14 



12 



10 



8 



6 



4 



2 







12 



10 



8 



6 



4 



2 







| PIER2&3 | i 



Basin 7 







Basin 9 



Basin 10 



0.00 



0.01 



0.02 

 Frequency (hz) 



0.03 



0.04 



Figure 53. Long wave response, existing harbor, Piers 1-3 



The long wave amplification factors shown here may be overestimated for 

 resonant peaks at periods less than about 100 sec. The wave reflection coeffi- 

 cient at all solid boundaries was set to 1.0 for all long wave runs, but Figure 44 

 shows some evidence that peaks at the shorter long wave periods tend to be 

 overestimated. The peak D case is particularly evident. Some reduction in 

 reflection coefficient as wave period decreases could be expected physically. 

 This case was rerun with £ =0.95 along all boundaries. The height of peak D 

 was reduced from 4.5 to near 1.0. Additional tests with K =0.95 helped confirm 

 that this choice would improve the long wave calibration at periods between 

 25 sec and 100 sec. It was not practical to refine K r values and revise long wave 

 runs for all plans, and the initial runs with £=1.0 are considered adequate for 

 evaluating alternative plans. 



Amplification factor plots for alternative plans are given in Appendices G and 

 H. Plots of A amp i versus frequency (Appendix G) are grouped so that the existing 

 and proposed harbor plans can be easily compared at each pier area. Amplifica- 

 tion factor and phase contour plots for the main resonant frequencies are given in 

 Appendix H. 



A more quantitative comparison between the existing harbor and alternative 

 plans can be obtained by averaging amplification factors across a range of long 

 wave frequencies. The root-mean-square (RMS) amplification factor was 



Chapter 6 Harbor Oscillations 



79 



