Title:
Barbours Cut Terminal - Container Port Wharf Expansion Design
Author(s):
Jeremiah D. Fasl and Carl J. Larosche
Publication:
Symposium Paper
Volume:
337
Issue:
Appears on pages(s):
40-57
Keywords:
container crane, rehabilitation design, service life modeling, strut-and-tie modeling (STM), wharf
DOI:
10.14359/51724546
Date:
1/23/2020
Abstract:
This paper will present the challenges and unique aspects associated with increasing the capacity of one of the container wharves at Barbour’s Cut Terminal to support new Ship-to-Shore (STS) container cranes with gage lengths of 100 ft. (30 m), which was an upgrade from the previous container cranes that featured 50-ft. (15 m) gage lengths. The design criteria included achieving an additional 50 years of service life from the existing elements and new elements; therefore, the assessment results and techniques used for service life modeling will be discussed. In the new structural elements, service life modeling was used to determine the necessary concrete mixture characteristics, including use of fly ash and corrosion-resistant reinforcement, to achieve the required service life.
This paper will also discuss the design approach, including the use of springs to represent the soil-structure interaction, for determining the demands on the various components. In addition, the interaction between the new structure and
existing structure and the resulting torsion will be discussed. Finally, various lessons learned from using strut-and-tie modeling, including the relative stiffness of the chord elements and need for three-dimensional modeling, will be
summarized.
Related References:
1. National Weather Service: http://www.weather.gov/hgx/climate_hou_normals_summary, retrieved Feb. 22, 2018.
2. Weatherbase: http://www.weatherbase.com/weather/weather.php3?s=43637, retrieved Feb. 23, 2018.
3. American Concrete Institute, 2014, ACI 318-14—Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete.
4. American Society of Civil Engineers, 2015, ASCE Manuals and Reports of Engineering Practice No. 130: Waterfront Facilities Inspection and Assessment, American Society of Civil Engineers.
5. Federal Highway Administration, 2009, National Bridge Inspection Standards (23 CFR Part 650).
6. American Concrete Institute, 2013, ACI 214.4R-13—Obtaining Cores and Interpreting Compressive Strength Results.
7. Kurth, J.C., and Lawler J.S., 2017, "Inland Wharves-Challenges of Service Life Modeling," CORROSION 2017. NACE International.
8. American Concrete Institute, 2015, ACI 117-10—Specification for Tolerances for Concrete Construction and Materials.
9. International Federation for Structural Concrete, 2015, fib Bulletin 76--Benchmarking of deemed-to-satisfy provisions in standards - Durability of reinforced concrete structures exposed to chlorides, International Federation for Structural Concrete.
10. American Concrete Institute, 2014, ACI 357.3R-14—Guide for Design and Construction of Waterfront and Coastal Concrete Marine Structures.
11. Life-365 Consortium III, 2014, Life-365 Manual Version 2.2.1, Life-365 Consortium III.
12. Thomas, M.D., and Bentz, E.C., 2000, “Life-365 Computer Program for Predicting the Service Life and Life Cycle Costs of Reinforced Concrete Exposed to Chlorides.”
13. American Concrete Institute, 2016, ACI 301-16—Specifications for Structural Concrete.