Posted on 10/07/2005 8:48:33 AM PDT by LA Woman3
Whew. For a moment there, I thought you meant Aaron Neville. If I have to hear one more radio commercial with that castrati's wailing for more money, I'm going to pull my ears off.
Ok, thanks, can you give me a cross street? I-10 bounces up and down across the north side of town.
Also the exact measurement isn't as important as the metod used to determine it. Do you remember how you came by that figure?
There is now evidence that, when the floodwalls were constructed (in the nineties), the contractor requested another $809K to stabilize the substrate at that location.
The COE (and the Clinton administration) told him the funds would not be forthcoming. Consequently, the job was completed without the necessary modifications.
The engineering conclusion now is that the floodwall failed at this location because the substrate was displaced by a "heave".
Yes, the pictures showed that when I looked at them following the "heave" story. The same failure mechanism probably applies to at least two, and probably three of the four Industrial Canal breaches, maybe all four. The barge inside the 9th Ward levee system probably did not cause the breach.
It wasn't heave, the entire structure was shoved sideways. I believe that the depth of the water in the canals increased the subgrade pore pressure to the point that water percolated (flowed) underneath the sheet piling at the core of the floodwall/levee system, separating the levee from the ground it rested on.
Two sequences more likely than others, one, design flaw, sheet piles not driven deep enough, or two, improper conclusions based on faulty soil mechanics assessments leading to a design flaw. "Design flaw" may be an improper term, depending on how it is used. I use it to mean that the structure did not maintain integrity under the loads imposed on it, however, those loads may have exceeded the design limits for Cat-3 protection. This in turn may indicate improper assumptions regarding surge levels for a Cat-3 storm, as all indications to date indicate that Katrina was at low Cat-2 or high Cat-1 levels when it passed New Orleans.
I discount the substrate/$809k/contractor theory because those sections of the levee failed as a unit. The wall separated from the sheet piling and embankment after the initial failure. More in the final report, probably early next week.
I look forward to it. I've followed your reports with interest.
'If this is accurate'
It isn't. No way was this a Cat 3.
Point of order:
""We found no evidence of overtopping the levees," the statement said."
The evidence is found along the lakeside levees east and west of the entrances to the 17th and London Canals, which are higher than the canal levees and which were definitely topped, though whether by surge or by wave action is still debatable.
This does not, however, undermine the ASCE conclusion, which was that topping was not a significant cause for the levee/floodwall failures. In that area, I'm in full agreement with them.
Yes. ...and, the storm hit 30 miles east in Mississippi. Those are the people who were hurt the most.
Most of NO pain is/was self inflicted due to stupidity and corruption.
I love it!
Like most installations, this most likely had an on-site backup generator system in the event of electrical power failure.
Belle Chasse, 6 miles closer to the eyewall track and 20 miles closer to the point of landfall than the 17th Street Canal breach, only reported 105 mph gusts. Anecdotal reports from downtown New Orleans only report gusts in the 95 to 97 mph range, strong Cat-1 to weak Cat-2 range, but again, these were gusts, not sustained winds. If proven, then Hurricane Katrina fell solidly into the Cat-1 range over New Orleans.
That would be at upper Cat-2 limits, except the Saffir Simpson scale is based on sustained windspeeds, not peak gusting.
Still working on a surge estimate. I have evidence of at least 17.5 feet ASL west of Lake Borgne, but I'm also certain that the...landscape...there resulted in funneling and unnaturally elevated surge figures. Still that's a known data point, which puts the storm in the Cat-4 range if you discount the funneling effect.
I think we're going to see surge figures not less than 13.5 feet and not greater than 15 or 16 feet in southern Lake Pontchartrain at the 17th Canal Outlet, slightly less than 17 to 18 ASL feet in southeastern Lake Pontchartrain, and less than 17 feet ASL along the west bank of the MRGO, absent funneling effects.
Those values all fall in the Cat-4 range, but it should be noted that the Saffir-Simpson scale is dependent on windspeed only.
Very good!
I live in his parish, and I voted against him the first time around. It feels very good looking back on it now...
2007. He drew only token opposition last time. Hopefully someone will be inspired to challenge him seriously next time.
Actually, that measurement is way off. Now that I get to replaying the day, that measurement was taken from inside the hotel lobby at the Holiday Inn on I-10 and Hwy. 63. It was much deeper out on the streets. There were full-size pickup trucks that were over the hood.
LOL...yep, it's a saltwater fish.
We have measured 17' 9", 5 miles east of Pascagoula, Ms. on Cumbest Bayou.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.