New Corpus Christi Harbor Bridge

[bwana39]

It would be great to ask AASHTO to extend US 181 further on the Crosstown Expressway, but don't think that will happen.

I would have liked that too; the Crosstown Expwy has been completed to a full freeway all the way down to FM-43 almost to Chapman Ranch (several miles south of the TX-358 interchange).  Also wondering why TX-358 wasn't designated as a 3-digit auxiliary interstate (perhaps I-137) when the freeway was completed in the late 1980's all the way to (North) Padre Island.  Something else that would have made a lot of sense (at least to me), was extending the US-183 designation from Refugio down to Gregory and join up with US-181/TX-35.

Except for I-14 for the benefit of branding and grandstanding for retaining Ft Hood and I-69 which was mandated and to some extent financially supported by the US Congress Texas has little affinity for IH branding. Primarily it is the (generally small) differences between the technical specifications ASHTO and FHWA have in place for Interstates and the specs that the state feels are prudent for a fully limited access freeway. There are similar but lesser reasons to not convert a SH to a US Highway as well (part is just paperwork expense.)

[Thegeet]

Corpus Christi, we have a problem!
https://www.caller.com/story/news/special-reports/building-our-future/2022/07/15/txdot-delays-construction-on-new-harbor-bridge-due-to-safety-concerns-corpus-christi/65374873007/

[sprjus4]

Corpus Christi, we have a problem!
https://www.caller.com/story/news/special-reports/building-our-future/2022/07/15/txdot-delays-construction-on-new-harbor-bridge-due-to-safety-concerns-corpus-christi/65374873007/

My money is on 2030 at this rate... never ends.

Construction has increased significantly on the southern approaches, but the bridge span has virtually looked the same since 2019. Of course, some stuff has happened, but nothing major.

[MaxConcrete]

Corpus Christi, we have a problem!
https://www.caller.com/story/news/special-reports/building-our-future/2022/07/15/txdot-delays-construction-on-new-harbor-bridge-due-to-safety-concerns-corpus-christi/65374873007/

The news report is very vague about the nature of the safety concerns.

Is it during construction due to construction techniques? Does it put construction workers at risk? Does it put harbor workers or channel ship traffic at risk?

Is it on the finished bridge design? Why would a design safety issue be discovered now, years into construction and after a thorough analysis due to FIGG's participation?

Is it due to substandard materials (maybe steel or stay cables) being used in the bridge which could cause it to not meet performance specifications?

[Thegeet]

Corpus Christi, we officially have a design concern!
https://www.kiiitv.com/amp/article/news/local/new-harbor-bridge-at-risk-of-collapse-under-current-design-txdot-says/503-5a483133-d207-4c46-b478-298e761b799e

[Chris]

IBT had five primary areas of concern:

    Inadequate capacity of the pylon drilled shafts
    Deficiencies in footing caps that led IBT to report that the bridge would collapse under certain load conditions
    Delta frame design defects, primarily related to the connections between the delta frames and the adjacent precast box units
    Significant uplift at the intermediate piers
    Excessive torsion and other stresses related to crane placement during construction

This is starting to sound like a demolition job. How can you repair such design errors without demolishing it? The footing cap (piling cap?) of the main pylon for example. Photos by MaxConcrete from last month show that the main pylons are already built.

The article also says that construction has stopped entirely in mid July.

[Thegeet]

Oh great. A near decade of money and work gone down the drain to hell.

[bwana39]

More FIGG designed trouble...

[MaxConcrete]

This project will probably follow the path of the Ship Channel Bridge in Houston, which was also originally designed by FIGG.

That means years of delay and added cost in the hundreds of millions.

To me it's shocking that construction on the main span was able to progress to this point before the independent review was completed.

[bwana39]

More FIGG designed trouble...

My thoughts are that even if FIGG designed something revolutionary that really was a great idea and the science was good (but unproven) it is so suspect that it fails to pass muster with the revue.  I also agree there is no way to know.

[Brian556]

More FIGG designed trouble...

Why would TxDOT use them after what happened in Miami?

[jgb191]

I'm not a structural engineer so I don't know what to say about the design flaws, but I can legitimately worry about how much longer the current bridge can hold up before it gives out....I imagine it can't last another decade.  And the new replacement bridge holds the key to the revitalization of the city's crown jewel of the tourism economy: North Beach.

[bwana39]

More FIGG designed trouble...

Why would TxDOT use them after what happened in Miami?

Work on this bridge predated the Miami failure. After Miami, TXDOT took the contract away. The problem is there was some of what FIGG had already done that was kept.

[Plutonic Panda]

This has to be a pretty big deal for those at TxDOT. Two billion dollar bridges likely having to be completely torn down and rebuilt... Has that ever happened before in this country? Or the world for that matter? I'd expect them to implement some changes.

Will they have to go through an entirely new EIS and planning process if a total tear down is needed?

[MaxConcrete]

This has to be a pretty big deal for those at TxDOT. Two billion dollar bridges likely having to be completely torn down and rebuilt... Has that ever happened before in this country? Or the world for that matter? I'd expect them to implement some changes.

Will they have to go through an entirely new EIS and planning process if a total tear down is needed?

TxDOT has nothing to do with the Houston Ship Channel bridge. The Harris County Toll Road Authority owns that project. Both fell victim to FIGG.

For both bridges, the approach spans are not affected by the problems. Only the main span pylons are subject to possible demolition. (I haven't been by the Houston project lately, and I don't know what is being done to the south pylon, which was lower than the current Corpus pylons when the Houston project was halted.)

As for the EIS, I don't think there will be any need for a re-evaluation since the path won't change.

[Plutonic Panda]

^^^ okay that's good news then. I was also wondering about the approaches. So maybe it can still all be completed this decade.

[J N Winkler]

The current structural engineer is Arup-CFC, which took over when Figg was taken off the project in the wake of the FIU pedestrian bridge collapse.  I find it puzzling that construction was allowed to continue for about three months (April to July this year) after concerns were first identified.  If there are options for addressing shortcomings in the design by retrofitting what has already been built, these have not yet come to light.

This has to be a pretty big deal for those at TxDOT. Two billion dollar bridges likely having to be completely torn down and rebuilt... Has that ever happened before in this country? Or the world for that matter? I'd expect them to implement some changes.

I'm not aware that this has happened before in terms of the dollar amount, but there have been major failures during construction that not only required a return to the drawing board, but also killed workers and resulted in then widely respected engineering firms being disqualified for a period of time.

The Québec Bridge (1907, 1916) is one notorious example.  More recently, in the late 1960's and early 1970's, there was a rash of long-span steel box girder bridges collapsing while under construction, including the Cleddau Bridge (1970).

Will they have to go through an entirely new EIS and planning process if a total tear down is needed?

I'd worry about having to re-do the Coast Guard permitting process if the design fixes change the navigational envelope.  Otherwise, I wouldn't expect a do-over from square one.  There will of course be lengthy delays, one way or another.

[Bobby5280]

I'd worry about having to re-do the Coast Guard permitting process if the design fixes change the navigational envelope.

If they have to build entirely new support towers for the main span of the New Harbor Bridge it's likely the new pair would have to be built in the water. The unfinished towers are on land, but very close to the North and South edges of the Main Turning Basin. I don't know if it's possible for engineers and construction crew to repair the flaws in the unfinished towers and other in-progress elements of the bridge. If they have to start over they'll have to erect new support pylons in new locations with new foundations. I don't know how close those can be built to any existing pylons and pylon foundations. The stability of soil, bedrock and water intrusion are big concerns.

[J N Winkler]

If they have to build entirely new support towers for the main span of the New Harbor Bridge it's likely the new pair would have to be built in the water. The unfinished towers are on land, but very close to the North and South edges of the Main Turning Basin. I don't know if it's possible for engineers and construction crew to repair the flaws in the unfinished towers and other in-progress elements of the bridge. If they have to start over they'll have to erect new support pylons in new locations with new foundations. I don't know how close those can be built to any existing pylons and pylon foundations. The stability of soil, bedrock and water intrusion are big concerns.

I think part of the challenge is that they are trying to push the envelope in terms of span length.  There is about 1600 ft (using Google Maps' distance measurement tool) between the pylons, and 1300 ft is these days considered about the maximum length for a cable-stayed precast concrete segmental span.

Of course, there are possible solutions even if they have to tear everything out and go with a completely different design concept.  It will just take time and a hell of a lot of money, including legal fees as TxDOT, Flatiron/Dragados, Figg, and Arup-CFC work out attribution of responsibility.

[rte66man]

https://www.kiiitv.com/article/news/local/txdot-new-harbor-bridge-developer-in-default-could-be-fired/503-3d826a1b-17e1-4f31-8621-c7a63591440b

TxDOT: Harbor Bridge developer did not take steps to fix flaws

CORPUS CHRISTI, Texas – The Texas Department of Transportation said Tuesday the developer of the new Harbor Bridge has defaulted on its contract and has 15 days to fix design flaws with the bridge or TxDOT will fire them.

This comes a little more than a month after TxDOT halted all work on the new Harbor Bridge and later said the bridge was at risk of "collapse" should work continue.

"This is unfortunate, disappointing and unacceptable," Executive Director of TxDOT Marc Williams said about developer Flatiron/Dragados LLC's (FDLCC) "lack of responsiveness" to safety concerns brought by TxDOT.

Williams said TxDOT has long had questions about key design elements of the new Harbor Bridge.

"Over the course of the project, there have been assurances by Flatiron/Dragados that these issues had been or would be addressed," Williams said.

TxDOT hired a fully independent bridge engineering firm, Systra International Bridge Technologies, to confirm that those concerns were addressed and found that they were not.

"Earlier this year, this review identified several areas of concern that generally involved instances where the bridge design did not meet various industry standards specified by TxDOT," Williams said. Issues with foundations, load and weight capacity and the future stability of mainstay bridge were all included in the independent review.

After the review was complete, TxDOT sent FDLCC a notice of nonconforming work on April 29, 2022, Williams said, to formally let FDLCC know about the concerns.

On July 15, 2022, TxDOT suspended work on the bridge after FDLLC's "lack of responsiveness" to TxDOT's concerns.

"Despite numerous meetings between TxDOT, the Flatiron/Dragados team, and IBT, Flatiron Dragados has refused to acknowledge the safety issues that have been identified or to take any steps to correct them," Williams said.

"This is unacceptable and places TxDOT in the unfortunate position today of having to provide Flatiron/Dragados with a notice of default."

FDLCC has 15 days to "definitively address the safety issues that have been raised," and if they don't, TxDOT said they will replace them as the contractor.

"Should we have to move forward with terminating this contractor, TxDOT will expedite the process to move ahead safely and deliberately by securing new contractors to complete the work on the Harbor Bridge, specifically to address the safety issues that have been established and finish the job," Williams said.

This all may, again, push back the estimated completion date for the new Harbor Bridge, Williams said.

"We are going to see this project through to completion," Williams said in the press conference.

TxDOT held the meeting Tuesday to "reinforce that safety remains our highest priority as we work to assure the new Harbor Bridge is properly and safely constructed," Williams said.   

[CoreySamson]

^
Well, I am at least very glad that TxDOT is being proactive about making sure this bridge is going to be safe and structurally sound (unlike some other states on the Mid-South board). I say just fire FDLCC now since they don't seem to care about fixing flaws.

[Scott5114]

They legally have to give them a chance to respond, even if they have no expectation that they will in a satisfactory way. Otherwise, TxDOT would be the one breaching the contract, rather than FDLCC.

[longhorn]

Progress?

https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/contractor-on-paused-930m-texas-bridge-backs-down-over-design-dispute-02-09-2022/

[skluth]

Excellent breakdown of the New Harbor Bridge conflict between the contractors and TXDOT

[armadillo speedbump]

Good video, more interesting than I expected.  Thanks for posting it.

But also infuriating.  So if I understand correctly, the contractor took over and was tasked with reviewing the design of the discredited and incompetent FIGG for critical flaws, correcting and making sure the revised design would be safe.  After which they were able to renew construction while the state's independent firm finished it's review of the revised design. 

And now their defense is basically, "Why didn't you stop us from proceeding with our new revised design that we were supposed to make safe but we failed to catch our own mistakes and flaws?"  Seems like another case of either a firm's incompetence and/or putting profits over safety.  With such a critical structure like this massive bridge, where a failure could literally kill hundreds or thousands, why shouldn't the persons who failed in their safety review of the design be barred from future infrastructure work?