Upload
abimana
View
224
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
8/20/2019 handout Art Yannotti 6pp.pdf
1/24
1/16/20
Decision for Closure and Response to a
Crisis
Arthur P. Yannotti, P.E.
Acting Deputy Chief Engineer Structures)
New York State Department of Transportation
Lake Champlain Bridge 1929 - 2010
Lake Champlain• Facts:
– about 112 miles long
– up to 12 miles wide
– up to 400 ft. deep
il – NY-VT border for over 100 miles
– Been called 6th Great Lake
• Atlantic Ocean Connections
– Via Hudson River thruRiver by the Champlain Canal
– Via St. Lawrence River thruthe Richelieu River and theChambly Canal
• True international waterway
A Connection Between Two Places
Lake
ChamplainBridge
Rich Cultural ResourcesFrench Fort
(1731)
Fort St.
Frederic
A hist ory of mor e than
7,500 years of(1734)
Fort CrownPoint
(1759)
Toll House
settlement at the
Chimney Point HistoricSite
DEC
Campground
Lighthouse
(1858)
Bridge Site History• Chimney Point, VT
– Rich in Native American history• Archeology shows evidence dating back to 5000 BC
– Site of the first French settlement in Vermont – – 1731 French Fort remains discovered during current
construction
• Chimney Point Tavern – Built late 1700’s just after American Revolution – In 1791, future Presidents Thomas Jefferson and
James Madison visited the Tavern – Now serves as a Vermont Historic Site and Museum – Listed on National Register of Historic Places
8/20/2019 handout Art Yannotti 6pp.pdf
2/24
1/16/20
Bridge Site History• Crown Point, NY
– Fort St. Frederic• 1730’s French redoubt• Stood 4 stories tall• Made of limestone 12 feet thick li i• Key fort in French and Indian War
– His Majesty’s Fort• Built in 1759• Large earth and log walled fortress• Interior stone buildings• Played a significant role in American Revolution
– Historic Visitor’s Center and Museum• Historic Site and Museum operated by NYSOPRHP• Both forts were named National Historic Landmarks
Bridge Designer Charles M. Spofford• Co-Founder Fay, Spofford and Thorndike
• “significantly influenced future continuous truss highway bridgedesign in the areas of technology, aesthetics, and constructionmethods.”1
• Author - Theory of Continuous Structures and Arches (1937)
• First Continuous Truss Highway Bridge
1Casella, Richard M., “National Historic Context and Significance of the GeneralSullivan Bridge, Dover, New Hampshire,” October 2005, p. 1.
1929 Lake Champlain Bridge
• Bridge Facts
– 2187 feet long
– r g na o a cos o , ,
– 95 feet typical clearance over water
– Continuous truss design
– 14 total spans
• 434 foot half-thru truss main span
• 5 deck truss spans• 8 short steel girder spans
8/20/2019 handout Art Yannotti 6pp.pdf
3/24
1/16/20
Opening Ceremony – August 26, 1929 Unusual Aspects of the Bridge• Unreinforced concrete piers
• No ice abrasion protection• Used bucket for underwater concrete placement
•
• General Sullivan Bridge (1934)
–Sister bridge design by Spofford
–Steel reinforced concrete
–Included ice abrasion protection
Lake Champlain Bridge Commission Era• First bridge deal: May 11, 1927
•
The deal between New York &Vermont:
,
• Second bridge needed: 1935
• Rouses Point Bridge opened at northern end of lakein 1937
• Tolls are $1 for passenger cars
The deal between New York & Vermont – Part 2:
• Tolls ended in 1987, bridge commission abolished.
• Crown Point Bridge is New York’s, Rouses PointBridge is Vermont’s
• Capital costs shared for both
• Maintenance costs to each “owner”
• Rouses Point Bridge replaced in 1987
• Crown Point Bridge (Lake Champlain Bridge)
1991 – Major bridge rehabilitation completed
2000’s – Bridge is structurally deficient2009 – Project to address needs officially started
• Summer 2009
• Emergency Steel Repairs
– Reduced bridge to one lane traffic
– Progressed $1.5 mil steel repairs to address flags
• Using the Regional Emergency Bridge Contract toeep r ge open w e s u y procee e
8/20/2019 handout Art Yannotti 6pp.pdf
4/24
1/16/20
2009 Steel Repairs
Project to Address Bridge Needs
• 5+ Year EIS process to examine
• Rehabilitation & replacement to beconsidered
• Big local & national push to save thebridge
Where we started…..• Bi-State agreement to
rehabilitate or replace thebridge is approved – August
• HNTB / CHA / FHI contractapproved
• Ongoing steel repairs toaddress deterioration and red
flag conditions
September 2009
• Started preparing forNational Environmental
• Assess pier conditions
Concrete Pier
ProblemsInitial Public Meeting
• Initial project public meeting onOctober 8, 2009
•• Explained concern with piers,
but…
• Told public we expect bridge toremain open!!
8/20/2019 handout Art Yannotti 6pp.pdf
5/24
1/16/20
Meanwhile,Diving Inspection FindingsMuch Worse Than Anticipated
• Severe Cracks Found
– Significantly worse thanrevious underwater
inspection in 2005
– Some cracks found allthe way around pierperimeter
– Significant concernbecause piers wereunreinforced
Pier Deterioration• Pier Freeze Thaw Damage• Strength Degradation• Pier cracking below waterline• Rapid Increase in last 4 years
Pier Deterioration
18" Section18" SectionLoss BelowLoss Below
Original Concrete Thickness – 10 ft
Observations at Pier 5:
2727
Frozen Expansion Bearings
Stability Concerns• Ice/Wind/Thermal Loading
– Ice Thrust
• Restrained Thermal Movement – Locked Bearings
• Unreinforced Cracked Piersi l il
Pier Deterioration
- i l il
Pier Analysis Findings• HNTB completed initial
analysis of piers on
October 16, 2009
• Concluded that piers couldcollapse
8/20/2019 handout Art Yannotti 6pp.pdf
6/24
1/16/20
Decision for Closure
• HNTB had recommended closure• Failure Mechanism was shear in an
unreinforced section
• Temperatures were dropping andincreasing the thermal loading on the piers
• If a failure occurred, it was likely to besudden and catastrophic
Immediate Closure or Planned
Closure?• Immediate Failure was not expected,
however do to the unpredictable nature ofthe failure, safety could not be assuredwith a high probability
Bridge closed at 1:30PM without advancewarning to public - major traffic issues
-
Immediately We …
• Established a formal detour
• Began looking for temporarymitigation
• Began investigating repairs
84 mile
detour
Detour Routes• Road Detour
– 84 miles
– Nearly 2 hours
• Ferr Alternatives – Essex Ferry
• 30 miles to the north
– Fort Ti Ferry• 14 miles to the south
– Both ferries charge atoll, were overwhelmedand had long waits
8/20/2019 handout Art Yannotti 6pp.pdf
7/24
1/16/20
Provided Alternative Travel Routes• Free Ferries
– Essex Ferry – Fort Ti Ferry
– Basin Harbor Pedestrian Ferry
• ree us erv c e
– Trailways service via roaddetour
– Local transit at ferries
Existing Ferry System
•
• Cost of ferry subsidized by NY & VT
• Winterized the Ticonderoga Ferry to allowoperation to continue into early winter
• Additional ferries used at the Essex crossing
• Pedestrian ferry initiated by locals
New Transit Service
• Park & Ride Lots established
• Transit service for daily
• “Dial-A-Ride” Service
LCB Timeline
• October 27, 2009
– Public Meeting Held in VT
– Essex Ferry and Ticonderoga Ferry begin free service
– Free Trailways express busses begin
• October 28, 2009
– Public Meeting held in NY
– Free Pedestrian Ferry begins at Basin Harbor
The Public Reaction… Public Outcry• Public clearly wanted
– A quick response
– Re-establish the existing corridor
– The brid e to be re laced at the same location – A temporary crossing near or at the same location
8/20/2019 handout Art Yannotti 6pp.pdf
8/24
1/16/20
Potential Pier Repair Strategy
Potential Pier Repair Strategy Potential Pier Repair Strategy
Potential Pier Repair Strategy Potential Pier Repair Strategy
8/20/2019 handout Art Yannotti 6pp.pdf
9/24
1/16/20
Repair Strategy Considered
Temp
Temp
SupportsSupports
• Winter Work
• Deep sheeting needed
• 6 months to complete
4949
Encase
Piers
With
Encase
Piers
With
Reinforced
Concrete
Reinforced
Concrete
&
Replace
Bearings&
Replace
Bearings
• Not permanent fix – would notaddress all deficiencies
• $20M+ cost
•• Hazardous to workersHazardous to workersbecause of pier instability andbecause of pier instability andheavy construction activityheavy construction activity
Temporary Bridge InvestigationFloating bridge
dismissed because toodangerous for the longspan and winter
5050
conditions expected
Panelized truss bridge(Bailey Type)considered
• Reconsidered 1927 Options:
– Crown Point to ChimneyPoint (current LCB location)
– Crown Point Village to West
Considered Temporary BridgesLCB
Bridport (Gilligan’s Bay)
– Ticonderoga to LarrabeePoint (former railroad bridge)
– Ticonderoga to MountIndependence (too historic)
– Wrights to Chipman Point
Old Ferry Road at Gilligan’s Bay
• Very deep to rock on NY shore (over 225 feet)
• No highway infrastructure on Vermont side, about 6miles to nearest state highway
• Lack of eminent domain abilit
Old Ferry Road conditions:Excerpt from the 1927 Report:
8/20/2019 handout Art Yannotti 6pp.pdf
10/24
1/16/20
Conclusions
• Temporary Bridges
– Floating bridge not feasible
• Long span, ice conditions, not suitable for publictraffic
– Traditional temporary bridge not feasible
• Complex foundations, long time to build, too costly
• No feasible sites near existing LCB
• Temporary Ferry
– Build a temporary ferry at the bridge site
•• Detailed Diving InspectionsDetailed Diving Inspections
•• Additional Core Samples Additional Core Samples
•• Findings
confirm
decision
Findings
confirm
decision
Closer Look At All Piers
5757
to close the bridgeto close the bridge
Core from Pier 5showing Ettringite formation
Ettringite
Calcium sulfoaluminate that forms in
confined spaces within the paste in thepresence of moisture. It fills the voids inthe concrete thus reducing freeze-thawdurability. It is also an expansive reactionthat can produce cracking.
LCB Timeline• November 9, 2009
– Decision is made to demolish the LCB due to itsfragility
– Decision is made to build a new bridge at samelocation
• November 11, 2009
– Design approval granted to build Temporary Ferry just south of bridge
• November 25, 2009
– Free Pedestrian Ferry closes
8/20/2019 handout Art Yannotti 6pp.pdf
11/24
1/16/20
Contractual Issues
• Emergency Declaration by both the VTand NY Governors
•Process for bridge demolition and ferryconstruction
• Discussed options with Comptroller – Emergency Condition
– Region has existing Emergency Contracts
– Use existing Emergency Contracts
Two Ferry Slip Structures NeededChimney Point
Historic Site VT Ferry Slips
N
Temporary Ferry Site
NYSDEC
Campground
NY Ferry Slips
Crown Point
Historic Site
Ferry Structure Over Shallow Water Winter Construction
8/20/2019 handout Art Yannotti 6pp.pdf
12/24
1/16/20
February 1, 2010Temporary ferry opens!
Free!
5AM on the Ferry’s Opening Day
Bridge Demolition
Can the bridgebe dismantled?• The bridge was built using
temporary supports as thetruss spans were erected
• Dismantling the bridge would also require similartemporary supports
– Very difficult and expensive
• Due to the fragile condition of the bridge, dismantlingwould also be very dangerous for the workers
• Therefore, the truss spans had to be demolished by acontrolled explosive demolition method
Steel Preparations – TemperatureDependent Worker Safety Plan Used
Accelerometer / Tiltmeter
Setting ChargesLinear Shaped
Charges
8/20/2019 handout Art Yannotti 6pp.pdf
13/24
1/16/20
Demolition – December 28, 2009
Steel Removal Concrete Pier Removal
Note the cold joint in the pier – top section pushed overwith a back hoe New LCB Timeline
• December 16, 2009 – Ticonderoga Ferry temporarily closes due to iceconditions, and only operates sporadically afterreopening
• December 28, 2009
– 1929 LCB is demolished by controlled detonation
8/20/2019 handout Art Yannotti 6pp.pdf
14/24
1/16/20
New Bridge
New Bridge NEPA / Contract Process
• Independent action to replace the original bridgeon existing alignment
• Categorical Exclusion with documentation
• Environmental Permit implications -Programmatic agreement needed
• USCG, ACOE, DEC, APA, etc. permits
Design-Build Dismissed
• Not allowed by NY law
• 2 month +/- RFP process (after design approval)
• Earliest D-B team start would be about April 1st
• Existing consultant contract gave us other
innovative opportunities
“Dynamic Design-Let-Build”• Get key information to the bidders as early as
possible
–construction sequence
– Start thinking about sub-contractors
– Start thinking about access
• Follow with information needed for majorelements of bid
• Details later (Camber & Haunch Tables, Barlist)
8/20/2019 handout Art Yannotti 6pp.pdf
15/24
1/16/20
Public Involvement• Public Advisory Committee (PAC)
– Represent a variety of public viewsand interests
• SeveralPublic Meetin s
• Public input on alternatives
Intensive 6 Day Public Involvement• Consulting Parties meeting
on Thursday Dec 10th
– Commenced 30 dayreview period
• u c vsory omm eemeeting on Friday Dec 11th
• Three public meetings onSaturday Dec 12th
• Public voted on bridgepreference Dec 12th – 14th
• PAC recommended bridgetype Tuesday Dec 15th
Five Conceptual Bridge TypesSteel Girder Segmental Box
l l Extradosedl l
Network ArchThe Consulting Parties and
PAC overwhelmingly liked
the arch, but they thought
something was missing …
The design team responds…
• Changed design overnight toaddress key PAC comment
• Public information materials,presentations and on-linesurvey had to be adjustedwithin hours (and on aweekend) by team
PAC’s Recommendation: Modified Network Tied Arch January 14, 2010
• Section 106 HistoricConsulting Parties 30 dayreview period complete
• Governors announcemodified network tied archwill be built
• Bridge width established
8/20/2019 handout Art Yannotti 6pp.pdf
16/24
1/16/20
Regulatory Requirements
• No emergency relief from federal-requirements
•January 2010
• All federal agencies with a role in the projectparticipated
• Agreed on permitting requirements, process, andtimeline
Federal Regulatory AgenciesNew York Vermont
“Dynamic Design-Let-Build”
• Get key information to the bidders as earlyas possible
• Follow with information needed for majorelements of bid
• Provide details later
New LCB Timeline• January 14, 2010
– Final LCB Design initiated
• February 1, 2010
– Pre-Bid Meeting, provide and post 30% plans (47 sheets)
• e ruary ,
– Final design approval granted by FHWA
• March 1, 2010
– PS&E submitted
– 75% plans posted on website (2½ weeks before officialad) (450 sheets)
• March 17, 2010 – LCB Contract advertised using 75% plans (4 week ad)
New LCB Timeline
• April 1, 2010
– 95% plans issued by amendment (2 weeks prior to bid)
• A ril 15 2010, – LCB Bids Opened, 8 bidders
• May 27, 2010
– LCB Contract D261458 awarded to Flatiron
• June 11, 2010
– Groundbreaking Ceremony
New LCB Timeline
• October 16, 2009 – Closed Old Bridge
• Januar 14, 2010 – Final Desi n Initiated• April 15, 2010 – Bids Opened
• May 27, 2010 – Contract Awarded
- 7 ½ months after closure of old bridge!
8/20/2019 handout Art Yannotti 6pp.pdf
17/24
1/16/20
New Bridge Design Criteria &
LCB Design Requirements• To meet or exceed the existing structure
functionality – 2 vehicle lanes, 12’-0” lane width
– 2 wider shoulders
– Aesthetically pleasing structure
• Meet current loading and clearance requirements
– Over 17’-0” vertical vehicular clearance
– 75’-0” vertical navigational clearance• Meets replica schooner Lois McClure mast height
• Exceeds Rouse’s Point vertical clearance
• Minimum 75-year service life
Navigational Clearance
2200’ +/- Total Bridge Length
75 ft vertical
clearance over
300 ft
Cross Section
16.5 ft minimumvertical clearance
11 ft wide lanesTwo -5 ft wide
sidewalks5 ft wide shouldersfor bicyclists & widefarm equipment (16’)
Bridge Typical – Main Span Vermont Approach
8/20/2019 handout Art Yannotti 6pp.pdf
18/24
1/16/20
New bridge
• 8 spans
• Total Len th – 2200’ Old Brid e -2187’
• 4 New York approach spans – 240’-250’-250’-250’ Plate Girder Spans
• Main Span – 480’ tied arch
• 3 Vermont approach Spans – 250’-240’-240’
Network Tied Arch Bridge
Arch (Compres sion )
Cables (Tension)
• Cables pre-tensioned to absorb compressive forces duringloading cycles, but still remain taught
• Network of crossing cables creates a redundant system
• Primarily axial forces; allows for smaller members
Tie Girder (Tension)
ES* ES*
*ES = Elastic Support (restrained for limit ed movement)
Tied Arch Redundancy
• Tied Arches are inherently non redundantand fracture critical. Failure of the tensiontie girder will cause collapse of thestructure.
Tie Girder Redundancy Mitigation
• Fabricate Steel as fracture critical
• Re uire hi her steel tou hness
• Fabricate tie girder as bolted rather than awelded section “Internal Redundancy”
• Box section made of four plates. The lossof any one plate due to a fracture does not
overstress the remaining three plates
Arch Span Elastic Supports• Elastic supports
isolate arch from theapproaches
• Allow for thermal
movements
End Floorbeam
( Arch Span )
Sliding Surface
Bracket
Assemb ly
• Limits range of motionduring a seismic event
Typical Operation Seismic Event
Bridge Movement
Cross Beam
(Approach Span)Limit Key Plate
Elastomeric Pad
ConcretePiers
• Shape chosen for
• Reusable forms forupper portion of pier
8/20/2019 handout Art Yannotti 6pp.pdf
19/24
1/16/20
Pier Protection
• Angled face “breaks” ice formations• Granite facing armors piers from ice
damage and abrasion
Feature Lighting
Arch Rib Lighting
Navigation Lights
Arch Flood Lights
Sidewalk Lighting
• Embedded in handrail
• Located every 16 feet
75+ Year Design LifeDouble Corrosion Protection:
Weathering Steel +Metalized Coating
• Cables greased andsheathed
• Cables redundant – canbe replaced one at atime
Lake Cham lain Brid e Construction
Public Awareness During Construction
• Provide information/updates during construction
– Robust project website• Construction status, photos and visuals updated biweekly
–• NY511 Ferry/Bridge cameras
• Dedicated bridge camera during construction
– Project Informational Boards• Placed onsite to allow “self-guided” tours
– Onsite Construction Updates• Bi-monthly public updates at the project site
8/20/2019 handout Art Yannotti 6pp.pdf
20/24
1/16/20
2
Drilled Shafts
• Eliminates need for deepsheeting systems
• Expedites construction
• Cost effective
Drilled
Shafts
Water
Mud
Rock
RockSocket
eeCasing
Drilled ShaftInstallation
Grind up the rock with hard teeth: Needed serious cutting power
8/20/2019 handout Art Yannotti 6pp.pdf
21/24
1/16/20
2
Problems andIssues:
Obstructions
Pier Reinforcement
Vermont Pier Constructablility: Arch Span Heavy Lift
Construction Schedule2010 2011
2011 Lake Champlain Bridge
Goal:
Open
by
October
9,
2011
8/20/2019 handout Art Yannotti 6pp.pdf
22/24
1/16/20
2
Contract D261458
Acknowledgements
• NYSDOT Region 1Mary Ivey – Regional Director
Jim Bridges – Regional Design Engineer
John Grady- Regional Construction Engineer
Jim Boni- Project Manager
Tom Hoffman – Regional Structures Engineer
Jeff Brown – Engineer in Charge
Acknowledgements
• Brid e Desi n – HNTB, Ted Zoli – LeadDesigner and Project Manager
• Approach Work – Clough Harbour Associates
Acknowledgements
• NYSDOT Main Office of Structures
Geor e Christian
Tom Willetts
Paul Rimmer
Scott Lagace
John Neidhart
Lou Recchia
Acknowledgements
• General Contractor – Flatiron
• Drilled Shaft Subcontractor – CaseFoundation
• Steel Fabrication – High Steel Structures
Questions?
8/20/2019 handout Art Yannotti 6pp.pdf
23/24
1/16/20
2
Assessment of Learning
1. The original Lake Champlain Bridge washistorically significant because:
a. One of the first uses of a continuous highwaytruss.
b. Long Span
c. Used high strength steel.
Assessment of Learning
1. The original Lake Champlain Bridge washistorically significant because:
a. One of the first uses of a continuous highwaytruss.
b. Long Span
c. Used high strength steel.
2. The piers of the original lake ChamplainBridge were vulnerable because:
a. Poor Soil Conditions
b. Collision from lake Vessels
c. Use of unreinforced concrete
2. The piers of the original lake ChamplainBridge were vulnerable because:
a. Poor Soil Conditions
b. Collision from lake Vessels
c. Use of unreinforced concrete
3. What is the most critical element of a tied
arch bridge?a. Arches
b. Cables
c. Tie Girder
d. Floor System
3. What is the most critical element of a tied
arch bridge?a. Arches
b. Cables
c. Tie Girder
d. Floor System
8/20/2019 handout Art Yannotti 6pp.pdf
24/24
1/16/20
4. Frozen Expansion bearings can causewhat problem to a bridge;
a. Unanticipated forces to the bridge piers
b. Vulnerability during a seismic event
c. Leading to the failure of the deck expansion joints.
4. Frozen Expansion bearings can causewhat problem to a bridge;
a. Unanticipated forces to the bridge piers
b. Vulnerability during a seismic event
c. Leading to the failure of the deck expansion joints.
5. A temporary bridge was rejected as amitigation because of:
a. Winter Construction
b. Poor Soil Conditions
c. Time for construction
d. Cost
5. A temporary bridge was rejected as amitigation because of:
a. Winter Construction
b. Poor Soil Conditions
c. Time for construction
d. Cost
6. A shear failure in an unreinforced
concrete section is like to be:a. Ductile
b. Predictable
c. Unlikely
d. Sudden
6. A shear failure in an unreinforced
concrete section is likely to be:a. Ductile
b. Predictable
c. Unlikely
d. Sudden