutel cor nti oie) yeh hee cart AM on ee 110 Structure) after Hurricane Camille'in August 1969; «3 we ae 112 FEATURES OF VARIOUS OFFSHORE STRUCTURES by Joseph Peraino, Burr L. Chase, Tomasz Plodowski, and Lydon Amy I. INTRODUCTION The growing shortage of suitable waterfront sites for industrial complexes, transportation facilities, marine terminals, recreational use, and of the increasing concern to preserve what remains of our natural coastal environment, and the continuing need to obtain the advantages of such locations are forcing people to turn to artificial means to satisfy this need. Compounding these difficulties, the economics of larger capacity, deeper-draft vessels have brought about the outmoding of our present harbors and possible coastal sites for these newer ships. Until the advent of these large deep-draft carriers, our natural harbors along the coasts of the continental United States, well protected from the open sea, and well developed for the trade involved, have answered our needs satisfactorily. Furthermore, the availability of such harbors plus the general exposure to long fetches of ocean along both coasts have until now discouraged any efforts toward moving offshore in order to reach berthing space with the necessary depth requirements. However, now, under the changed conditions of ocean shipping, the feasibility of such a move must be reconsidered. Through the classification and identification of certain existing offshore structures, this interim study is an attempt to provide a means of comparison for the various structures and types of structures from the technical, environmental, and economical aspects. For the purposes of this study, an offshore structure is any permanent, fixed structure in an ocean or estuarine location, essentially unconnected to shore. A physical tie which does not influence the effect of the structure on its environment will not be considered a shore connection. Il. GRAVITY STRUCTURES 1. Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel, Portal Islands, Cape Henry—Cape Charles, Virginia. Figure 1. Aerial oblique view of Portal Island No. 1 from northwest. a. Construction. (1) Completed. April 1964. (2) Type. Fill-type artificial islands protected by riprap armor stone weighing up to 20 tons (Fig. 1). (3) Purpose. Transition structures between bridge trestle and tunnels. b. Owner. Chesapeake Bay Bridge and Tunnel District, P.O. Box 111, Cape Charles, Virginia 23310. c. Location (approximate). Mouth of Chesapeake Bay. Latitude: 36°00'’N. — Longitude: 76°06’W. d. Physical Environment (Fig. 2). (1) Protected Ocean-Estuarine Environment. The islands are frotected from the northeast and south by the mainland and exposed to the Atlantic Ocean to the east. Exposed to waves generated within Chesapeake Bay by northerly winds. 2) 1 Qs Fi HS » 50 P12" 65 FUR bsec Re Raf 47 Po scx 3 Po Rot \\ hs IO inn J navicateed orenins 3 FIXED @PARS Wa CL 70 FT VERT Cu 2) FT RESTRICTED AREA ™ 07.157 (see rote A) 2 a co” Y navicaTion OPERING 26 rs) 3 FIXED GPARS. wor ca. 70 FT | (chart &Bi) vert €b 21 FT ee Bg LY NNWAV EN? © , d 27 ea FROM U.S. C.@ G. CHART NO I222 5000 YARDS 10000 Figure 2. Location plan. (2) Wave Conditions. Due to ocean exposure to the east and bay exposure to the north, maximum wave heights during the winter are normally 8 to 10 feet. (3) Currents. Basically tidal currents, ranging up to an approximate maximum speed of 2 knots. (4) Winds. Prevailing winds are from the southwest with an average measured speed of 11 knots, and a maximum of about 70 knots (U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey, 1966). (5) Storm Surge and Tides (U.S. Army Engineer District, Norfolk, 1973). Mean tidal range, 2.5 feet Mean spring tidal range, 3.0 feet Extreme high tides, 7.0 feet Extreme low tides, —3.0 feet (6) Sediment Conditions. Medium compact to compact fine sand, with some silt; trace of shells (Sverdrup and Parcel, 1961). e. Structural Features (Sverdrup and Parcel, 1961) (Figs. 3 and 4). (1) Dimensions of Basic Structure. MLW (approximate): Length, 1,500 feet Average width, 220 feet Area, 8 acres Finished grade (approximate): 5 acres (2) Side Slopes. 2 on 1. (3) Finished Grade. 30 feet above MLW. f. Design Data. Preliminary design provided for possibility of two layers of protective armor, but outer layer was finally considered unnecessary. (1) Design Conditions (Beach Erosion Board, 1960). Depth at structure, 32.0 feet at MLW Astronomical tide, 2.5 feet at MLW Storm surge, 10.0 feet at MLW Maximum water level, 12.5 feet above MLW Design wave. Significant height, 17.5 feet; period, 8.9 seconds; windspeed, 105 mph hurricane (100-year storm) Heavy riprap (Type A), 10 tons per unit; minimum size specified (+20 tons used as it came from quarry) (2) Model Study (Beach Erosion Board, 1960). A model study was performed at the Beach Erosion Board to confirm the results of design computations with stone sizes versus wave conditions. Five tests were run with varying combinations of wave height, water depth, and number of layers of cover stone. The designed riprap used for cover stone was distributed as follows: Light stone, 6 to 8, and 8 to 10 tons per unit (5 percent each), and heavy stone, 10 to 11 tons per unit (90 percent). 10 “(196T ‘[201eq pue dnapsaas) spurjst jo ueyd word’, “¢ amiry [~ 4afausray PUO/EZ ~3U17 bur 40M y — - pr re i L doy dix fe aaj ed oe spue/s] s10wis/og SPue/er (COU aqui] ,eek/ 11 ‘(uo190}01d adojs Jo 903) pueyst Ysnosy} UOT}IaS ssosO feoIdAT, “Pp oansty oO ——" =F GANT) LWT WO SINIT INIWAW (aes 73 WNWEOAH [a ranie] ~@ 3dAL W3AVED aR ss | eV. 3dAL 3AVH9 E44} = 0, IdAL WIOW NAY AYYYNO COW) yy, 3dAt sv dw AAVIH -anety ara 108 dz 5 de eV. JW3HDS- NOILD3LOUd 3401S 4O 301 — ONV ISI NerHL (£353° S509 3 O00 VS WBLFAIW3d ONV IS) —dNIT ONYOM 12 With a significant wave 14 feet high (expected to occur every 2 years) some overtopping occurred in the model. During these tests, gravel at the toe underlying the rock was in continuous motion. With a significant wave 17.5 feet high, the entire slope slumped after the first few waves. There was a high degree of overtopping and considerable force and pressure against the seawall; cover stone was removed, exposing gravel and undermining the wall. Due to infrequency of a 17.5-foot wave, design size of protective riprap was not changed. Because of salinity of water at site, it was recommended that stone size be increased by 10 percent. (3) Instrumentation and Observation (U.S. Army Engineer District, Norfolk, 1971). A wave gage has been installed on the fishing pier off Portal Island No. 1 by CERC (Fig. 1). Settlement plates are distributed over the finished grade area of the islands (and within the tunnels) for checking settlement by the Bridge and Tunnel District. Rows of pins are set in the armor stone, transversely across the islands, Nos. 1 and 3, for checking horizontal and vertical movement of the armor stone. This is carried out by means of surface surveys by the U.S. Army Engineer District, Norfolk, and checked by aerial surveys. Underwater surveys are accomplished for checking armor stone movement and changes in bottom topography near the structures. Extensive hydrographic surveys are also performed over the entire project by the Bridge and Tunnel District. g. Structural Performance (U.S. Army Engineer District, Norfolk, 1971; Sverdrup and Parcel, 1972). Structures are performing satisfactorily, except that one island has experienced some settlement (up to 2 feet at one end) due to localized foundation conditions. Design wave heights and winds have not been experienced to date. Structures have experienced no damage from environmental conditions; hence, no repair work has been necessary. Maintenance has not been performed and none is planned. Regular surveillance has been performed on the armor stone. The results indicate little or no horizontal or vertical movement. Aerial photos, checked by surface survey, cover above-water areas, and hydrographic surveys cover underwater areas. The finished grade of all islands was surfaced with asphalt to prevent wind erosion of sandfill shortly after construction. Routine maintenance of the surface is required at several locations. Splash walls are still in good condition except for an isolated area (Sverdrup and Parcel, 1972). Stabilization of the wall at this point is being considered. There have been several incidents of ships or barges colliding with the trestle part of the project, involving repair work consisting of new piles and replacement sections, ordinarily held in stock. There are no records of the islands being hit. h. Effect of Structures on Environment. (1) Physical. The bottom topography in the vicinity of the islands has changed between the regular hydrographic surveys by the Corps of Engineers with a general pattern 13 developing offshore of the revetments. Slight scour is evident at the toe of the armor stone some distance around each island with slight accretion of sand away from the islands (U.S. Army Engineer District, Norfolk, 1971). In addition, scour has been noted along the line of the trestle extending from each island (Sverdrup and Parcel, 1972). The extent of scour both in area and depth has varied at each island, but has generally been centered on the fifth or sixth trestle bent off the island. A close check has been kept on the extent of scour at each island. The scour to the north of the northernmost island has been by far the most severe of the four areas and remedial action has been taken here in the form of dikes and riprap. Figure 5 shows scour conditions and a comparison of recent soundings with original bottom contours at Island No. 4. For further comparison, the approximate depth of scour at each island, according to similar records is as follows: Island Nos. 1, 8 feet; 2, 8 feet; 3, 11 feet; and 4, 20 feet. Sport fishing and small boat activity, the crossing in general and the islands in particular, have contributed greatly to the recreational activity in the area. The biota is discussed in the following paragraph. The psychological effect of having the structures available for emergency protection has increased small boat activity across the mouth of Chesapeake Bay. (2) Biota (U.S. Army Engineer District, Norfolk, 1973). The islands, constructed with open rock faces, provide a habitat for numerous types of sea plants and animals. The naturally protected areas between the rocks attract large quantities of small fish, shellfish and crabs. These small fish in turn provide a food supply for the larger species which gather at the islands in great numbers. Lacking a specific count of fish in the area before construction makes it impossible to determine quantitatively the increase in fish population. However, in the opinion of local sport fishermen, the number and variety of fish have greatly increased. Construction of a fishing pier off Island No.1, provides an opportunity for local fishermen and travelers to take advantage of these conditions. Wildlife presently in the area are listed in Tables 1 and 2 (U.S. Army Engineer District, Norfolk, 1973). (3) Aesthetics. While obviously affecting the view across the mouth of Chesapeake Bay, the need for the crossing and the effort expended on its overall appearance have resulted in general acceptance including ASCE designation as “The Outstanding Engineering Achievement—1965.” i. Engineering. Sverdrup and Parcel, Consulting Engineers, 915 Olive Street, St. Louis, Missouri 63101. j. Construction Contractors (joint venture). Tidewater Construction Corporation, P.O. Box 57, Norfolk, Virginia 23601 (Sponsor); Merritt-Chapman and Scott Corporation, New York, New York 10001 (discontinued operations); Raymond International Incorporated, 14 2801 South Post Oak Road, Houston, Texas 77027; and Peter Kiewit Sons’ Company, 1000 Kiewit Plaza, Omaha, Nebraska 68131. k. Construction Dates. October 1960 to April 1964. l. Construction Cost. (1) Contract Value. $139,200,000 (total project including construction of islands, bridges, and tunnels). (2) Fill for the Four Islands of the Project (approximate): Hydraulic fill, 4,000,000 cubic yards; stone fill, 870,000 tons; and heavy riprap, 300,000 tons. 15 CAUSEWAY TRESTLES 0 2880 100 200 300 SCALE FEET CALLED NORTH BOTTOM CONTOURS- 1964 SOUNDINGS —197! aoe 5 Se Ss SSO oe ee Figure 5. Scour conditions at Island No. 4 (1964-71) (Chesapeake Bay Bridge and Tunnel District). 16 Table 1. Regional Occurrence of Fishes Common Name Scientific Name | Jan | Feb| Mar | Apr| May | Jun | July | Aug| Sept | Oct| Nov| Dec Chesapeake Bay Mouth Coastal and Marine Fishes Whiting Spotted sea trout Cobia Weakfish Spot Summer flounder Croaker Tautog Spadefish False albacore King mackerel Sheepshead Small bluefish Striped bass Anadramous Fishes Menhaden American shad Hickory shad Glut herring Alewife Catadramous Fishes American eel Menticirrhus americanus Cynoscion nebulosus Rachycentron canadum Cynoscion regalis Leiostomus xanthurus Paralichthys dentatus Micropogon undulatus Tautoga onitis Chaetodipterus faber Gymnosarda allcterata Scomberomorus cavalla Archosargus probatocephalus Pomatomus saltatrix Monrone saxatilis Brevoortia tyrannus Alosa sapidissima Alosa mediocris Alosa aestivalis |Alosa pseudoharengus Anguilla rostrata Dam Neck Disposal Area Spanish mackerel Cobia Tautog False albacore King mackerel Sheepshead Bluefish Striped bass Black drum Common skate Cownose ray Spiny dogfish Scomberomorus maculatus Rachycentron canadum Tautoga onitis Gymnosarda alleterata Scomberomorus cavalla Archosargus probatocephalus Pomatomus saltatrix Morone saxatilis Pogonias cromis Raja erinacea Rhinoptera bonasus Squalus acanthisa 17 x x x x (U.S. Army Engineer District, Norfolk, 1973). Table 2. Biota Common to Project Area Benthic Species Plant Benthos Sea lettuce Sea lettuce Animal Benthos Sand dollar Common starfish Sea cucumber Sea urchin Clam worm “Flowered worm” Quahog Razor clam Blue crab Jonah crab Rock crab Spider crab Ulva lactuca Enteromorpha intestinales Mellita quinquesperforata Asterias forbesi Thyone briareus Arbacia punctata Nereis limbrata Hydroides hexagonus Mercenaria mercenaria Esis directus Callinectes sapidus (female only) Cancer borealis Cancer irroratus Libinia emarginata Sea squirt Molgula manhaitensis Summer flounder Paralichthys denatus Macrozooplankton and Invertebrate Nekton Planton Comb jelly Mnemiopsis leidyi Stinging nettle Chrysaora quinquecirrha Lion’s mane jelly Cyanea capillata Skeleton shrimp Caprella acutifrons Nekton Arrow worm Sagitta elegans Ribbon worm Cerebratulus lacteus Prawn Palaemonetes vulgaris Squid Loliguncula brevis Black duck Anas rubripes Ruddy duck Oxyura jamaicemsis Surf scoter Melanitta perspicillata Black scoter Oidemia nigra Brant Branta bernicla Open Water, Shore, and Wading Birds Snowy egret Leucophoyx thula Tricolored heron Hydranassa tricolor Double-crested cormorant { Phalacrocorax auritus Gannet Moris bassana Wilson’s petrel Oceanites oceanicus Herring gull | Larus argentatus Laughing gull Larus atricilla Forster’s tern Sterna forsteri Common tern Sterna hirundo (U.S. Army Engineer District, Norfolk, 1973). 18 LITERATURE CITED BEACH EROSION BOARD, “A Design Review of the Portal Islands of the Chesapeake Bay Crossing,” U.S. Army, Corps of Engineers, Washington, D.C., Oct. 1960. BEACH EROSION BOARD, “Report on Model Study of Slope Protection for Portal Islands of the Chesapeake Bay Crossing,” U.S. Army, Corps of Engineers, Washington, D.C., Nov. 1960. SVERDRUP, L. J., and PARCEL, “Annual Report to Chesapeake Bay Bridge and Tunnel District,” St. Louis, Mo., Apr. 1972. SVERDRUP, L. J.,,and PARCEL, “Chesapeake Bay Bridge and Tunnel,” Construction Drawings, St. Louis, Mo., Apr. 1961. U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, NORFOLK, “Report on Surveillance of Rock Revetments—Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel, Portal Islands Nos. 1 and 3,” Fiscal Years 1967, 1968, 1969, and 1971, Norfolk, Va. U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, NORFOLK, ‘Final Environmental Impact Statement, Thimble Shoal Channel, Virginia (Maintenance Dredging),” Norfolk, Va., Mar. 1973. U.S. COAST AND GEODETIC SURVEY, ‘United States Coast Pilot 3, Atlantic Coast, Sandy Hook to Cape Henry,” 8th ed., Washington, D.C., 1966. BIBLIOGRAPHY BEACH EROSION BOARD, ‘Comments by the Staff of the Beach Erosion Board on Chesapeake Bay Portal Island Modified Design,” U.S. Army, Corps of Engineers, Washington, D.C., Oct. 1960. ENGINEERING NEWS-RECORD, “One of the Great Crossings—The Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel,” Vol. 167, No. 21, Nov. 1961, pp. 32—41. FOWLER, J. W., “Bridge and Trestle Construction Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel Project,” Civil Engineering, Dec. 1963, pp. 50—52. NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION, “United States Coast Pilot No. 4, Atlantic Coast,” Rockville, Md., 1972. NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION, “Tidal Current Tables—Atlantic Coast of North America,” Rockville, Md., 1973. PARKHILL, S. M., “Beyond the Sight of Land,” Compressed Air Magazine, Sept. 1962, pp. 8—16. 19 PERAINO, J., “Island Construction and Fabricating and Laying of Tubes for Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel Project,” American Society of Civil Engineers, Structural Engineering Conference, San Francisco, Calif., Oct. 1963. PERAINO, J., “Two Tunnels and Four Islands Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel Project,” Civil Engineering, Dec. 1963, pp. 47—49. SVERDRUP, L. J., ‘Engineering Design Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel Project,” Civil Engineering, Dec. 1963, pp. 44—46. U.S. NAVAL WEATHER SERVICE COMMAND, “Summary of Synoptic Meteorological Observations, North American Coastal Marine Areas,” Vol. 3, Asheville, N.C., May 1970. 20 2. Permanent Drilling Islands. a. Long Beach, California—THUMS Islands. Figure 6. View of Island White from Long Beach waterfront (August 1973). (1) Construction. (a) Completed. March 1967. (b) Type. Armor rock perimeter with dredged sand-filled core (Fig 6). (c) Purpose. Support of offshore oil-drilling operations. (2) Owner. Department of Oil Properties, City of Long Beach, Long Beach, California 90802 (as Trustee for State of California). (3) Field Contractor. THUMS Long Beach Company, 840 Van Camp Street, Long Beach, California 90802 (combination of Texaco, Humble, Union, Mobil, and Shell Oil Companies). (4) Location (approximate). Long Beach Harbor, San Pedro Bay, Pacific Ocean; at various distances from 400 to 2,300 yards offshore. Latitude: 33°45’N. — Longitude: 118°10’W. (5) Physical Environment. (a) Protected Ocean Environment. Proximity to shore eliminates danger of ocean-generated waves from north and west. Long Beach Harbor breakwaters provide 21 protection on the south and southwest; open exposure to storms and waves approaching along coast from southeast. Island Chaffee (almost completely exposed) affords some protection from the southeast for the other islands (Fig. 7). (b) Wave Conditions. Maximum 6-foot breaking waves from south. Those few times when 20-foot waves have reportedly occurred at the harbor breakwater, up to 7-foot waves have been reported at Island Chaffee. (c) Currents. Variable tidal currents. (d) Winds. Prevailing west-southwest winds from April through September; and west winds from October through March, with maximum recorded velocity of 54 knots during this period. (e) Storm Surge and Astronomical Tides. MHHW, 5.3 feet above MLLW Mean tide level, 2.7 feet above MLLW Extreme low, 2.5 feet below MLLW (f) Littoral Transport. Negligible. (g) Water Depth at Structures. From 25 to 40 feet at MLLW. (h) Foundation Conditions. Sandy bay bottom. (6) Structural Features (Figs. 8 and 9). (a) Dimensions of Basic Structures. 1 Area at Working Level (approximate). Grissom, 8.8 acres; White, 10.0 acres; Chaffee, 10.0 acres; and Freeman, 10.0 acres. 2 Side Slope. Armor rock, 1:1.5, and others (Fig. 8). 3 Finished Grade at Working Level. 15 feet above MLLW. (b) Unusual Features. Prime example of possibility of combining functional adequacy with pleasing aesthetic appearance during construction and operations phases. (7) Instrumentation. Special flood monitoring tests and pressure surveys are routinely made. The elevation of more than 350 new bench marks is established twice a year. Until February 1972, this was a quarterly procedure. Recording tide-gage stations are located on two of the islands to serve as a check on leveling from shore. Measurements of horizontal movements are also monitored by use of a geodimeter. Reports on surface stability are prepared and distributed twice yearly. Special subsidence and compaction monitoring tools were developed and are used, but mainly in connection with the drilling operations. (8) Structural Performance. (a) Performance. Excellent. (b) Maintenance. Maintenance work on the island structures has been kept to an absolute minimum by regularity of inspection and immediate repair of all armor rock areas (over 60,000 tons of material in 1972). Settlement in work areas has been localized and very minor, occurring mostly on Island White. Since this was the first island to be completed, it is 22 8vIS “ON LYVHS 'S'989 'S'N | e “(0D yorog uo] SNAHL) ueld uoyeooT *y ainsry BILVAMVIUG HIVIE WOT “ “ Piere aig Si ete Nunmaus, GNnv7si/ ry 100 oO)! Sem Romy yousvn w31n0 HOVIGONOI ° UBLVA 271 BBACT NVER LO 4124 NI SONTGNNUS AV. 191 19 Coa CTD eon pefeig ee AVa@ OUddd NVS VINHOATIVD LgvO) LAIMA — BaLVLS GELINN ® 101001 vt on 23 MOLL IANG2 oageax2 ‘uo99}01d 10ULLe —suorjoos yeoidAy, *g ound —_—— eases earn “gabaaia. NOILIGNOD G: gas0g% aX 3LSVM A¥UYND OOs WT TH *(-orF) YoRag SUOT SINAHL) Woss9g purysy jo Mora ueyd eordAy, *6 ainsty Sadana i Ber wae w Tee CAE Bas soc'33/] SuMva an ; nv372 073m : OO Seusu 1208 O BOs S12 (ERMSROD Ey, 4 Ok Focus os 25 probably due to poor compaction methods used during construction. Since construction, wave conditions in Long Beach Harbor have dislocated sections of armor rock. In repairing these sections, rock sizes have been increased, the largest being 8 tons instead of the original 5 tons. These replacement sections are proving to be more satisfactory than the original design. (9) Effect of Structure on Environment. (a) Physical. Although ocean-generated waves can enter the harbor unobstructed from the southeast, they cause reflected waves in various directions within the harbor up to 6 feet. (b) Biota. Heavy marine growth on armor stone, attracting fish and sport fishermen to immediate areas of the islands. (c) Aesthetics. Since the THUMS drilling islands are directly offshore from the civic center and beaches, aesthetics are of importance. City requirements for the THUMS project were probably the most stringent ever imposed on the oil industry, even inducing voluntary moves by the industry for maintaining the natural appearance of the area. Screens, lighting, free-form structures, landscape planting, and artificial waterfalls were built to serve the double purpose of beautification and concealment of drilling and producing operations (Fig. 10). Island-producing facilities are above ground, but all wellheads are recessed in multiple-well cellars. As a result of these efforts, the islands have won two awards for engineering and aesthetic design. Local feeling is that the drilling islands enhance the harbor view rather than detract from it. (10) Engineering. (a) Engineering Design. Moffatt and Nichol, Engineers, 250 W. Wardlow Road, Long Beach, California 90807. (b) Aesthetic Design. Linesch and Associates, 320 Bixby Road, Long Beach, California 90807 (formerly Linesch and Reynolds). (11) Construction Contractors. Connally Pacific Company, 1925 Water Street, Long Beach, California 90802. (12) Construction Date. June 1965 to March 1967 (four islands). (13) Construction Cost. Cost breakdown for construction of a typical 10-acre island from THUMS Long Beach Company: (a) Dredge fill, 1,000,000 cubic yards at $0.70 per cubic yard, $ 700,000 (b) Quarry rock, 80,000 cubic yards at $6.25 per cubic yard, 500,000 (c) Armor rock, 35,000 tons at $5.14 per ton, 180,000 (d) Sheet piling, dolphins, etc., 390,000 (ec) Gravel cover, engineering, etc., 130,000 Total $1,900,000 26 Figure 10. Typical view of island shoreline showing landscaping along top of armor protection and buildup of encircling berm to conceal most of the operational activity from the mainland. Note the camouflage of main drill derricks in decorative towers (August 1973). 27 BIBLIOGRAPHY AGGERS, H.D., “Offshore Drilling and Production for Islands, THUMS Project,” Proceedings of Offshore Exploration Conference IV, 1969, pp. 175—197. ALLEN, D.R., “Environmental Aspects of Oil Producing Operatiens—Long Beach, California,” Journal of Petroleum Technology, Feb. 1972, p. 125. ENGINEERING NEWS-RECORD, “Offshore Oil Drilling Island Get Cosmetic Camouflage,” Vol. 177, No. 21, Nov. 1966, p. 13. KORNFELD, J. A., RUSSEL, J., and ELLISON, W.F., ‘Underwater Lines Laid to THUMS,” Pipeline Engineer, Sept. 1967, p. 34. LAWRENCE, C. J., “Los Angeles Plans to Lease Harbor,” The Oil and Gas Journal, Dec. 1963, p. 123. OCEAN INDUSTRY, “‘THUMS Stretches Out with ‘High Rise’ Rigs,” Vol. 2, No. 10, Oct. 1967, pp. 26—27. SCOTT, J., “THUMS Hits Stride at East Wilmington,” Petroleum Engineer, Sept. 1967, p. ol. SPAULDING, A. O., ‘““New Look in Offshore Drilling Platforms,” Proceedings of Offshore Exploration Conference, 1967, pp. 6—18. U.S. COAST GUARD, Local Notice to Mariners, Notice No. 30-71, Report of Trans., June 1971. 28 b. Punta Gorda, California—Rincon Island. Figure 11. Aerial oblique view of Rincon Island. (1) Construction. (a) Completed. September 1958. (b) Type. Fill-type artificial island with sand core enclosed by armor rock and tetrapods weighing up to 31 tons each (Fig. 11). (c) Purpose. Support of offshore oil-drilling operations. (2) Owner. Atlantic Richfield Company, 515 S. Flower Street, Los Angeles, California 90017 (formerly Richfield Oil Corporation). (3) Location (approximate). Pacific Ocean in Santa Barbara Channel, about 2,700 feet south of Punta Gorda, California. Latitude: 34°21’N. — Longitude: 119°27'W. (4) Physical Environment (Fig. 12). (a) Protected Ocean Environment. Location in Santa Barbara Channel provides some protection from north by California mainland and from south by Channel Islands with reduction of energy of ocean-generated waves. (b) Wave Conditions. Both sea and swell conditions fairly constant throughout year, originating in northwest quadrant with about 50 percent from northwest. Channel Islands have little effect on this exposure. 29 O2IS “ON LYVHD ‘Ss 98°) *S'N WOUs A G2 oGll ‘ued uoreoo] “ZI omsry Z_ (PAd4B!) JOHIEW oo NOONIY 9, ier / Jilewiltien ni enieeleis) ; ° ¢ aw Ue) 30 (c) Currents. Variable in direction (depending to great extent on wind), with weak nontidal flow, setting eastward in spring and summer and westward in fall and winter. (d) Winds. Prevailing winds westerly with southeasterly storms occurring during winter. (e) Storm Surge and Tides. Extreme high, 7.50 feet above MLLW MHHW, 5.40 feet above MLLW MSL, 2.58 feet above MLLW Extreme low, 2.50 feet below MLLW (f) Littoral Transport. Appreciable in the general area but negligible at the site. (g) Water Depth at Structure. 48 feet (MLLW) at deepest point. (h) Foundation Conditions. Overburden of silty sand ranging into sandy silt from 14 to 25 feet thick at island; average slope 3 percent with shale or siltstone formation below. Faults are known to exist near the site, most of them inactive. (5) Structural Features (Figs. 13 and 14). (a) Dimensions of Basic Structure. 1 Area (approximate). Bottom, 6.3 acres; MLLW, 3.2 acres; working level, 2.1 acres; and working level (usable), 1.1 acres. 2 Side Slopes. 1.5 on 1. 3 Finished Grade at Working Level. 16.0 feet above MLLW. (b) Unusual Features. The unusual configuration developed from the attempt to obtain best wave protection (Fig. 15). To obtain the most economical but adequate design, extensive studies were conducted to determine most suitable configuration and orientation. The peculiar, partially protected aspect of the site seemed only to introduce additional factors for consideration in these studies and led to the concept of the more protective seaward face to resist the larger waves. (6) Design Data. (a) Design Conditions. Depth at structure, 41.0 to 48.0 feet at MLLW Extreme high tide, 7.5 feet at MLLW Maximum depth, 55.5 feet at MLLW Design wave, west face, 27.0 feet at MLLW Design wave, north and south faces, 12.0 feet at MLLW (b) Model Study. Model studies were conducted at the U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station (WES), Vicksburg, Mississippi in two series. The first involved a three-dimensional model test to check the island configuration, plus the baffling necessary to maintain quiet water in the small boat harbor on the leeward side of the island and the feasibility of using two concrete ship hulls as a separate submerged breakwater to seaward. The second series involved a two-dimensional model of the proposed revetment on the seaward side. 31 ° o ry « i y > 6 1 ° u 1SLANO ARIG 1090-0" onv7s) Island. imcon Figure 13. Plan of R 32 *SUOT}IOS: PULS] UOIUTY “PT ans 498d / ITVS 2u17 BDU Bie4 dy e204 y4nos. sixy pugy 4284 797095 of 9 ht bo ae te ee S- (Od/4 UCZO Ce us ap) “Uf 159 SLY P8187] 5-H. bu] souaayay “seal BUI] 92U8184 By 20a DOMES 33 i HW ni ip fy Wy Wi, Pah y 1 ti) Figure 15. View of north side of island showing unusual configuration and good condition of armor rock (August 1973). 34 The study basically confirmed the original design. When increasing the wave height to 34 feet rather than the original design wave of 27 feet, the section showed no tendency to catastrophic failure due to a single wave, consistent with the basic design objective. (c) Instrumentation. There is no instrumentation set up to record physical conditions at the site. Various instrumentation installations in the area have been unsuitable for studying Rincon due to distance and type of data recorded. A group of level check points has been developed on the island from which to run a releveling program periodically and to tie in with bench marks on shore maintained by the Earth Science Laboratories of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). (7) Structural Performance. (a) Performance. Structure performing satisfactorily. Lack of recorded data leaves uncertainty as to maximum condition experienced. Eyewitness evidence indicates 20 feet may have been the highest wave experienced. As designed, the armor would have proved unstable for waves over 27 feet and overtopping would have occurred with 34-foot waves. Neither of these conditions has occurred. Settlement during the construction period was approximately the expected 6 inches. Since then there has been no change in the island elevation relative to the onshore bench marks. A crack has developed recently in the end wall of a concrete block building on the filled area at the east end of the island (causes undetermined to date). (b) Maintenance. Regularly scheduled inspections are made of the condition of the armor both on the surface and underwater; levels are run at regular intervals, checking elevations at selected points against onshore bench marks. Good results have been obtained. Maintenance requirements for the structure have been nominal. (8) Effect of Structure on Environment. (a) Physical. Because of considerable littoral transport along the mainland coastline in the area, it was expected that the island’s size and location would keep interference with littoral transport to a minimum. Aerial photos show no noticeable changes in the adjacent shorelines. A slight variation in bottom contours has developed, partly due to construction operations, and partly to the island’s interference with the natural easterly channel flow. (b) Biota. Assistance (in the form of physical facilities and complete cooperation) has been provided by the owner to Moorpark College, Moorpark, California for a study of marine life in the area. A recent study (Keith and Skjei, 1974) was undertaken to determine the changes brought on by the island construction in the environment for the marine biota in the area. The results indicate ‘‘the development of a mature and balanced reef out of an area which 35 might well have been considered to be a biological desert.” Where the number of species before construction probably was 25 to 30, since construction, 298 have been recorded, representing all major marine forms of plant and animal life. (c) Aesthetics. Owner went to considerable expense to achieve a natural appearance for the structure and met with good success. Oil facilities are a common sight in the area, but Rincon Island has had none of the unfavorable comment as some of the other nearby installations. (9) Engineering. (a) Design. John A. Blume and Associates, Engineers, 130 Jessie Street, San Francisco, California 94105. (b) Wave Prediction. Paul Horrer, San Diego, California 92101. (c) Revetment Stability. Robert Y. Hudson, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi 39180. (10) Construction Contractor (island only). Guy F. Atkinson Company, San Francisco, California 94101. (11) Construction Date. Contract awarded August 1956; site work February 1957 to August 1958. (12) Construction Cost. Approximately $3,250,000 (for island only). 36 LITERATURE CITED KEITH, J. M., and SKJEI, R. E., “Engineering and Ecological Evaluation of Artificial-Island Design, Rincon Island, Punta Gorda, California,” TM-43, U.S. Army, Corps of Engineers, Coastal Engineering Research Center, Fort Belvoir, Va., Mar. 1974. BIBLIOGRAPHY BLUME, J. A., and KEITH J., ‘Rincon Offshore Island and Open Causeway,” Journal of Waterways and Harbors Division, ASCE, Vol. 85, No. WW3, Sept. 1959, pp. 61—92. ENGINEERING NEWS-RECORD, “A Man-Made Island for Oil Drilling,” May 1958, pp. 31-36. U.S. NAVY HYDROGRAPHIC OFFICE, ‘“‘Atlas of Sea and Swell Charts, Northeastern Pacific Ocean,” H.O. Pub. 799D, 15¢ ed., Washington, D.C., 1944. U.S. NAVY HYDROGRAPHIC OFFICE, “Atlas of Surface Currents, Northeastern Pacific Ocean,” H.O. Pub. 570, Washington, D.C., 1947. 37 c. Seal Beach, California. Figure 16. Seal Beach—permanent drilling island (Courtesy of Oil and Gas Journal). (1) Construction. (a) Completed. 1954. (b) Type. Sand and rock-filled steel sheet-pile cell with riprap outer protection (Fig. 16). (c) Purpose. Support of offshore oil-drilling operations. (2) Owners. Humble Oil and Refining Company (Manager), 1800 Avenue of the Stars, Los Angeles, California 90067, and Texaco, Incorporated, 3350 Wilshire Boulevard, Los Angeles, California 90005. (Monterey-Texas Company, a joint venture of Monterey Oil Company and Texaco, Incorporated, original owners.) (3) Location. Pacific Ocean, about 1 mile south of channel breakwater for Alamitos Bay at Seal Beach, California. Latitude: 33°43'20"N. — Longitude: 118°07'30"W. (4) Physical Environment (Fig. 17). (a) Protected Ocean Environment. Protected from northern quadrants by mainland and Long Beach Harbor breakwaters. Otherwise exposed to ocean winds and waves. 38 Z2¥IS'ON LYVHD°9 B'O'S'N MOUs ‘ued uoyjes0T] “2 anergy = - aS aE a yf c == Qa mee OF Eee : ; : An mung “ny x Ne 02 | (£96) P/E; 62 199-0 Sen 22 4599 a e 3.) 91 (g 910u vas) ”" a 89 wiyy LQ Md SITIONY s$o7 | SI a 1 " ; c7] ars eel w * {01 71778 (vKW FA) ayy ora ge eho} oo B= 20E UB YL o Nuon 8 s Wot HEL 20651 © 13 awolyghinltiabing, am s qo’ a) | | My My ! ‘ . ai. heels a Wath Gaul NYOH 4 GANS Mev 2239 Wd WS tO9s0H eT “A 01 la sou 008) ——t WI4Y 101k HIVIG INO? 2) =. 6 1 ron pe as vtec a J ees a Seats : zunosz usu Ti = 7 ‘ NUOH i = k WEL $05 2005 12) "9 / uD WIZZ Bd {fv sou cex) e007 \ : SRS HONY 4lS34 | x V @ (4) wa 7 NVS # sauitita9 | SS ys a Sap 1 pra NE 1 (ovis 2 2915 e202 020) See ae SS jaonpeenoAoos egecuscaeaa: fo SO 39 (b) Wave Conditions. Both sea and swell conditions, fairly constant throughout year, originating in northwest quadrant with about 50 percent from northwest, in the low to medium range. (c) Currents. Variable in direction but mostly north-northwest and south- southeast and averaging 1/3 to 2/3 knots. (d) Winds. Prevailing wind direction during most of year is northwest, with low average velocity. Occasional east and northeast winds through coastal mountains with speeds possibly exceeding 50 miles per hour. Gales infrequent, occurring in only 1 percent observations in December and January, with no predominant direction. (e) Storm Surge and Tides. Maximum astronomical tide range about 10 feet; storm surge not known but reportedly in range of additional 10 feet. (f) Littoral Transport. Reportedly negligible. (g) Water Depth at Structure. 42 feet MLW. (h) Foundation Conditions. Sandy ocean bottom. (5) Structural Features (Figs. 18 and 19). (a) Dimensions of Basic Structure. 75-foot-diameter steel sheet-pile cell with 98.5- X 72.5-foot pile-supported wharf adjoining. (b) Unusual Features. Earliest of California’s offshore drilling islands designed to satisfy State Lands Commission resolution requiring wells in area to be drilled from filled islands offshore. (6) Design Data. (a) Design Conditions: Depth of structure, 42 feet MLLW Astronomical tide, 5.4 feet Storm surge (not available) (b) Model Study. None. (c) Instrumentation. None. (7) Structural Performance. (a) Performance. Satisfactory with no measurable movement. In 1972, during a general overhaul program, test sections cut from sheeting indicated negligible decrease in thickness due to corrosion, and core borings through concrete top surface of cell indicated less than 1 inch average settlement of filled interior. (b) Maintenance. No maintenance other than repair of timber fendering. In 1972, a general overhaul consisted primarily of sandblasting and painting of all exposed steel sheet-pile surfaces above water. All wharf timber piles, gunited before driving, were checked for soundness and repaired with concrete as necessary, mostly at top just below pile cap. (8) Effect of Structure on Environment. (a) Physical. No known physical effect on hydrography in the area. (b) Biota. Marine growth on the underwater, unpainted areas attracts fish which in turn attract sport fishermen (Fig. 19). 40 (c) Aesthetics. First platform in area; built before aesthetic appearance was a major consideration. (9) Engineering (Pyles, 1955). Capt. George F. Nicholson, Long Beach, California. (10) Construction Contractor. Healy Tibbitts Construction Company, 1400 W. 7th Street, Long Beach, California 90813. (11) Construction Date. 1952 to 1954 (with delays due to litigation). (12) Construction Cost. Approximately $1,000,000 for filled cell. TTY ‘Uthe oy Mh po uyie MUI OL TCC, LCOC be - " $ Mi U v.ooR Figure 18. Plan and cross-sectional drawing of filled island (Pyles, 1955). Al i cette MW Hy Figure 19. View of steel sheet piling. Note painted area above high tide line, free of marine growth. 42 LITERATURE CITED PYLES, E. E., “First Pacific Coast Permanent Drilling Island Modified to Allow Drilling of 70 Wells,” Journal of Petroleum Technology, Dec. 1955. BIBLIOGRAPHY DAVIS, G., “Island Capacity: 70 Wells,” Offshore, Vol. 4, No. 3, May 1956, pp. 13-16. U.S. NAVY HYDROGRAPHIC OFFICE, ‘Atlas of Sea and Swell Charts, Northeastern Pacific Ocean,” H.O. Pub. 799D, 15! ed., Washington, D.C., 1944. U.S. NAVY HYDROGRAPHIC OFFICE, “Atlas of Surface Currents, Northeastern Pacific Ocean,” H.O. Pub. 570, Washington, D.C., 1947. WELKER, S. C., ‘“‘Million-Dollar Concrete Island,” The Oil and Gas Journal, Vol. 53, No. 7, June 1954, p. 156. 43 3. Offshore Breakwaters. a. Sandy Bay, Cape Ann, Massachusetts. Figure 20. aT view of Se Bay Hee (1967). (1) Construction. (a) Completed. June 1916. (b) Type. Rubble-stone mound substructure surmounted by a sloped stone block superstructure with 20- to 30-ton granite cap stones and 10-ton apron stones (Fig. 20). (c) Purpose. A harbor of refuge for coastal commercial sailing vessels. (2) Owner. Department of the Army, U.S. Army Engineer Division, New England, Waltham, Massachusetts 02154. (3) Location. Atlantic Ocean in Sandy Bay, about 1 mile off north shore of Cape Ann, midway between Boston, Massachusetts and Portsmouth, New Hampshire. Latitude: 42°40'40"N. — Longitude: 70°35'30’W. (4) Physical Environment, (a) Protected Ocean Environment. Harbor and breakwater are protected from westerly through southerly quadrant by mainland. Area is exposed to ocean winds and 44 waves from northerly through easterly to southerly directions although partially sheltered by shoals to the east (Fig. 21). (b) Wave Conditions. Fully exposed to deepwater-generated waves from north through east through southeast, except for partial shelter afforded by Flat Ground and Salvages shoals. Heaviest seas are from the northeast through east with maximum wave heights occurring during December, January and February. (c) Currents. Tidal currents at site are reported as negligible. (d) Winds. Strongest and most dangerous winds from northeasterly through easterly direction. Fully exposed to easterly, northeasterly and northerly gales. (e) Storm Surge and Tides. Approximate extreme high and low tides recorded for the area are 12 feet above MLW and 3.5 feet below MLW. Mean normal tidal range, 8.6 feet; mean spring tidal range, 10.0 feet. (f) Littoral Transport. No data available. (g) Water Depth at Structure. Varies from 25 to 75 feet at MLW. (h) Foundation Conditions. No data available. U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey Chart No. 243 (Fig. 21) indicates hard, rocky bottom conditions at the breakwater. (5) Structural Features. (a) Dimensions of Basic Structure (U.S. Army Engineer Division, New England, 1972). 1 Length. Original project proposed a continuous breakwater 9,000 feet long, extending from Avery Ledge, 3,600 feet (southern arm) to an angle at Abner’s Ledge, then 5,400 feet (western arm) toward Andrews Point. As built, the substructure of the southern arm and the first 2,500 feet of the western arm were completed to approximately MLW. A total length of 922 feet of superstructure was completed of which 720.6 feet was on the southern arm and 201.4 feet on the western arm (Fig. 21). 2 Side Slopes (Fig. 22). a Seaward Slope. 1 on 1 to elevation 8.6 feet; than 1 on 2 to elevation —25 feet; and 1 on 1 below elevation, —25 feet below MLW. b Shoreward slope. 1 on 1. 3 Crest Elevation and Width (U.S. Army Engineer Division, New England, 1970) (Fig. 22). a Completed. 22 feet above MLW (13.4 ft. above MHW, and 20 ft. wide). b Incomplete. Core built up generally to MLW. (b) Unusual Features. Workmanship and craftsmanship exhibited in breakwater superstructure of uniform-cut granite blocks laid-flat and in horizontal courses (Fig. 23). (6) Design Data. (a) Design Conditions. Data not available. (b) Model Study. None. (c) Instrumentation. None. 45 Portion of Breakwater Completed to Elev.+22 Ft. 7 ne ae @ s 2 A 140 7 Ho m 195 | cep ED 126 ny e y i i970 % Flat Ground Cora > aS m ss rd 2-2 os z Sas ANDY i ; ee. We F fH % F ORR (A 10°-TON STONE APRON 5 . = o - : 2d) (uew200 lez 50h oe Tess DiF AX TIT TIF 7D S77 7 Figure 22. Typical proposed cross section (U.S. Army Engineer Division, New England, 1972). 46 Bec pve hal 4 shard Figure 23. Looking north along the granite block superstructure of the breakwater (1916). (7) Structural Performance (U.S. Army Engineer Division, New England, 1972). (a) Effectiveness of Structure. During construction, it was decided to complete 900 feet of the breakwater and await the test of storms, ice and expansion due to summer heat. With the disappearance of commercial sailing vessels, continuation of the project was not economically justified. The breakwater as completed reduced, to some extent, sea conditions in the bay during easterly storms but had little effect on storms out of the northeast to north. At present, the structure offers little use to commercial or recreational mariners. | (b) Integrity of Structure. Since 1916 the superstructure of the western arm has been almost completely destroyed (75 feet of deterioration between 1968 to 1972). Except for minimal damage at the south end and slight shifting of capstones, the southern arm is in excellent condition. Damage to the western arm is primarily by severe wave attack from the northeast and stopping construction without properly providing temporary end protection. Because of orientation of the structure, northeast waves have less effect on the southern arm. (8) Effect of Structure on Environment. (a) Physical. Local townspeople have stated that the partially constructed breakwater is a hazard to navigation and should be either completed or removed. In the 47 opinion of the New England District, Corps of Engineers, the breakwater is properly marked by navigation aids and does provide some limited protection (U.S. Army Engineer Division, New England, 1966). (b) Biota. No recorded data obtained. Oral reports indicate large fish populations in immediate area of breakwater. (c) Aesthetics. Due to distance from shore, breakwater does not affect the aesthetic value of the offshore view; to passing boats, careful workmanship of the superstructure is pleasing to the eye. (9) Engineering. U.S. Army, Corps of Engineers, Boston, Massachusetts. (10) Construction Contractor. Information not obtained. (11) Construction Date. Construction period, 1886—1916. (12) Construction Cost. 2,133,734 tons of stone placed at a total cost of $1,941,479. 48 LITERATURE CITED U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DIVISION, NEW ENGLAND, “Survey (Review of Reports) at Harbor of Refuge at Sandy Bay, Cape Ann, Massachusetts,’ Waltham, Mass., Sept. 1966. U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DIVISION, NEW ENGLAND, “Inspection of Sandy Bay Breakwater, Rockport, Massachusetts,” Waltham, Mass., May 1970. U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DIVISION, NEW ENGLAND, “Review of Federal Navigation Project Harbor of Refuge at Sandy Bay, Cape Ann, Massachusetts,” Waltham, Mass., Apr. 1972. BIBLIOGRAPHY NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION, “Tide Tables, East Coast of North and South America,” Rockville, Md., 1973. U.S. NAVAL OCEANOGRAPHIC OFFICE, “Oceanographic Atlas of the North Atlantic Ocean,” Sections I and IV, Washington, D.C. U.S. NAVAL WEATHER SERVICE COMMAND, “Summary of Synoptic Meteorological Observations, North Coastal Marine Areas,” Vol. 2, Asheville, N.C., May 1970. 49° b. Cape Henlopen, Delaware. Figure 24. Aerial view southeastward toward Cape Henlopen. Ice piers in foreground and outer breakwater at left; old breakwater close inshore at right (U.S. Army Engineer District, Philadelphia—in press, 1974). (1) Construction. (a) Period. 1828-1901. (b) Type. Rock mound (Fig. 24). (c) Purpose. Protection of anchorage areas (Breakwater Harbor inside inner breakwater; National Harbor of Refuge inside outer breakwater). (2) Owner. Department of the Army, U.S. Army Engineer District, Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19106. . (3) Location (approximate). Mouth of Delaware Bay, Cape Henlopen, Delaware. Latitude: 38°49'N: — Longitude: 75°06'W. (4) Physical Environment. (a) Protected Ocean-Estuarine Environment. Protected through southwest quadrant by proximity to shore. Except for some protection from waves offered by the tip of Cape Henlopen, fully exposed to the Atlantic to east and northeast, and to full reach of the Delaware Bay to north and northwest (Fig. 25). (b) Wave Conditions. Heavy seas and swells mainly from the east, reportedly with overtopping occurring during storms. (c) Currents. Generally east-west tidal current, ranging to about 1 knot in each direction. 50 16 4 ae egeoe!, na o \ce bre Fl 4sec 15ft 8 f 0 at ie 23 ‘ . ‘, 19 2 Sug 2 HARBOR OF Py lena a 27 : ; \REFUGE® +p» ; Brey ORCI rn 25 Obsir **-. Fish Haven “*- (auth min 8 f) 25 a WY = rs es VS pascue srioce ~~ a re HOR. CL. 46 FT, : SW Secane *. % © fowen oer SQ | ovHD. PWR CABLE 660 oH S/S SRQUTH CL. 68 FT SEAT = (+) Hog 4 Sar ~~ beg S 4 B= Cal ‘iL MILES i Aiea FROM U-S.C.& G.S. CHART NO. 4II Figure 25. Location plan. ol (d) Winds. Prevailing northwest winds from November through March at speeds up to 12 knots; varying in direction through remainder of year, but not as strong. (e) Storm Surge and Tides. Mean tidal range, 4.1 feet above MLW Spring tidal range, 4.9 feet above MLW Mean tide level, 2.1 feet above MLW Extreme high tide, 5.4 feet above MLW Extreme low tide, —1.1 below MLW (f) Littoral Transport. Littoral transport has reached a stable condition with little scour or accretion taking place. (g) Water Depth at Structure. Harbor of Refuge, 10 to 70 feet; Breakwater Harbor, 3 to 23 feet. (h) Ice Conditions. Thin ice forms on Delaware River in early December; heavier ice from January to March. Tidal currents and heavy traffic of large ocean vessels generally keeps ice broken. (i) Bottom Conditions. Stable sandy bottom in Harbor of Refuge; shifting silty bottom in Breakwater Harbor (Fig. 25). (5) Structural Features (Figs. 26 and 27). Stone for the old breakwater was dumped on the bay bottom in a mound averaging 160 feet wide, with side slopes about 45°. In 1833, at the end of five construction seasons, contemporary reports show 75 percent of the breakwater length laid with levels varying from 15 feet above sea bottom to 5 feet above higher water, plus an even greater part of the ice breaker. Work continued intermittently until 1839, when 2,586 lineal feet had been constructed against the 3,600 feet as designed. In 1869 the construction was finally brought to design height of 14 feet above MLW with a width at the crest of 22 feet. The Gap was finally closed from 1882 to 1898 by dumping stone for lower sections, and placing upper stone by derrick barge. An earlier plan had called for a timber bridge and railroad track which was finally discarded for the rubble-mound section. The outer breakwater, completed in 1901, was constructed basically to the same cross section as the Gap, with a length of 8,040 feet at low water, and 7,950 feet at the crest. The seaward side, brought up first, afforded protection for work on the harbor side, and permitted settlement of the lower parts before topping off the seaward face. (6) Design Data. There are few reliable records to indicate the criteria followed in the original design. The inner breakwater was the first of its type in the Western Hemisphere, but there were precedents in Europe at Cherbourg, Plymouth, and Kingstown. Some records indicate that the inner breakwater was an exact duplicate of the one at Cherbourg, and therefore, greatly over-designed. Recommendations were made at one point to continue construction with the use of stone, which could be safely removed from the old breakwater, although reducing its cross section by as much as 50 percent. 52 SEA HARBOR 220°. FILET Meen Low Water oi YY eOsge de CS Figure 26. First rock-mound breakwater constructed in the United States—the Delaware breakwater (Quinn, 1972). *, BREAKWATER 4% 1901 UNATIONALN HARBOR ee 5 ~. Desjlaware “i Boy , patty Wo 3 © en, STHE “Gar 897 oe, ICE BREAKER oon 1869 . OLD BREAKWATER ficropen 1869 IRON PIER Atlant; Figure 27. Construction stages (U.S. Army Engineer District, Philadelphia—in press, 1974). 53 Construction began on the old breakwater in 1828, following the design of William Strickland of Philadelphia and under the general administration of the Quartermaster General, and the technical direction of the Corps of Engineers. Work continued intermittently, depending on need, engineering know-how, and congressional appropria- tions. The inner breakwater, consisting of the old breakwater and ice breaker (completed in 1869), and the Gap (completed in 1897), formed Breakwater Harbor; the outer breakwater completed in 1901, formed the Harbor of Refuge. During construction, stone sizes were varied to reach a satisfactory size. Specifications in 1828, first called for stones from 200 pounds to 2 tons, but was changed to a 500-pound minimum requirement. Soundings in 1830 indicated a general lowering of the structure “due to wave and tidal action.” Further study was undertaken and the size specification revised to 2.25 to 6 tons. Later, stones up to 13 tons were used for the upper parts of the outer breakwater. By the time design was being undertaken for the outer breakwater, and when the Breakwater Harbor was no longer adequate for the larger, deeper-draft ships, two important changes had taken place: (1) design was now more closely following engineering principles rather than intuition; and (2) construction equipment had now developed to where larger stones could be handled, and precise placing was possible. This permitted certain improvements over the design of earlier sections, although the seaward slope of the existing structure, considered as having gradually settled to a stable position, was maintained in the new design. The height was limited to dissipate the wave forces, without the full impact being absorbed by the structure, and the step arrangement of the top section tended to reduce the scour effect at the toe. The criteria finally developed for the Delaware Bay work were used as a basis for the Sandy Bay breakwater in Massachusetts and the San Pedro breakwater in California. The simplicity of construction and repair of these breakwaters seemed to outweigh the problem of the massive foundation required for such a structure. Different aspects and the relation of various stages of construction from some of the engineering drawings and photographs are shown in Figures 28 through 33. (7) Structural Performance. (a) Performance. The outer breakwater (Harbor of Refuge), and the inner breakwater (Breakwater Harbor), have both performed exceptionally well, considering their long span of service. Harbor of Refuge, with depths from 15 to 70 feet, affords good protection from the easterly gales; Breakwater Harbor, with depths up to 10 feet is excellent in all weather including the heavy northwesterly gales (U.S. Department of Commerce, 1966). Records indicate that Breakwater Harbor, more useful in the days of sailing ships, often -provided shelter to more than 200 ships at a time. (b) Maintenance. Settlement and general lowering by wave and tidal action, occurring as expected in the early stages, were corrected during the long construction period. Stability was reached before completion, and since final rock was placed, no maintenance has been necessary. (8) Effect of Structure on Environment. (a) Physical. Early theories by engineers that orientation of the breakwaters would cause tidal currents to wear away the Cape and keep the harbor at desired depths, proved false. The Cape has extended in a north and northwesterly direction and Breakwater Harbor has silted from a continually shifting silty bottom condition. Silting of the harbor and the violent tidal action through the Gap were important reasons for completing the Gap construction. (b) Biota. No recorded data obtained; verbal reports indicate heavy fish population in area of breakwaters. (c) Aesthetics. In a generally isolated area, where, probably partly due to always having been there, there has been little objection to the sight of the natural rock structures. (9) Engineering. William Strickland, Consulting Engineer, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. (10) Construction Date, Cost and Contractors (Table 3). ye) VIO WW 74 rae Pra oma oMTaameqe ML Crem mopocy Signo YOSUVH UILVMAVI TUVAV Tad cd a[qeynuepr you syrun Ayoojaa JULI Jo OUT], “IOqIeH JoyeMyeolg oreMeEp °gz andtq ST MOR 9 24-4 harpemep coer ag : usp jo oro9g 6L8L Ve wkuzy be fe TOYO IR) PA pedty pouwuy Authh.corm of near varessosdin pevedod] yao sayweag oes “Tad 'SAuge “IeN PANS 56 ‘a]qeyQuept jou syrun Aj19079A yUaLIND JO UIT], “1OqIe]] JgyeMyeolg IeME[I(] ‘SOIDOTIA JUILIND JO SIAIND [eOIIA * Apwe Ferg y0e}P9 Vert eee sey Wee SATIN raga hy eae G0 Lae oy anata a eine b ey, “eoprenh 6 gt fo FN) Marys ores pyar “porirena sia = nadip ("== seneen aalerpoyy ‘YOTIVH FNL NE x UIs a's Se GvIJa eHVv pail hee SO OMY LOIM MTSMLT, ove Ins wb ‘x GPILVANGIIG SO CHI L8VI GHW IVOLF AITIMLAIG I Wess —J/ a9 TES TmIHpLI 4 ‘“YTUI SIs erg PRI BOTIAI ELOY sLsl 62 eansty a re 57 —~ bile ata . dey,, Jo uorjonysuod uo 10da1 ssoisoid 10} posedaid Sutmesg “1ayeMyeolg oeMETE(] JO SUOTJDIS ‘OE aINSIg ‘esoauibuz Ri sds05 ypuojoy yner7 ieee sco ITI 2a) 669161 247 raInp yodes jours Avodwo22” o4 Bd ‘PIYA POLI dursy § 12240 seauibuz _—— ——— ~— ee 2314 suo, EIZI01 ~ youd VIS suo, 22006 2681 eunce Wiaed A eean | 694 SU0L IDPS! Se ee ae E6I 4aquiazag asnynsysqns wDivl 207 wiae anpNAssadng / \. payafos Net) 7/4 | $l 1681 03 Snotaasd ying oe S401 amonregne 40 digasaeadeiaky zovs vIS a aunqanaysqns peqa[o1g aunqnuysuadag paroalosg ovsne 201 kvl on 08 o Laagd dO aATVOS Projected \ Superstructure — -— — — 2. — — — ‘ ' uae al PME ag ity (i F) Mew, arn ue Ce ae va . Dy, a PRESENT SUBSTRUCTURE “Dy, Scale of Fret Figure 31. Delaware Breakwater substructure. Drawing was prepared for specifications dated 18 October 1894, showing proposed top structure for the “Gap” (U.S. Army Engineer District, Philadelphia—in press, 1974). 59 Figure 33. View southward along harbor side of ‘“‘Gap”’ construction (photo taken in 1890's) (U.S. Army Engineer District, Philadelphia—in press, 1974). 60 Date 1829 1830 1831 1832 1833 1834 1839 1851—1869 | Completion to design Table 3. Summary of Construction Data Work Done Contractor | Cost to Date | Tonnage to Date Old Breakwater and the Ice Breaker Construction started Not known Halsey Rogers Company, N.Y. Canvass White & Co., N.Y. 242,770 tons deposited Leiper & Crosby, Pa. 15 separate small contractors 154,459 tons deposited in best progress to date Leiper, Hill & Jacques, Pa. Leiper & Co., J.F. Hill, Pa. 122,995 tons deposited Last load of original $1,880,000 construction period, 53 tons deposited, 6 Sept. 1939 Leiper & Co., Pa. 2,123,000 height but excluding Gap Gap Closure Breakwater and Ice Piers 1896-1901 | | 2,090,800 | Total Cost Complete Structures $4,743,700 518,733 640,520 835,000 (U.S. Army Engineer District, Philadelphia—in press, 1974) 61 LITERATURE CITED QUINN, A. D., “Design and Construction of Ports and Marine Structures,” and ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, 1972. U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, PHILADELPHIA, “The District: A History of the Philadelphia Engineer District, U.S. Army, Corps of Engineers, 1866—1971,” Philadelphia, Pa. (in press, 1974). U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, “United States Coast Pilot 3,” gth ed., Washington, D.C., 1966, pp. 70—71. BIBLIOGRAPHY NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION, ‘Tide Tables, East Coast of North and South America,” Rockville, Md., 1974. U.S. NAVAL OCEANOGRAPHIC OFFICE, “Oceanographic Atlas of the North Atlantic Ocean,” Section IV, Pub. No. 700, Washington, D.C., 1963. 62 c. Venice, California. Figure 34. Aerial oblique photo of Venice Breakwater (Inman and Frautschy, 1965). (1) Construction. (a) Completed. 1905. (b) Type. Rock mound (Fig. 34). (c) Purpose. Protection of Venice Amusement Pier (since removed). (2) Owner. Department of Tidelands and Submerged Lands, City of Los Angeles, California (as Trustee for State of California). (3) Location (approximate). Santa Monica Bay off Venice, California. Latitude: 33°59’N. — Longitude: 118°28’W. (4) Physical Environment (Fig. 35). (a) Protected Ocean Environment. Protected from north and east by proximity to shore; partially protected from west and south by Channel Islands and Santa Catalina and to southeast by Point Vincente. (b) Wave Conditions. Sea and swell conditions fairly constant from south and southwest throughout year. Heaviest storm waves reportedly in 12- to 15-foot range, approach generally from northwest during winter months. 63 18° 30'w VENICE 32 BREAKWATER Fish Havens " 0 SCALE: NAUTICAL MILES My; Wij i IS Wx YG Q) lj PASS OS Marker *." row of piles)“ Obstr 7 Fish Haven _ 7 (auth min 10f) ron RESTRICXED AREA Ny 207.6/9a (See noterA) _~ ‘ | Ssec ISM. = nqN G42 DiS GaN LENG FROM U.S.C. & G.S. CHART NO. 5144 Figure 35. Location plan. 64 (c) Currents. Variable, depending mostly on wind; generally southerly in spring and summer, and northerly in fall and winter. (d) Winds. Prevailing winds from west to west-southwest. Mean annual wind- speed 6 miles per hour with peak gusts recorded from the west at 62 miles per hour. (e) Storm Surge and Tides. Mean sea (tide) level, 2.8 feet above MLLW Extreme tide level, 7.1 feet above MLLW Mean tide range, 3.7 feet diurnal, 5.4 feet, extreme, 10.0 feet (f) Littoral Transport. Little since construction of Santa Monica Breakwater. (g) Water Depth at Structure. 12 feet on offshore side. (h) Bottom Conditions. Sandy. (5) Structural Features. Engineering drawings were not available. Observations indicate the armor stone is granite, probably from Riverside, California quarries, about 175 pounds per cubic foot, used in graded sizes from 50 pounds to 10 to 11 tons each. No information on whether a different material was used for the core. The slope on the seaward side is 1 on 1.5 or 1 on 2; steeper on the shore side. The breakwater is 600 feet long with a crest elevation about 12 feet above MLLW. (6) Design Data. There is little available from reliable written records as to design data, designer’s name, contractor’s name, or construction costs. Built by a subdivider in the area, its original purpose was protection of the Venice Amusement Pier at Windward Avenue. The builder, Abbott Kinney of Los Angeles, owned the breakwater until 1917, at which time the breakwater and the beach and pier, went through various legal changes in ownership. About 1948 or 1949 ownership was acquired by the City of Los Angeles in Trusteeship for the State of California. (7) Structural Performance. (a) Performance. Built as protection from offshore waves for the Venice Amusement Pier, the breakwater served its purpose well until the pier was demolished in 1948. Overtopped only by extreme waves. (b) Maintenance. No maintenance work on the structure has been reported. (8) Effect of Structure on Environment. (a) Physical. This breakwater has provided a prime example of conditions which induce the natural formation of a tombolo, eventually connecting the detached breakwater to shore by accretion behind the breakwater (Fig. 36). This breakwater, close to shore in comparison with its own length, with a wave shadow around the ends reflecting offshore, causes accretion from shore outward. Sounding surveys in 1935 and 1953 show the results of this action (Fig. 36). Local conditions have also contributed to the overall result. 65 ae (Ge te (Sey ey eg (Sect | FORMER PIER —_— 35 2 VENICE PIER BREAKWATER US SSSS5es = ie Oe Tee ee ee — — — SURVEY OF 1935 SURVEY OF 1953 CONTOURS IN FEET BELOW MLLW Sf) (Ey ay Figure 36. Venice Pier Breakwater showing the effect of a detached breakwater on adjacent beach. Comparative surveys by Los Angeles County (Inman and Frautschy, 1965). 66 In this area of southern California, serious accretion will take place if a structure is distant from shore less than three to six times its own length. In this case, the 600-foot-long breakwater, was originally located 1,000 feet offshore from the mean lower low water line. The Venice Amusement Pier, with its piling and footings in the beach zone, contributed heavily to beach buildup and extension out to the breakwater in the immediate area. Littoral transport in a southerly direction along the shore was 200,000 to 250,000 cubic yards per year, until construction in 1933 of the Santa Monica breakwater, approximately 1.5 miles up the coast. Stabilization began at this time and by the mid-1940’s beach erosion due to littoral transport had stopped. At the time the Amusement Pier was removed (1948), 14 million cubic yards of sand were deposited along the Venice Beach. By 1953, as shown on the sounding surveys, the tombolo had reached the breakwater and is still building. (b) Biota. In the absence of recorded data, reports indicate heavy marine life in the breakwater area. Periodic pollution in the area is due to offshore seepage of natural asphalt and, previously, to solid sewage disposal at Los Angeles. However, these causes do not involve the structure in any way. (c) Aesthetics. Probably because of the length of time in existence, there are no known aesthetic objections. (9) Engineering. Unknown. (10) Construction Contractors. Abbott Kinney, Los Angeles. (11) Construction Cost. Unknown. 67 LITERATURE CITED INMAN, D.L., and FRAUTSCHY, J. D., ‘Littoral Processes and the Development of Shorelines,” Coastal Engineering, Santa Barbara Specialty Conference, ASCE, Oct. 1965, pp. 527-530. BIBLIOGRAPHY BEACH EROSION BOARD, “Beach Erosion Study, Point Mugu to San Pedro Breakwater, 1949-1950,” U.S. Army, Corps of Engineers, Washington, D.C., App. 2, Sept. 1950, pp. 8—9; 24-27. U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, LOS ANGELES, “Report on Cooperative Beach Erosion Investigation, Malibu-Santa Monica Area,” Los Angeles, Calif., Aug. 1963, p. 6. U.S. ARMY, CORPS OF ENGINEERS, COASTAL ENGINEERING RESEARCH CENTER, ‘Shore Protection Planning and Design,” TR-4, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1966, pp. 236—241. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, “United States Coast Pilot 7,” 10¢% ed., 1968, p. 337. 68 d. Winthrop, Massachusetts. Figure 37. View of breakwater from northeast, (1949) (U.S. Army, Corps of Engineers, Coastal Engineering Research Center, 1966). (1) Construction. (a) Completed. September 1935. (b) Type. Rubble-mound breakwater (granite) (Fig. 37). (c) Purpose. Shore protection and beach preservation. (d) Auxiliary Purpose. Protected small-craft mooring area. (2) Owner. Massachusetts Department of Public Works, 100 Nashua Street, Boston, Massachusetts 02114. (3) Location. Atlantic Ocean in Broad Sound 1,000 feet off Winthrop Beach, 4.5 miles northeast of Boston, Massachusetts. Latitude: 42°22'30"N. — Longitude: 70°57'58’"'W. (4) Physical Environment. (a) Protected Ocean Environment. Beach and breakwater are protected from westerly directions by mainland. Area is exposed to winds and ocean waves from northerly, through easterly to southerly directions. (b) Wave Conditions. Exposed to wind-generated waves from northeast through east through southeast. Maximum waves in Boston area occur during December, January and February with a significant wave height of 23 feet exceeded on 0.1 percent of the days during those months (1 day in 1,000 days) (U.S. Naval Weather Service Command, 1970). 69 (c) Currents. Tidal currents in the area are reported as negligible. (d) Winds. Winds from the northeast quadrant are prevailing and predominant (U.S. Congress, 1947). (e) Storm Surge and Tides. Extreme high tide, 15 feet above MLW Extreme low tide, —3.0 feet below MLW Mean normal tidal range, 9.0 feet Mean spring tidal range, 10.4 feet (f) Littoral Transport. Predominant direction of transport along Winthrop Beach is from north to south. (g) Water Depth at Structure. Varies from 0 to 10 feet below MLW. (h) Foundation Conditions. Available information indicates the breakwater rests on the base of eroded drumlins, hills of compacted clay, and sand and gravel with numerous cobbles and boulders. (5) Structural Features (Fig. 38). (a) Dimensions of Basic Structure. 1 Length. Five detached breakwater sections. One 400- and four 300-foot- long sections, spaced 100 feet apart at MHW. Overall length about 2,250 feet. 2 Side Slopes. Seaward slope, 1.75 to 1; shoreward slope, 1.5 to 1; and between sections, 2.0 to lL. 3 Crest Elevation and Width. +8.0 feet above MLW, 9.0 feet above MHW, and 12.0 feet wide. (b) Unusual Structural Features. Gaps in structure provided to save stone, permit circulation and enable small boats to pass through. Gaps not wide enough to permit passage of sizeable wave. Cross-section shape in form of an ellipse to offer less resistance to overtopping wave. (6) Design Data. (a) Design Conditions. Not available. (b) Model Study. None. (c) Instrumentation. None. (7) Structural Performance. (a) Effectiveness of Structure. Good. Field surveys and observations indicate that breakwater has been effective in lessening wave action and in protecting the shore of Winthrop Beach for a distance equal to the breakwater length. Substantial accretion has taken place within this protected zone moving the shoreline seaward. Some erosion north and south of the protected area has occurred. Increased beach width has decreased wave attack on seawall protecting Winthrop, Massachusetts. 70 GRoveRs Yi yp Cn dae Utter Xe AIOE GLO Dery TYPICAL PROFILE OFF BHORE ’ Ss, WINTHROP Figure 38. General plan and location of survey profiles. Comparative profiles shown in Figures 39 and 40 (Massachusetts Department of Public Works, 1933). CROSS SECTION OF BREAKWATER of 8- to 10-ton Armor Stone 71 (b) Integrity of Structure. Good. During its 40-year lifetime, the breakwater has weathered numerous severe storms with little displacement of stone. Parts of the breakwater may have experienced slight subsidence but there is no observable damage. No maintenance has been performed. (8) Effect of Structure on Environment. (a) Physical. Since construction, the rate of volume change of the beach material has greatly increased. There has been accretion of beach material within the protected zone greater than the erosion which had occurred previously. Survey profiles shown in Figures 39 and 40 indicate that the buildup of material (profiles 14, 15 and 16) was provided from material eroded from the adjacent sections of the beach to the north and south (profiles 10, 11, 12, 18 and 19). The erosion rate north of the breakwater increased after construction of the breakwater. Material from the beach north of the breakwater moves southward to the beach abreast of the breakwater but does not return to the north during periods of reversal in the direction of wave approach (as it did before construction of the breakwater). At the south end of the breakwater, there has been a tendency for waves to work around the breakwater, over the bar and to wash out the beach just opposite its southerly end as shown in the beach profiles. From 1938 through the 1950’s as part of various protection and improvement plans, seawall modifications and rockfill groins were constructed and various quantities of sand were placed between the groins along the beach. Two areas were filled: north of the breakwater and at the south end of the beach behind the breakwater. The groins, built to retard the rate of erosion in these areas, have had limited success. In 1971 more sand was brought in by truck and placed on the beach opposite the full length of the breakwater from the seawall towards the ocean. During a coastal storm in February 1972, a substantial amount was lost. The structure is not a hazard to navigation, although small-craft operations have been restricted by shoaling near the breakwater. Recreational activities, bathing in particular, have benefited. (b) Biota. In the absence of recorded data, oral reports indicate a general increase in marine life and bird population near the breakwater. Kelp and other vegetation have been noted on the stone at the structure toe. (c) Aesthetics. The townspeople requested the breakwater rather than a higher seawall, for aesthetic reasons. No known aesthetic objections. (9) Engineering. District Waterways Engineer, Massachusetts Department of Public Works, 100 Nashua Street, Boston, Massachusetts 02114. (10) Construction Contractors (built in three stages). (a) Stage 1, Merritt, Chapman and Scott Corporation, New York, New York 10001 (discontinued operations). 72 (b) Stages 2 and 3, William R. Farrell, Boston, Massachusetts 02109 (discontinued operations). (11) Construction Dates. (a) Stage 1, 27 June to 30 November 1933. (b) Stage 2, 1 August 1934 to 6 January 1935. (c) Stage 3,9 July to 3 September 1935. (12) Construction Cost. (a) Stage | at $2.22 per ton, $146,521.33 (b) Stage 2 at $1.97 per ton, 67,258.43 (c) Stage 3 at $2.17 perton, 23,961.14 $237,740.90 73 DISTANCE IW FEEY FROM BEAwALL HEIGHTS IN FECT REFERRED TO MEAN LOW WATER 8 1900 ae a =~ == 1931-34 ies ae Py eae, Ne sS al n Figure 39. Comparative survey profiles 9 through 13. Profile locations shown in Figure 38. (U.S. Congress, 1947). 74 OISTANCR tN FECT FROM SLewaLL 100 ‘go 180 Oo Lr Q mn ~N ices o- Pee Bi | aN Ce aes r) » San SAT TO oN = Bee au 1) —— ee ° 1wor-ve es verse FLIGHTS IN FEEY REFERRED TO WEAN Low @ATER Si 8 a Fe ° -_—. a i) 5 <, H Qo C) BS ~~ S i (3) | ~~ et ee Cd Q >: 522 eee al mallee a) VOIR ee ee 1991736 12945 Figure 40. Comparative survey profiles 14 through 19. Profile locations shown in Figure 38. (U.S. Congress, 1947). 75 LITERATURE CITED MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS, “Proposed Stone Breakwater, Winthrop,” (Drawings), Contract Nos. 361, 413, and 439, May 1933. U.S. ARMY, CORPS OF ENGINEERS, COASTAL ENGINEERING RESEARCH CENTER, “Shore Protection Planning and Design,’ TR-4, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1966. U.S. CONGRESS, ‘Winthrop Beach, Mass., Beach Erosion Control Study,” H.D. No. 80-764, Beach Erosion Control Board, Washington, D.C., Sept. 1947. U.S. NAVAL WEATHER SERVICE COMMAND, “Summary of Synoptic Meteorological Observations, North American Coastal Marine Areas,” Vol. 2, Asheville, N.C., May 1970. BIBLIOGRAPHY HALE, R. K., “Shore Protective Work at Winthrop, Massachusetts,” Shore and Beach, American Shore and Beach Preservation Association, Vol. 6, No. 3, July 1938, pp. 92—95. MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS, “Annual Reports,” Boston, Mass., Nov. 1933, 34, and 35. NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION, ‘Tide Tables, East Coast of North and South America,”’ Rockville, Md., 1973. U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DIVISION, NEW ENGLAND, “Beach Erosion Inspection Reports at Winthrop Beach, Mass,” Waltham, Mass., Aug. 1959 to 1972. 76 4, Detached Breakwater—Middle and Long Beach Breakwaters—Long Beach, California. Figure 41. View of west end of middle breakwater (August 1973). a. Construction. (1) Completed. 1949. (2) Type. Sand and clay mound covered with rock blankets (Fig. 41). (3) Purpose. Protection of Long Beach Harbor. b. Owner. Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, South Pacific Division, Los Angeles District, 300 N. Los Angeles Street, Los Angeles, California 90012. c. Location (approximate). San Pedro Bay off Long Beach, California forming southern boundary of harbor. Latitude: 33°43’N. — Longitude: 118°12’W. d. Physical Environment (Fig. 42). (1) Protected Ocean Environment. Ocean environment is protected through the northern half by proximity to shore; partially protected from south and southwest by Catalina and the Channel Islands, but fully exposed to southeast. (2) Wave Conditions. Seas and swells are predominantly from the northwest (U.S. Navy Hydrographic Office, 1969), but reaches a 20-foot range on the ocean side during southeast storms. UL i) 55 } (Ree at Living spaces =i == 80.0'2 oS Ge CD Maintenance deck 60.0'= Deck section —————$$>—$—$——_— > Landing and stairs A, aa payee Mean low water — | 00.0'+ ea yi | male i ERECTION SEQUENCE Jacket Ocean bottam -54.0° Driven piles Taal See fl NORTH ELEVATION Figure 47. Basic structural features. 87 f. Design Data (U.S. Coast Guard, 1963). (Conservative design because of remoteness from shore.) (1) Operational Tenure. 75 years. (2) Maximum Design Storm Tide. 14.0 feet above MLW. (3) Design Wave. Maximum height 52 feet. (4) Depth at Structure. 54 feet below MLW. (5) Design Windspeed. 125 miles per hour. (6) Instrumentation. Structure originally provided with instrumentation for obtain- ing meteorological and oceanographic data and also a device for oceanographic sampling of waves, water levels, salinity, and temperature (sampling device no longer operable). It is reported that the tower is to be reinstrumented for obtaining sea temperature, current direction and velocity, sand bottom movement, and wave measurements thus providing a good source of environmental reference data. g. Structural Performance (Rouzie, 1967—71). (1) Effectiveness of Structure. Excellent. Structure is performing satisfactorily. Design conditions have not been experienced. The davits and lifeboat have been removed. A general purpose hoist for supplies and personnel has been added. (2) Integrity of Structure. Good. Primary components of the tower are in excellent structural condition. Anticipated cleaning and painting has been performed. Glass of the lantern tower (elevation 122 feet) was broken by a waterspout and repaired. Ultrasonic weld inspection and general inspection of the structure above and below water (June 1970) confirmed competency of the structure but revealed continued scouring around the tower legs, averaging 3 feet in depth (Rouzie, 1967—71). Cathodic protection sacrificial anodes were replaced in 1970. h. Effect of Structure on Environment. (1) Physical (Rouzie, 1967—71). The offshore distance of the tower precludes any effect on the shoreline. Local scouring of the sea bottom at the base of the structure is monitored by measurements taken during periodic underwater inspections. Measurements in 1970 indicated a maximum scour of 11 feet at the legs. A year later, with no remedial action taken, this had decreased to a maximum of 5 feet. Graded riprap or concrete scour protection, originally recommended but not installed, is being considered as a possible solution to the problem. Structure psychologically beneficial to the small-craft operator. (2) Biota. No recorded data. Several underwater inspections have reported heavy marine growth on the structure and that fish are attracted to the structure (Fig. 48). Occupants report birds are also attracted. (3) Aesthetics. Light station is not visible from shore, thus the offshore view is not aesthetically affected. No known objections from occupants of passing boats. 88 i. Engineering. U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters, Washington, D.C. j. Construction Contractors (joint venture). Tidewater Construction Corporation (sponsor), P.O. Box 57, Norfolk, Virginia 23601; Raymond International Incorporated, 2801 South Post Oak Road, Houston, Texas 77027; and Peter Kiewit Sons’ Company, 1000 Kiewit Plaza, Omaha, Nebraska 68131. k. Construction Date. Construction period from 14 March to 24 October 1966. l. Construction Cost. Contract value, $2,025,000. : y ee i Ls . Figure 48. View showing marine life beneath tower. 89 LITERATURE CITED ROUZIE, S. W., “Underwater Inspection, Diamond Shoals Light Station,” Virginia Beach, Va., Sept. 1967; Oct. 1969; June and Oct. 1970; Sept. 1971. U.S. COAST GUARD, “Diamond Shoals Light Station, Design Data Sheets,” Headquarters, Civil Engineering Division, Washington, D.C., 1963. U.S. COAST GUARD, “Diamond Shoals Light Station,” Headquarters, Civil Engineering Division, Washington, D.C., July 1964. BIBLIOGRAPHY FOWLER, J. W., “Construction of the Chesapeake Light Station,” Civil Engineering, Nov. 1965, pp. 76—77. McCLELLAND ENGINEERS, INC., “Fathometer Survey and Foundation Investigation, Diamond Shoal Offshore Structure, Cape Hatteras, N.C.,” Houston, Tex., 1963. NATIONAL OCEANIC ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION, “Tide Tables, East Coast of North and South America,”’ Rockville, Md., 1973. RUFFIN, J. V., ‘Steel Offshore Towers Replace Lightships,” Civil Engineering, Nov. 1965, pp. 72—75. RUFFIN, J. V., “Offshore Towers Replace Lightships,”’ World Ports and Marine News, Apr. 1966, pp. 29-32. U.S. NAVAL OCEANOGRAPHIC OFFICE, “Oceanographic Atlas of the North Atlantic Ocean,” Sections I and IV, Washington, D.C., Mar. 1968. U.S. NAVAL WEATHER SERVICE COMMAND, “Summary of Synoptic Meteorological Observations, North American Coastal Marine Areas,” Vol. 3, Asheville, N.C., May 1970. 90 2. Offshore Production and Gathering Facilities—Eugene Island Area, Louisiana. Figure 49. Aerial view of Eugene Island area facilities. a. Construction. (1) Completed. August 1955. (2) Type. Concrete platform supported on concrete piles driven with concrete template (Fig. 49). (3) Purpose. Support of offshore oil production and gathering facilities. b. Owner. Magnolia Petroleum Company (subsidiary of Mobil Oil Company), Dallas, Texas 75221. c. Location (approximate). Eugene Island Area, Block 126, offshore from Louisiana Gulf Coast, generally south-southwest of Morgan City, Louisiana. Latitude: 29°00'N. — Longitude: 91°31'W. d. Physical Environment (Fig. 50). (1) Open Sea Environment (Gulf of Mexico). Distance from shore leaves structures fully exposed in all directions. (2) Wave Conditions. 32-foot-maximum wave (breaking). (3) Currents. Not significant. 91 EUGENE E LIGHTHOUSE” ---Line ¢ompleted to this point 6.63 Miles Ac From Pletform $1 Figure 50. Location plan. 92 (4) Winds. 150 miles per hour (hurricane season in late summer and fall). (5) Storm Surge and Astronomical Tide. 9 feet total. (6) Littoral Transport. None; offshore location. (7) Water Depth at Structure. 37 feet at MLW. (8) Foundation Conditions. Piles driven through soft silty clay bottom into medium dense sand layer with shell fragments. e. Basic Structural Features (Figs. 51 through 54). (1) Dimensions of Basic Structures. Oil storage platform, 50 by 100 feet Separator platform, 98 by 136 feet Pump and compressor platform, 72 by 141 feet Living quarters platform, 44 by 87 feet (2) Unusual Structural Features. All structures except living quarters platform constructed with Raymond concrete cylinder-pile template (rather than usual steel template structure) with 36-inch-diameter concrete cylinder piles driven through template supporting concrete platform decks. Living quarters platform is a jack-up rig with barge-type deck structure supported on 72-inch-diameter steel caissons. All concrete design selected for savings in corrosion protection and maintenance costs. f. Design Data (Figs. 52 and 53). (1) Design Conditions. Depth at structure, 37 feet at MLW Astronomical tide, 2 feet Storm surge, 7 feet Maximum depth, 46 feet Design wave height, 32 feet Wind load, 150-mile per hour hurricane winds (2) Model Study. None made. (3) Instrumentation. None. g. Structural Performance. (1) Performance. Structure’s performance has been very good, particularly since the full design conditions have occurred during two hurricanes. Although personnel are evacuated during such storms, winds are recorded and, from evidence of damage, it is possible to estimate the height reached by the seas during storms. Winds of about 150 miles per hour have been recorded and damage to walkways has indicated that waves have reached a height of 40 feet above MLW. Sand has been deposited in the living quarters a few feet above that. With personnel still on the platform, waves cresting at 15 feet above MLW have been observed. Normal seas crest at approximately 5 feet above MLW. It should be noted that, while the owner’s design practice to establish the physical environment has not changed, his method for computing wave forces has changed so that the design is below his present standards. 93 we—- Dolphin G peas SS = Boor Landing | 4 \— --- Structure Beocon | Stee! Piling — ! 1 _ Separator Plottorm \ 94' 4 156" 1 | Lo Steal Piling i on ! {I x $00' E of Ww Line, JOSO'N of S. Line, Block 120 ---- Beat Loading Lightning Ooiphin --_ ; pecan Ooiphin —_ Arraster Rodio Antenna — TK ---—- Structure Beacon 2 : Lwing Quorfers & Rea) “~—- Helipor! Platform Qvarters|. “oor! 44° 1 87" 4 ; -Walhwoy- ~ Fire Station a Jacobs Lodter Landing 16 « 16 ~ — Strecture Beocon Dolphin ~ = ‘ Pump & Compressor Pump 8 Compressor ~ — Station Plottorm {Builaing 72' 4 14)" Bost Lending : Structure Beocon {_—-- -- Structure Beocon hy = Dolphin o 20 40 6 8 100 Se ae Scale in Feet Figure 51. Proposed layout of platforms and walkway. 94. ‘sioqsenb Zuray pue wi0jje]d yodyay ‘w10;;e[d yuey ase10}s [Io posodoig “ZG aansigq BORER DYERD 1S CORY POY AI A#OILV Id LUO0dITIH B SYILYVNO ONIAIT OISOS0KS (COPLTAL{OUGI pooja POPIED jp0 OG Oj Cray ‘WOuI84IEED ODI 30 JWOD BL mina orarsee poreess00sd z ORBEA | BLOGS SWWTTIVA fl FUBOILV Id = ACL id pro eonnusoen “ed REATY IGA PWUOLS MO OISOSOUS Tran r mn iH Ha) m4 r iain fn has wis le Bee] Ww wld iw a) al 4 Gi ey lanl hatin rm i! wit t ' it it wy i} 1 1 iy deh it A-4 eH ' fP H raid H H H ; fl ! a H H ! / 048 - 12 @01208 ryz0O ay oe me eS J e (Zao i g my 2k > =| || 95 Fog Horns _— Strecture Bescon C101 ct= °c ee Llib! S| lca} Pm DECK EL sae OCEAN BOTTOM EL 37+ i He at : i HE ; pe Hs f f ry “ uw a PROPOSED SEPARATOR PLATFORM IN €437 SLE warren THE GULF OF MEXICO (OATERIALS. to pio 9 » » 55° Superatrectere Sen a Ree INTUTE Neer AEA ten ba 7 ET Nec fee aL Ere ae OSES ESM EH TEED METRE IFIED | IG ae UE I Taare once ex eave [(—= = cOggam BOTTOM a. - BTe ' =H ' 4 11 i ae tt H { Harty Hal arte ctr ! Heh | a yo v JJ la tes lJ le te a ff mr m i m mi nm us fre) 5) ey ta ut ta PROPOSED PUMP @ COMPRESSOR PLATFORM IN serena SQUTH ELEVATION THE GULF OF MEXICO (OW Superatrectero o 6 MW Substrestera @/ pipe brosing nay —57— eel Preatreseed Censrote Pita Ail atea! botidleg Figure 53. Proposed separator, pump, and compressor platforms. 96 PR Figure 54. View of oil storage platform showing concrete jacket, piles, and deck (upper photo); bottom views show the concrete jackets and piles, with gunited steel pipe bracing. 97 One support suffered a head-on collision by a work boat which broke through both jacket and pile wall, leaving a hole 5- by 1.5-feet wide. This was repaired by enlarging the break to sound concrete, wrapping a steel sleeve around the section, and grouting the broken area and the interior. (2) Maintenance. Regularly scheduled inspections are made of the structural areas of the platforms, including a divers’ inspection of the underwater parts. The only deterioration noted has been the spalling off of the Gunite coating on the steel collars and cross braces (Fig. 54). All piling and bracing between water surface and platform are regularly sandblasted and painted. This has been satisfactory in preventing corrosion of the bare steel, but the owner feels that using galvanized steel would be advisable in the future. h. Effect of Structures on Environment. (1) Physical. Scour attributable to storms and surface waves exists at all structures with the depth continually changing. Scour has reached a maximum known depth of 8 feet, but averages 3 feet. However, no records have been maintained. (2) Biota. Some sea growth has developed on the concrete surfaces but more on the steel. Fish are plentiful in the area, but concentrations vary daily because of the numerous platforms. The Louisiana Wildlife and Fishery Commission is of the opinion that the total fish population has not changed with erection of the offshore structures as evidenced by the consistency of total tonnage taken annually by commercial fishermen. (3) Aesthetics. Due to location 25 miles offshore and in an area devoted completely to the oil industry, aesthetics have had little influence on construction. i. Engineering (three concrete platform structures only). Magnolia Petroleum Company (subsidiary of Mobil Oil Company), Dallas, Texas 75221; and Raymond Concrete Pile Company, New York, New York 10001. J. Construction Contractors. (1) Onshore Prefabrication. Gulf Prestressed Concrete Products, Morgan City, Louisiana 70380. (2) Offshore Erection. J. Ray McDermott, Incorporated, Harvey, Louisiana 70058. k. Construction Date. November 1954 to August 1955. I. Construction Cost. Contract value: $1,500,000 (three concrete platform structures only). 98 BIBLIOGRAPHY BRUCE, R.N., Jr., “Prestressed Precast Platform Built in Gulf,” Civil Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 26, July 1956, pp. 41-43. ILLINGWORTH, R. H., et al., “Proposed Offshore Production and Gathering Facilities, Eugene Island Area, Louisiana Gulf of Mexico,” Paper No. 901-31-H, Division of Production, American Petroleum Institute, Dallas, Tex., Mar. 1955. OFFSHORE, “Map of Louisiana Offshore Showing Oil and Gas Pipe Lines,” Nov. 1969. 99 3. Drilling-Production Platforms. a. “Monopod” Platform—Cook Inlet, Alaska. Figure 55. Aerial view of ‘““monopod” platform. (1) Construction. (a) Completed. October 1966. (b) Type. Steel center post with flooded pontoon base supporting operations platform (Fig. 55). (c) Purpose. Offshore oil drilling and production operations. (2) Owners. Union Oil Company, 461 Boylston Street, Los Angeles, California 90017, and Marathon Oil Company, Findlay, Ohio 45840. (3) Location (approximate). Cook Inlet, Alaska, Trading Bay oil field in Middle Ground Shoal area of Upper Inlet, 60 miles southwest of Anchorage. Latitude: 60°50'N. — Longitude: 151°35’W. 100 (4) Physical Environment (Fig. 56). (a) Protected Bay Environment. Location off Gulf of Alaska places site in area of some of the most severe weather and sea conditions in the world. These conditions have a strong influence at the site, which are also affected by the surrounding steep mountain terrain (Petroleum Engineer, 1971). (b) Wave Conditions. 28-foot waves. (c) Currents. Tidal currents up to +8 knots at entrance to Upper Inlet, parallel to shoreline. (d) Winds. In early summer, fresh northwesterly; in summer, easterly; in late summer, southwesterly; mean speed 6 knots (U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey, 1964), maximum speed up to 66 knots (Petroleum Engineer, 1968). (e) Storm Surge and Tides. Tide range, 25 to 30 feet. (f) Littoral Transport. Alternating tidal action carrying glacial silt, sometimes so thick as to appear as liquefied mud. (g) Water Depth at Structure. 62 feet at mean low tide (Cloyd, 1968). (h) Foundation Conditions. Flat stiff clay bottom, strewn with boulders up to 30 feet in diameter (Visser, 1969; U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey, 1964); subject to earthquakes. (i) Ice Conditions. Average freezeup, 10 December; average breakup, 2 April; maximum thickness, 6 feet (approximate). (j) Temperature. Water, 29° to 55°F (Blumberg and Strader, 1969); air, —40°F. (k) Earthquake. Maximum recorded, 8.7 on Richter Scale in 1964. (5) Basic Structural Features (Figs. 57 and 58). (a) Dimensions of Basic Structure (Cloyd, 1968). 1 Platform. Two working decks, 110 by 110 feet; upper platform 19 feet above lower. 2 Support Column. 28.5-foot diameter by 125 feet high with 1-inch plate end sections, and 2-inch plate in middle section. 3 Pontoon Base. Two parallel pontoons, 20- to 24-foot diameter by 174 feet long, spaced at 120 feet, each secured to bottom by 8- to 36-inch diameter by 100-foot piles at each end. 4 Weight. 2,800 tons (ready to launch); 5,000 tons (approximate total). (b) Unusual Structural Features. Design and construction using high strength steel to meet requirements of extreme site conditions of low temperatures, strong tidal currents, and pack ice. Steels used were Armco Lo Temp (A537 Grade A) and Super Lo Temp (A537 Grade B). Designed buoyant, so that the structure could be towed to Cook Inlet, and the base flooded for sinking. After anchoring by piles, the pontoons serve as oil storage tanks. After positioning, jackets having provided buoyancy are filled with concrete to a point above highest anticipated ice-level for protection. 101 155°W 14° i 153° 151° i 150° — ee eer eee be ee = Se ee a fe) g 8 8 3 9 8 Lge CHORAGE a} Q % Sign aes g Ono YQ WV] © a) VHF WEATHER BROADCASTS FOR MAAINERS FM Stetien with frequency of 14255 megahertz and range approximately 40 mules. is in daily operation trom 6.30 AM vault 800 PM broadcasting weather earnings forecasts and reports from the NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE Office as loilows oy KEC-81 Sewerd. Alesha ¥ *“MONOPOD” SN sant v : a a ea ae « ae Yale ! vf Mae oneats = . 6 A B7ED cous Sino y. (A425 Be Z — Be gost eS. \ ‘ n ss 4 : oN ae . oot wane eo pet 1 ir ry Se 3? ‘es Me MN ne = Ne : ( 0, 7) rate x \ a ; : & —i2____ -. 58 3 é 05 soa Guage Sani A J 2 me ie ‘. Ory eae eA ce eae 8 1 oH NE aN u7 - ae BT — ‘ v7 NG 4 ae Sie ; s\ Po tm = 7 a’ hs y Fr 70 Ne == gt Lat oo ! i we pe FROM U.S, C& GS CHART No, 8500 Figure 56. Location plan. 102 | eae . XK ib oe eshte ome i bi a &L +390 7-O°#6 HOR/2. BRACING 46°¢ PE YACKET (TYP) 7¢ \@0rTTIW D/AG BRAC/NS Ee if ¢0? Powrooy =) oe j rast S = etree el Z \ TEST re" al ean airtel 22) Te ilatlleia by aae len al oT | id OS i peg w ol ah BOTTOM RING PLATE \ 20"¢ PILES | Tene TeaTioNn | (Ts 60-0" i Figure 57. Structural features—elevation A. 1 | ew Ae: ga i Gi "i a i } i y ' \ &4' ¢ PONTOON z, ne, iJ in| | 103 SS WIAA 2 SSSR NY a In | eee: PosTr &S sfe owe es WO BO A ! \ 1 eae! 7’é BorrTom 76 woRlz. Oo yoo | DIAGONAL BRACING O04C/NE | U0 ' “Ah | A; ' ‘oh 4 oe ty. Veco PILES PENETRATION (TYP) Figure 58. Structural features—elevation B. (6) Design Data (Blumberg and Strader, 1969; Cloyd, 1968). (a) Design Conditions. Depth at structure, 62 feet at mean low tide. Tidal range, 30 feet at mean low tide. Maximum depth, 92 feet at mean low tide. Design wave, 28 feet at 8.5-second period exerting: 600 pounds per square foot at crest, and 200 pounds per square foot at bay bottom. Current loading, 120 pounds per square foot on flat members, and 40 pounds per square foot on round members. Wind, 40 pounds per square foot on flat members, and 24 pounds per square foot on round members (based on 65 miles per hour with gusts to 100 miles per hour. Earthquake-loading mass coefficient, 0.10 to 0.15 (depending on deck loading). Water temperature range, 28° to 46°. Ice-crushing strength, 300 pounds per square foot at 2 feet below water surface (based on temperature, thickness, and rate of loading). Ice movement from any direction was the governing load, occurring during ice breakup with ice pans up to 10-foot diameter moving back and forth with current. (b) Model Study (Cloyd, 1968). Two models of the monopod jacket were constructed. The smaller one was used to evaluate towing requirements and stability under tow. The tests indicated that the jacket in its towing configuration would have a draft of about 13 feet with its centers of buoyancy and gravity 8 and 47 feet above the jacket’s low point. The second model, larger and more complex, was constructed to study the jacket characteristics during the critical period of setting. As a result the structure was lowered into one end of the pontoons first and then settled level onto the other end rather than sunk balanced and erect all the way as originally planned. To take advantage of the best possible sea conditions, the structure was set during a 45-minute slack tide using its own individually controlled anchor system. Diving operations were hampered by fast currents, zero visibility, and low temperatures; and floating equipment by the strength of the currents and the directional variation. (c) Instrumentation (Geminder, 1968). Underwater strain-gages were placed to determine stresses and strains, to calculate ice force on the structure, and to measure load distribution within the structure. Data on ice forces (the governing factor in the design) are important to evaluate the present criteria and to set criteria for future work. 105 (7) Structural Performance (Fig. 59). Figure 59. View showing effect of surface currents around “monopod” post (August 1973). (a) Performance. Structural performance has been good, though design condi- tions have not been experienced. During periods of vibration, motion has been slow and regular; motion on nearby four-legged platforms has been more rapid and irregular. The impressed current system of cathodic protection was not satisfactory, and is being modified and sacrificial anodes included. A 0.5-inch double plate has been installed around the center post in the tidal area for erosion protection. (b) Maintenance. Regularly scheduled inspections, including divers’ inspection, has kept maintenance work to a minimum. (8) Effect of Structure on Environment. (a) Physical. Scour has taken place under the northwest corner of the pontoon base to a depth of 10 feet. It is to be remedied with triangular concrete blocks surrounding the area to deflect the current, with the space under the pontoon and in the immediate vicinity to be filled with grout, both in plastic bags and pumped into place. Raw sewage is now being discharged at sea bottom level, but a sewage treatment plant is under construction. (b) Biota. Because of the heavily silted water, this area has never been a good fishing ground. Fish are in the area during salmon runs, apparently unaffected by erection of the drilling structures. Waterfowl in the area are plentiful. (c) Aesthetics. Aesthetics have had little influence on the design of the structures. 106 (9) Engineering. Brown and Root, Incorporated, Houston, Texas 77002. (10) Construction Contractors. (a) Onshore Prefabrication. American Pipe and Construction Company, Portland, Oregon 97208 (west coast fabricator chosen to eliminate tow through Panama Canal). (b) Offshore Erection. Brown and Root Marine Operators, Houston, Texas 77022. (11) Construction Dates. (a) Onshore. October 1965 to May 1966. (b) Offshore. June 1966 to October 1966. (12) Construction Cost (approximate). (a) To setting of substructure, $ 8,000,000 (b) Installation of decks, and drilling equipment, etc., 4,000,000 Total: $12,000,000. 107 LITERATURE CITED BLUMBERG, R., and STRADER, N.R., lI, “Dynamic Analysis of Offshore Structures,” Offshore Technology Conference, Paper OTC-1009, Vol. I, May 1969, pp. I-107—111. CLOYD, M.P., “Monopod,” Civil Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 38, No. 3, Mar. 1968, pp. 55—57. GEMINDER, R., “Ice Force Measurements,” Proceedings of Offshore Exploration Confer- ence, 1968, pp. 309-336. PETROLEUM ENGINEER, “Offshore Environment Complicates Drilling,” Vol. 40, Feb. 1968, pp. 52. PETROLEUM ENGINEER, “Gulf Environment Offers Biggest Offshore Challenge,” Vol. 43, Apr. 1971, pp. 45—46. U.S. COAST AND GEODETIC SURVEY, “United States Coast Pilot 9, Pacific and Arctic Coasts, Alaska Cape Spencer to Beaufort Sea,” 7th ed., Washington, D.C., 1964. VISSER, R. C., “Platform Design and Construction in Cook Inlet, Alaska,” Journal of Petroleum Technology, Vol. 21, Apr. 1969, pp. 411—420. BIBLIOGRAPHY BADER, J., “Ocean Platform—State of the Art,” Paper OTC-1282, Offshore Technology Conference, Vol. 2, Apr. 1970, pp. 557—577. ENGINEERING NEWS-RECORD, “One-Legged Drilling Rig Stands up to Wind and Sea,” Sept. 1966, pp. 88—90. OCEAN INDUSTRY, “Weather Averages and Sea States for Selected Offshore Areas,” June 1972, p. 84; Sept. 1972, p. 66; Dec. 1972, p. 56; Mar. 1973, p. 58. OFFSHORE MAGAZINE, “A Fixed Platform with a Single Leg,” Sept. 1965, pp. 28—30. THE OIL AND GAS JOURNAL, “Monopod Will Drill 32 in Alaska Waters,” Vol. 63, Dec. 1965, pp. 60—61. WESTERN CONSTRUCTION, “Offshore Drill Platform is a First,” Mar. 1966, pp. 70—75. 108 b. Platform B, Mississippi River, South Pass, Venice, Louisiana. (1) Construction. (a) Completed. 1968. (b) Type. Pile-supported, template-type structure (Fig. 60). Steel main piles and skirt piles driven through steel-trussed template. Superstructure of prefabricated sections. (c) Purpose. Support of offshore oil drilling and production facilities. (2) Owner. Shell Oil Company, New Orleans, Louisiana 70013. (3) Location (approximate). South Pass, Block 70, off Mississippi River Delta, southeast of Venice, Louisiana. Latitude: 29°00'N. — Longitude: 88°55'W. -85'—>| ; |\~—— 165'—_+| LVAV AVN 327' WATER DEPTH MUDLINE 48"0D MAIN PILE 60"0D SKIRT PILE ; END- VIEW SIDE -VIEW Figure 60. Structure as installed in 1968 (Sterling and Strohbeck, 1973). (4) Physical Environment (Fig. 61) (a) Open Estuarine Environment. Some protection to northwest from Mississippi River Delta land; full exposure in all other directions to wind and wave conditions of Gulf of Mexico. (b) Wave Conditions. 72-foot wave measured on wave staff at a point 5 miles from Platform B location. 109 LOUISIANA 6 0 ~ 2 en w oe Le ho a i a) i a eS a Seeeeessaesan fi SET SE ial [BY ae & 2 G5" COMPLETED \ esi L= — yi WELL iS “ELEVATION OF +12! LEVEL * “ELEVATION OF - 327 "LEVEL LOOKING EAST LOOKING WEST — aN i pee ee “ANI OEF g tp = [oo SN7, Ls} Naat: See ee POTS s- AE Sy BSS Retin Cire fyi on Siege Sill Se ELEVATION LOOKING NORTH Figure 62. Structure after Hurricane Camille in August 1969 (Sterling and Strohbeck, 1973). The owners have installed other platforms in similar water depths since the failure of Platform B, although not in areas of similar soil conditions. To date (1973) these platforms are performing successfully. Platform B is being replaced less than 0.25-mile to the northwest of the original site, but in an area of hard sand and calcareous material. At this point it will be left to the drillers’ forces to extend their operations to reach the original source of oil. It is of interest to note that pollution from broken oil lines due to storm damage (with several hours’ warning in which to shut down) is far less of a problem than fire or collision (no warning and no time to shut down). (8) Effect of Structure on Environment. Not relevant. (9) Engineering. Not available. (10) Construction Contractors. Not available. (11) Construction Date. Not available. (12) Construction Cost. Not available. 112 LITERATURE CITED STERLING, G. H., and STROHBECK, E.E., “Failure of South Pass 70 B Platform in Hurricane Camille,” Offshore Technology Conference, Vol. Il, Apr.-May 1973, pp. 719—730. BIBLIOGRAPHY ARNOLD, P., ‘Finite Element Analysis—A Basis for Sea Floor Soil Movement Design Criteria,” Offshore Technology Conference, Vol. II, Apr.-May 1973, pp. 743—752. BEA, R. G., ““How Sea-Floor Slides Affect Offshore Structures,” Oil and Gas Journal, Vol. II, Apr.-May 1973, pp. 731—742. 113 ON aN 2q Ws il | yaalis / Ay | ni ariotinlt aor. ie eae olin, 5 7. r WORE ' 1AM x i." ea hy “od We a Ae hee Ss — wy bate hag “ied pent toca lio® sbi waa vinath eee re ie BREN Ny APC CAMARA A fo¥ een mae ar a eal wo bes fe 0 Say ames sy | sgt egal pg COE , ee Pye ae AS Sey? jer 2 . ELEVATION Lorne NORTH Figure 62. Structure after Hurrie ane Camille in Niagguat Oty Stenting and | The owners have installed other: platforrns in anilar water, dujithis. singe ae | . Platform. B) although not in areas at aivnllar ail oomudlitions. To dicte\(1973) iy “gre. performing sicceastully. Patton 8 we Touring riplaced tea hye 0.25mi nurth west wf the origin al site, but in an. sree of hand wand and caleat ous My hey : point if wail be left to the driers forces te extend their operations » es sevirce of ail. ‘ ft i» of interest te note tha! pollution from ollie wil lines due tajstornn: dam several hotire’ w arning in which ty shit down) ig far leas of a problem ee bene {no warning and no time to sul. down). Sat kt . , | (B) Effeet of ata on Eavironment. ek relevant, eRe | ‘a {9) Kngineering. Not availabte, A ye Te (10) Conatruation Got (tractors, Not available, (1}) Conetriletion Date, Not available, (12) Conattuetion Cosh, Not wvailabic. dujgcn° L729 GL-€ *ou dmipggn° €O7OL (seTtzes) *zoyane jutof ‘*y zing SeseyD “II ‘“eTITL “1 “SUTITTAP et0ysszO *y *soinjoniqs e10yssjO *¢ “SuTATeeuTsue TeqseoD *Z *sroqVeMYAPeAgG °| *uoftjdziosep eanjonajs yore smoyTToy Aydeasottqtq y °sjoedse DTWoUuCIe pue ‘Te}UeMUOTTAUS ‘TeOTUYyDe ey} WOTF seinjzonzZSs snoTreA Zoj uostiedmod jo sueom e septAord pue ‘pejueserd sie seanjoniqs eloysjjo But AsTxe sWOSs JO UOTIeOTJTIUSepT pue uoTIeOTFTSseTO sy *(GL-E *‘ou teded snosueTTeosT{ *lequeD YoIeesoy BupAseuTsuq Teyseog *s°n) “SNTTE “deity "C/6L ‘i0eqUeD YOIeSeSSy Supvlsveutsuq Teqseog *s°n S°ea SATOATeg 340g “*[sztey,O pue] sseYD *7 zing ‘oufeteg ydesor Aq sainjoni4s sioYysSsjFO snoytireA jo seinjesdy ydesor ‘Soutereg du, gcn° £79 GL-E “ou dup.gcn° €0Z0L (seFftes) *zoyane jutof ‘°y ding Seseyd “II ‘“eTIFL “Il ‘“SUTTITIP et0ysszO "fH *seinjonijs o10yssjO *€ “BSuTTeeuTZue Te}seOD °Z “*SiojeMyPoIg “| *uofzdyiosep einjonaqs yore smoTToy AydeaZotTqtq y °sjoedse D}Fwouods pue ‘TeJUeUUOTFAUS ‘STeDTUYIeR BY WoOTF sainjonazjs snofiea io} uosfiedwod jo sueow e septAoid pue ‘pequeseizd oie seanjonij4s @IOYSFFO BUTASTXE oWlOS FO UOTFIeOT}TIUSpyF pue UoTIeITFTSsSeTI oyL "(GL-€ *ou teded snosueTTeosTH *zlejUue) yDIeeSey BuTAlveuTsug TeqIseoD °Ss°n) “°SNTTE “dELL "C/6| *19}UeD YOTeeSeYy ZuyiseuptZug Teqseog “s°n S°ea SAfOATeg 340g ‘*[szay,O pue] sseyD *7 tang ‘oufte1eg ydesor Aq saanjoniqs etoYyssjo snoziea FO soinjesy ydesor Soufeireg du.gcn° £29 GL-€ °Ou duygcn* €07OL (setzes) *zoyane qutof *°7 aang ‘eseyd “II “8TIFL *I ‘“8UFTTFAp ez0yssZQ °H *seinjonzjs er0YsTjO *¢ “SuTTesuTsue Tejseop *Z “sirejeEMyPeTg °| *uotzdtiosep einjonij3s yoee sMozTToy AydeazotTqtq y °sjoedse DTWoUoDs pue fTejJUeMUOTTAUS ‘TeoTUYye ey} WOAF seinjonz}#s snoyTiea Zo} uosftiedmod jo sueom e sapfAoid pue ‘pequeserd ere seanjonijs aLOYSFjO BuTAsTxe sWOS JO UOTIeOTFTIUSpT pue uoTIeOTJTSSeTO sys *(GcZ-E °‘ou rteded snosuel[TeosTy *Z0qUe) YOTeesoy BupreeuTZuq TeqseoD *s°n) “SNTTT “dELy "C/6, ‘zZaqUeD YOIeesey SuyiseuTsuq TeyseoD “s*n *°eA SIFOATEgG JA0qg *[steyRO pue] sseyD °*7 ting ‘outezeg ydesor Aq seinjonijs sioyssjo snoyzreA Jo seinjeay ydesor foupteteg dm, gcn° L729 GL-E€ “ou dm gcn° €0ZOL (sefies) *zoyqne jufof S°7 zang Seseyd “II “°eTIFL ‘I “SUTTTFAp ez0YyszZO °y *sainjonijs s1OYUSJjJO °€ “Sup~AveuTsue Teqyseop °Z “se VeMyeerg °| *uoft3dziosep einjonz4s yoee smoTToy AyderZ0fTqTq y °sjoedse DTWOUCDe pue STeJUeMUCTTAUS ‘TedTUYDeR By} WoTy seInjoONAISs snoTaea io} uosfiedmos jo sueou e septAoid pue ‘pejueseid exe seinjoniqs eLOYsFjO BuTASTxe sWOS FO UOTIEOTFTFAUSpyT pue uoTIeodTFISseyTo sys *(GL-¢ *ou tzeded snooueTToosTW *Zaque) yorIeesey ZuTieseufsugq TeIseop °*Ss°n) “SNTTE “dell °CG/6| ‘teqUeD YyoIRPESeYy Zuflssuzsuq Teqyseon *s’n ‘S*eA SAFOATegG 340g *[steyjO pue] sseyD *7 Jang ‘outeieg ydesor Aq sainjonijs ez0ysjJjo snofazea Jo seinjeoy ydesor Souyzeieg du} gcn* L£e9 Gl-€ “ou du gcn* €07OL (seTties) ‘zoyane jutof ‘*y zing ‘eseyD ‘II “eTIFL ‘I = “BUTITT4Ip ez0yszzo *y *SeInjontj4S sIOYSFJO “€ “SUTAsouT3ue TejIseop *Z ‘sreqeEMyPorg °| *uofjdziosep eanjonij4s yore smot[oy AydeaZotTqtq y “*sjoedse oTwouocs pue ‘TeUSWUCATAUS ‘TeOTUYIe |aYy} WoTF seinjzoNnajs snoqTieA Joy uostieduos Jo sueeu e saptAoid pue ‘paqueseid oie seinjonazjs eLOYSFJO BuT4sTxe oWOS FO UOTIEOTITIUepT pue uoTIeoTFTSseTO yy “(GZ-€ *‘ou teded snosue{pTeos_{ *ZequeD YyOteesey SuTAseuzsug Teqiseop *s*n) “SNTTT *deLy "CL6L S‘tequUeD YoIeeSsoy Suyieeutsug [Te IseOD *Ss*n S*eA STTOATeg 3I0q *[szodyjO pue] esey9 “JT ting ‘oufeteg ydesor Aq sainjoniqs etoyssyzo snotazea jo seinjeoq ydesor ‘foutereg du, gcn* £79 Ges “Ou dup gcn* €020L (sefttes) *toygne qufof **7] ting ‘asey) “II ‘eTIFL ‘I ‘“SUFTTTAP ez0ysz3O yh *SeiInjonijzs e1oYysjjO *¢€ “BuftesuyZue [ejseop *7Z *saraqzeMyeorg Off *uofzdytiosep einjonijs yoea smoTToFs Aydea8ottqtq y °*sjoedse DFuoucDe pue ‘Te}UeWUCTTAUS ‘TeOTUYDe 94 WOTF seinqoniqs snofTiea Joy uosfaedwuod jo sueeu e sepzaoid pue ‘pequesezd ee seinjonaqs eL0YysJjo BuTASTXe sWOS FO UOTIeOTJTIUepyT pue UoTIeOTFTSSeTO oul “(GL-€ *ou teded snosueTTeostW *1e}Ue) YyYDIeessy BuTiseuTsug Teqseog *s'n) ‘“snTTE “dey, "C/6, ‘teqUeD YyoIeesSey Sufzissuyzzug Teqseog *s'n ‘S*en ‘azoATeg 310g *[szey,O pue] ssey9 “J tang ‘ouftei1eg ydesor fq seinjonz4s eoyssjo snoyziea jo saainqeag ydesor Soufeireg dupgcn° £29 GL-€ °ou dujgcn° €0ZOL (seTtes) ‘zoyane jutof **7 aang feseyd “II “eTIFL ‘I “SUTTTTAp ez0yssjo ‘hy *Seinjonzjs etoYysssZQ *E “BuUTTeeuTsue TejseoD *z “szazeMyReTg °| ‘uoTzdzizosep eanjonijs yoee smozTos AydeaZotTqtq y °*sjoedse oTwouose pue ‘TejJUaMUOTTAUS STedTUYyDeR BY} WOTF seanjzoONzAS snoTieA 10} uostiedwos Jo sueeu e sepfAoid pue ‘poejueserd ere seinjonijs aLOYSFFO BuTASTX owoOS Jo UOTIeOTF]TIUEpT pue uoTIeoTFTSsepO sus °(GL£-€ °ou teded snosueTTeostTW *Zeque) YyOTeesey BuyreeuTsug Teqseop *s°n) “sNTTT “de1] "C/6L ‘ZeqUeD YDIeesSey Suyiseuzsug Teqjseop *s*n ‘*eA SATOATeg 310g *[szeyO pue] esey9 “Ty tang ‘oufteteg ydesor Aq seinjonijs eLoyszzo snoTizeA Jo seinjeaq ydesor ‘fouteieg dug cn* £29 GL-6, ou duygcon* €0ZOL (seftes) *zoyjne jufof “*] ting ‘eseyd “II ‘“eTIFL ‘I ‘S8UTTTTAp er0yssjo °y *S9iN}ONIAS eIOYSFJO “E€ “SupTAs0uTZue Teqseop *7 ‘sraqeMyPorg °*| *uotjdtiosep einjonz3s yore smoTToy AydeazZ0tTqtTq y ‘sjoedse oTWOUCDe pur ‘TeJUeUUOTTAUS ‘TeOTUYDe BY WOTF SeInjzONIAS snoTaeA ZOFZ uosfieduod jo sueem e saptAoid pue ‘paqjuesezd ere seinjoni3s aloYsJjO ZuyISsTxe awos Jo uoTIeOTJTFIUepyT pue uoTIeoOTFTSSeTO sys “(¢L-€ ‘ou teded snooueTTaosTW *ZeqUueD YyOIeaesey SuTiseuTsugq Teqseop *s*n) ‘snTTT ‘dey “CL6, ‘2eqUeD YyorReSey Bufiseutsuq Teqseon *s*n S*ea ‘AFOATEgG 3104 *[sazeyj0 pue] eseyD “J ting ‘outeiteg ydesor Aq seinjoniqs e10ysjsjo snoftiea Jo seanjeag ydasor Soufeieg c ay} a Ae Sie hoy f ; Teeter! hens VF He ae : dia hs et tes