handout art yannotti 6pp.pdf

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


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


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


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!!


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


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


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


8/24

1/16/20

Potential Pier Repair Strategy

Potential Pier Repair Strategy Potential Pier Repair Strategy

Potential Pier Repair Strategy Potential Pier Repair Strategy


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:


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


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


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


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


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)


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


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!


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


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


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


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


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


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?


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


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

handout art yannotti 6pp.pdf

Documents