The effect of climate change on infrastructure Arne Instanes Dr.ing. Professor Bergen University College
Introduction Infrastructure Climate change and infrastructure imapact assessments Design procedures
Arctic Climate Impact Assessment International study 2000-2005 Arctic Council / Arctic nations Focus on observed changes Prediction of future changes Consequences Mitigation, adaptation and response Chapter 16 Infrastructure
Climate Change and the Cryosphere Snow, Water, Ice and Permafrost in the Arctic (SWIPA) 2008-2011
Site Specific Impact Assessments LOCATION PARAMETER CONSEQUENCE POSSIBLE IMPACT Svalbard (Spitsbergen) Air temp. increase Permafrost warming Infrastructure damage Unacceptable risk Bergen Precipitation Slide activity Infrastructure damage Unacceptable risk Bergen Sea level Flooding Infrastructure damage Unacceptable risk Oslo Specific structures Sea level Flooding Infratstructure damage Unacceptable risk
Infrastructure..permanent foundation or essential elements of a community, as schools, hospitals, transportation facilities, power plants, etc....facilities such as roads, railways, power-stations, water supply, telephones etc. which forms the basis for a country s economic growth..
Infrastructure lifetime The lifetime of an engineering structure is the period during which it safely fulfils the functions for which it was built, taking into account operating conditions and economic requirements. The prediction (or evaluation) of lifetime, whether when designing new structures or maintaining existing ones, depends on economic and regulatory issues related to both operation and maintenance or renewal.
Infrastructure lifetime Permafrost: Coastal structures: Essential structures: 20 to 50 years 20 to 75 years 100 years RISK ASSESSMENT / ACCEPTABLE RISK PROBABILITY OF OCCURRENCE
IPCC, 2007
Climate change models CO 2 Air temp. Permafrost warming Ocean temp. + Ice cap melting Sea level rise
Climate change models Correlation between concentration of atmospheric greenhouse gases and global air temperature Correlation between global air temperature and permafrost temperature, sea level rise (and precipitation, wind, waves, storm frequency, slide activity) etc. SOLUTION: Reduce emission of greenhouse gases (COP-15)
Climate change models Correlation between concentration of atmospheric greenhouse gases and global air temperature Correlation between global air temperature and permafrost temperature, sea level rise (and precipitation, wind, waves, storm frequency, slide activity) etc. THESE CORRELATIONS ARE NOT SUITABLE FOR INFRASTRUCTURE IMPACT ASSESSMENTS Professor Stephen Schneider suggests a subjective probabilistic approach, Dagbladet August 31, 2009
Global monthly air temperature 1998 El Niño 1991 Mt Pinatubo volcanic eruption La Niña? RSS MSU and UAH MSU are satellite based
Polar mean monthly air temperatures Satellite based data from NOAA University of Alabama at Huntsville, USA
1 0-1 -2-3 -4-5 -6-7 -8-9 -10-11 -12-13 Mean annual air temperature Fairbanks, Alaska Yakutsk, Russia Longyearbyen, Norway 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 30-year running mean
Mean annual air temperature 1 0-1 -2-3 -4-5 -6-7 -8-9 -10-11 -12-13 Fairbanks, Alaska Longyearbyen, Norway Yakutsk, Russia 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 10-year running mean
Case study Longyearbyen
2322 m 45 m Constructed during the summers of 1973-1975 - no geotechnical investigations - no thermal analysis - runway cut into ice-rich permafrost - insulation of embankment (1.1 to 4 m) was not evaluated - use of geosynthetics was not evaluated - the criterion for maximum thaw depth (1100 mm) was much too low
2322 m 45 m Problems from the start in 1975: - thawing of ice-rich native soils - uneven settlement (up to 3 cm in a single year) during the summer - local frost heave (up to 2 cm in a single year) in autumn and winter - runway settlement depressions had to be filled with asphalt on numerous occasions during the years following 1975 - in 1989 a major reconstruction took place in which the most negatively affected areas were insulated - 2007 major maintenance and new asphalt layer
Heat pump cooling system T air/surface T cooling = -10 C T air/surface Permafrost Thermistors Thermistors
Global monthly sea surface temperature University of East Anglia HadSST2 series
Global sea level rise
Rate of global sea level rise
Local sea level rise - Oslo 120 Mean annual sea level (cm) 100 80 60 40 SEA LEVEL 2100 20 Max. observed: 1.95 m Recommendation AIN: 2.1 m 0 Design: 2.6 m 1900 1920 1940 Climate 1960modellers: 1980 2000 2.92020 m Year Data from the Norwegian Mapping Authority
Local sea level rise - Bergen 120 Mean annual sea level (cm) 100 80 60 40 20 0 Max. observed: Recommendation AIN: Climate modellers: 1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000 2020 Year SEA LEVEL 2100 1.52 m 1.9 m 2.4 m Data from the Norwegian Mapping Authority
Case study sea level rise Bergen Figure from Rambøll Norge AS SEA LEVEL 2100 Climate modellers: +75 cm
Case study sea level rise Bergen SEA LEVEL 2100 Probability of occurrence 100 % 80 % 60 % 40 % 20 % 0 % 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 Sea level rise 2100 (cm) Climate modellers: +75 cm Engineering translation: > 50 cm 90% probability > 75 cm 50 % probabiliy > 100 cm 10 % probability
Local sea level rise - Bergen 120 Mean annual sea level (cm) 100 80 60 40 20 0 1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000 2020 Year
Case study Bergen Annual increase Action required Sea level rise year 2100 CONSTANT no 15 cm 1% per year 2100 26 cm 2% per year 2075 48 cm 2.7% per year 2065 75 cm 3% per year 2060 94 cm 4% per year (max. physically possible) 5% per year (not physically possible) 2050 193 cm - 411 cm
Case study sea level rise Bergen Figures from Rambøll Norge AS
Local sea level rise - Tromsø 220 Mean annual sea level (cm) 200 180 160 140 120 100 1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000 2020 Year Data from the Norwegian Mapping Authority
Local sea level rise - Vardø 220 Mean annual sea level (cm) 200 180 160 140 120 100 1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000 2020 Year Data from the Norwegian Mapping Authority
Local sea level rise Murmansk 120 Mean annual sea level (cm) 100 80 60 40 20 0 1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000 2020 Year Data from the Global Sea Level Observing System
Local sea level rise Ny-Ålesund 120 Mean annual sea level (cm) 100 80 60 40 20 0 1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000 2020 Year
Increased occurence of natural disasters? Natural disasters in EM-DAT 1950-2008 EM-DAT = The International Emergency Disasters Database OFDA = US Foreign Disaster Assistance CRED = Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters Storms Flood, Mass mov. (wet) Earthquake, Volcano, Mass mov. (dry) Drought, Wildfire, Extreme temperature Epidemic, Insect infestations
Increased occurence of natural disasters?
43
Increased occurence of natural disasters? 1,0E-03 Slope angle ( ) 26,0 28,0 30,0 32,0 34,0 36,0 38,0 40,0 42,0 Probaility of failure 1,0E-02
Coastal zone
Climate change impact assessments Climate Data from historical observations and (downscaled) global models: - Temperature - Sea level Impact Remaining lifetime of existing structures Lifetime of new structures Climate sensitivity Experience from > 20 years of global warming Probability of occurrence Risk analysis
Design procedures Climate change scenarios pose a uncertainty in design of engineering structures Design for changig climate require a relationship between climate sensitivity, probability of occurence of events and severity of the consequences of events Level of analysis can be determined based on such relationships
Design procedures Perpetual design? HIGH Failure consequence Water retention dam 15 years lifetime Temporary road Hazardous waste deposit 50 years lifetime Coastal highway, Bridges 50 to 75 years lifetime LOW LOW Climate change sensitivity HIGH
Summary climate impact Permafrost warming is slow from an engineering point of view and time scale (20 to 50 years) Global sea level rise is slow and slowing down Local sea levels in our region are constant or falling No evidence of increased occurrence of natural disasters Continous monitoring is extremely important Climate sensitivity should be evaluated for existing and new infrastructure Lifetime of structure versus time remaining before remedial actions are required should be evaluated