Appendix S16 01

SR 520 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
Pontoon Transportation Study Bridge Design with Supplemental Stability Pontoons

Prepared for Washington State Department of Transportation Olympia, Washington
Job No. 06050.03 31 August 2010 Rev. A
BY: ____________________________________ ____________
J. Thomas Bringloe, PE
Principal
CHECKED: ______________________________ ____________
Lisa N. Renehan, PE
SIGNED ORIGINAL ON FILE AT GLOSTEN

APPROVED: _____________________________ ____________
Project Ocean Engineer
David L. Gray, PE
Principal-in-Charge
Revision History
Section Rev Description Date Approved
All
Rev. was stamped and signed by J. Thomas Bringloe, PE, Washington Registration No. 12883, on 29 March 2010. Added Table 7, SSP towing costs from Tacoma Added Table 12, Longitudinal bending and shear results for Pontoon F (typical), U, and W, bare pontoon Added Table 13, Longitudinal bending and shear results for bare SSPs Added Section: Hydrostatic and Hydrodynamic Loads on End Panels Clarifying language.
3/29/2010
JTB
3.4 3.5
A A
8/27/2010 8/27/2010
DLG DLG
3.5 3.6 Throughout
A A A
8/27/2010 8/27/2010 8/27/2010
DLG DLG DLG
Contents
References Foreword Executive Summary Section 1 Routes and Climatology
1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4
Pontoon Descriptions ................................................................................................................ 1 Transportation Routes ............................................................................................................... 1 Weather Duration Statistics ...................................................................................................... 2 Schedule.................................................................................................................................... 3
Barge for Dry Tow
Section 2
2.1 Barge Dimensions and Stowage ............................................................................................... 5 2.2 Stability and Longitudinal Strength .......................................................................................... 5 2.2.1 Limitations of a Dry Tow ................................................................................................ 6 2.3 Expected Speed of a Dry Tow .................................................................................................. 7 2.4 Project Examples, Dry Tows .................................................................................................... 7 2.5 Economics of the Dry Tow Option ........................................................................................... 7 2.5.1 New Barge Acquisition ................................................................................................... 8 2.5.2 Modifications to an Existing Barge ................................................................................. 9 2.6 Rough-Order-of-Magnitude Cost for Dry Tow Option .......................................................... 10
Section 3 Wet Tow Discussion
3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6
Tow Speed .............................................................................................................................. 11 Towing Arrangements for Wet Tows ..................................................................................... 12 Project Examples, Wet Tows .................................................................................................. 13 Rough Order-of-Magnitude Cost for Wet Tow Option .......................................................... 15 Stability and Longitudinal Strength ........................................................................................ 15 Hydrostatic and Hydrodynamic Loads on End Panels ........................................................... 23
Appendix AWSDOT SR 520 Floating Bridge Transportation Study
Washington State Dept. of Transportation Pontoon Transportation Study, Rev. A
The Glosten Associates, Inc. File No. 06050.03, 31 August 2010
H:\2006\06050_WSDOT-520Bridge\Task_1a Transportation Study\reports\Pontoon Transportation Study_RevA.docx
References
1. The Glosten Associates, SR 520 Bridge Replacement, Pontoon Transportation Issues, Rev. B, May 2007. 2. The Glosten Associates, Grays Harbor Mooring 520 Bridge Pontoons, Mooring System Recommendations, Rev. B, 12 November 2009. 3. Hoerner, Fluid-Dynamic Drag, Hoerner Fluid Dynamics, SF, 1965, p. 11-6, Figure 4. 4. General HydroStatics (GHS), Creative Systems, Inc. Software, v. 11.50. 5. The Glosten Associates, Weather-Related Operation Statistics for the Marine Transportation of the SR 520 Replacement Bridges Pontoons Along the Western Coast of Washington, 25 April 2007. 6. WAMIT, Inc., WAMIT User Manual, Versions 6.3, 6.3PC, 6.3S, 6.3S-PC, Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts, 2004.
Foreword
This report is an update to a report of the same name delivered in March 2009. That report was an update to Reference 1. This report addresses an entirely different bridge design concept than that analyzed in Reference 1, with a large number of smaller Supplemental Stability Pontoons (SSPs) to be delivered. The number of routes under consideration has been reduced, with all large pontoons produced in Grays Harbor. The original issue of this report was based on the initial ten SSPs being produced in Tacoma. They are now slated to be built in Grays Harbor. The report still compares wet tow and dry tow options for the Grays Harbor to Puget Sound route. The cost models and acquisition schedule were updated to reflect March 2010 market conditions. They have not changed appreciably since then.
ii
Executive Summary
The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) directed Glosten to provide analysis and research with respect to the transportation of new bridge pontoons from a construction site in Grays Harbor, Washington to the Lake Washington installation site. It is likely that the main longitudinal pontoons will make a stop at an outfitting berth on Puget Sound, where sets of two pontoons will be joined together before transiting the Ballard Locks and the Lake Washington Ship Canal. Specific topics of interest included: 1. 2. 3. Offshore climatology and the skill of meteorologists in predicting wind and waves. Required performance standards, availability, and cost of barges to be used for dry transport of pontoons from a construction site to the entrance of the Lake Washington Ship Canal. Intact and damaged stability and required strength of concrete pontoons for wet transport of pontoons from a construction site at Grays Harbor to the entrance of the Lake Washington Ship Canal. Overview of Cargo Insurance issues associated with wet and dry tow options.
4.
Conclusions 1. The National Weather Service provided statistics covering the winter months from 2000 to 2007, indicating very high skill among forecasters of coastal and nearshore wave conditions in both the 18- and 30-hour windows. 2. A properly outfitted barge similar to the new Crowley Heavy Lift Series (400' x 105' x 25'), modified for float-on/float-off operations, would meet the strength and stability requirements to transport pontoons as deck cargo. A new, slightly longer purpose-built could have more extensive above-deck buoyancy tanks and would be easier to operate. The principal structure could be designed to align with pontoon structure and handle skidding loads. The pontoons have sufficient intact and damaged stability to meet generally accepted standards for a wet tow delivery voyage. In addition: Static longitudinal bending moments and shear forces were calculated for the statistically extreme wave height associated with a 13-foot significant wave height (28 feet, with a wave length equal to the length of the pontoon). Bending moments and shear forces were found to be well below acceptable limits reported by WSDOT. Hydrostatic and hydrodynamic pressure on the end wall of the pontoon has been estimated and reported to WSDOT for assessment of concrete panel strength. Transit speeds for the large longitudinal pontoons of between 4 and 4-1/2 knots are achievable, depending on the tug selected. Towing speeds for the SSPs will be about 4 knots.
3.
4.
Dry towing will be rewarded with lower cargo insurance rates than wet towing. Regardless of whether dry tow or wet tow options are selected, the transportation will be a highly engineered evolution. As such, pontoon transport should be looked upon favorably by the insurance underwriting community. The difference in insurance rates will not justify the selection of dry tow over wet tow. The principal tradeoff between wet and dry tow will be site development and pontoon production issues that are beyond the scope of this study. It is assumed that site development of an on-grade casting yard will be cheaper, faster, and less risky than development of a graving dock, and that there may also be some savings in pontoon production efficiency working on grade; however, we have not quantified those differences.
5.
iii
A comparison of wet tow versus dry tow transportation issues is presented in the following table. Table 1 Comparison of transportation issues
Grays Harbor Wet Tow Dry Tow
Maximum Departure Significant Wave Height, Hs Tow Speed Tow Time in Open Ocean2 Total Voyage Time (excluding mob/demob) New Barge Lead Time New Barge Cost Modified Barge Lead Time Modified Barge Cost Meets Minimum Intact Stability Requirements Meets Minimum Damage Stability Requirements
3
7 ft 3.5 4.2 knots 27 hrs 71 hrs N/A N/A N/A N/A Yes Yes 0.15% Yes Yes Yes No
4
7 ft 5.5 7.0 knots 16 hrs 149 hrs4 $173K 20 30 months $17 M - $27 M 12 months $18 M Yes Yes 0.11% Unknown No No Yes
Tow Cost (excl. barge & cargo insurance costs)
$84K
Cargo Insurance Costs (ROM percentage of insured value) Adequate Pontoon Strength
5 6
Transport System Redundancy Capacity to Move Multiple Pontoons Simultaneously7 Requires Barge Float-Off to Launch Pontoons Notes: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
The subjective judgment of tug captains on limiting wave height on departure. Time needed to reach protected waters of the Strait of Juan de Fuca (east of Neah Bay). Total voyage time includes the inland transit, in addition to open ocean transit. This includes lay time to load and offload pontoons from the barge. Will require a detailed blocking and sea-fastening analysis to confirm pontoon strength under dry tow conditions. 6. Loss or damage of a transport barge would result in delay associated with repairs or replacement. 7. Wet towing allows several pontoons to be towed at once by adding tugs. Dry towing is limited by transport barge availability.
iv
Section 1
1.1
Routes and Climatology
Pontoon Descriptions
The majority (21 out of 23) of the large pontoons that will make up the SR 520 floating bridge measure 360' in length and 75' in breadth, with a depth of 28'-6" at the side. Towing drafts vary, but will be between 16'-2" and 17'-5" for the longitudinal pontoons. Sketches of the various pontoon configurations are given in Appendix A. The end cross pontoons, A and W, will be 240' long by 75' wide, with depths of 33'-0" and 34'-6" respectively. Towing drafts will be 19'-5" and 21'-1", respectively. The smaller SSPs (Supplementary Stability Pontoons) will be 98'-2" long, and either 50' or 60' wide. Their towing drafts will vary between 14'-11" and 18'-1". Their configurations are also shown in Appendix A. The initial 4-lane bridge configuration requires ten 60' SSPs. Expansion to a 6-lane bridge will require an additional 44 SSPs, mostly of the 50' type. The State is investigating the feasibility of several sites, with the ultimate decision likely to be made by the Contractor.
1.2
Transportation Routes
The deliveries from Grays Harbor will include a voyage in unprotected coastal waters. Weather will limit when the coastal transits can occur. Longitudinal bending and directional stability of a pontoon under tow are two key factors that are affected by ocean weather and, in particular, wave height. This review selects departure weather criteria (7-foot seas or less, and diminishing in the forecast), and provides seasonal estimates for operability within that limit. Since departure decisions will be made on the basis of forecasts, this review provides a measure of the skill of forecasters; i.e., their batting average. Lastly, by looking at how badly forecasters miss in their predictions of wave height, it lends support to the selection of a design wave for analyzing pontoon bending and shear that is almost twice the departure condition. The pontoons manufactured in Grays Harbor will travel about 20 miles, from the construction facility to the open ocean, before undertaking a 108-mile open transit to the Straits. Each leg of the journey represents a particular challenge in seamanship. The inland portions are affected only slightly by weather; however, the bar crossing from Grays Harbor to the open ocean and the coastal transit are highly dependent on weather conditions.
Figure 1
Pontoon delivery route
In a 2007 Glosten report (Reference 1), we recommended that ocean passages be limited to offshore conditions of 7 feet significant wave height or less (and diminishing). At a tow speed of 4 knots (in the case of a wet tow, described in more detail in Section 3 below), the exposed passage from Grays Harbor will take about 27 hours. The initial determination of departure conditions was based on controllability issues associated with towing out of Grays Harbor, after discussions with experienced tug captains about the difficulties of this passage.
1.3
Weather Duration Statistics
Wave data collected by several weather monitoring buoys off the Washington coast were analyzed to provide an estimate of operability with regard to the open ocean portion of the transit. In Table 2 below, the weather operability for deliveries from Grays Harbor is defined as the probability of finding a 24-hour weather window in which the significant wave height remains below 7 feet.
Table 2 Grays Harbor departures, 24-hour weather operability for limiting 7-foot sea conditions Source: NDBC Buoy 46041 (Jun. 1987 Aug. 2005)
Period Weather Operability (%) Period Weather Operability (%)
January February March April May June July
13 17 20 26 51 63 80
2
August September October November December Annual
77 50 29 10 9 39
The foregoing table was excerpted from Reference 5, Glostens Weather-Related Operation Statistics for the Marine Transportation of the SR 520 Replacement Bridges Pontoons Along the Western Coast of Washington. These data demonstrate the significant impact that seasons will have on pontoon transportation issues. During July and August, limiting departure weather criteria for Grays Harbor can be met almost 80% of the time. It is useful to note that good correlation exists between the wave height measurements recorded at Buoys 46010 and 46041, suggesting that it is reasonable to use the weather measurements at Buoy 46010 (offshore the mouth of the Columbia River) to predict weather operability for vessel transit along the Washington coast, which is discussed in the 2007 report as well.
1.4
Schedule
We have a schedule prepared by WSDOT that assumes the pontoons will be transported as available. We have based costing on that schedule, even though it is possible that the pontoons may be stored for several years in Grays Harbor. The 23 main pontoons will become available between August 2013 and August 2014, a period of 378 days, or an average interval of approximately 17 days. (The first pontoon departs on Day 0, and the remaining 22 pontoons depart over the next 378 days at a minimum average interval of 17.2 days.) A typical dry tow round trip might comprise: Load and Sea Fasten ............................................ 5 Days Wait for Bar Conditions ...................................1/2 Day (Waiting for Slack Water, Daylight) Grays Harbor Entrance to Tatoosh ...................1/2 Day Tatoosh to Seattle .............................................1/2 Day Float Off and De-ballast ...................................... 4 Days Seattle to Tatoosh .............................................1/2 Day Tatoosh to Grays Harbor Entrance ...................1/2 Day Wait for Bar Conditions ...................................1/2 Day Total Round Trip ............................................ 12 Days Based on this typical dry tow trip schedule, there would be adequate time to deliver the pontoons with the planned 378-day window. (The annual 39% operability, shown in Table 2, is for a 24-hour departure window, not an entire round trip.) The wet tow schedule would be similar. While the tow itself is slower, the tug can return faster on its own than towing an empty barge, and the load/unload times are eliminated. The initial ten SSPs for the 4-lane bridge configuration are assumed to be constructed in Grays Harbor. However, they may be moored in Tacoma for staging and/or outfitting prior to being towed to Lake Washington. From Tacoma to Lake Washington, these are
presumed to be wet tows in protected waters. The same is true of the final transit of all pontoons through the Ballard Locks and the Lake Washington Ship Canal. The additional 44 SSPs for the 6-lane configuration become available in March 2015. The 26 that are scheduled to be constructed in Grays Harbor will be towed to Lake Washington between March 2015 and October 2015, a period of 228 days. If these are dry towed, five of the 18 SSP60 pontoons or six of the 26 SSP50s could be carried on the same barge assumed for the large pontoon moves. Thus, the shipment can be accommodated in five voyages. Five voyages over 228 days is an average interval of 45 days, which should be easy to accomplish, considering that most of the shipments are during summer and early fall. If the SSPs are wet towed, we can assume a speed of 4 knots with a 2000 HP tug. We assume they will all be single tows. The possibility of tandem tows is not incorporated into our evaluation of the schedule. A typical round trip would be: Rig for Tow ......................................................... 1 Day Wait For Bar Conditions ..................................1/2 Day (Waiting for Slack Water, Daylight) Grays Harbor Entrance to Tatoosh ...................... 1 Day Tatoosh to Seattle ................................................ 1 Day Deliver to Safe Berth or to Bridge ...................... 1 Day Seattle to Tatoosh .............................................1/2 Day Tatoosh to Grays Harbor Entrance ...................1/2 Day Wait for Bar Conditions ...................................1/2 Day Total Round Trip .............................................. 6 Days One tug can make 26 round trips in 156 days, well within the 228 days scheduled. We obtained data on official Grays Harbor bar closings from Coast Guard Sector Portland for the three year period 2007 through 2009. There were six closures during winter 2007-2008, two closures during 2008-2009, and three to date during 2009-2010. These are complete closures to all traffic, not just small craft, and can often last for several days.
Section 2
Barge for Dry Tow
References to a dry tow option mean that a pontoon will be loaded aboard another vessel for at least a portion of the transit from a remote construction site.
2.1
Barge Dimensions and Stowage
Our preliminary assessment demonstrates that a barge similar to Crowleys new Heavy Lift Series barge would be an appropriate size for transporting single pontoons. At 400' x 105' x 25' and with a deadweight capacity in excess of 38,000 kips, they may offer a suitable platform for transporting pontoons with a footprint of 360' x 75' and weight up to 30,075 kips. Crowley has taken delivery of several to date.
Figure 2
400 x 105 x 25 Heavy Lift Series barge (courtesy of Crowley Maritime Corporation)
A new purpose-built, slightly longer barge could have more extensive above-deck buoyancy tanks, and would be easier to operate. Principal structure could be designed to align with pontoon structure and handle skidding loads. In the initial 4-lane bridge phase, all of the 23 large pontoons built at Grays Harbor would be carried one per voyage. In the subsequent phase, expanding to the 6-lane configuration, the 26 SSPs scheduled for construction in Grays Harbor could be transported in seven voyages on the same size barge.
2.2
Stability and Longitudinal Strength
Intact stability requirements are dictated by the Coast Guard Regulations for deck cargo barges under 46 CFR 170.170. Without running the calculations, we believe the barges nominated above will meet the requirements for reserve righting energy. There is no statutory requirement for damage stability; however, we recommend that a twocompartment standard be adopted. This is discussed in more detail in the Wet Tow discussion below. Without running the calculations, we believe that these barges will be able to remain afloat and upright even with two-compartment extent of damage.
There are no statutory requirements for longitudinal strength and stiffness other than those implied under the load line regulations. The Heavy Lift Series is advertised as being capable of withstanding concentrated loads of up to 4,200 pounds per square foot (psf). Even when ballasted to bring it to even keel, the heaviest pontoon to be taken as deck cargo would produce a global footprint pressure about 1100 pounds per square foot. This is a very well distributed load that should not overtax the longitudinal strength of the barge. It indicates that an engineering solution exists for properly blocking the load and installing seafastenings. 2.2.1 Limitations of a Dry Tow The Ballard Locks are 80 feet. This is not wide enough to accommodate barges suitable for dry tow. The pontoons will have to be discharged from the transport barge, likely in a float-off operation. While the Crowley barges described above represent appropriate sizes for a transport barge, they lack the equipment to serve as a submersible barge. At a minimum, the barge would have to be equipped with the necessary pumps and piping for the ballast transfer system, and buoyancy casings fore and aft that would extend above the waterline to maintain positive stability when the barge is submerged. (Note the two structures aft of the load deck and the deep forecastle forward in Figure 3 below.)
Figure 3
Heavy lift ship Transshelf (photo courtesy of Dockwise Shipping BV)
It would be premature at this stage to engineer a fully capable submersible barge, either as a newbuild or as a conversion. Nonetheless, cost estimates presented elsewhere in this report include budgets for engineering and materials in the capital acquisition costs.
Washington State Dept. of Transportation Pontoon Transportation Study, Rev. A 6 The Glosten Associates, Inc. File No. 06050.03, 31 August 2010
2.3
Expected Speed of a Dry Tow
The Heavy Lift Series Crowley barges are equipped with towing gear that allows large tugs to be used. Preliminary tow speed estimates indicate that a 5,000 horsepower tug, such as Crowleys Robin class, should be able to make at least 5-1/2 knots, while a 7,200 horsepower tug, such as the Invader class, should achieve about 7 to 8 knots. These represent average speeds through the water in an unrestricted offshore environment. The Navy formulas include an allowance that effectively reduces speed predictions to account for increased resistance in waves. There should be no shortage of appropriate tugs. Conventional tugs in this horsepower range are available in the Pacific Northwest, even in the spot market.
2.4
Project Examples, Dry Tows
An example of dry tow transport used on a public works project is the Ted Williams Tunnel (I-90) in Boston Harbor, shown below in Figure 4. In 1991, Morrison Knudsen Company was the successful bidder on this project. During the bidding phase, they entered into an option agreement with tug-barge operator Otto Candies to provide a purpose-built submersible barge to move the twelve tube segments from a construction yard in Baltimore to the Boston site. The barge O.C. 350 is still working actively in the Gulf Coast offshore spot market, and is one of the few Jones Act submersible barges currently in service. It is not quite large enough to transport the SR520 Bridge pontoons.
Figure 4
Barge O.C. 350 transporting tunnel sections
Note that the barge is not equipped with aft buoyancy casings. It is equipped with a forecastle, which is obscured by the tunnel section. Specific conditions at the tunnel site allowed them to omit the aft casings; instead, they grounded the stern of the barge on the harbor bottom at a controlled water depth. Local conditions at the entrance to the Lake Washington Ship Canal do not lend themselves to a similar economy.
2.5
Economics of the Dry Tow Option
All of the transportation companies contacted about this project expressed interest in competing for the work. If the project goes forward with the dry tow option, there are two options for fulfilling the need for a heavy lift, submersible barge: 1. Commission the construction of a purpose-built barge. 2. Commission the modification of an existing barge.
Washington State Dept. of Transportation Pontoon Transportation Study, Rev. A The Glosten Associates, Inc. File No. 06050.03, 31 August 2010
2.5.1 New Barge Acquisition Float-on and float-off operations would be substantially enhanced if the barge were slightly longer than the 400' x 105' baseline barge discussed above. This would allow optimum placement of stability casings without interfering with shifting pontoons when submerged. The additional length of the barge would require additional depth as well, to maintain proper proportion of the hull girder. A rough order of magnitude (ROM) for the capital cost of submersible, heavy lift barges in two different sizes is presented in Table 3 below. A simple financial model has been created that assumes a third-party towing company would build and operate the barge, and charter it to the project on an exclusive basis. By assuming a cost of capital of 11% and setting the residual value of the barge at 50% of the original acquisition cost, the cost of a time charter has been estimated. For a company to invest in a new barge, it must be able to expect a return on its investment of capital. Many companies have established target returns (measured as an annual percentage return) or hurdle rates representing the effective cost for a project office to rent the corporations investment capital. In general, the hurdle rates are higher than the cost of simply borrowing money because of the component of owned capital or shareholder equity that is used for at least a portion of the financing. At the end of this project, the barge will not be entirely used up. It will have some residual value reflective of an expected fair market value, rather like the buy-out option at the end of a fixed-end automobile lease; only the difference between the acquisition cost and the residual value is being amortized in this model.
Table 3 Cost to acquire new heavy lift barge
ROM Acquisition Cost 2010 Estimated Cost of a 1.5 Year Time Charter
Barge Configuration
Baseline Barge - 400' x 105' x 25' Enhanced Barge - 450' x 105' x 28'
$21.5 M $26 M
$14 M $17 M
Discussions with barge builders revealed that delivery slots for first half 2011 are being booked now. This indicates a lead time of 1-1/2 to 2 years for barge building. Figure 5 below is a top-level schedule associated with new construction, intended only to demonstrate the time involved in key, and ideally sequential, tasks.
Figure 5
Schedule for newbuild
2.5.2 Modifications to an Existing Barge Discussions with barge owners have led us to the conclusion that, in todays market, the Crowley Heavy Lift Series barges would command a rate of $12,000 per day, as is, on a shorter-term contract such as required for this project. It should be noted that bare boat charter terms on the barge by itself are not likely. This day rate, coupled with tug hire, would be representative of contract transportation costs. Conversion of this barge to submersible service would involve installation of a high capacity pumping system and buoyancy casings. Structural integrity of the barge would have to be reviewed to ensure that the loads associated with submersible operations are not excessive. New loading procedures and stability booklets would be required. Once a candidate barge has been selected, it will take a couple of months to prove the feasibility of the conversion, after which, detailed engineering may consume several more months. Depending on the barge selected for modification, the feasibility study may include a review of classification documents and certificates of inspection to determine whether new submittals for approval of a change of service would be required. The time involved in gaining approvals from the American Bureau of Shipping (the Classification society) and the Coast Guard has been increasingly unpredictable. For planning purposes, it would be prudent to allow at least three months after the engineering is complete for regulatory approvals. The time from the release of an engineering package to a shipyard until the modifications are complete (including time allowed for long-lead items, such as pumps) should be less than 6 months, with appropriate advance notice to the yard. The total elapsed time from the identification of a candidate barge to the completion of modifications should be less than a year. Figure 6 demonstrates the time requirements for key tasks associated with a modification package.
Figure 6
Schedule for barge modifications
Modifications will probably cost more than $6 million. This investment would have limited residual value at the end of the contract term. It may even have negative residual value, by requiring the project to compensate the barge owner for removals and restoring the barge to its as-found condition.
Table 4 Cost to charter and modify existing barge
As-Is Charter Rate ROM Modification Costs Expected Cost of a 1.5-Year Time Charter
Barge Configuration
Baseline Barge 400' x 105' x 25'
$12,000 per day
$6.6M
$15M
2.6
Rough-Order-of-Magnitude Cost for Dry Tow Option
In addition to the barge costs depicted in the section above, charges for towing vessels, assisting vessels, and pilotage will accrue to the project. The following table summarizes the towing and associated costs for a dry tow from Grays Harbor on the Pacific Coast.
Table 5 ROM cost for dry tow option
Towing Costs (per voyage) Barge Costs (per voyage) Total Cost (per voyage)
Port of Origin
Grays Harbor
$202K
$600K
$802K
The total projected transportation cost of 28 voyages comes to $22.5M.
10
Section 3
3.1
Wet Tow Discussion
Tow Speed
The 2007 Glosten report (Reference 1) generated some discussion regarding the assumed speed of 4 knots for towing pontoon sections on their own bottoms in the open ocean, since it omitted all of the information prepared in support of the assumed towing speed. Figure 7 and Figure 8 below are based on revised methodology: The towline pull is from Glostens internal tug performance code as prepared for the Foss Maritime Company. The resistance is from Reference 3, Fluid-Dynamic Drag, SF, Hoerner, 1965, p 11-6, Figure 4.
Figure 7
Wet tow speed estimate for 3000 HP tug towing typical pontoon
Figure 7 shows the estimated drag of a 360' x 75' pontoon, with a draft of about 17' as a function of speed (the blue line). It also shows the estimated towline pull available from a typical 3000 HP tug (the red line) as a function of speed. Where these two lines intersect is the expected equilibrium tow speed, around 4 knots. Figure 8 shows a similar plot for a 2000 HP tug and a 60' SSP. This also indicates a towing speed of about 4 knots.
11
Figure 8
Wet tow speed estimate for 2000 HP tug towing SSP
The question was posed whether a false bow and/or stern could be created to improve the wet towing speed. The speed gain for such a short (2-day) tow would clearly not justify the cost of fabricating, installing, and removing a false bow. Figure 7 and Figure 8 are based on a blunt bow.
3.2
Towing Arrangements for Wet Tows
Standard West Coast offshore towing practice is to tow larger barges on a chain or wire bridle, connected into a surge chain, usually 90 to 180 feet in length and made up of 3-inch anchor chain. This provides additional catenary depth and thereby reduces shock loads. The surge chain is, in turn, connected to the tugs tow wire. The channel depth crossing the Grays Harbor entrance bar maybe a limiting factor in how much chain can be added. The padeye attachments to the pontoons should be strong enough to withstand the breaking strength of the tow wire. Tow wires on tugs less than 4000 HP are typically sized to have a breaking strength of about 5 times the static bollard pull of the tug. For the two example tugs above, the 2000 HP boat might have 13/4-inch wire with a breaking strength of 306 kips, while the 3000 HP tug might have 2-inch wire with a breaking strength of 396 kips. Centerline padeyes will be required on both ends for the smaller tugs that will handle the pontoons through the Ballard Locks and the ship canal.
12
An emergency tow wire is usually coiled on deck at the stern of the tow and connected to a centerline padeye, with a trailing soft line and buoy that the tug can pick up without approaching too closely or having to put a man aboard. This would typically be 1-1/4" to 1-1/2" diameter wire. For the main longitudinal pontoons, the connecting bolt (or strand) holes easily provide the required attachment strength. For cross pontoons A and W and all of the SSPs, however, it will be necessary to design special attachment points into the concrete structure.
3.3
Project Examples, Wet Tows
To further support the assumed towing speed derived from the Navy Towing Manual and first principles drag calculations, a review of similar projects was undertaken. Two very similar projects were identified and are summarized below. They support the tow speed assumption. The Valdez, Alaska city container dock was designed by Berger/ABAM and built by Concrete Technology in 1981. The 700' long structure was wet towed in two sections and joined on site. The tow route covered more than 1200 miles, including an open water leg across the Gulf of Alaska of more than 300 miles. Pontoon particulars were: Length.................................................................. 348' (each) Breadth ........................................................................... 100' Depth ................................................................................ 30' Towing draft (average) ................................................ 13'-9" Tugs ..................................... Barbara Foss and Justine Foss Rated Horsepower .................................................. 4,300 HP Actual average speed .............................................. 3.5 knots
Figure 9
Concrete pontoons under tow

13
Figure 10 Pontoons installed at Valdez
The Alyeska SERVS pier in Valdez was also designed by Berger/ABAM and built by Concrete Technology. Its delivery tow covered the same route as the container dock. Particulars were: Length ............................................................................. 240' Breadth ............................................................................. 60' Depth ................................................................................ 20' Towing draft (average) ................................................ 10'-2" Tug ................................................................... Rig Engineer Actual speed .................................~ 4 - 4.2 kts (@ 3000 HP)
Figure 11 SERVS dock pontoon nearing completion in Tacoma
14
3.4
Rough Order-of-Magnitude Cost for Wet Tow Option
Table 6 and Table 7 present ROM costs for towing large pontoons and SSPs required for the 4-lane bridge. Pontoons will be towed individually, and costs are per voyage.
Table 6 ROM cost of wet tow option from Grays Harbor
Number Towing Costs (per voyage)
Pontoon Type
Typical Longitudinal Pontoon Cross Pontoon SSP TOTAL

Table 7
21 2 10 33
$85K $85K $85K $2.8M
ROM cost of wet tow option from Tacoma

Number Towing Costs (per voyage)
Pontoon Type
SSP TOTAL
10 10
$40K $0.4M
The wet tow option was re-estimated using an updated version of the model created for the 2007 Glosten report (Reference 1).
3.5
Stability and Longitudinal Strength
Summary of Findings
All bridge pontoon types have been analyzed for stability and longitudinal bending. All pontoons have adequate intact stability. The 60-foot SSPs with Anchor Gallery do not have adequate damage stability in the event the hawse pipe is breached, flooding cells 3B and 4B.
Discussion
Given the weights provided by WSDOT in Appendix A, the following pontoons have been analyzed for stability and longitudinal strength: Longitudinal Pontoons F, T, and U (bare and w/substructure & superstructure) Cross Pontoons A and W (bare and w/substructure) 60' SSP with anchor gallery (bare) 60' SSP with dilution well (bare) 50' SSP with anchor gallery (bare) 60' SSP without dilution well or anchor gallery (bare)
General HydroStatics (GHS) software (Reference 4) was used to determine the intact stability, longitudinal strength, and damage stability of all pontoons.
15
Intact Stability
Intact stability for deck cargo barges requires 15 foot-degrees of righting energy for open ocean transport and is addressed in 46 CFR 174.015. In addition, 46 CFR 170.170 specifies a wind heeling pressure to calculate a minimum transverse metacentric height, GMT. Table 8 shows the intact stability results for the different pontoon types. Although all cases given above are analyzed, only the worst pontoon cases are presented here.
Table 8 Intact stability results
Mean Draft
(ft)
Pontoon
Displ.*
(kips)
Trim
(ft, + aft East)
GMt Avail
(ft)
Righting Energy Avail

(ft-deg)
Req'd
(ft)
Req'd
(ft-deg)
Pass /Fail
F (w/ sub & superstr) 16.18 27,931 0.0 16.44 0.96 120 15 Pass T (w/ sub & superstr) 16.81 28,953 0.0 13.10 1.38 86 Pass U (w/ sub & superstr) 17.42 29,879 0.0 8.41 2.29 44 Pass A (w/ substructure) 19.40 21,705 0.0 109 Pass 11.77 2.17 W (w/ substructure) 21.08 23,531 0.0 4.86 3.58 37 Pass 5,632 -1.8 12.88 0.15 156 Pass 60' SSP w/ AG (bare) 16.59 5,344 0.0 14.96 0.17 177 Pass 60' SSP w/ DW (bare) 16.60 14.94 5,336 0.0 14.35 0.17 180 Pass 60' SSP w/o AG or DW (bare) 4,779 0.0 8.70 0.16 128 Pass 50' SSP w/ DW (bare) 18.07 Notes: AG = Anchor Gallery, DW = Dilution Well *Displacement is in lightship condition with no ballast. All other columns are ballasted to eliminate heel. Appendix A is the source for weights used in this table.
Damaged Stability
For unmanned barges and other tows, there are no statutory criteria for survivability in a damaged condition. In view of the regional value of this project and the key waterway routes that will be used for delivery, we investigated two-compartment flooding to determine if the pontoon can remain safely afloat and upright, without excessive bending or shear stress in the hull with any two adjacent compartments open to the sea. The two-compartment extent of damage is coupled with the weather criteria applied in the intact case. All pontoons are damaged in their towed condition (with tanks ballasted), with either a side impact or fore/aft impact to provide the worst damage case scenario. Sample cases are illustrated in Figure 12 (Pontoon U) and Figure 13 (60' SSP with anchor gallery), respectively. The initial ballast quantities in the towed condition are indicated by the word BALLAST with weight of ballast in kips and damaged compartments shaded orange.
16
Figure 12 Pontoon U in towed condition with side damage
Figure 13 60' SSP with anchor gallery in towed condition with forward damage
The results of the worst damage cases are summarized in Table 9. Pontoons A, W, and U were investigated with and without elevated structure, with the worst case being reported. The bare 60' SSP with anchor gallery was also investigated.
Table 9 Summary of two-compartment damage cases
Pontoon Flooded Compartments Trim
(ft, +aft East)
Heel
(deg, +stbd North)
Minimum Freeboard
(ft)
GMT
(ft)
A (w/ substructure) W (w/ substructure) U (w/ sub & superstructure) 60' SSP w/AG (stbd side) 60' SSP w/AG (stbd side) 60' SSP w/AG (fore)
1F.P & 1G.P 1I.P & 1D.P 7E.S & 8E.S 3B.S, 4B.S 3B.S, 4B.S, 5B.S 3B.S, 4B.S, 3C.C
0.0 0.0 0.0 -17.9 -3.3 -49.3 -12.0 -50.5
-4.3 -14.3 7.4 33.1 87.3 86.5 -13.5 -24.0
10.1 1.0 5.4 -23.1 -51.9 -84.7 -4.8 -35.5
10.9 3.8 7.6 4.1 Undef Undef 10.1 6.2
60' SSP w/AG (port side) 3D.P, 4D.P 60' SSP w/AG (fore) 3D.P, 3C.C Notes: AG = Anchor Gallery
The 60' SSP in either a fore or side collision suffer considerable damage. This is partially due to the amount of initial ballast needed to correct for the weight of the anchor gallery and the cross-flooding between Compartments 3B and 4B. Single compartment damage was also investigated for the SSPs. In the damage analysis a single pontoon compartment corner was breached. As can be seen in Table 10, the SSP remains afloat and upright when a single compartment is damaged. In the event that the hawse pipe is damaged in a collision to either compartment 3B or 4B, both compartments flood, and the SSP suffers considerable damage.
17
Table 10 Summary of single-compartment damage cases

Heel Trim Pontoon Flooded Compartments
(ft, +aft East) (deg, +stbd North)
Min Freeboard
(ft)
Stbd Access Hatch

(ft, WL)
Port Access Hatch

(ft, WL)
60' SSP w/ AG (corner) 60' SSP w/ AG (corner)
3D.P(OR 3B.S) 5D.P(OR 5B.S)
-11.46 7.24 -17.92
-11.18 -10.5 33.13
-2.83 -0.2 -23.08
11.24(3.53) 13.28(6.02) -10.83
4.79(12.49) 5.22(12.49) 12.62
60' SSP w/ AG (corner) 3B.S, 4B.S Notes: AG = Anchor Gallery Longitudinal Bending and Shear
Longitudinal bending moments and shear in the free floating and towing condition represent stillwater results. These are presented in Table 11 for the pontoons with substructure or superstructure included, and Table 12 for the pontoons without substructure or superstructure. The results for the SSPs are presented in Table 13. All SSP results are for the bare pontoon tow. The bending is a result of distributed pontoon weight and loads, including ballast and buoyancy, and point loads from the walls and bents. The wave induced bending moments and shear forces are also shown in Table 11. These were calculated by statically balancing the pontoon on a wave that corresponds to the extreme wave statistic associated with the design significant wave height, as illustrated in Figure 14.
Figure 14 Pontoon statically balanced on an extreme wave
The analysis used 28-foot and 15-foot waves as representative of the extreme wave heights associated with 13-foot and 7-foot significant wave heights, respectively. For conservative analysis, the wave length is taken as the length of the pontoon. A graphical representation of the stillwater longitudinal bending moment and shear in Pontoon F in the towed condition is shown in Figure 15.
Washington State Dept. of Transportation Pontoon Transportation Study, Rev. A The Glosten Associates, Inc. File No. 06050.03, 31 August 2010
18
Table 11 Longitudinal bending and shear results for Pontoon F (typical), U, and W, with substructure and superstructure
Wave Height
(ft)
Pontoon F (Typical)
Sub- and Superstructure Case
Wave Crest Location

(ft aft)
Max Freeboard
(ft)
Min Freeboard
(ft)
Bending Moment
(kip-ft)
Shear Force
(kip)
Free Floating with No Ballast Tow Condition Wave 1 Wave 2 Wave 3 Wave 4
0 0 28 28 15 15
180 0 180 0
12.3 12.3 24.2 24.2 19.3 19.3
12.3 12.3 0 0 4.3 4.3
25,000 Hog 24,000 Hog 407,000 Hog 392,000 Sag 241,000 Hog 227,000 Sag
1,305 1,311 3,700 3,920 2,473 2,690
Pontoon U
Sub- and Superstructure Case
Wave Height
(ft)
Wave Crest Location

(ft aft)
Max Freeboard
(ft)
Min Freeboard
(ft)
Bending Moment
(kip-ft)
Shear Force
(kip)
Free Floating with No Ballast* Tow Condition Wave 1 Wave 2 Wave 3 Wave 4
0 0 28 28 15 15
180 0 180 0
11.9 11.1 22.6 22.6 18.1 18.1
10.5 11.1 0 0 3.1 3.1
28,000 Sag 36,000 Sag 370,000 Hog 391,000 Sag 224,000 Hog 244,000 Sag
1,736 1,841 3,578 4,154 2,695 3,220
Pontoon W
Substructure Case
Wave Height
(ft)
Wave Crest Location

(ft aft)
Max Freeboard
(ft)
Min Freeboard
(ft)
Bending Moment
(kip-ft)
Shear Force (kip)
Free Floating with No Ballast* 0 Tow Condition 0 Wave 1 28 120 Wave 2 28 0 Wave 3 15 120 Wave 4 15 0 Notes: Pontoon W tow includes only substructure * Freeboard differences are due to trim and heel
18.2 11.9 24.2 24.2 19.3 19.3
6.7 11.9 0 0 4.3 4.3
126,000 Sag 138,000 Sag 60,000 Hog 315,000 Sag 90,000 Sag 241,000 Sag
2,910 2,902 3,989 3,755 3,426 3,062
19
Table 12 Longitudinal bending and shear results for Pontoon F (typical), U, and W, bare pontoon
Wave Height
(ft)
Pontoon F (Typical)
Bare Case
Wave Crest Location

(ft aft)
Max Freeboard
(ft)
Min Freeboard
(ft)
Bending Moment
(kip-ft)
Shear Force
(kip)
Tow Condition Wave 1 Wave 2 Wave 3 Wave 4
0 28 28 15 15
180 0 180 0
15.7 28 28 22.7 22.7
15.7 0 0 7.7 7.7
44,000 Hog 470,000 Hog 391,000 Sag 274,000 Hog 194,000 Sag
731 4,000 3,500 2,430 1,920
Pontoon U
Bare Case
Wave Height
(ft)
Wave Crest Location

(ft aft)
Max Freeboard
(ft)
Min Freeboard
(ft)
Bending Moment
(kip-ft)
Shear Force
(kip)
0 28 28 15 15
180 0 180 0
15.7 28 28 22.7 22.7
15.7 0 0 7.7 7.7
731 4,000 3,500 2,430 1,920
Pontoon W
Bare Case
Wave Height
(ft)
Wave Crest Location

(ft aft)
Max Freeboard
(ft)
Min Freeboard
(ft)
Bending Moment
(kip-ft)
Shear Force
(kip)
0 28 28 15 15
120 0 120 0
15.9 27.3 27.3 22.7 22.7
15.9 0 0 7.7 7.7
666 2,554 2,548 1,660 1,529
20
Table 13 Longitudinal bending and shear results for bare SSPs

Wave Height (ft) Wave Crest Location
(ft aft)
60' SSP w/ AG
Bare Case
Max Freeboard
(ft)
Min Freeboard
(ft)
Bending Moment
(kip-ft)
Shear Force
(kip)

Notes: AG = Anchor Gallery
0 28 28 15 15
49.08 0 49.08 0
12.1 19.6 18.4 17.9 16.9
7.6 -9.2 -10.3 1.9 1.1
386 656 712 532 613
60' SSP w/ DW
Bare Case
Wave Height
(ft)
Wave Crest Location

(ft aft)
Max Freeboard
(ft)
Min Freeboard
(ft)
Bending Moment
(kip-ft)
Shear Force
(kip)

Notes: DW = Dilution Well
0 28 28 15 15
49.08 0 49.08 0
11.1 17.3 19.2 16.1 17.4
11.1 -10.2 -8.8 1.1 2.4
381 440 549 411 476
50' SSP w/ DW Bare Case
Wave Height
(ft)
Wave Crest Location

(ft aft)
Max Freeboard
(ft)
Min Freeboard
(ft)
Bending Moment
(kip-ft)
Shear Force
(kip)

Notes: DW = Dilution Well
0 28 28 15 15
49.08 0 49.08 0
9.7 15.4 17.7 14.5 16.1
9.7 -12.7 10.3 -0.5 1.1
31,960 Sag 22,460 Sag 43,180 Sag 23,830 Sag 40,780 Sag
1,399 1,399 1,399 1,399 1,399
60' SSP without AG or DW Bare Case
Wave Height
(ft)
Wave Crest Location

(ft aft)
Max Freeboard
(ft)
Min Freeboar d (ft)
Bending Moment
(kip-ft)
Shear Force
(kip)
0 28 28 15 15
49.08 0 49.08 0
12.8 20.2 20.2 18.5 18.5
12.8 -7.8 -7.8 3.5 3.5
391 684 457 531 338
Notes: AG = Anchor Gallery, DW = Dilution Well
21
Figure 15 Weight, bending, and shear distributions in stillwater towing condition for Pontoon F (typical)
22
3.6
Hydrostatic and Hydrodynamic Loads on End Panels
Glosten analyzed the external fluid pressure on the front face of each pontoon type while under tow in 13 feet significant wave height seas. Results are presented in Table 14 below.
Discussion
Pressure due to fluid impact, caused by waves breaking against the face of the pontoon, is not considered. Due to limited freeboard, breakers will likely overtop, so impacts to the vertical face are less critical. The pressure due to forward speed is also neglected, since the tow will reduce speed in heavy seas. Thus, the total pressure consists of the hydrostatic and hydrodynamic components only. This pressure profile is presented in Figure 16. The pressures indicated are gage, so that zero corresponds to atmospheric pressure. Five pontoon types are modeled. The longitudinal pontoon modeled is the one with the deepest draft: Pontoon U with substructure and superstructure. The deeper of the two cross pontoons, Pontoon W, is modeled. All the SSPs are modeled except the 60' SSP without anchor gallery or dilution well (bare), because it has the same geometry as the 60' SSP with anchor gallery but with shallower draft. Three extra inches of draft are added to the drafts presented in Table 8 as a weight margin for the purposes of this study.
Components of Pressure
The hydrostatic pressure varies linearly from zero at the waterline, to a maximum value of P3 at the bottom of the pontoon. Hydrostatic pressures are presented for the zero trim case for the five pontoon types. The hydrodynamic pressure is computed using a 3D radiation-diffraction panel program called WAMIT (Reference 6). WAMIT incorporates the effects of incident and scattered waves, as well as the effects of body motions. These calculations are first carried out for a range of modal periods. Modal periods from 7.0 seconds to 10 seconds are considered. A period of 7.2 seconds corresponds to seas of extreme steepness and a 10-second period is slightly longer than the most probable. The hydrodynamic pressure varies from P2 at the waterline to P4 at the bottom of the pontoon. Between the waterline and the bottom of the pontoon, a simple linear interpolation between the sum of the hydrostatic and hydrodynamic pressures is used; therefore, the pressure at mid-depth (P5) is conservatively estimated to be a linear interpolation between P2 and the sum of P3 and P4. To calculate the pressure at the top of the pontoon (P1), a hydrostatic extrapolation is applied to the hydrodynamic pressure at the waterline (P2).
23
P1 Freeboard P2
P5 Draft * **
P3
P4
* Hydrostatic ** Hydrodynamic
Figure 16 Definition sketch - maximum external pressure on face of pontoon Table 14 Panel pressures on face, Hs = 13 ft.
Pontoon Type Mean Draft
(ft)
Trim
(ft by stern)
P1
(psi)
P2
(psi)
P3
(psi)
P4
(psi)
P5
(psi)
Pontoon U Pontoon U in trim condition Pontoon W 60' SSP w/ AG 60' SSP w/ DW 50' SSP w/ DW
17.67 19.87 21.33 16.84 16.85 18.32
0 2.2 0 0 0 0
11.2 11.2 11.3 17.1 15.6 16.7
14.2 14.2 17.2 22.3 20.8 21.3
7.7 8.6 9.5 7.5 7.5 8.1
9.0 9.0 12.2 18.1 16.6 17.5
16.2 16.6 20.8 25.1 23.6 24.6
Notes: AG = Anchor Gallery, DW = Dilution Well
To simplify the WAMIT model in this feasibility study, an even keel draft was modeled for all cases. Similar results would be expected if the pontoons had been modeled more closely to the ballasted condition (both in draft and trim). The panel pressure calculation was also conducted for the longitudinal pontoon in with 2.2 ft of trim, assumed to be generated by moving onboard weights and ballast. If panel loading on the pontoons is a limiting design criterion, we recommend a more rigorous analysis be undertaken.
24
Appendix A
WSDOT SR 520 Floating Bridge Transportation Study
APPENDIX A
SHEET NO. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
SHEET TITLE
COVER SHEET LONGITUDINAL PONTOON CROSS PONTOON A CROSS PONTOON W 60' WIDE SSP WITH WELL 60' WIDE SSP WITH ANCHOR GALLERY 60' WIDE SSP WITHOUT WELL 50' WIDE SSP WITH WELL TYPICAL 4-LANE ELEVATED STRUCTURE PIER A PIER W 4-LANE ELEV. STRUCTURE - PONTOON T 4-LANE ELEV. STRUCTURE - PONTOON U
SEE "SR 520 FLOATING BRIDGE ABOVE-WATER GEOMETRY 4-LANE CONFIGURATION" FOR MORE ELEVATED STRUCTURE DIMENSIONS SEE "SR 520 FLOATING BRIDGE PONTOON COMPARTMENTALIZATION" FOR MORE PONTOON DIMENSIONS
1
TRANSPORTATION STUDY
Mon Oct 12 13:38:11 2009
Longitudinal Pontoon Deck & Keel Slab & Longit. Walls* Wall 1T Wall 2T Wall 3T Wall 4T Wall 5T Wall 6T Wall 7T Wall 8T Wall 9T Wall 10T Wall 11T Wall 12T Wall 13T Wall 14T Bolt Beam 1 Bolt Beam 2 Anchor Gallery Total * Distribute evenly along length of pontoon
WT (k) 16,391 285 244 426 241 244 424 244 244 424 244 241 426 244 285 495 495 546 22,141
X (ft) 0.00 -179.45 -149.88 -135.00 -105.00 -75.00 -45.00 -15.00 15.00 45.00 75.00 105.00 135.00 149.88 179.45 -175.58 175.58 0.00 0.00
Y (ft) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Z (ft) -15.74 -14.70 -15.28 -15.08 -15.29 -15.28 -15.08 -15.28 -15.28 -15.08 -15.28 -15.29 -15.08 -15.28 -14.70 -14.37 -14.37 -11.31 -15.46
3L 1L 2L
4L
5L
Y
28'-6" 29'-3"
TYPICAL SECTION
1T BOLT BEAM 1
2T
3T
4T
5T
6T
7T
8T ANCHOR GALLERY
9T
10T
11T
12T
13T BOLT BEAM 2
14T
1L
2L
Y X
75'-0"
3L
4L
5L 359'-9"
LONGITUDINAL PONTOON
PONTOONS B THRU V
2
LONGITUDINAL PONTOON TRANSPORTATION STUDY
Mon Oct 12 13:38:37 2009
Cross Pontoon A Deck & Keel Slab & Longit. Walls* Wall 1T Wall 2T Wall 3T Wall 4T Wall 5T Wall 6T Wall 7T Wall 8T Wall 9T Wall 10T Wall 11T Wall 12T Wall 13T Bolt Beam PT Anchorage Anchor Gallery 1 Anchor Gallery 2 Anchor Gallery 3 Anchor Gallery 4 Total * Distribute evenly along length of pontoon
WT (k) 11,259 576 324 324 324 420 323 329 323 420 324 324 324 576 718 154 354 354 354 354 18,460
X (ft) 0.00 -119.38 -98.08 -76.08 -56.08 -36.09 -18.25 0.00 18.25 36.09 56.08 76.08 98.08 119.38 0.00 0.00 -88.84 -88.84 88.84 88.84 0.00
Y (ft) -0.44 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 33.34 -34.21 24.37 -24.37 24.37 -24.37 0.74
Z (ft) -18.36 -16.68 -17.68 -17.68 -17.68 -18.06 -17.93 -17.85 -17.93 -17.53 -17.68 -17.68 -17.68 -16.68 -20.54 -16.94 -13.04 -13.04 -13.04 -13.04 -17.80
1L
2L
3L
4L
Y
33'-0" 33'-9" 33'-0" 3L 4L 3L 4L 33'-0" 33'-0"
TYPICAL SECTION
BETWEEN WALLS 4T & 5T AND WALLS 9T & 10T
1L
2L
Y
33'-0" 33'-9" BETWEEN WALLS 1T & 4T AND WALLS 10T & 13T 1L 2L
ANCHOR GALLERY SECTION

1T 2T 3T 4T 5T 6T 7T 8T BOLT BEAM 9T 10T 11T 12T ANCHOR GALLERY 3 13T
ANCHOR GALLERY 1 1L
2L
Y
VARIES 75'-0"
Y X
33'-9"
3L
BOLT BEAM SECTION

4L ANCHOR GALLERY 2 240'-0" PT ANCHORAGE (TYP.) ANCHOR GALLERY 4 BETWEEN WALLS 5T & 9T
CROSS PONTOON A 3
CROSS PONTOON A TRANSPORTATION STUDY
Mon Oct 12 13:38:19 2009
Cross Pontoon W Deck & Keel Slab & Longit. Walls* Wall 1T Wall 2T Wall 3T Wall 4T Wall 5T Wall 6T Wall 7T Wall 8T Wall 9T Wall 10T Wall 11T Wall 12T Wall 13T Bolt Beam PT Anchorage Anchor Gallery 1 Anchor Gallery 2 Anchor Gallery 3 Anchor Gallery 4 Total * Distribute evenly along length of pontoon
WT (k) 11,496 597 339 339 339 439 338 344 338 439 339 339 339 597 831 156 354 354 354 354 19,024
X (ft) 0.00 -119.40 -98.08 -76.08 -56.08 -36.12 -18.25 0.00 18.25 36.12 56.08 76.08 98.08 119.40 0.00 0.00 -88.84 -88.84 88.84 88.84 0.00
Y (ft) -0.46 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 33.06 -34.21 24.37 -24.37 24.37 -24.37 0.89
Z (ft) -19.15 -17.42 -18.43 -18.43 -18.43 -18.81 -18.68 -18.61 -18.68 -18.28 -18.43 -18.43 -18.43 -17.42 -22.39 -17.67 -13.04 -13.04 -13.04 -13.04 -18.59
1L
2L
3L
4L
Y
34'-6" 35'-3" 34'-6" 3L 4L 3L 4L 34'-6" 34'-6"
TYPICAL SECTION
1L
2L
Y
34'-6" 35'-3" BETWEEN WALLS 1T & 4T AND WALLS 10T & 13T 1L 2L
ANCHOR GALLERY SECTION

1T 2T 3T 4T 5T 6T 7T 8T BOLT BEAM 9T 10T 11T 12T ANCHOR GALLERY 3 13T
ANCHOR GALLERY 1 1L
2L
Y
VARIES 75'-0"
Y X
35'-3"
3L
BOLT BEAM SECTION

4L ANCHOR GALLERY 2 240'-0" PT ANCHORAGE (TYP.) ANCHOR GALLERY 4 BETWEEN WALLS 5T & 9T
CROSS PONTOON W
4
CROSS PONTOON W TRANSPORTATION STUDY
Mon Oct 12 13:38:28 2009
60' Wide SSP with Well WT (k) Deck & Keel Slab & Longit. Walls* 2,915 Deck & Keel Slab & Longit. Walls** 494 Deck & Keel Slab & Longit. Walls*** 175 Deck & Keel Slab & Longit. Walls**** 494 Wall 1T 412 Wall 2T 221 Wall 3T 221 Wall 4T 412 Total 5,344 * Distribute evenly along length of pontoon ** Distribute evenly along first 34'-1" of pontoon *** Distribute evenly along middle 30'-0" of pontoon **** Distribute evenly along last 34'-1" of pontoon
X (ft) 0.00 -33.08 0.00 33.08 -47.48 -15.07 15.07 47.48 0.00
Y (ft) -0.19 8.70 -0.16 8.70 -2.41 -0.31 -0.70 -2.41 1.08
Z (ft) -16.32 -14.96 -15.20 -14.96 -15.01 -15.33 -15.33 -15.09 -15.76
27'-9"
30'-0"
1L
2L
3L
4L
Y
29'-3" 28'-6" 3L 4L 28'-6"
SECTION AT ENDS
1T 34'-1"
2T 30'-0"
3T 34'-1"
4T 30'-0"
1L
1L
2L
2L
Y X
60'-0" 27'-9"
Y
29'-3"
3L DRAINAGE WELL
4L
SECTION AT WELL
BETWEEN WALLS 2T & 3T 98'-2"
60' WIDE SSP WITH WELL

ATTACHED TO PONTOONS B, C, S, T & U
5
60' WIDE SSP WITH WELL TRANSPORTATION STUDY
Mon Oct 12 13:39:29 2009
60' Wide SSP with Anchor Gallery WT (k) Deck & Keel Slab & Longit. Walls* 2,914 Deck & Keel Slab & Longit. Walls** 494 Deck & Keel Slab & Longit. Walls*** 228 Deck & Keel Slab & Longit. Walls**** 494 Wall 1T 412 Wall 2T 191 Wall 3T 191 Wall 4T 412 Anchor Gallery 296 Total 5,632 * Distribute evenly along length of pontoon ** Distribute evenly along first 34'-1" of pontoon *** Distribute evenly along middle 30'-0" of pontoon **** Distribute evenly along last 34'-1" of pontoon
X (ft) 0.07 -33.08 0.00 33.08 -47.48 -15.00 15.00 47.48 -17.60 -0.89
Y (ft) -0.14 8.68 -0.03 8.68 -2.41 -0.36 -0.36 -2.41 21.44 2.20
Z (ft) -16.32 -14.96 -15.78 -14.96 -15.01 -15.59 -15.59 -15.09 -11.79 -15.59
30'-0"
1L
2L
3L
4L
Y
29'-3" 27'-9" 28'-6" 3L 4L 3L 4L 28'-6" 28'-6"
SECTION AT END
BETWEEN WALLS 3T & 4T
30'-0"
1L
2L
Y
1T 34'-1" 2T 30'-0" ANCHOR GALLERY 1L 3T 34'-1" 4T 27'-9" 29'-3"
Y
2L 60'-0"
SECTION AT MIDDLE
X
3L
30'-0"
1L 4L
2L
98'-2"
Y
27'-9" 29'-3"
60' WIDE SSP WITH ANCHOR GALLERY

ATTACHED TO PONTOONS B, G, Q & V
SECTION AT END
6
60' WIDE SSP WITH ANCHOR GALLERY TRANSPORTATION STUDY
Mon Oct 12 13:39:21 2009
60' Wide SSP without Well WT (k) Deck & Keel Slab & Longit. Walls* 2,914 Deck & Keel Slab & Longit. Walls** 494 Deck & Keel Slab & Longit. Walls*** 228 Deck & Keel Slab & Longit. Walls**** 494 Wall 1T 412 Wall 2T 191 Wall 3T 191 Wall 4T 412 Total 5,336 * Distribute evenly along length of pontoon ** Distribute evenly along first 34'-1" of pontoon *** Distribute evenly along middle 30'-0" of pontoon **** Distribute evenly along last 34'-1" of pontoon
X (ft) 0.00 -33.08 0.00 33.08 -47.48 -15.00 15.00 47.48 0.00
Y (ft) -0.18 8.68 -0.03 8.68 -2.41 -0.36 -0.36 -2.41 1.11
Z (ft) -16.32 -14.96 -15.78 -14.96 -15.01 -15.59 -15.59 -15.09 -15.80
1L
30'-0"
2L
3L
4L
Y
29'-3" 27'-9" 28'-6" 3L 4L 28'-6"
SECTION AT ENDS
1T 34'-1" 2T 30'-0" 3T 34'-1" 4T BETWEEN WALLS 1T & 2T AND WALLS 3T & 4T
1L 30'-0"
Y
2L 60'-0"
1L
2L
X
3L
Y
27'-9" 29'-3"
4L
98'-2"
TYPICAL AT MIDDLE
60' WIDE SSP WITHOUT WELL

ATTACHED TO PONTOON V
7
60' WIDE SSP WITHOUT WELL TRANSPORTATION STUDY
Mon Oct 12 13:39:38 2009
50' Wide SSP with Well WT (k) Deck & Keel Slab & Longit. Walls* 2,623 Deck & Keel Slab & Longit. Walls** 442 Deck & Keel Slab & Longit. Walls*** 175 Deck & Keel Slab & Longit. Walls**** 442 Wall 1T 360 Wall 2T 188 Wall 3T 188 Wall 4T 360 Total 4,779 * Distribute evenly along length of pontoon ** Distribute evenly along first 34'-1" of pontoon *** Distribute evenly along middle 30'-0" of pontoon **** Distribute evenly along last 34'-1" of pontoon
X (ft) 0.00 -32.82 0.00 32.82 -47.39 -15.08 15.08 47.39 0.00
Y (ft) -0.18 6.68 -0.18 6.68 -1.93 -0.23 -0.63 -1.93 0.81
Z (ft) -16.30 -15.03 -15.20 -15.03 -15.02 -15.27 -15.27 -15.11 -15.76
27'-9"
25'-0"
1L
2L
3L
4L
Y
29'-3" 28'-6" 3L 4L 28'-6"
SECTION AT ENDS
1T 34'-1"
2T 30'-0"
3T 34'-1"
4T
25'-0"
1L 1L
2L
Y
2L
Y X
50'-0" 27'-9" 29'-3"
3L DRAINAGE WELL 4L
SECTION AT WELL
98'-2" BETWEEN WALLS 2T & 3T
50' WIDE SSP WITH WELL

ATTACHED TO PONTOONS D THRU R
8
50' WIDE SSP WITH WELL TRANSPORTATION STUDY
Mon Oct 12 13:39:13 2009
Typical 4-Lane Superstructure WT (k) X (ft) Y (ft) Bent 1 701 -135.00 -0.01 Bent 2 1,419 -45.00 -0.01 Bent 3 1,419 45.00 -0.01 Bent 4 701 135.00 -0.01 Total 4,239 0.00 -0.01 Superstructure consists of girders, roadway deck, barriers and diaphragms
Z (ft) 19.60 19.57 19.57 19.60 19.58
Typical 4-Lane Substructure WT (k) Bent 1 387 Bent 2 387 Bent 3 387 Bent 4 387 Total 1,546 Substructure consists of columns and crossbeams
28'-6"
75'-0"
TYPICAL SECTION
BENT 1 44'-10" TRAFFIC BARRIER 90'-0"
BENT 2 90'-0"
BENT 3 90'-0" 7" ROADWAY DECK
BENT 4 44'-10"
CROSSBEAM (TYP.) COLUMN (TYP.)
W58G PRESTRESSED CONCRETE GIRDER
Z
DIAPHRAGM (TYP.)
TYPICAL 4-LANE ELEVATED STRUCTURE

PONTOONS F THRU Q
LONGITUDINAL PONTOON
29'-3"
X (ft) -135.00 -45.00 45.00 135.00 0.00
Y (ft) -0.07 -0.07 -0.07 -0.07 -0.07
Z (ft) 11.01 11.01 11.01 11.01 11.01
Z Y
9
TYPICAL 4-LANE ELEVATED STRUCTURE TRANSPORTATION STUDY
Mon Oct 12 13:39:46 2009
Pier A Substructure Crossbeam Columns Box Piers Total
WT (k) 1,703 876 668 3,247
X (ft) -0.06 0.00 0.00 -0.03
Y (ft) 1.04 0.00 0.00 0.55
Z (ft) 33.53 14.43 15.52 24.67
Z Y
33'-0" 33'-9" 75'-0"
SECTION AT BOX PIER

44'-1" 151'-9" CROSSBEAM 44'-1"
Z X
COLUMN (TYP.) BOX PIER (TYP.)
Z Y PIER A ELEVATION
33'-0" 33'-9" 75'-0" NOT * * * * * INCLUDED IN TOWING PROPERTIES: ARCITECTURAL FEATURES SOUND WALLS EXPANSION JOINT EXPANSION JOINT SUPPORTS CATWALKS, STAIRS OR ELEVATORS CROSS PONTOON A
SECTION AT COLUMNS
10
PIER A TRANSPORTATION STUDY
Mon Oct 12 13:38:44 2009
Pier W Substructure Crossbeam Columns Box Piers Total
WT (k) 1,723 1,554 1,229 4,506
X (ft) 0.75 0.00 0.00 0.28
Y (ft) 0.89 0.00 0.00 0.34
Z (ft) 59.51 27.36 28.52 39.97
Z Y
34'-6" 35'-3" 75'-0"
44'-1"
151'-9" CROSSBEAM
44'-1"
SECTION AT BOX PIER
Z X
COLUMN (TYP.) BOX PIER (TYP.)
Z Y PIER W ELEVATION
34'-6" 35'-3" 75'-0" NOT * * * * * INCLUDED IN TOWING PROPERTIES: ARCITECTURAL FEATURES SOUND WALLS EXPANSION JOINT EXPANSION JOINT SUPPORTS CATWALKS, STAIRS OR ELEVATORS CROSS PONTOON W
SECTION AT COLUMNS
11
PIER W TRANSPORTATION STUDY
Mon Oct 12 13:38:51 2009
4-Lane Superstructure ~ Pontoon T WT (k) X (ft) Y (ft) Bent 1 804 -135.00 -0.01 Bent 2 1,623 -45.00 -0.01 Bent 3 1,623 45.00 -0.01 Bent 4 804 135.00 -0.01 Total 4,853 0.00 -0.01 Superstructure consists of girders, roadway deck, barriers and diaphragms
Z (ft) 23.62 25.89 28.68 32.00 27.46
Z
Z (ft) 14.24 15.93 17.95 20.25 17.21
4-Lane Substructure ~ Pontoon T WT (k) Bent 1 458 Bent 2 476 Bent 3 498 Bent 4 524 Total 1,956 Substructure consists of columns and crossbeams
X (ft) -135.00 -45.00 45.00 135.00 5.04
Y (ft) -0.11 -0.10 -0.10 -0.09 -0.10
Y
28'-6" 29'-3" 75'-0"
TYPICAL SECTION
CROSSBEAM AND SUPERSTRUCTURE EXTEND PAST EDGE OF PONTOON BY APPROXIMATELY 5 FEET AND WILL NOT FIT THROUGH LOCKS AS SHOWN. THIS FACT IS IGNORED FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS TRANSPORTATION STUDY.
BENT 1 44'-10" 90'-0"
BENT 2 90'-0"
BENT 3 90'-0"
BENT 4 44'-10"
7" ROADWAY DECK TRAFFIC BARRIER
CROSSBEAM (TYP.) COLUMN (TYP.)
W58G PRESTRESSED CONCRETE GIRDER
Z X
DIAPHRAGM (TYP.)
4-LANE ELEVATED STRUCTURE ~ PONTOON T
PONTOON T
12
4-LANE ELEV. STRUCTURE - PONTOON T TRANSPORTATION STUDY
Mon Oct 12 14:06:04 2009
4-Lane Superstructure ~ Pontoon U WT (k) X (ft) Y (ft) Bent 1 804 -135.00 -0.03 Bent 2 1,623 -45.00 -0.08 Bent 3 1,623 45.00 -0.16 Bent 4 844 135.00 -2.47 Total 4,893 1.10 -0.51 Superstructure consists of girders, roadway deck, barriers and diaphragms
Z (ft) 35.80 40.07 44.54 49.00 42.39
Z
Z (ft) 22.84 25.57 28.55 31.84 27.21
4-Lane Substructure ~ Pontoon U WT (k) Bent 1 553 Bent 2 979 Bent 3 622 Bent 4 688 Total 2,843 Substructure consists of columns and crossbeams
X (ft) -135.00 -45.00 45.00 135.00 0.75
Y (ft) -0.09 -0.15 -0.08 -2.17 -0.61
Y
28'-6" 29'-3" 75'-0"
TYPICAL SECTION
CROSSBEAM AND SUPERSTRUCTURE EXTEND PAST EDGE OF PONTOON BY APPROXIMATELY 5 FEET AND WILL NOT FIT THROUGH LOCKS AS SHOWN. THIS FACT IS IGNORED FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS TRANSPORTATION STUDY.
BENT 1 44'-10" 90'-0"
BENT 2 90'-0"
BENT 3 90'-0"
BENT 4 44'-10"
7" ROADWAY DECK TRAFFIC BARRIER
DIAPHRAGM (TYP.) CROSSBEAM (TYP.) COLUMN (TYP.) W58G PRESTRESSED CONCRETE GIRDER
Z X
4-LANE ELEVATED STRUCTURE ~ PONTOON U
PONTOON U
13
4-LANE ELEV. STRUCTURE - PONTOON U TRANSPORTATION STUDY
Mon Oct 12 13:39:06 2009

Appendix S16 01

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Appendix S16 01

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

SR 520 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT

Pontoon Transportation Study Bridge Design with Supplemental Stability Pontoons

Job No. 06050.03 31 August 2010 Rev. A

BY: ____________________________________ ____________

CHECKED: ______________________________ ____________

SIGNED ORIGINAL ON FILE AT GLOSTEN

Project Ocean Engineer

3.5 3.6 Throughout

8/27/2010 8/27/2010 8/27/2010

DLG DLG DLG

1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4

3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6

Appendix AWSDOT SR 520 Floating Bridge Transportation Study

Washington State Dept. of Transportation Pontoon Transportation Study, Rev. A

The Glosten Associates, Inc. File No. 06050.03, 31 August 2010

H:\2006\06050_WSDOT-520Bridge\Task_1a Transportation Study\reports\Pontoon Transportation Study_RevA.docx

Washington State Dept. of Transportation Pontoon Transportation Study, Rev. A

The Glosten Associates, Inc. File No. 06050.03, 31 August 2010

H:\2006\06050_WSDOT-520Bridge\Task_1a Transportation Study\reports\Pontoon Transportation Study_RevA.docx

Washington State Dept. of Transportation Pontoon Transportation Study, Rev. A

The Glosten Associates, Inc. File No. 06050.03, 31 August 2010

H:\2006\06050_WSDOT-520Bridge\Task_1a Transportation Study\reports\Pontoon Transportation Study_RevA.docx

Tow Cost (excl. barge & cargo insurance costs)

Washington State Dept. of Transportation Pontoon Transportation Study, Rev. A

The Glosten Associates, Inc. File No. 06050.03, 31 August 2010

H:\2006\06050_WSDOT-520Bridge\Task_1a Transportation Study\reports\Pontoon Transportation Study_RevA.docx

Routes and Climatology

Washington State Dept. of Transportation Pontoon Transportation Study, Rev. A

The Glosten Associates, Inc. File No. 06050.03, 31 August 2010

H:\2006\06050_WSDOT-520Bridge\Task_1a Transportation Study\reports\Pontoon Transportation Study_RevA.docx

Pontoon delivery route

Weather Duration Statistics

January February March April May June July

August September October November December Annual

Washington State Dept. of Transportation Pontoon Transportation Study, Rev. A

The Glosten Associates, Inc. File No. 06050.03, 31 August 2010

H:\2006\06050_WSDOT-520Bridge\Task_1a Transportation Study\reports\Pontoon Transportation Study_RevA.docx

Washington State Dept. of Transportation Pontoon Transportation Study, Rev. A

The Glosten Associates, Inc. File No. 06050.03, 31 August 2010

H:\2006\06050_WSDOT-520Bridge\Task_1a Transportation Study\reports\Pontoon Transportation Study_RevA.docx

Washington State Dept. of Transportation Pontoon Transportation Study, Rev. A

The Glosten Associates, Inc. File No. 06050.03, 31 August 2010

H:\2006\06050_WSDOT-520Bridge\Task_1a Transportation Study\reports\Pontoon Transportation Study_RevA.docx

Barge for Dry Tow

Barge Dimensions and Stowage

Stability and Longitudinal Strength

Washington State Dept. of Transportation Pontoon Transportation Study, Rev. A

The Glosten Associates, Inc. File No. 06050.03, 31 August 2010

H:\2006\06050_WSDOT-520Bridge\Task_1a Transportation Study\reports\Pontoon Transportation Study_RevA.docx

Heavy lift ship Transshelf (photo courtesy of Dockwise Shipping BV)

H:\2006\06050_WSDOT-520Bridge\Task_1a Transportation Study\reports\Pontoon Transportation Study_RevA.docx

Expected Speed of a Dry Tow

Project Examples, Dry Tows

Barge O.C. 350 transporting tunnel sections

Economics of the Dry Tow Option

H:\2006\06050_WSDOT-520Bridge\Task_1a Transportation Study\reports\Pontoon Transportation Study_RevA.docx

Schedule for newbuild

Washington State Dept. of Transportation Pontoon Transportation Study, Rev. A

The Glosten Associates, Inc. File No. 06050.03, 31 August 2010

H:\2006\06050_WSDOT-520Bridge\Task_1a Transportation Study\reports\Pontoon Transportation Study_RevA.docx

Schedule for barge modifications

Baseline Barge 400' x 105' x 25'

$12,000 per day

BY: ________________________

CHECKED: __________________