1、 ii Copyright 2009, by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. All Rights Reserved. Printed in the United States of America. This book, or parts thereof, may not be reproduced in any form without written permission of the publishers. 2009 by the American Association o
2、f State Highway and Transportation Officials.All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.iii EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE 20082009 Voting Members Officers: President: Allen Biehler, Pennsylvania Vice President: Larry L. “Butch” Brown, Sr., Mississippi Secretary-Treasurer: Carlos Bracera
3、s, Utah Regional Representatives: REGION I: Carolann Wicks, Delaware, One-Year Term Joseph Marie, Connecticut, Two-Year Term REGION II: Larry L. “Butch” Brown, Mississippi, One-Year Term Dan Flowers, Arkansas, Two-Year Term REGION III: Kirk T. Steudle, Michigan, One-Year Term Nancy J. Richardson, Io
4、wa, Two-Year Term REGION IV: Rhonda G. Faught, New Mexico, One-Year Term Will Kempton, California, Two-Year Term Nonvoting Members Immediate Past President: Pete K. Rahn, Missouri AASHTO Executive Director: John Horsley, Washington, DC 2009 by the American Association of State Highway and Transporta
5、tion Officials.All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.iv HIGHWAYS SUBCOMMITTEE ON BRIDGES AND STRUCTURES, 2008 MALCOLM T. KERLEY, Chair KEVIN THOMPSON, Vice Chair M. MYINT LWIN, Federal Highway Administration, Secretary FIRAS I. SHEIKH IBRAHIM, Federal Highway Administrati
6、on, Assistant Secretary ALABAMA, John F. Black, William F. Conway, George H. Conner ALASKA, Richard A. Pratt ARIZONA, Jean A. Nehme ARKANSAS, Phil Brand CALIFORNIA, Kevin Thompson, Susan Hida, Barton J. Newton COLORADO, Mark A. Leonard, Michael G. Salamon CONNECTICUT, Gary J. Abramowicz, Julie F. Ge
7、orges DELAWARE, Jiten K. Soneji, Barry A. Benton DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Nicolas Glados, L. Donald Cooney, Konjit “Connie” Eskender FLORIDA, Robert V. Robertson, Jr., Marcus Ansley, Andre Pavlov GEORGIA, Paul V. Liles, Jr., Brian Summers HAWAII, Paul T. Santo IDAHO, Matthew M. Farrar ILLINOIS, Ralph E
8、. Anderson, Thomas J. Domagalski INDIANA, Anne M. Rearick IOWA, Norman L. McDonald KANSAS, Kenneth F. Hurst, James J. Brennan, Loren R. Risch KENTUCKY, Allen Frank LOUISIANA, Hossein Ghara, Arthur DAndrea, Paul Fossier MAINE, David Sherlock, Jeffrey S. Folsom MARYLAND, Earle S. Freedman, Robert J. H
9、ealy MASSACHUSETTS, Alexander K. Bardow MICHIGAN, Steven P. Beck, David Juntunen MINNESOTA, Daniel L. Dorgan, Kevin Western MISSISSIPPI, Mitchell K. Carr, B. Keith Carr MISSOURI, Dennis Heckman, Michael Harms MONTANA, Kent M. Barnes NEBRASKA, Lyman D. Freemon, Mark Ahlman, Hussam “Sam” Fallaha NEVAD
10、A, Mark P. Elicegui, Marc Grunert, Todd Stefonowicz NEW HAMPSHIRE, Mark W. Richardson, David L. Scott NEW JERSEY, Richard W. Dunne NEW MEXICO, Jimmy D. Camp NEW YORK, George A. Christian, Donald F. Dwyer, Arthur P. Yannotti NORTH CAROLINA, Greg R. Perfetti NORTH DAKOTA, Terrence R. Udland OHIO, Timo
11、thy J. Keller, Jawdat Siddiqi OKLAHOMA, Robert J. Rusch, Gregory D. Allen OREGON, Bruce V. Johnson, Hormoz Seradj PENNSYLVANIA, Thomas P. Macioce, Harold C. “Hal” Rogers, Jr., Lou Ruzzi PUERTO RICO, Jaime Cabr RHODE ISLAND, David Fish SOUTH CAROLINA, Barry W. Bowers, Jeff Sizemore SOUTH DAKOTA, Kevi
12、n Goeden TENNESSEE, Edward P. Wasserman TEXAS, William R. Cox, David P. Hohmann U.S. DOT, M. Myint Lwin, Firas I. Sheikh Ibrahim, Hala Elgaaly UTAH, Richard Miller VERMONT, William Michael Hedges VIRGINIA, Malcolm T. Kerley, Kendal Walus, Prasad L. Nallapaneni, Julius F. J. Volgyi, Jr. WASHINGTON, J
13、ugesh Kapur, Tony M. Allen, Bijan Khaleghi WEST VIRGINIA, Gregory Bailey WISCONSIN, Scot Becker, Beth A. Cannestra, Finn Hubbard WYOMING, Gregg C. Fredrick, Keith R. Fulton ALBERTA, Tom Loo NEW BRUNSWICK, Doug Noble NOVA SCOTIA, Mark Pertus ONTARIO, Bala Tharmabala SASKATCHEWAN, Howard Yea GOLDEN GA
14、TE BRIDGE, Kary H. Witt N.J. TURNPIKE AUTHORITY, Richard J. Raczynski N.Y. STATE BRIDGE AUTHORITY, William J. Moreau PENN. TURNPIKE COMMISSION, Gary L. Graham SURFACE DEPLOYMENT AND DISTRIBUTION COMMAND TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING AGENCY, Robert D. Franz U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERSDEPARTMENT OF THE
15、ARMY, Paul C. T. Tan U.S. COAST GUARD, Nick E. Mpras, Jacob Patnaik U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTUREFOREST SERVICE, John R. Kattell 2009 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.v TABLE OF CONTENTS FOREW
16、ORD.ix SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION. 1 1.1 PURPOSE . 1 1.1.1 Interdisciplinary Team 1 1.1.2 New Bridges . 1 1.1.3 Existing Bridges 2 1.2 BACKGROUND. 3 1.2.1 AASHTO Guide Specification (1991) 4 1.2.2 AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications . 6 1.3 BASIC CONCEPTS 7 1.4 DESIGN ANALYSIS 7 1.5 FLOW CHARTS . 8
17、 REFERENCES 11 SECTION 2 SYMBOLS AND DEFINITIONS 13 Design Provisions SECTION 3 GENERAL PROVISIONS . 19 3.1 GENERAL 19 3.2 APPLICABILITY OF SPECIFICATION . 19 3.3 OPERATIONAL CLASSIFICATION 20 3.4 DATA COLLECTION 21 3.5 VESSEL TYPE AND CHARACTERISTICS . 23 3.5.1 Barge Vessels 23 3.5.2 Ship Vessels 2
18、6 3.5.3 Special Vessels 34 3.6 DESIGN VESSEL. 34 3.7 DESIGN IMPACT SPEED 35 3.8 VESSEL COLLISION ENERGY 36 3.9 SHIP COLLISION FORCE ON PIER. 39 3.10 SHIP BOW DAMAGE DEPTH 46 3.11 SHIP COLLISION FORCE ON SUPERSTRUCTURE . 47 3.11.1 Bow Collision . 47 3.11.2 Deckhouse Collision . 47 3.11.3 Mast Collisi
19、on. 48 3.12 BARGE COLLISION FORCE ON PIER 48 3.13 BARGE BOW DAMAGE DEPTH 52 3.14 IMPACT LOAD COMBINATION . 53 3.15 LOCATION OF IMPACT FORCES . 54 3.15.1 Substructure Design 54 3.15.2 Superstructure Design. 56 2009 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.All rights r
20、eserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.vi 3.16 MINIMUM IMPACT REQUIREMENT.56 3.17 BRIDGE PROTECTION SYSTEMS 57 REFERENCES.58 SECTION 4 DESIGN VESSEL SELECTION .61 4.1 GENERAL 61 4.1.1 Design Method61 4.1.2 Selection of Design Method61 4.1.2.1 Method I61 4.1.2.2 Method II 62 4.1.2.3 Me
21、thod III .62 4.2 WATERWAY CHARACTERISTICS 62 4.2.1 Channel Layout.63 4.2.2 Water Depths.64 4.2.3 Water Currents 64 4.3 BRIDGE CHARACTERISTICS .65 4.4 VESSEL CHARACTERISTICS .65 4.5 IMPACT DISTRIBUTION .65 4.6 DESIGN LOADS 65 4.7 METHOD I66 4.7.1 General66 4.7.2 Design Vessel Acceptance Criteria.66 4
22、.8 METHOD II.66 4.8.1 General66 4.8.2 Design Vessel Acceptance Criteria.67 4.8.3 Annual Frequency of Collapse69 4.8.3.1 Vessel Frequency (N)69 4.8.3.2 Probability of Aberrancy (PA) 70 4.8.3.3 Geometric Probability (PG) 73 4.8.3.4 Probability of Collapse (PC).75 4.8.3.5 Protection Factor (PF) 78 4.9
23、METHOD III .80 4.9.1 General80 4.9.2 Design Vessel Acceptance Criteria.80 4.9.3 Disruption Cost .81 REFERENCES.84 SECTION 5 SUBSTRUCTURE PROVISIONS.87 5.1 GENERAL 87 5.2 ANALYSIS .87 5.3 FOUNDATION DESIGN87 REFERENCES.89 SECTION 6 CONCRETE AND STEEL DESIGN.91 6.1 GENERAL 91 6.2 REINFORCED CONCRETE 9
24、1 6.3 STRUCTURAL STEEL 91 REFERENCES.92 2009 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.vii SECTION 7 BRIDGE PROTECTION DESIGN PROVISIONS . 93 7.1 GENERAL . 93 7.2 DESIGN LOADS. 93 7.3 PHYSICAL PROTECTIO
25、N SYSTEMS 96 7.3.1 Fender Systems 97 7.3.1.1 Timber Fenders 97 7.3.1.2 Rubber Fenders 100 7.3.1.3 Concrete Fenders . 102 7.3.1.4 Steel Fenders 102 7.3.2 Pile-Supported Systems . 104 7.3.3 Dolphin Protection. 114 7.3.4 Island Protection 126 7.3.5 Floating Protection Systems. 138 7.4 MOVABLE BRIDGE PR
26、OTECTION. 144 7.5 MOTORIST WARNING SYSTEMS. 145 7.5.1 Hazard Detection Systems . 146 7.5.2 Verification Devices 147 7.5.3 Traffic Control and Information Devices. 148 7.6 AIDS TO NAVIGATION ALTERNATIVES 148 7.6.1 Operational Alternatives 150 7.6.2 Standard Navigation Alternatives 150 7.6.3 Electroni
27、c Navigation Systems 151 REFERENCES 152 SECTION 8 BRIDGE PROTECTION PLANNING GUIDELINES . 155 8.1 GENERAL 155 8.2 LOCATION OF CROSSING 156 8.3 BRIDGE ALIGNMENT 156 8.4 TYPE OF BRIDGE . 156 8.5 NAVIGATION SPAN CLEARANCES 156 8.5.1 Horizontal Clearances. 156 8.5.2 Vertical Clearances . 159 8.6 APPROAC
28、H SPANS 159 8.7 PROTECTION SYSTEMS . 159 8.8 PLANNING PROCESS. 160 8.8.1 Route Location Study . 160 8.8.2 Bridge Type, Size, and Location Study 160 8.8.3 Preliminary and Final Design . 161 REFERENCES 162 Risk Assessment Example 1.0 INTRODUCTION. 163 1.1 DATA COLLECTION 164 1.1.1 Published Sources .
29、164 1.1.2 Interviews and Correspondence 164 1.2 WATERWAY CHARACTERISTICS 164 1.2.1 General Description 164 1.2.2 Navigation Channel 167 2009 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.viii 1.2.3 Tide Lev
30、el and Tidal Range167 1.2.4 Currents.167 1.2.5 Water Depths.169 1.3 PROPOSED BRIDGE ALTERNATIVES.169 1.4 VESSEL FLEET CHARACTERISTICS.169 1.4.1 Vessel Categories169 1.4.2 Vessel Traffic Growth.174 1.4.3 Vessel Transit Speeds .175 1.4.4 Vessel Transit Path175 1.5 VESSEL IMPACT CRITERIA176 1.5.1 Gener
31、al Requirements.176 1.5.2 Extreme Event Load Combinations (Scour) .176 1.5.3 Minimum Impact Load Criteria 176 1.5.4 Maximum Impact Load Criteria176 1.5.5 Operational Classification.176 1.6 MINIMUM IMPACT LOAD ANALYSIS176 1.7 MAXIMUM IMPACT LOAD (METHOD I) ANALYSIS177 1.8 MAXIMUM IMPACT LOAD (METHOD
32、II) ANALYSIS.180 1.8.1 Method II Methodology 180 1.8.1.1 Vessel Frequency (N)181 1.8.1.2 Probability of Aberrancy (PA) 181 1.8.1.3 Geometric Probability (PG) 181 1.8.1.4 Probability of Collapse (PC).182 1.8.1.5 Protection Factor (PF) 182 1.8.2 Risk Acceptance Criteria.184 1.8.3 Method II Risk Analys
33、is Summary.184 1.9 SUMMARY OF LA 1 PROJECT RECOMMENDATIONS.186 1.9.1 Vessel Impact Forces 186 1.9.2 Bridge Main Span Alternatives.186 1.9.3 Vessel Bow Overhang Collisions187 1.9.4 Mast Collisions .189 1.10 RISK ASSESSMENT EXAMPLE COMMENTS.189 2.0 VUNERABILITY ASSESSMENTS OF NEW BRIDGES189 3.0 VUNERA
34、BILITY ASSESSMENTS OF EXISTING BRIDGES 189 APPENDIX APASSED-THE-POINT QUERY FOR CARGO COMMODITY AND VESSEL TRIP DATA (2000) 191 APPENDIX BMETHOD I ANALYSIS: BAYOU LAFOURCHE .195 APPENDIX CMETHOD II ANALYSIS: CONCRETE GIRDER OPTION A3 FUTURE FLEET (2053) EQUAL RISK201 2009 by the American Association
35、 of State Highway and Transportation Officials.All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.ix FOREWORD The 1980 collapse of the Sunshine Skyway Bridge was a major turning point in awareness and increased concern about vessel collision and the safety of bridges crossing navigabl
36、e waterways in the United States. Studies initiated as a result of this tragedy led to the 1988 pooled-fund research project sponsored by 11 states and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) which developed a proposed design code for use by bridge engineers in evaluating structures for vessel col
37、lision. This effort culminated in 1991 with the adoption by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) of the Guide Specification and Commentary for Vessel Collision Design of Highway Bridges (AASHTO, 1991). The 1991 AASHTO Guide Specification established design
38、provisions for bridges crossing navigable waterways to minimize their susceptibility to damage from vessel collisions. The provisions applied to both new bridges and to the analysis of existing bridges to determine vulnerability and potential retrofit. The intent of the AASHTO provisions is to provi
39、de bridge components with a “reasonable” resistance capacity against ship and barge collisions. In navigable waterway areas where collision by merchant vessels may be anticipated, the Guide Specification requires that bridge structures be designed to prevent collapse of the superstructure by conside
40、ring the size and type of vessel fleet navigating the channel, available water depth, vessel speed, structure response, the risk of collision, and the operational classification of the bridge. This Second Edition of the Guide Specification was developed to incorporate lessons learned from the use of
41、 the original 1991 Vessel Collision Guide Specification; incorporate the current LRFD Bridge Design methodology; clarify some of the risk procedure elements; make minor modifications and corrections; and discuss, and incorporate where deemed necessary, results from barge and ship collision research
42、conducted since the original vessel collision publication. The use of the Guide Specification procedures to evaluate existing bridges has been highlighted in this revised edition, and a new worked example illustrating the vessel collision risk assessment procedures has been provided. Compared to mor
43、e mature and established fields such as wind and earthquake engineering, vessel collision design is in its infancy stages. Although there are a number of important research needs within the discipline, the key areas of ship impact forces; barge impact forces; risk acceptance criteria; physical prote
44、ction systems; and aids-to-navigation improvements should be highlighted as areas of future research. This Second Edition was prepared by the consulting firm of Moffatt and Nichol. The principal author was Michael A. Knott, P.E. (who was also the principal author of the original 1991 Guide Specifica
45、tion). Moffatt and Nichol provided their services under contract to HDR Engineering on behalf of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2009 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.SECTION 1 INTRO
46、DUCTION 1 1.1 PURPOSE In navigable waterway areas, where vessel collisionby merchant ships and barges may be anticipated, bridgestructures shall be designed to prevent collapse of thesuperstructure by considering the size and type of thevessel, available water depth, vessel speed, and structurerespo
47、nse. The requirements apply to all bridge typeswhich cross a navigable shallow draft inland waterwayor canal with barge traffic, and deep draft waterwayswith large merchant ships. The provisions are for normalmerchant steel-hulled vessels (ships and barges) and arenot applicable for waterways whose
48、maritime trafficconsists of recreational or other special vesselsconstructed of wood or fiberglass. The intent of the vessel collision requirements is toestablish analysis and design provisions to minimizebridge susceptibility to catastrophic collapse. Thepurpose of the provisions is to provide pred
49、ictable designvessel collision effects in order to proportion bridge components with a reasonable resistance to collapse. Theprovisions apply to bridges crossing navigablewaterways which carry waterborne commerce asestablished by federal and state agencies. Judgmentshould be used when applying the criteria to waterways in which no defined navigation channel exists and nocommercial maritime traffic can be reasonablyanticipated. Bridges over a navigable waterway meeting thecriteria above, wheth
