of 58
7/29/2019 S13_Design and Construction of Recent Bridge Pier Protection_LTC2013
1/58
Design and Construction of Recent
Bridge Pier Protection Systems
Zolan Prucz and Buck Ouyang,
Modjeski and Masters, Inc.Rahman Bhati, Rahman and Assoc. Inc.
Paul Fossier, LADOTD
2013 Louisiana Transportation EngineeringConference
Baton Rouge, Louisiana
7/29/2019 S13_Design and Construction of Recent Bridge Pier Protection_LTC2013
2/58
Historical Developments
Lessons from Past Collisions
Current AASHTO Criteria
Bridge Pier Protection Projects:
- I-210 Prien Lake Bridge
- I-10 Mississippi River Bridge
- LA 27 Ellender Ferry Bridge
Outline
7/29/2019 S13_Design and Construction of Recent Bridge Pier Protection_LTC2013
3/58
Prior to 1980: Criteria was limited to specialprojects, movable bridge fenders
1980 1984: Increase in awareness andincreased research efforts
1984 1991: LADOTD Criteria for Vessel
Collision Design
After 1991: AASHTO Guide Specifications
AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design
AASHTO LRFD Movable Br. Design
Historical Developments
7/29/2019 S13_Design and Construction of Recent Bridge Pier Protection_LTC2013
4/58
May 26, 2002 M/V Robert Y. Love Tow Collision with the I-40 Bridge, OK
Lessons form Past Collisions
MM-62
MM-60
Pier 3 Pier 2 Pier 1Pier 4
West Abutment
Pier1
7/29/2019 S13_Design and Construction of Recent Bridge Pier Protection_LTC2013
5/58
Pier 3 Pier 2 Pier 1Pier 4
May 26, 2002 M/V Robert Y. Love Tow Collision with the I-40 Bridge, OK
7/29/2019 S13_Design and Construction of Recent Bridge Pier Protection_LTC2013
6/58
February 2, 2007 4 - Barge Tow Collision with the US 80 Bridge, Vicksburg
7/29/2019 S13_Design and Construction of Recent Bridge Pier Protection_LTC2013
7/58
May 9, 1980 Summit Venture Collision with the Sunshine Skyway Bridge
7/29/2019 S13_Design and Construction of Recent Bridge Pier Protection_LTC2013
8/58
May 9, 1980 Summit Venture Collision with the Sunshine Skyway Bridge
7/29/2019 S13_Design and Construction of Recent Bridge Pier Protection_LTC2013
9/58
September 27, 1996 Collision of the Julie N Tanker with the Million Dollar Bridge
7/29/2019 S13_Design and Construction of Recent Bridge Pier Protection_LTC2013
10/58
AASHTO Method II
AF = (N) (PA) (PG) (PC)
AF = Annual Frequency of Collapse
N = Annual Number of Vessels
PA = Probability of Vessel Aberrancy
PG = Geometric Probability
PC = Probability of Collapse
AF acceptable: < 0.0001 for Critical Bridges
< 0.001 for Regular Bridges
Current AASHTO Criteria
AASHTO Method I
7/29/2019 S13_Design and Construction of Recent Bridge Pier Protection_LTC2013
11/58
Vessel Collision Loads
Ships Barge Tows
7/29/2019 S13_Design and Construction of Recent Bridge Pier Protection_LTC2013
12/58
Ship Collision Loads
February 19, 1981 Collision of Tanker Gerd Maersk with Newport Bridge, RI.
7/29/2019 S13_Design and Construction of Recent Bridge Pier Protection_LTC2013
13/58
Barge Collision Loads
7/29/2019 S13_Design and Construction of Recent Bridge Pier Protection_LTC2013
14/58
BRIDGECHARACTERISTICS
WATERWAYCHARACTERISTICS
VESSEL TRAFFIC
CHARACTERISTICSNAVIGATION
CHARACTERISTICS
PERFORMANCE
CRITERIA
Approach to Bridge Pier Protection Design
PROTECTION
ALTERNATIVES
7/29/2019 S13_Design and Construction of Recent Bridge Pier Protection_LTC2013
15/58
I-210 Prien Lake Bridge Project
7/29/2019 S13_Design and Construction of Recent Bridge Pier Protection_LTC2013
16/58
Original Fender
7/29/2019 S13_Design and Construction of Recent Bridge Pier Protection_LTC2013
17/58
Vessel Traffic Characteristics
7/29/2019 S13_Design and Construction of Recent Bridge Pier Protection_LTC2013
18/58
I-210
Navigation Conditions
7/29/2019 S13_Design and Construction of Recent Bridge Pier Protection_LTC2013
19/58
Performance Criteria
Unusual Challenges: Large vessel sizes carrying chemicals
Difficult navigation conditions
Low global and local pier capacities
Limited space for a protection system
7/29/2019 S13_Design and Construction of Recent Bridge Pier Protection_LTC2013
20/58
7/29/2019 S13_Design and Construction of Recent Bridge Pier Protection_LTC2013
21/58
Pier Protection Performance Requirements:
Longitudinal capacity- large impact loads;may deform or share resistance with thepier
Transverse capacity- less impact loads;
must be rigid enough to prevent contactwith the pier columns
Size - improve navigation, prevent contact
with pier columns and shaft Facing- smooth, low friction, prevent
sparks
7/29/2019 S13_Design and Construction of Recent Bridge Pier Protection_LTC2013
22/58
Pier Protection Solutions
7/29/2019 S13_Design and Construction of Recent Bridge Pier Protection_LTC2013
23/58
Concrete cap
Concrete walls
Micropiles
7/29/2019 S13_Design and Construction of Recent Bridge Pier Protection_LTC2013
24/58
Design and Construction
7/29/2019 S13_Design and Construction of Recent Bridge Pier Protection_LTC2013
25/58
Contractor: F. Miller Construction Company/ Orion Marine
Construction Company, Inc.
Subcontractor: Nicholson Construction Company, Inc. (Micropiles)
7/29/2019 S13_Design and Construction of Recent Bridge Pier Protection_LTC2013
26/58
8 DRILL HOLE WALL
CASING 7 OD
POST GROUT TUBE
GROUT
NO. 18 CENTER BAR
GROUT
POST GROUT TUBE
8 DRILL HOLE WALL
BOTTOM OF MICROPILE EL. -120
TOP OF MICROPILE CASING, EL. 5.0
DRILL HOLE WALL 8 DIAM.
MUDLINE, APPROX. EL. -30.0
BOTTOM OF CASING, EL. -65
TOP OF NO. 18 CENTER BAR
7/29/2019 S13_Design and Construction of Recent Bridge Pier Protection_LTC2013
27/58
7/29/2019 S13_Design and Construction of Recent Bridge Pier Protection_LTC2013
28/58
7/29/2019 S13_Design and Construction of Recent Bridge Pier Protection_LTC2013
29/58
7/29/2019 S13_Design and Construction of Recent Bridge Pier Protection_LTC2013
30/58
7/29/2019 S13_Design and Construction of Recent Bridge Pier Protection_LTC2013
31/58
7/29/2019 S13_Design and Construction of Recent Bridge Pier Protection_LTC2013
32/58
7/29/2019 S13_Design and Construction of Recent Bridge Pier Protection_LTC2013
33/58
7/29/2019 S13_Design and Construction of Recent Bridge Pier Protection_LTC2013
34/58
7/29/2019 S13_Design and Construction of Recent Bridge Pier Protection_LTC2013
35/58
7/29/2019 S13_Design and Construction of Recent Bridge Pier Protection_LTC2013
36/58
I-10 Mississippi River Bridge Project
Pier 5
7/29/2019 S13_Design and Construction of Recent Bridge Pier Protection_LTC2013
37/58
Feb 2007 M/T KitionAllisionDWT = 96,315 Tonnes
L = 798 Feet, B = 137 Feet
7/29/2019 S13_Design and Construction of Recent Bridge Pier Protection_LTC2013
38/58
Bridge and Existing Fender Characteristics
Pier 5Pier 6
7/29/2019 S13_Design and Construction of Recent Bridge Pier Protection_LTC2013
39/58
Pier 5Pier 6 Pier 4
Pier 5
7/29/2019 S13_Design and Construction of Recent Bridge Pier Protection_LTC2013
40/58
Original Fender Characteristics
7/29/2019 S13_Design and Construction of Recent Bridge Pier Protection_LTC2013
41/58
Vessel Traffic Characteristics
Ship Traffic:25,000 to 125,000 DWT
Common Barge Tows:Hopper barge tows: 7 wide x 5 long
Tanker barge tows: 2 wide x 3 long
7/29/2019 S13_Design and Construction of Recent Bridge Pier Protection_LTC2013
42/58
Navigation Conditions
High volume ofthrough trafficcombined withlocal traffic
Docks and vesselanchorages nearthe bridge
Cross currents
7/29/2019 S13_Design and Construction of Recent Bridge Pier Protection_LTC2013
43/58
Performance Criteria
Unusual Challenges:
Large size ships and barge tows
Vessel maneuvering operations near bridge
Frequent accidents Low local pier capacities
Protruding underwater pier ledge
Deep water and high currents
Limited space for a protection system
7/29/2019 S13_Design and Construction of Recent Bridge Pier Protection_LTC2013
44/58
Pier Protection Performance Requirements:
Capacity-- strong and rigid enough to prevent
contact with the pier columns
- deformable / crushable to limit load
levels on the bridge pier
Size - prevent contact with pier columnsand underwater ledge
Facing- smooth, low friction, preventsparks
7/29/2019 S13_Design and Construction of Recent Bridge Pier Protection_LTC2013
45/58
Pier Protection Solutions
7/29/2019 S13_Design and Construction of Recent Bridge Pier Protection_LTC2013
46/58
7/29/2019 S13_Design and Construction of Recent Bridge Pier Protection_LTC2013
47/58
Contractor: Weeks Marine, Inc., Houston, TX
Precaster: Standard Concrete Products, Theodore, AL
7/29/2019 S13_Design and Construction of Recent Bridge Pier Protection_LTC2013
48/58
7/29/2019 S13_Design and Construction of Recent Bridge Pier Protection_LTC2013
49/58
7/29/2019 S13_Design and Construction of Recent Bridge Pier Protection_LTC2013
50/58
7/29/2019 S13_Design and Construction of Recent Bridge Pier Protection_LTC2013
51/58
7/29/2019 S13_Design and Construction of Recent Bridge Pier Protection_LTC2013
52/58
LA 27 Ellender Ferry Bridge Project
7/29/2019 S13_Design and Construction of Recent Bridge Pier Protection_LTC2013
53/58
Vessel Traffic and Navigation Conditions
Common Barge Tows: Hopper barge tows: 2 wide x 4 long
Tanker barge tows: 2 wide x 2 long
7/29/2019 S13_Design and Construction of Recent Bridge Pier Protection_LTC2013
54/58
7/29/2019 S13_Design and Construction of Recent Bridge Pier Protection_LTC2013
55/58
7/29/2019 S13_Design and Construction of Recent Bridge Pier Protection_LTC2013
56/58
Lake Charles Pilots Association (I-210Bridge)
The LPA Group Inc. (I-210 Bridge)
F. Miller Construction, LLC. (I-210 Bridge
and Ellender Ferry Bridge) Weeks Marine, Inc. (I-10 Bridge)
Standard Concrete Products (I-10 Bridge)
Pictometry International Corporation LADOTD
Acknowledgements / Photo Credits:
7/29/2019 S13_Design and Construction of Recent Bridge Pier Protection_LTC2013
57/58
Todays design requirements specify vessel
collision loads that are significantly higherthan those considered in the past
New bridge piers are typically placed outsidethe channel or designed for collision loads.
Providing protection to existing bridgespresents design, construction and economicalchallenges.
The cost of providing protection to existingbridges based on current criteria can be ashigh as the cost of the bridge.
Summary
7/29/2019 S13_Design and Construction of Recent Bridge Pier Protection_LTC2013
58/58
Thank you!