Guest blogger: Marc Percher, P.E.
COPRI Chile team member

When you first enter the Santiago airport you realize that something just isn’t right. First you notice that hallway floors have occasional brown spots that look like oil stains, then you may see some piping piled in the corner or notice that a few ceiling tiles are missing. As you walk further into the building you notice the occasional plywood replacement of an interior window or places where rigid drywall has cracked from the movement of the columns inside. Eventually you look into an adjacent room and see a large pile of HVAC equipment and piping and realize that yes, there was a pretty significant earthquake here.

We spent the first half of the day hanging out in the Santiago airport waiting for our continuing flight to Concepción. There was a certain duality to the place, unusual in that the grand terminal ceiling was missing its plaster and piles of debris occurred in random places, yet the typical airport life continued. Half-awake people strolled, chatted, took photos with each other, and tried to figure out why there is a Dunkin Donuts in the Santiago airport. After more than a month since the main event, life in Chile has clearly re-entered some form of altered reality. People have internalized their surroundings and the initial shock has worn off.

The sense of normalcy continues throughout the trip to Concepción, with few signs that an incredible tremor has caused devestation in the countryside. Arriving at the Concepción airport we are stunned by the simple beauty of the structure and by the fact that there is a minimal level of damage (a few architectural windows or doors are stacked in a commercial space or removed from a walkway). We almost felt that our travels were in vain as clearly the country’s engineers had done an excellent job of preparing the infrastucture for such an earthquake as that which occurred.

This belief is only slightly undone as we hit the road and quickly find that there is more destruction than initially let on. We come across a bridge crossing a major river where the deck has fallen from the abutment causing us to ask the driver to stop so we can grab a quick snapshot. As traffic passes us by, our local guide tells us that the abutment fell while traffic was moving and that eight people died in the ensuing crash. A mile further down the road we come across another bridge which has lost all of its deck, but thankfully in this case the bridge was condemned two years prior.

Our guide now sees that we’ve caught the damage bug and brings us to a rather new-looking structure which split in two during the quake and now lies on its side. As I stare at this horrific scene, I realize that I’ve seen this on CNN and that yes, “I’m not in Kansas anymore.”

Miguel Carbuccia, a native Chilean who is on our team and has been in the country for two days ahead of us, relates the tale. The building was constructed as a shear wall structure, with heavy reinforced concrete walls throughout. However, overturning moments (sideways accelerations near the top of the building resulting in the building wanting to rotate about the base) caused additional compression to occur on one side of the building, and the edge wall reinforcement was not sufficient to confine the concrete. Without this confinement, the concrete spalls away from the reinforcement — this leads to the rebar buckling under the compressive load. This simple-sounding mechanism results in what was a 15-plus story building becoming wreckage on the ground.

As the sight sobers up our wanderlust, we head back to the hotel to regroup for a bit. A few of us then head out for a quick run through Talcahuano. As we get closer to the port, we’re overwhelmed with the smell of fish and saltwater. Along the roadside, the occasional collapsed unreinforced masonry structure foreshadows what we are about to see. We turn a corner and look out to see a street filled with debris and oddly stacked fishing trawlers. This is downtown Talcahuano, now a mixture of flotsam, steel containers, and the misplaced sea vessels. The entire area is destroyed. A steel embankment wall has fallen into the bay and the concrete has large fissures and misaligned planes, like sedimentary rock exposed after ages of tectonic movement. Yet through this desolation walk the people of Talcahuano, strolling somberly as if out for a quiet evening. To some degree these locals are as much tourists as us, yet we can see only a small shadow of the sadness which they surely carry. In a way this is sobering and good; it reminds us that while we are here on PTO, we’re not on holiday.

We slowly walk around the community, trying to deduce what events occurred here between the earthquake, tsunami and efforts by the locals to clean up. A dark stained line across a wall and the algae hanging from a tree shows us the height of the tsunami, unbelievably topping out at about 10 meters (30 feet) above the current waterline. We came across a bollard (used to tie up boats) with half a concrete deck attached to it, clearly missing any surrounding reinforcement — part of the scattered remains of a pier that likely failed quickly and catastrophically. A rubber tire sitting under a stack of ships, showing that the vessels did not fall in this place, but were moved here as part of the cleanup effort. Each small piece tells us a story of the events that occurred here.

We return to the hotel for the night, have some dinner, and plan for the next few days. We’ll be visiting the commercial ports themselves tomorrow, meeting with officials to find out the details of the earthquake event and what ensued. Hopefully we’ll be able to gain some knowledge from the mess in the streets to help better understand how to prepare for such events.

Guest blogger: Marc Percher, P.E.
COPRI Chile team member

So what gets an engineer excited to get out of bed at 4 a.m. and onto a plane for 20 hours? The opportunity to learn from a rare event and hopefully help the field develop new ways to protect the public, of course. ASCE and the Coasts, Oceans, Ports and Rivers Institute have organized our team to travel to Chile and study post-earthquake conditions. We intend to focus on the impact of the 8.8-magnitude earthquake and resulting tsunami which caused damage throughout Chile on Feb. 27. Our hope is that by documenting the experiences in Chile, we can gather hard-won lessons from such a massive quake.

[The COPRI team is one of three sponsored by ASCE that are investigating earthquake damage in Chile. Teams from the Structural Engineering Institute and the Technical Council on Lifeline Earthquake Engineering are also probing damage to Chilean infrastructure in their specialties. ]

Over the last week or two, when I tell people I’ll be traveling to Chile, I often have been asked why. While it may appear like morbid tourism, for me it comes down to two reasons: 1) to gain experience through studying the failure (or lack thereof) of infrastructure and 2) to remind myself, those in my field, and the general public of the responsibility of the civil engineer.

One of the lessons I learned in college (thank you, ASCE steel bridge competition) was that different engineering fields approach design and testing based on their ability to “fail” their subject. A mechanical engineer can make a widget, take it to the lab or the field and load it to the point of breaking, note where that was and alter their design improve the performance, repeating the process until they’re satisfied with their product. Computer scientists have an even quicker evolution, writing code, testing, failing, and rewriting in a continuous manner (which probably explains why my computer software seems to get replaced every six months).

Civil engineers are at the other end of the spectrum. We have to build things the correct way the first time and often our designs don’t see their peak forces over their entire design lifetimes (we hope). For us, there is little to no chance to physically test a design (though labs can test pieces of a structure), so whenever a major structural failure occurs, there is a need to thoroughly study that failure and figure out what lessons can be learned for future designs. The Chile earthquake is an excellent opportunity to see what went right and wrong under extreme conditions that are impossible to physically replicate.

Of course, learning lessons is only useful if you teach those lessons to others and help them enforce those lessons in the practices of the field. As an outcome of our survey, academic and practicing engineers will study the findings and figure out what to look at in-depth. Detailed investigations will be performed, and eventually new practices will be developed. These practices work their way into design codes and help ensure that our field uses the best possible methods to protect the public. Design codes represent the accumulated knowledge gained from thousands of separate events and experiences. It is easy to consider them (and the regulators, building officials, and peer reviewers who enforce them) as annoyances, but events such as Chile and Haiti serve to remind the community and the public the importance of these documents. Sadly, Haiti was a horrific example of what goes wrong when there is a lack of resources (both financially and within the knowledge base), with a death toll several magnitudes higher than Chile for a earthquake that was far smaller. Chile is a country with advanced design codes, good enforcement, and many modern structures. In many ways the experiences in Chile will be similar to what we can expect of a major quake on the U.S. West Coast. By seeing the effects of proper design and construction, we are reminded of the importance of respecting our responsibilities in our daily work, because we never know when it will be us who becomes the example of what to, or not to do.

Now, here’s a bit about the rest of the COPRI team:

· Billy L. Edge, P.E., Ph.D., Dist.M.ASCE, Department of Civil, Construction and Environmental Engineering, North Carolina State University. Billy is leading our team and is a coastal engineering specialist. He’ll be traveling up and down the coast studying the impact of tsunamis.

· Russell Boudreau, P.E., F.ASCE, Moffat and Nichol, Long Beach, Calif. Russel is also a coastal specialist and will be traveling with Billy, focusing on tsunamis.

· Kandiah (Arul) Arulmoli, Ph.D., P.E., G.E., D.GE., F.ASCE, Earth Mechanics, Inc., Fountain Valley, Calif. Arul is the geotechnical engineer on the team and specializes in marine conditions. He’ll be invaluable for keeping us structural folks from blaming the soils for everything.

· Martin Eskijian, P.E., F.ASCE, California State Lands Commission Marine Facilities Division, Long Beach, Calif. Martin is the chief engineer at CSLC and is the elder statesman marine structures expert of our group (I can only get away with saying “elder statesman” as he constantly reminds us he’ll be retiring in a year or two … for the past few years). Martin has been instrumental in developing the governing code for design and assessment of marine oil terminals in California and brings decades of experience with him.

· Omar A. Jaradat, Ph.D., P.E., Moffatt & Nichol, Long Beach, Calif. Omar is a project manager and structural analyst, with experience working on marginal wharf structures typical of container wharfs. We’ll be looking at several such facilities on our tour.

· Miguel Carbuccia, P.E., PBS&J, Orange, Calif. Miguel is a structural engineering expert and brings the added benefit of being a native Chilean. Hopefully he won’t be too bugged by the rest of the team asking for translation.

· Marc Percher, P.E., Halcrow, Oakland, Calif. That would be me. I’m a structural analyst and designer specializing in marine oil terminals and refinery structures. I’ll be trying my best to keep up with the team and keep you informed through these posts.

We are all very excited to take advantage of this opportunity to learn and help our community of engineers. I’ll follow with more information as it develops, and eventually we’ll produce a formal report in which you can learn about our experiences in more detail. Thanks for reading and I hope that we can educate as well as provide a sampling of our experiences in Chile.

Call for Abstracts: PACON: Pacific Conference on Marine Science and Education:  Hilo, Hawaii, June 1-5, 2010. We are invited to prepare one or more preview sessions to the 2011 Solutions to Coastal Disasters Conference. After the Chile earthquake this past weekend (see EERI Chile), we all watched and wondered will the tsunami data, the computer models, the planning and warning systems, work as designed? How will nature surprise us next?  This conference provides a central Pacific location where international participants can collaborate and discuss the data, computer models and planning and present their ideas informally.   You’re only required submit a 1-2 paragraph abstract that will be distributed to conference participants.  Ideally, we’d like you to present and publish your final work at the SCD2011 conference!

Mark your calendars: Solutions to Coastal Disasters 2011 (SCD2011) in Anchorage Alaska for three days sometime between June 20 and July 16, 2011.   Anchorage has both reasonably priced student housing at the University of Alaska and base housing for US Department of Defense employees.  Abstracts will be due on or about July 1, 2010, after the conference dates are final.

Sea Level Rise

Adam Hosking

Recognizing the potential for future sea level rise to significantly increase risks on the coast, UK government requires that up to 1 meter of sea level rise be accounted for in 100-year engineering design. (The UK sea level rise rate for the past 100 years has averaged 1 mm per year.) New Shoreline Management Plans, SMP2’s’, being developed to the new guidance are faced with setting very challenging risk management options. These ‘SMP2’s’ have recognized that some current management practices are unsustainable in the long term for technical, economic or environmental reasons often linked to future sea level rise and have consequently adopted options to cease engineering works and move to non-structural approaches. However, with no formal mechanism to provide compensation to those who may become exposed to increased future risks, these policies are highly unpopular, regardless of their scientific or economic robustness.

A review of international practices confirmed that the SMP approach: identifying and setting management options for future risks, is unique and hence presents unique challenges for which there are no ready made solutions. Consequently, UK government has placed a strong emphasis on identifying mechanisms to enable implementation of these long-term ‘change’ options. Studies reviewing existing and potential future mechanisms have resulted in consultation on a new ‘Coastal Change Policy’ which identifies a range of tools to be applied to support coastal change including administrative, funding, legal and planning approaches.

Image from ‘Futurecoast’ aerial photographs software showing vulnerable coastal development on UK east coast.

Implementation

Implementation of the sustainable risk management options defined in the SMPs is completed through a two step approach of ‘Strategy Plans’ and ‘Design/Implementation’.

The purpose of a Strategy Plan is to develop the options recommended in the SMPs by defining the preferred approach to their implementation. For any one SMP option there are a range of engineering solutions that may be used for its implementation: a structure (a sea wall, breakwater or groin), beach replenishment etc. Where there is an existing coastal defense, it is necessary to decide whether the intention is to:

• maintain the present standard of defense
• improve it
• accept that while the defense may be maintained, the standard of protection will decrease with time (e.g. as the defense is overtopped more often by higher wave and water levels)

These strategy plans essentially represent a refinement of the SMP recommendations, considering a smaller section of the coast.

The design and implementation stage then takes the strategy recommendation through to construction. Implementation is funded on the basis of a national appraisal methodology, which itself is based on being economically viable, technically feasible, and environmentally and socially acceptable. The highest priority schemes are awarded funding.

Through this strategic planning process, the options being promoted are technically, economically and environmentally viable mechanisms to deliver sustainable management of coastal risks over the long-term. However, there is still no guarantee that there will be sufficient funds available to implement all recommended approaches. As such, government has a clear prioritization process based upon the anticipated outcomes of a proposed project. A series of ‘Outcome Measures’ have been defined. The key Outcome Measures for proposed flooding protection projects include:

• Overall benefits, measured as monetized economic benefits;
• Households protected, based on numbers banded into differing standard categories of flood risk;
• Disadvantaged households protected, based on government data
• Contribution to Government targets for nationally important wildlife sites; and,
• Acreage of priority habitat created.

This approach includes clear publicly available targets for ‘Outcome Measures for coastal protection projects, to form a transparent and consistent basis for the allocation of funds. Approval of centrally funded projects depends upon on their planned contribution toward the national targets.

Supporting Studies and Research

In addition to the ongoing development of flood and erosion risk management projects through the strategic planning process, UK government also puts a strong emphasis on improving the tools available for risk management and generating evidence for increasing the budgets available from the UK government Treasury. Some of the most important initiatives are described below:

• Recognizing that reliable data is a critical part of the risk management process, the ‘National Flood and Coastal Defense Database’ (NFCDD) has been established to collate the data that previously resided with individual authorities and apply consistent validation and data management, and also provide a mechanism to identify data gaps in order to focus data collection efforts. NFCDD contains mapping data showing the areas at risk of flooding and data about the coastal defenses themselves (their type, location and condition etc.) and the areas that benefit from those defenses. Data in NFCDD will be continually updated as defenses are constructed and inspected, and as better information about flood risk becomes available.
• The ‘Risk Assessment for Strategic Planning’ (RASP, http://www.rasp-project.net/) approach was developed to provide a consistent, multi-scaled, approach to flood risk analysis. RASP uses a source-pathway-receptor model to consider the functionality of flood source loading, the probability of protection structures failing under that loading, then the consequences of any failure given the assets within the flood plain. The approach has evolved over a number of years and is now routinely used to drive national assessments of flood risk as well as application on local studies.
• The ‘National Flood Risk Assessment’ (NaFRA) is an annual review of flooding risks throughout England and Wales using the RASP approach. The objective of this study is to determine the overall value of flooding risks and determine the extent to which flood risk management works have reduced the risk. This provides a mechanism to determine the economic benefits of investment in flood risk reduction, and also to identify the value of residual flood risk. This information provides government with the evidence base with which to argue for increased future funding.

Flood Mapping Extents (from www.environment-agency.gov.uk)

• The RASP approach has also been applied on the ‘Foresight Future Flooding’ study, which considered the potential change in flood and erosion risks in the future due to climate and social change. This study identified that, dependant upon climate change and management responses, future flood risks could increase by a factor of 20 by the 2080’s in England and Wales, with coastal areas identified as those most vulnerable to changes in risk. The study also reviewed a wide range of response options which, in combination could potentially bring the risk down to present day levels.

Foresight future flood probability figure, analysis performed using RASP methodology. From Foresight (2004)

• The ‘National Coastal Erosion Risk Mapping’ (NCERM) project is now being developed to provide a complete picture of hazards and risks along the coast of England and Wales, by providing consistent mapping of coastal erosion risks in addition to the existing flooding risks. This study evolved from the ‘Risk Assessment of Coastal Erosion (RACE)’ research project which developed a range of probabilistic tools (ranging from application of national datasets through to detailed field analysis) for the determination of coastal erosion hazards and risk. NCERM has gone on to apply the RACE methodologies to develop erosion hazard and risk maps for the entire coast of England and Wales, ensuring both national government and local managers all have a good awareness of risks. The RACE tools enable managers to undertake more detailed investigations where this national assessment has identified high risk levels. The NCERM project is ongoing, and the mapping will ultimately be made publically available on the Environment Agency website .

Prototype Environment Agency Erosion Website (Note, the final version is not yet online)

• The ‘Performance-based Asset Management System’ study, PAMS, is developing a system for assessing the whole life cycle of flood protection systems and provide an advanced method for decision making in terms of asset maintenance, renewal and new capital projects. The PAMS project is intended to help improve strategic decision making for maintenance expenditure and allow prioritization of investment against ‘Outcome Measures’.
• ‘The Prediction of Future Coastal Evolution of England and Wales’ project (known as Futurecoast) was commissioned following the first round of SMPs to provide a consistent baseline understanding of coastal processes, including past and future evolution and contemporary behavior. The study took a ‘behavioral systems’ approach to understanding the critical linkages and dependencies driving coastal evolution over the short and long-term, and across a range of spatial scales. The study provides a consistent baseline understanding of the regional and local processes critical to sustainable management of the coast, for use by all coastal managers. The project outputs included national reports of evolution drivers together with regional and local reports and mapping of processes and potential future evolution.

Futurecoast project screen shot showing map view of potential future evolution with present management practices continued.

Using the tools developed through these, and other, programs, and the resultant improvement in the evidence base available to central government, the annual Government expenditure on flood and coastal erosion risk management in England has risen from about £300 million in 1996-9 to £590 million in 2006-07 and is planned to rise to £800 million by 2010-11.

NEXT: How can these techniques most effectively be applied in the United States?

Tags: asce, Coastal Solutions, copri, england, Sea Level Rise, shoreline management, UK, united kinddom

Post by Bonnie M. Bendell – Coastal Engineer - NC Division of Coastal Management

Dr. Carolyn Currin of NOAA speaking to the Living Shorelines Training participants about the success of one of the living shoreline locations.

On March 31 and April 1, 2009, a Living Shorelines Training was held for approximately 50 of North Carolina’s coastal regulators and resource agency staff in Beaufort, NC. This workshop was designed to train professionals on the concept of utilizing living shorelines to combat erosion in North Carolina. Living shorelines are a creative approach to protecting estuarine shorelines from erosion by using engineered structures to also maintain, restore, or enhance the shoreline’s natural habitats. These approaches can include: restoring, enhancing, or protecting existing wetland/riparian vegetation, construction of a marsh sill, and/or using other engineered structures to maintain, restore, enhance or create a natural shoreline.

The event included an introduction and training on living shoreline concepts and fundamental design considerations by Gene Slear, Vice-President of Environmental Concern, Inc. Mr. Slear presented the benefits of living shoreline structures along with design criteria of location, site characteristics, and structure parameters.

Coastal management program representatives from Delaware (Laura Herr – Division of Water Resources), Maryland (Rick Ayella- Tidal Wetlands Division & Jana Davis- Chesapeake Bay Trust), and Virginia (Karen Duhring – VIMS & Walter Priest -NOAA) made presentations on how their states have integrated living shoreline erosion control concepts into their permitting programs. Continue Reading »

Tags: beach management, Coastal Erosion, living shorelines, marsh sill, north carolina

The iconic outterbanks summerhouse Serendipity made famous by the movie “Nights in Rodanthe” staring Diane Lane and Richard Gere was recently moved down the beach to a “more secure” beachfront location.  Over time the eroding shoreline had left the house precariously positioned within the surfzone (click for video) which caused Dare County to declare it a public nuisance.

This is not the first time an iconic structure has moved away form the grips of the ocean on the Outer Banks.  The black and white striped Cape Hatteras lighthouse was relocated in 1999.  According to the National Parks Service,  when the lighthouse was built in 1870 the structure was protected by 1,500 feet of shoreline.  Over time the shoreline retreated, leaving fewer than 150 feet of sand to protect the structures foundation from failure.  After numerous attempts to protect the structure is was decided the best solution to protect the beacon was to relocated it inland.

The relocation of these two structures is an examples of a non-structural coastal solution to an eroding shoreline.  But when a structure is destroyed by the ravages of the ocean what do you do?  The simple question of rebuild or retreat does not lead to a simple answer and has lead to numerous discussions over the years.  Please comment below with your feelings on Rebuild vs. Retreat.

For more information on the Serendipity and Hatteras Light house moves please follow the links below:

Full Article on Serendipity Relocation

Video of Serendipity Relocation 1, 2

Cape Hatteras Lighthouse Relocation

Tags: asce, Coastal Erosion, coastal solution, copri, house relocation, nights in rodanthe, obx, rebuilt retreat, serendipity

On wed Jan. 27, 2010 the ASCE hosted a webinar titled “Design of Buildings for Coastal Flooding.”  William Coulbourne, P.P., M.ASCE, Applied Technology Council (ATC), who was one of the primary authors of the Coastal Construction Manual (FEMA 55), presented the materials to the online viewers.  The presentation had a great mix of pictures, diagrams, and technical information and was concluded with a simple and concise example problem that brought all the information together.  It was agreed by all the participants in my viewing location that this was an outstanding webinar.

The webinar focused on the design of residential building structures located within the coastal zone that are prone to flooding, namely the V zone.  The presentation described the iterative process to designing coastal structures in order to avoid the potential failure mechanics that were shown from recent extreme storm events.  From identifying the coastal hazards that must be considered (flood, wind, scour, erosion, and debris) to establishing the BFE and calculating  the loading on piles to identify a final design, this presentation served as both a great introduction for professionals new to the field as well as a refresher to those with previous experience in the field.

For more information on flood design please see the following resources.

• ASCE 7 – Minimum Design Load for Structures or other Buildings
• ASCE 24 – Flood Resistant Design and Construction
• USACE Coastal Engineering Manual
• USACE Flood Proofing Regulation
• FEMA 55 – The Coastal Construction Manual
• FEMA Technical Bulletins
• FEMA Flood mapping standards
• Local building codes

The ASCE webinars are a great resource that are well executed.  For a list of upcoming ASCE webinars please visit the ASCE Webinars Webpage

Tags: asce, building design, coastal, fema, flooding

On our last day, we toured the eastern and southern Upolu coasts, where the tsunami had its biggest impact. We were struck by the widespread devastation, not dissimilar from that of hurricanes (cyclones). In a few low-lying locations there was evidence that the tsunami reached inland approximately 1 kilometer.

Unlike in American Samoa (Tutuila), there were long, straight stretches of sandy beaches. In many of these beach communities, the tsunami caused total damage to both beach fales and the residential homes located on the landward side of the coastal road.

Rubble-mound revetments lined much of the coastal area. Due to the relatively small stone size, these revetments were heavily damaged by the tsunami in most areas. For example, in Satitoa, on the eastern coast, stones were strewn across the coast, with many stones transported tens of meters inland.

Toward the end of the day, we stopped in Poutasi, a small coastal village situated just to the east of a National Park. Unlike some of the totally devastated coastal communities to the east, damage to residences and public buildings in Poutasi varied from total destruction to partial destruction. This was likely due to a relatively lower flood depth in this region. Of note was a newly constructed home on the beach which appeared to be structurally sound, although damage to windows and interior walls was evident. The village church also sustained some damage; indicated by destruction of lower window-panes only, the water level reached about midway up the wall.

At the end of the day we returned to Apia via the cross-island road, stopping at our host’s plantation to pick fresh bananas for the following day’s breakfast.

– ASCE/COPRI tsunami assessment team

Lesley Ewing, P.E., Team Leader, Coastal Engineer, California Coastal Commission

Jennifer L. Irish, Ph.D., P.E.; Assistant Professor, Texas A&M University

On arrival in Western Samoa we were struck by both the marked landscape and cultural differences between Western and American Samoa. An independent country with a population of 170,000, Western Samoa has a more urban and touristic feel than its American counterpart. The mountains of Upolu, the most populated of the Western Samoan islands, are less constraining than those in American Samoa (Tutuila). This afforded the opportunity for communities to relocate and spread into higher ground in response to the devastating cyclones of 1990 and 1991. Thus, residential villages along the Upolu coast were, in general, more dispersed, and many had residences spread through upland as well as coastal areas.

During this first day in Western Samoa, we met with another ASCE member, Bill Gordon, and his business partner Tom Tinai of Tinai, Gordon, and Associates LTD, based in the urban center Apia. Bill and Tom shared their local knowledge on coastal, transportation and residential construction and then we talked about structural performance during the tsunami.

Of particular note, they told us about Bailey bridge, built originally for a stream crossing on the north coast and recently relocated to Salani. While sustaining some abutment toe-protection damage, the bridge maintained its structural and functional integrity during the tsunami, even though the tsunami waves reached the bridge deck— which we later confirmed during our site visit.

– ASCE/COPRI tsunami assessment team

Lesley Ewing, P.E., Team Leader, Coastal Engineer, California Coastal Commission

Jennifer L. Irish, Ph.D., P.E.; Assistant Professor, Texas A&M University