WAVE FORCES ON

BRIDGE DECKS

Scott L. Douglass, Qin “Jim” Chen, and Joseph M. Olsen

Coastal Transportation Engineering Research & Education Center
Department of Civil Engineering
University of South Alabama
Mobile, AL 36688

Billy L. Edge
Texas A&M University
College Station, TX

Dan Brown
Dan Brown and Associates
300 Woodland Road
Sequatchie, TN 37374

June 2006

Prepared for

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
OFFICE OF BRIDGE TECHNOLOGY
WASHINGTON, DC
 Executive Summary

This report is a synthesis of existing knowledge related to wave forces on highway bridge decks.
Included are results of some original, focused research on the topic including a new,
recommended approach for estimating these forces. The Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA) is funding this synthesis study and associated research into this topic area. This
synthesis study brought together a multidisciplinary team of coastal and geotechnical engineers
to assist in the investigation.

A number of coastal bridges have been damaged during hurricanes. Two fundamental
questions addressed by this report are:

1) “What is the specific bridge damage mechanism during these storms?”

2) “How big are the wave forces on the bridge decks?”

A review of the engineering literature finds limited guidance on methods for estimating wave
loads on bridge decks. The literature includes research from the transportation engineering
community as well as some research on related issues in the coastal and ocean engineering
community. Some of the methods from the coastal and ocean engineering literature can be
adapted to provide preliminary estimates of wave loads on highway bridge decks.

Part of this research includes on-going original laboratory tests of waves hitting scale models of
a simple-span bridge deck at a state-of-the-art wave basin at Texas A&M University.
Preliminary tests found that properly scaled waves can move bridge decks off their pile caps
when the still-water level is near the elevation of the bridge decks. The decks progressively
move in the downwave direction until they fall off the pile caps. It was also noted during these
laboratory experiments that the downwave width of U.S. bridge decks can interact with the wave
phase for some wave and water level conditions to cause spatially-varying loads (particularly
uplift) which impart a moment. These moments may be a critical aspect of bridge deck
response.

These laboratory conclusions; combined with post-storm inspections of the damaged prototype
bridges, numerical model hindcasts of the wave and surge conditions during the storms, and the
existing methods for estimating wave loads; provide an answer to the first fundamental question
concerning damage mechanism.

The damage is caused as the storm surge raises the water level to an elevation where larger
waves can strike the bridge superstructure. The individual waves produce both an uplift force
and a horizontal force on the deck. The magnitude of wave uplift force from individual waves
can exceed the weight of the simple span bridge decks. The total resultant wave force is able to
overcome any resistance provided by the (typically small) connections. The decks begin to
progressively slide, “bump,” or “hop” across the pile caps in the direction of wave propagation in
response to individual waves. This condition can occur before the storm surge elevation
exceeds the bridge deck elevation.

The buoyancy of the bridge decks is a secondary influence. This includes any additional
buoyancy produced by air pockets trapped under the bridge decks. The buoyancy contributes to
the total force on the individual bridge decks when the deck is submerged, i.e. when the storm

i
surge elevation exceeds the bridge decks. However, bridge decks that were elevated above the
storm surge still-water elevation were damaged in both Hurricanes Ivan and Katrina.

The study developed a new method for estimating wave loads on bridge decks. The study
recommends FHWA apply the new method as interim guidance in this area. The recommended
guidance is simple, can be applied conservatively, and is consistent with the existing coastal
engineering research literature. Wave loads are assumed to be proportional to a form of
“hydrostatic” pressure as measured from the crest of the largest waves in the sea-state.

The new method does a good job of explaining the damage to bridges in Hurricanes Katrina and
Ivan. Estimated wave loads are sufficient to overcome the weight and connection resistance for
the spans at lower elevations that failed (moved) at three bridges: the I-10 bridge across
Escambia Bay, Florida; the I-10 on ramp near Mobile, Alabama; and the U.S. 90 bridge across
Biloxi Bay, Mississippi. Estimated wave loads are not sufficient, however, to overcome the
weight and connection resistance for the spans at higher elevations that did not fail. This
interim guidance can be replaced or modified as research addresses some of the important
questions more appropriately than the existing literature.

The second fundamental question concerning the magnitude of wave-induced loads on bridge
decks can be addressed by considering the U.S. 90 bridge across Biloxi Bay in Hurricane
Katrina as a test case. Using the new method presented in this report, the lower elevation deck
sections that failed were likely experiencing wave-induced horizontal and vertical loads of up to
230 kips and 440 kips, respectively, by 8:00 a.m. CDT on August 29, 2005. At that time in the
storm, the surge had risen to a mean level about one foot below the low-chord elevation of the
bridge spans (bottom of girders). The vertical load is an uplift load acting opposite the 340 kip
weight of the span. These estimated loads are maximum (slowly “varying”) loads at the crest of
the largest incoming waves in the sea state at that time. They would have been adequate to
begin to lift and move the spans off their pile caps in the downwave direction as was observed.

The peak of Hurricane Katrina at that bridge, however, was not until 10:30 a.m. CDT on August
29, 2005. The loads would have increased, had the decks remained in-place, to an estimated
950 kips and 1900 kips (horizontal and vertical) by then. It must be noted that the conditions for
which these extreme loads are predicted are the conditions for which the estimation method has
the most uncertainty. The conditions of total inundation of the bridge deck are beyond the range
of available laboratory data. The load estimates are more reliable for the 8:00 a.m. case, with
the lower loads, where the still-water level was near the elevation of the deck.

The magnitudes of the estimated wave loads, 200 to 2000 kips, are significant and present a
challenge to the bridge engineer. The typical force-time history associated with these wave
loads also presents a challenge. The slowly “varying” loads can be combined with higher
magnitude, much shorter duration “impact” loads that occur if a pocket of air is trapped between
an incoming wave and the bridge deck. The report (briefly) discusses serious implications of
strengthening the bridges to withstand these extreme wave loads, with particular emphasis on
the geotechnical engineering implications. Strengthening the bridge shifts the load to other
parts of the structure and the foundation.

Given the magnitudes of the estimated wave loads, the seriousness of the implications of them
for design, the significant uncertainty in the available methods for estimating the loads, and the
likelihood that the uncertainty can be reduced, further research is strongly recommended to
FHWA. This research should include quantitative laboratory force measurements for the cross-
sectional geometry typical of simple-span bridge decks used in U.S. highways across coastal

ii
waters. Three cases of relative inundation should be considered: one, the deck is much higher
than the storm surge such that only the crests of a very few waves in the storm sea state hit the
girders, two, the surge is just about even with the bridge deck elevation (this is the case where
the prototype damage has occurred), and three, the surge is so high that the bridge deck is
completely inundated.

The most significant need for project-specific design of a coastal bridge is the active
involvement of a qualified, experienced, coastal engineering specialist in a multidisciplinary
team of structural, geotechnical, and hydraulic engineers. Coastal engineering is a specialty
area of civil engineering that involves the unique design environment - waves, water levels, and
sand transport - experienced along the coast. As in any specialty area, specialized formal
training (in wave mechanics, sand transport and engineering solutions for the coastal
environment) and experience are required. The use of a coastal engineering consultant is highly
recommended for any design or retrofit of coastal bridges that may occasionally be subjected to
storm surge and waves.

iii
 Table of Contents

Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................... i

Table of Contents......................................................................................................................... iv

Preface......................................................................................................................................... vi

Chapter 1 – Background and Purpose..........................................................................................1

Chapter 2 – Literature Review ......................................................................................................5

2.1 El Ghamry’s (1963) laboratory tests on uplift on docks ..................................................5
2.2 Wang’s (1970) laboratory tests on pressure on horizontal plates ..................................6
2.3 French’s (1970) laboratory tests on wave uplift pressures .............................................6
2.4 Denson’s (1978, 1980) laboratory tests on highway bridge decks .................................7
2.5 Kaplan’s model for wave loads on elevated decks.........................................................8
2.6 Bea, et al. (1999) approach for decks on offshore platforms..........................................9
2.7 Overbeek & Klabbers (2001) experience with wave uplift design...................................9
2.8 McConnell, et al. (2004) laboratory results and method ...............................................10
2.9 Other ongoing studies ..................................................................................................12
2.10 Summary of literature review ....................................................................................12

Chapter 3 – Case study: U.S. 90 bridge across Biloxi Bay, MS .................................................15

3.1 The U.S. 90 bridge across Biloxi Bay ...........................................................................15
3.2 Hurricane Katrina’s surge and waves in Biloxi Bay ......................................................17
3.3 Damage to U.S. 90 bridge across Biloxi Bay from Katrina ...........................................22
3.4 Conclusions about the damage mechanisms ...............................................................27
3.5 Estimates of wave loads using available methods .......................................................27

Chapter 4 – Laboratory experiments of waves on bridge decks .................................................29

4.1 Model setup ..................................................................................................................29
4.2 Model test conditions....................................................................................................29
4.3 Results of experiments .................................................................................................31
4.4 Planned experimental setup .........................................................................................31
4.5 Future experiments.......................................................................................................32

Chapter 5 – Evaluation of Related Foundation issues................................................................35

Chapter 6 – A Method For Estimating Wave Forces On Bridge Decks ......................................37

6.1 Recommended method and equations.........................................................................37
6.2 Example application – Biloxi case study.......................................................................39
6.3 Technical justification for recommended approach ......................................................40
6.4 Wave “impact” loads.....................................................................................................42
6.5 Discussion of recommended approach ........................................................................43
6.6 Comparisons with recent damage: Ivan and Katrina ....................................................45
6.6.1 I-10 on ramp near Mobile, Alabama, in Katrina .....................................................45
6.6.2 I-10 bridge across Escambia Bay, Florida, in Ivan ................................................49
6.6.3 U.S. 90 bridge across Biloxi Bay, Mississippi, in Katrina.......................................51

iv
Chapter 7 – Recommendations for Future Research .................................................................53

Chapter 8 – Conclusions.............................................................................................................55

References..................................................................................................................................59

Appendix A..................................................................................................................................63
McConnell, et al. (2004) method adapted to Biloxi..................................................................63
Bea, et al. (1999) method adapted to Biloxi ............................................................................65
Denson (1978, 1980) methods applied to Biloxi......................................................................67

Appendix B..................................................................................................................................69

v
 Preface
This research report was written under Contract No. DTFH61-03-C-00015, Task Order No. 3:
“Wave Forces on Bridge Decks” for the Federal Highway Administration by the Coastal
Transportation Engineering Research & Education Center at the University of South Alabama.
The Contracting Officer’s Technical Representatives for this work were J. Sterling Jones and
Joe Krolak.

Dan A. Brown and Robert Thompson of Dan Brown & Associates, consulting geotechnical
engineers, wrote Appendix B of this report. Billy Edge, Bauer Professor of Civil Engineering and
Head of the Ocean Engineering Program at Texas A&M University wrote chapter 4. Joseph M.
Olsen, Professor of Civil Engineering at the University of South Alabama wrote chapter 5. Qin
“Jim” Chen, Assistant Professor of Civil Engineering at the University of South Alabama wrote
section 3.2 and made other contributions to this report. Scott L. Douglass, Professor of Civil
Engineering and Director of the Coastal Transportation Engineering Research & Education
Center was the principal investigator for the research and the primary author of this report.

Assistance with this work from the following is gratefully acknowledged: Mississippi Department
of Transportation, Alabama Department of Transportation, and the Florida Department of
Transportation. A “Wave Force Symposium” organized by Dr. Kornel Kerenyi at the Turner-
Fairbank Highway Research Center December 5-7, 2005 provided many ideas for this work and
the participants in that workshop are acknowledged. Jason White, Justin Hardee, Matt Parrish,
Chris Bazor, Patrick Keith, Cardi Mobley, Caren Reid, Lauren McNeill, Joel Richards, Lixia
Wang, and Robert Foley of the University of South Alabama made contributions. Discussions
with William Allsop (HR Wallingford - UK), J. Richard Weggel (Drexel University), and David
Kriebel (United States Naval Academy) are appreciated.

vi
 Chapter 1 – Background and Purpose
Highway bridges in the U.S.were damaged during landfall of Hurricanes Ivan (2004) and Katrina
(2005). These include the I-10 bridge across Escambia Bay in Florida, the I-10 bridge across
Lake Ponchartrain Louisiana, the U.S.90 bridges across Biloxi Bay and Bay St. Louis in
Mississippi, and an on-ramp to the I-10 bridge across Mobile Bay in Alabama (see location map
on Figure 1.1). A more comprehensive listing of bridges damaged by Hurricane Katrina can be
found in ASCE TCLEE (2006). The extreme storm surge during the hurricanes raised the water
level to an elevation where waves could impact and inundate the bridge super-structure (see
Figure 1.2). A number of State Department of Transportations (SDOTs) either were already
interested or have become interested in the problem of waves and surge attacking bridges as a
result of these storms. Concerns include the vulnerability of existing bridges, an interest in
appropriate design of retrofits to some existing bridges to avoid similar failures, and the need for
design of new bridges that will span coastal waters.

Figure 1.1 Location map of some of the highway bridges damaged by hurricanes in the last
40 years along the U.S. Gulf coast.

There has been speculation about the bridge failure mechanisms. Some of the initial
speculation focused on forces due to currents, buoyancy and waves. The Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) organized a symposium on wave loads on bridge decks December 5-7,
2005 at the Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center in McLean, Virginia. Numerous
engineers and researchers made related presentations including several estimates of wave
loads on these damaged bridge spans. The consensus of that meeting is that the failures were

1
primarily a result of a combination of wave-induced loads and buoyancy loads. Evidence
provided at the workshop indicated:

• these two mechanisms combined to cause the damage and failure,

• mean current-induced loads had a much smaller contribution, and
• bridge scour was not an issue in these particular situations.

Figure 1.2. Photograph of the damage to the U.S. 90 Biloxi Bay bridge caused by Hurricane
Katrina. The simple-span bridge decks have been moved off the pile caps to the left (sea is
to the right) except where they were at higher elevations on the approach to a ship channel
in the background. A drawbridge across the channel is open (up) in this photo. (This photo
was taken looking northeast from Biloxi 9/21/05)

There are two aspects of buoyancy that contributed to some of the damage:

1) The buoyant force due to water displacement by the structural volume when the bridge
was inundated by the storm surge.

2) The added buoyancy effect that could have occurred due to trapping of air under the
bridge decks between the girders and end diaphragms.

However, some of the damage likely occurred when the storm surge elevation was not high
enough to inundate the superstructure, but high enough that wave forces were imparting an
uplift and a lateral load.

2
Prior to these storms, there has been very little research on wave loads on elevated highway
bridges but some research on wave loads on other rigid, elevated decks such as ocean piers,
harbor wharves, and offshore oil rigs. Neither the FHWA nor the American Association of State
Transportation Engineers (AASHTO) has much guidance concerning wave loads on elevated
highway bridges.

This report is a synthesis of existing knowledge related to wave forces on bridge decks. It
reviews and interprets relevant research findings, practice, laboratory studies and other
information related to hydrodynamic wave forces on bridge decks and similar structures in
coastal environments. This report summarizes the existing state of knowledge as well as
appropriate research questions and makes recommendations about future related engineering
research and practice needs.

Two fundamental questions addressed by this report are:

1) “What is the specific damage mechanism during these storms?”

2) “How big are wave forces on bridge decks?”

This report also presents a new, specific method for estimating wave loads on highway bridges.
This is recommended as interim guidance until completing and incorporating additional research
into practice. This new method is simple, can be applied conservatively, and is consistent with
the existing coastal engineering research literature and evidence from recently damaged
bridges.

This report also presents the results of ongoing laboratory model experiments on wave attack
on bridge decks undertaken at Texas A&M University as part of this research effort. There is
also some discussion concerning the geotechnical engineering implications of structurally
strengthening bridges to absorb the types and magnitudes of the wave loads.

3
This page is purposely left blank.

4
 Chapter 2 – Literature Review
Engineering literature has little information on wave forces on highway bridge decks. There is,
however, a substantial body of literature on wave forces on other types of rigid structures
including vertical walls, cylindrical pilings, pipelines, etc. in the ocean and coastal engineering
fields. Of particular relevance are investigations of wave loads on decks of piers near or at the
coast and on decks of offshore oil and gas exploration and production platforms. It should be
recognized that some of the references discussed below have not come from refereed journals
but are either conference proceedings or laboratory reports and have not been peer-reviewed.

During the course of this literature review, information was found on four other episodes of
damage to bridges that were similar to the damage in Hurricanes Ivan and Katrina mentioned
above. Three of these episodes occurred on the same bridges damaged recently. Hurricane
Camille in 1969 severely damaged two of the same bridges damaged by Hurricane Katrina in
2005: the U.S. 90 bridge across Bay St. Louis and the U.S. 90 bridge across Biloxi Bay,
Mississippi (Denson 1980). A simple span bridge to Dauphin Island, Alabama was destroyed by
Hurricane Frederic in 1979. The waves and surge moved 135 of the spans off the pile caps and
dropped them into the water on the east side of the bridge (US Army Engineer District, Mobile
1981). Frederic also damaged the same on-ramp to I-10 near Mobile, Alabama that Hurricane
Katrina damaged. Several of the ramp spans were moved north on their pile caps (US Army
Engineer District, Mobile 1981).

2.1 El Ghamry’s (1963) laboratory tests on uplift on docks

El Ghamry (1963), in a laboratory report from the University of California at Berkeley, reports on
original laboratory experiments on wave uplift forces on docks. It should be noted that in the
1960’s Berkeley was one of the leading pioneers in coastal and ocean engineering research.
Professor R. L. Wiegel is mentioned in the acknowledgements as El Ghamry’s supervisor for
this study. The docks were horizontal decks supported by piles over flat and sloping bottoms
adjacent to the shore. El Ghamry’s tests were conducted in a 105 foot long, 1 foot wide wave
flume. He used monochromatic waves and varied the height, period and elevation of the deck
above the still water. He tested deck elevations that were equal to or greater than the still water
elevation but did not submerge the deck below the still-water level. El Ghamry found that the
overall shape of the force-time curve was dependent on the wave period and elevation of the
deck. The force-time curve was not sinusoidal, and while there was negative lift for some
portions of individual waves hitting a deck near the still-water elevation, the maximum positive
and negative uplifts were not equal. He also found that the maximum measured uplift forces
very sensitive to both of the primary incident wave characteristics; wave height, H, and wave
length, L (or wave period, T).

El Ghamry (1963) modified his experimental apparatus to investigate the effect of trapped air
under the deck by the presence of structural members or beams. This modification included
using caulking compound to fill the gaps in the structure to make it airtight. He found that waves,
for the sloping beach cases, could generate extremely high, short duration impulsive uplift
forces. He associated these very high impulsive loads with the entrapment and compression of
a sheet of air under the deck by the waves. El Ghamry reports maximum impulsive loads were
an order of magnitude, and in some cases, up to 100 times greater than the loads measured in
other tests where the wave conditions did not trap air. It was noted that the conditions under
which this occurred were sensitive to wave period.

5
2.2 Wang’s (1970) laboratory tests on pressure on horizontal plates
Wang (1970) reports on laboratory tests that measured pressure due to waves on a horizontal
plate suspended at or just above the still-water level. The tests were done in a basin at the
Naval Civil Engineering Laboratory with waves generated by a specialized plunger used to
simulate explosion-generated waves. The waves were dispersive and of varying heights as they
radiated out from the plunger. A flat plate was suspended at clearances that varied from 0 to
0.125 ft above the still water level. Tests were done with the plate at four different distances
from the plunger along the same radial line. Wave heights varied along the radial line with a
typical value of 0.16 ft and a maximum of 0.49 ft. Pressure at different locations on the plate
was measured with pressure transducers.

Wang (1970) measured uplift pressure signals similar to those reported by El Ghamry (1963)
with a very short-duration impact pressure and a longer duration, slowly-varying pressure. The
impact pressure was associated with the initial contact of the water surface and the slowly-
varying pressure was associated with the individual wave forms and the wave period.

Wang (1970) found that the magnitude of the slowly-varying pressure was one to two times the
hydrostatic pressure. By hydrostatic pressure, Wang was referring to a proportionality to the
difference between the elevation of the crest of the incident wave and the elevation of the deck.
This result can be written as:

p = c γ ( ηmax − z deck ) (2.1)

where:

p = the maximum slowly-varying wave-induced pressure on the bottom of the plate

ηmax = the elevation of the crest of the incident wave
zdeck = the elevation of the bottom of the plate
γ = unit weight of water (64 lb/ft3 for saltwater)
c = a coefficient with a value between 1 < c < 2

2.3 French’s (1970) laboratory tests on wave uplift pressures

French (1970) reported on another experimental study on wave uplift on flat horizontal
platforms. French used solitary waves in a wave flume at the California Institute of Technology.
The flume was 1.3 ft wide, 2 feet deep and 98 feet long. A horizontal, flat, aluminum plate that
spanned the width of the flume, was instrumented with pressure transducers, and was placed
about 75 feet away from the wave generator. A variety of wave heights, deck clearances, and
water depths were investigated.

French (1970) measured uplift pressure signals similar to those reported by El Ghamry (1963)
and Wang (1970) with a very short-duration impact pressure and a longer duration, slowly-
varying pressure. Most of French’s (1970) report focuses on attempting to measure and explain
the impulse pressure. He concludes, however, that for the slowly-varying pressure, the
maximum pressure was “equal to or slightly greater than the incident wave height less” the
clearance of the platform above the still water level. This suggests the same relationship as
given in Equation 2.1 above with c ≥ 1.

6
2.4 Denson’s (1978, 1980) laboratory tests on highway bridge decks
Denson (1978, 1980) is the only investigator in the literature that has measured wave loads on
highway bridge decks. He conducted small (1:24) scale laboratory tests to measure wave loads
on bridge decks that were specifically modeled after the U.S. 90 Bay St. Louis bridge that had
been severely damaged by surge and waves in Hurricane Camille. The tested bridge geometry
was also similar in design to the U.S. 90 bridge across Biloxi Bay destroyed by Katrina (2005).
Denson (1978) reports on wave flume tests with waves striking the side of the bridge directly.
Denson (1980) reports on additional tests in a wave basin for the case of oblique wave attack
and also for the case of a box-culvert bridge cross-section. Denson performed his tests using
monochromatic waves of all the same wave period (T = 3 s). He varied the elevation of the deck
above the bay bottom, the water depth, and the wave height. He tested some cases where the
bridge deck was above the water level and some cases where it was slightly below the water
level. Forces are presented in dimensionless plots in both reports.

Denson (1978) states several interesting conclusions (but does so without any significant
explanation of how he arrived at those conclusions). Denson’s conclusions included:

1) That wave-induced moments most likely caused most of the damage in Hurricane
Camille.

2) That “… relatively small anchorage forces would have prevented the type of failure
observed.”

3) That “… construction of these anchorage systems would be quite inexpensive.”

Denson (1980) found that there were changes in wave loads for oblique wave angles. The
maximum lift decreased slightly with increasing obliqueness.

There may have been some fundamental problems with Denson’s (1978, 1980) lab tests and
results. The experimental procedures were fairly primitive. Only monochromatic waves were
investigated, the flume was very short, the wave basin was small, the wave gage was crude,
there is very little description of the force measuring apparatus, and there is no discussion about
flume oscillations or reflected waves or sidewall effects. There was no apparent recognition of
the importance of wave period and no mention of model-prototype similarity laws. Denson may
have been unaware of the El Ghamry (1963) tests and conclusions that wave loads were
sensitive to wave period. Denson mentions that his generated wave form had a trochoidal
shape but does not describe it any better than that. Denson (1980) shows a plot of the time-
history of water surface elevation at a point gage that shows a significantly deformed wave form.
Inspection of that trace indicates that there were likely waves of different lengths including
higher-order harmonics traveling at different speeds as well as reflected wave components.

Denson (1980) concluded that since he was testing a “shallow water wave,” the wave period
and wave length were unimportant. The prototype wave period corresponding to Denson’s
model wave period of T = 3 s would be T = 14.7 s for Froude similarity (Tp=(24)0.5 Tm) . This is an
unrealistically long prototype wave period for Bay St. Louis or Biloxi Bay in a hurricane.
Essentially, Denson (1978, 1980) generated laboratory waves with significantly different
kinematics from the prototype waves. Thus, it is likely that the dynamics measured in the
experiments do not properly scale to prototype either.

7
There were also significant discrepancies between the results presented by Denson (1978) and
those presented by Denson (1980). The results from the wave basin tests with waves directly
(no oblique angle) approaching the bridge decks are significantly different than the results from
the wave flume tests. The 1980 results indicate significant higher wave loads. While Denson
(1980) does not directly state this apparent problem, he does mention that any differences are
likely due to the inclusion of structural diaphragms in his basin models that were not included in
his earlier flume tests. These diaphragms were aligned normal to the main direction of wave
approach for all non-oblique tests. It is possible that some of the differences were due to
differences in generated wave kinematics between the flume and the basin.

2.5 Kaplan’s model for wave loads on elevated decks

Kaplan (1992), in the Offshore Technology Conference series proceedings, presented a
theoretical model for determining the time history of impact loads on horizontal circular
members and horizontal decks on offshore oil exploration and production platforms. Kaplan, et
al. (1995) further develops and describes the model for the decks and its applications. Kaplan
(1992, 1995) focuses on the typical problem for offshore platforms. The decks are much higher
than the still-water elevation but occasionally get hit by the crests of extremely large storm
waves. Storm surge is typically not a significant issue offshore (it is magnified in shallow-water
embayments). Kaplan’s model follows the traditional ocean engineering approach of Morison’s
Equation and includes inertial (momentum) and drag terms and evaluates the time history of the
resulting loads with wave phase. Linear wave theory is suggested (Kaplan 1995) as the input for
the wave kinematics required by his model with the exception of an increased wave crest
elevation based on a higher-order theory. Kaplan (1992) focuses more on the horizontal cylinder
problem than on the horizontal deck problem.

Kaplan (1992) cites Broughton and Horn (1987) as finding two interesting order of magnitude
results:

1) Vertical loads on decks are eight (8) times as large as horizontal loads.

2) Vertical loads were reduced to approximately the horizontal forces when deck plating
was removed to leave only the deck beams.

Kaplan, et al. (1995) presents comparisons of the theoretical results with two cases of
laboratory measurements. The theory is within 30% of the measurements. The deck clearance
above the design still-water level was over 30 feet (prototype) in each case. Kaplan, probably
because of the nature of the offshore platform deck problem, does not discuss the situation
where the decks can be below or even near the design still-water level as occurred for the
highway bridges in recent hurricanes. Since the underlying theoretical framework, Morison’s
Equation, is used appropriately for the members of offshore structures that are underwater and
near the surface, Kaplan’s method could be applied to the submerged highway deck. However,
the level of interaction between the structure and the incident wave field that is likely typical of
highway bridges violates one of the fundamental, theoretical underpinnings of Morison’s
Equation – that the wave kinematics are not greatly effected by the structure. The width of the
typical highway bridge can be one-quarter to one-third the typical wavelengths in storms in the
shallow bays along the Gulf coast. Thus, submerged highway bridge decks are likely to have
some significant interactions with the incident wave kinematics.

8
2.6 Bea, et al. (1999) approach for decks on offshore platforms
Bea, et al. (1999) presents a methodology for estimating horizontal wave loads on offshore oil
and gas exploration and production rigs. Bea, et al. (1999) argue, based on the performance of
eight different rigs that experienced major hurricane waves in the previous four decades, that
American Petroleum Institute (API) guidance is conservative and they suggest modifications.
The focus of Bea, et al. (1999) is on horizontal loads since most offshore platform decks are
open, grated decks that relieve vertical loads.

The primary guidance for the offshore industry, API (2000), attempts to avoid the wave forces
by elevating the decks so high that the crest of the maximum 100-year design wave will pass
below the lowest elevation of the deck. An “air gap” of 5 additional feet above the maximum,
design, wave crest elevation is recommended and the lowest recommended elevations for the
underside of decks in the Gulf of Mexico is 42 feet above MLLW (API, 2000).

Bea, et al. (1999) separate the total force on a platform deck into the buoyancy force, a drag
force (horizontal velocity dependent), a lift force (vertical velocity dependent), an intertial force
(acceleration dependent), and a “slamming” force that occurs as the wave crest first encounters
the platform deck. They present the basic equations for estimating each of these forces that
have been used in the offshore industry. This framework can be adapted to the highway bridge
deck problem by making some assumptions about the empirical coefficients that are appropriate
for highway bridge decks and by extending it to estimate vertical loads.

2.7 Overbeek & Klabbers (2001) experience with wave uplift design
Overbeek and Klabbers (2001), in a paper from the proceedings of the ASCE Ports 2001
Conference, report on the design and subsequent performance of two elevated dock decks in
the Caribbean that were exposed to storm waves. They used relatively simple, pressure-based
formulas for estimating design wave loads on elevated decks.

Overbeek and Klabbers (2001) used a “practical design formulae” procedure that assumed the
vertical, wave-induced loads consisted of a slowly-varying pressure and a short duration impact
pressure. The slowly-varying pressure is related to the difference between the elevation crest of
the maximum wave, ηmax , and the elevation of the bottom of the deck, zdeck , as:

p = c γ ( ηmax − z deck ) (2.2)

where:

γ = unit weight of water (64 lb/ft3 for saltwater)

c = specified coefficient equal to 1.0

Essentially, this is very similar to Equation (2.1) and is equivalent to assuming that the wave-
induced pressure on the underside of the horizontal deck is roughly equal to the hydrostatic
pressure under the wave crest, and, for the force calculation, there is no water on the top side of
the deck. This neglects dynamic effects but may be a reasonable first approximation and a
basis for an empirical method where the coefficient can vary. The peak impact pressure was
estimated using

p = c γ Hmax (2.3)

9
where:

Hmax = maximum wave height

γ = unit weight of water (64 lb/ft3 for saltwater)
c = empirical coefficient set to c = 1.5

This equation is Hiroi’s formula (see Goda 2000) for horizontal wave loads imposed on vertical
walls. It is logical, and has been suggested, that uplift pressure on a horizontal deck near the
still water elevation can also be approximated this way (Goda 2000).

Overbeek and Klabbers (2001) report on the subsequent performance of two elevated docks. At
one dock, some connections designed to withstand the estimated vertical loads failed. The
authors, when considering the strength of the connections, speculated that the coefficient in the
impact pressure equation above should be at least c = 3. The second of these docks was
designed with wooden blowout panels between concrete slabs. When subjected to design
conditions, the dock was damaged even though the panels blew-out as designed. The concrete
slabs had bending tension cracks on the top of the deck in the center of the spans. The authors
suggest that these cracks indicate that the “load levels which were imposed matched the design
loads.”

2.8 McConnell, et al. (2004) laboratory results and method

McConnell, et al. (2004) present a new method for estimating wave loads on horizontal decks
that are elevated above the still-water level. The method is based on original, small-scale
laboratory tests at HR Wallingford, an internationally recognized coastal engineering laboratory
in England. McConnell, et al. (2004) and two companion papers, Tirendelli, et al. (2002) and
McConnell, et al. (2003), describe the need for and the results of their study. Their design
concern was long piers with decks elevated above the water to service large ships loading and
unloading petroleum products including liquid nitrogen gas. They tested in a wave flume with
modern wave-generation capabilities at a nominal Froude scale of 1:25. Irregular sea states
were generated in the laboratory with varying significant wave heights, Hs, between 0.1 and
0.22 m; mean wave periods, Tm, between 1 and 3 seconds; water depths of 0.75 m and 0.6 m;
and deck elevations above still-water level of 0.01 m to 0.16 m. Force was measured in the
vertical and horizontal directions.

McConnell, et al. (2004) found slowly varying loads with impact loads as previously found by El
Ghamry (1963), Wang (1970) and others. Figure 2.1 shows some of McConnell’s laboratory
measured load data on one member of the test structure for one wave. The force-time history
has slowly varying load at a period consistent with the 3 second wave period as well as a very
short duration impact pressure. There is a negative vertical load that has a smaller peak than
the positive (uplift) peak load.

Figure 2.1 indicates that there is a slowly-varying load that is consistent with the period of the
wave and a very short duration impact load that can occur as the wave front hits the structure.
The higher frequency oscillations are an experimental artifact related to equipment vibrations.

McConnell, et al. (2004) present their experimental results in plots using a “basic wave force” to
define a dimensionless force. This “basic wave force” is defined for the vertical direction as a
pressure times the area of the projection of the deck into the horizontal plane. The pressure is

10
related to the difference between the elevation of the crest of the maximum wave, ηmax , and the
elevation of the bottom of the deck, zdeck , as:

p = γ ( ηmax − zdeck ) (2.4)

Figure 2.1. Example of a wave-induced-force, time-history measurement from a laboratory

(adapted from McConnell, et al. 2004).

Note that Equation 2.3 is essentially the same equation (Equation 2.2) used by Overbeek and
Klabbers (2001). The McConnell, et al. (2004) “basic wave force” is this pressure times the area
of the deck.

Similarly, McConnell, et al. (2004) define a horizontal “basic wave force” that is in terms of the
pressure associated with the difference between the elevation of the crest of the maximum
wave, ηmax , and the centroid of the projection of the deck onto the vertical plane, z̄ v ,

p = γ ( ηmax − z v ) (2.5)

The horizontal “basic wave force” is this pressure times the area of the projection of the deck
into the vertical plane.

McConnell, et al. (2004) used an experimental setup that allowed measurement of loads on
individual portions of their typical deck. These included seaward and internal beams (that
extend down below the horizontal deck like highway bridge girders) as well as seaward and
internal deck sections. Because of their experimental setup, McConnell, et al. (2004) did not
have airtight joints for their deck that could trap air. During experiments, water was observed to
vertically shoot out of the gaps between their deck and beam sections (Allsop, 2006).
McConnell, et al. (2004) present empirical equations fit through their data and fit above their
data (envelope curves) for each of these four portions of the deck (seaward beam, seaward
deck, internal beam, and internal deck). Empirical equations are presented for each peak
component of the wave force-time history; upward vertical load, downward vertical load,
shoreward horizontal load, and seaward horizontal load. Thus, the procedure is to add the loads

11
from the individual portions (decks and beams) of an elevated deck together to obtain an
estimate of the total loads. Empirical equations are also given for the impact loads.

2.9 Other ongoing studies

As this report was being prepared, there were four ongoing studies related to the same topic.
Three are sponsored by State DOTs and one is sponsored by FHWA. The Florida DOT has
sponsored a basic research study on wave loads on bridge decks at the University of Florida.
The Principal Investigator is Professor Emeritus D. Max Sheppard and the study is small-scale
laboratory investigations of generic bridge span decks including quantitative measurements of
wave loads with regular and irregular seas. Florida DOT is also sponsoring a vulnerability
analysis by Ocean Engineering Associates, of Gainesville, Florida (D. Max Sheppard is a
principal in that firm) to develop and implement a methodology to screen the coastal bridges of
the state for possible damage by hurricane surge and waves.

The Texas DOT is sponsoring a study by Texas A&M-Kingsville to conduct a literature review of
available methods for estimating wave loads on bridges. Dr. Hector Estrada, Associate
Professor and Chair of Civil and Architectural Engineering, is the principal investigator.

The FHWA is sponsoring Ocean Engineering Associates (D. Max Sheppard) to develop a user-
friendly way to apply Kaplan’s (1995) method to bridge decks using a higher-order wave theory
for the input wave kinematics and some newly developed coefficients more specifically focused
on bridge deck geometry. The FHWA will conduct analyses at their Turner Fairbanks Highway
Research Center (TFHRC) to supplement and validate this and other analyses.

2.10 Summary of literature review

The literature review finds that existing literature is not adequate for estimating wave loads on
bridge decks for the design of highways. While several of the existing methods likely provide
adequate estimates of loads for some situations and may prove to be adequately adaptable to
all situations for the highway bridge deck problem, at this time, there is too much uncertainty
and too many untested situations for confidence in design. This uncertainty is primarily a result
of a lack of model tests with highway bridge deck geometries with modern wave generation
capabilities. Estimates from the existing literature do indicate that the wave loads can be
sufficient to cause the recently occurring bridge and structure damage. Because these loads
can be so large, and because of the costs of coastal bridges and the importance of them to the
U.S. economy, research more closely focused on the highway bridge deck problem is needed.

The literature includes research from the transportation engineering community as well as some
research on closely related issues in the coastal and ocean engineering community. Some of
the methods from the coastal and ocean engineering literature can be adapted at this time to
provide preliminary estimates of wave loads on highway bridge decks for the case of deck
elevations at or above the storm surge elevation. Specifically, the methods of Wang (1970),
French (1970), McConnell, et al. (2004), Overbeek and Klabbers (2001), Bea, et al. (1999), and
Kaplan (1995) can be used for preliminary estimates of wave loads on bridge decks near or
above the surge level with some significant assumptions, extensions and adaptations. However,
the unique cross-sectional geometry of U.S. highway bridge decks adds another level of
uncertainty to such adaptations. The only testing of highway bridge cross-sections in the
existing literature, Denson (1978, 1980) may have had some unrealistic wave kinematics due to
wave generation limitations and laboratory-prototype scaling issues.

12
None of the available methods can be considered to adequately estimate loads for the case
where the bridge deck is completely submerged at significant depth below the still-water level.
Neither Wang (1970), French (1970), nor McConnell, et al. (2004) tested this situation and
Kaplan (1995) and Bea, et al. (1999) were specifically developed for relatively high decks typical
of the offshore industry.

Of these existing methods in the literature, McConnell, et al. (2004) is the most appropriate to
adapt to the highway bridge deck problem. The strengths of this method include that it is a very
empirical approach; it is tied to relatively simple concepts; it is similar to and a more
comprehensive approach than Wang (1970), French (1970), or Overbeek and Klabbers (2001),
and it is based on experiments in a laboratory with modern wave-generation capabilities. The
weaknesses of McConnell’s method for the highway bridge application include that it was not
based on a highway deck geometry, it has not been repeated by other investigators or at other
scales, it is perhaps overly complex in its separate treatment of internal and external beams and
decks, and it was not developed for decks at or below the still-water elevation. Wang (1970) and
French (1970) only considered the uplift loads on smooth decks and did not consider horizontal
loads.

The two existing approaches listed above from the offshore oil industry, Bea et al. (1999) and
Kaplan (1995), can be used to estimate loads on bridge decks with significant extensions and
adaptations. The strengths of these two approaches include their theoretical, physics-based
background and their implicit inclusion of the body of knowledge developed over the past five
decades of offshore rig design. Their weaknesses include the complexity of application, the
substantial difference in cross-section geometry (including the fact that most offshore platforms
have open-grid decks to reduce vertical loads), and that they were specifically developed and
tested for structures with very high clearance between the still-water elevation and the bottom of
the deck. There is another potential theoretical weakness in that the Morrison Equation
assumes that the structures are “thin” as compared to the wavelength which is much more
questionable for coastal bridges than it is for offshore platform decks.

A new method for estimating wave loads on bridge decks, one that is essentially a highway-
bridge-specific simplification of McConnell, et al. (2004) and an extension of concepts of Wang
(1970), French (1970) and Overbeek and Klabbers (2001), is presented in Chapter 6 of this
report.

13
This page is purposely left blank.

14
Chapter 3 – Case study: U.S. 90 bridge across Biloxi Bay, MS
The failure of the U.S. 90 bridge across Biloxi Bay, Mississippi, during Hurricane Katrina is
developed as a detailed case study of wave loads on bridge decks. The wave and surge
characteristics of Hurricane Katrina at the bridge location are estimated using state-of-the-art,
numerical, simulation models. Post-storm inspection provides some clues as to the specific
failure mechanisms. This bridge was severely damaged by Hurricane Katrina on August 29,
2005. Figure 1.2 is a photograph of the damage taken looking northeast. Most of the spans
were moved during the storm off the pile caps and into the water. The spans in the background
that survived were elevated higher than the spans that moved. The fact that some of the higher
spans survived provides valuable prototype information. The following describes the bridge, the
damage, the estimated storm surge and waves that caused the damage, logical conclusions
concerning the damage mechanism, and estimates of wave loads for the case study using the
available methods outlined in above in Chapter 2.

3.1 The U.S. 90 bridge across Biloxi Bay

The U.S. 90 bridge across Biloxi Bay was a simply-supported span bridge with 52-foot long
spans across most of its length. The spans had the deck cast integrally with the beams/girders
(see Figure 3.1). The spans were placed on pile caps (see Figure 1.2). The bridge had two 33.4
feet wide spans placed side-by-side with eastbound traffic lanes on one side and west-bound
traffic lanes on the other side. Each 52’ by 33.4’ span (half the total bridge width) probably
behaved separately here since there was apparently no significant connection at the middle.
During Hurricane Katrina, there was likely some resistance to movement of the westbound span
by the presence of the eastbound spans as they bumped into each other. There was also likely
some sheltering from waves at the westbound spans by the eastbound spans.

The bridge was a 1.6-mile long bridge that spanned the mouth of Biloxi Bay between the City of
Biloxi on the west and the City of Ocean Springs on the east (see Figure 3.2). The bridge
elevation varied across the bay (Table 3.1). The values in Table 3.1 are for the low-chord
elevation at each pile bent. These values are 0.1 feet (thickness of bronze girder rests) above
the pile cap at the outer edge of the pile cap. The elevations of the top of the rail were about
6.17 feet higher than the values in Table 3.1. The elevation of the top surface of the bridge deck
was 3.5 to 3.75 feet higher than the values in Table 3.1 (there were 3 inches of slope for
drainage). These values were obtained from the bridge plans dated 1959 which were provided
by the Mississippi DOT.

The water depths across the mouth of Biloxi Bay are mostly very shallow: around 2 to 3 feet
(below MLLW) for much of the bridge, but increasing to 11 to 12 feet in the vicinity of a shipping
channel where the higher spans led to a drawbridge.

15
 26'-0" (ROADWAY)

52'-0"

SLOPE

N.T.S.

2'-2" 6'-0" 6'-0" 6'-0" 6'-0" 6'-5"

33'-5"

BILOXI BAY BRIDGE

(US HIGHWAY 90)
ISOMETRIC VIEW - TYPICAL HALF SPAN
DRAWN BY: C.E.M.

DATE: 03/23/2006

Figure 3.1. Details of the typical span design on the U.S. 90 bridge across Biloxi Bay,
Mississippi, that was destroyed by Hurricane Katrina. This sketch shows one-half the total
width of the bridge.

The bridge location is partially sheltered from large waves by the shallowness of the water near
the bridge. The bridge is also partially sheltered by Biloxi on the west, Ocean Springs on the
east, and Deer Island to the south. Deer Island is a low, uninhabited island to the south and
west of the bridge (see Figure 3.2). The island has pine forest that can be seen in the
background of the photograph in Figure 3.3. On the far side of Deer Island is Mississippi Sound,
a broad, shallow bay that extends about 10 miles offshore to the Mississippi barrier island chain.
Those outer islands provide some wave sheltering, but, along with the shallowness of
Mississippi Sound, also allow for the tremendous storm surges that this coast can experience.

The tide range is small at the mouth of Biloxi Bay. Typical tide range is 1.75 feet with the MLLW
datum at -0.55 ft (NGVD) and the MHHW datum at +1.2 ft (NGVD) (based on NOAA/NOS tide
gage 8745557 at Gulfport, Mississippi for the 1983-2001 epoch).

16
 Figure 3.2. Bathymetry from NOAA/NOS navigation chart 11372 (31st ed., Mar. 04) in the
vicinity of the U.S. 90 bridge across Biloxi Bay. The U.S. 90 bridge is the southernmost
bridge. The others are the old, abandoned U.S. 90 and a railroad. Depths are given in feet
below MLLW datum.

3.2 Hurricane Katrina’s surge and waves in Biloxi Bay

Hurricane Katrina generated the highest hurricane storm surge in recorded history in the U.S.
Katrina started as a tropical depression on August 23, 2005 in the Atlantic. It strengthened into a
tropical storm the next day and became a Category 1 hurricane before it made its first landfall
between Hallandale Beach and North Miami Beach, Florida on August 25. After entering the
Gulf of Mexico, Katrina continued to strengthen in the next several days because of the warm
water temperature and favorable conditions in the Gulf. On Sunday, August 28, Hurricane
Katrina reached Category 5 status with wind speeds of 175 mph and a pressure of 902 millibars
(mb) (Graumann et al, 2005).

Katrina weakened a bit when it advanced toward Louisiana and made its second landfall
between Grand Isle, Louisiana and the mouth of the Mississippi River on the early Monday
morning, August 29, as a Category 4 hurricane with wind speeds of 140 mph and a low
pressure of 920 mb. By 10:00 CDT (Central Daylight Time), Katrina made its third landfall near
the Louisiana and Mississippi border as a Category 3 hurricane with wind speeds of nearly 125
mph.

Katrina caused widespread, catastrophic devastation along the central Gulf Coast. More than a
quarter million people were displaced, more than 1,000 people lost their lives, and the property
damage exceeded $100 billion (Graumann et al., 2005). Katrina damaged civil engineering
infrastructure on the Gulf Coast in Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama.

17
 Table 3.1. Elevation of U.S. 90 bridge across Biloxi Bay.
These elevations are estimates of the low-chord (bottom of the girders) elevations
(NGVD). The bents, piles with pile caps, are numbered from west to east. The highest
bents, those near the drawbridge, are between bents #93 and #94, are designated by a
different lettering nomenclature, and are not included in this table. (adapted from design
plans provided by Mississippi D.O.T).
Low- Low- Low- Low-
chord chord chord chord
Elevation Elevation Elevation Elevation
Bent at Bent Bent at Bent Bent at Bent Bent at Bent
Number (ft) Number (ft) Number (ft) Number (ft)
1 10.1 32 11.4 63 14.6 94 33.1
2 10.1 33 11.5 64 14.7 95 31.5
3 10.1 34 11.6 65 14.8 96 29.9
4 10.1 35 11.7 66 14.9 97 28.4
5 10.1 36 11.8 67 15.0 98 26.8
6 10.1 37 11.9 68 15.1 99 25.3
7 10.1 38 12.0 69 15.2 100 23.7
8 10.1 39 12.1 70 15.3 101 22.1
9 10.1 40 12.2 71 15.4 102 20.6
10 10.1 41 12.3 72 15.5 103 19.0
11 10.1 42 12.4 73 15.6 104 17.5
12 10.1 43 12.5 74 15.7 105 16.2
13 10.1 44 12.6 75 15.8 106 15.0
14 10.1 45 12.7 76 15.9 107 13.9
15 10.1 46 12.8 77 16.0 108 13.0
16 10.1 47 12.9 78 16.2 109 12.2
17 10.1 48 13.0 79 16.6 110 11.5
18 10.1 49 13.1 80 17.0 111 10.9
19 10.2 50 13.2 81 17.6 112 10.5
20 10.2 51 13.3 82 18.3 113 10.3
21 10.3 52 13.4 83 19.2 114 10.2
22 10.3 53 13.5 84 20.1 115 10.1
23 10.4 54 13.6 85 21.2 116 10.1
24 10.5 55 13.8 86 22.4 117 10.1
25 10.6 56 13.9 87 23.8 118 10.1
26 10.7 57 14.0 88 25.3 119 10.1
27 10.8 58 14.1 89 26.8 120 10.1
28 10.9 59 14.2 90 28.4 121 10.1
29 11.0 60 14.3 91 29.9 122 10.1
30 11.2 61 14.4 92 31.5 123 10.1
31 11.3 62 14.5 93 33.1 124 10.1
125 10.1

18
 Figure 3.3. The Biloxi Bay bridge with the trees of Deer Island in the far background. This
photograph was taken looking south from a bluff immediately north of the bridge on the
Ocean Springs side with the eastern end of the destroyed bridge 1 in the middle.

Because all the tide and wave gages on the Mississippi coast malfunctioned at Katrina’s
landfall, the goal of this portion of this study was to hindcast the detailed information on water
surges and storm waves in the area devastated by Katrina.

By coupling the ADCIRC (ADvanced CIRCulation) surge model and the SWAN (Simulation of
WAves in Nearshore areas) wave model, the study simulated the storm surge and wind waves
generated by Hurricane Katrina on the Mississippi and Alabama coasts. The wind fields for both
surge and wave models were taken from the Hurricane Research Division’s surface wind
analysis data. An effective and reliable methodology for nesting and coupling the storm surge
and wave models was developed (Chen et al. 2005 and Chen, 2005).

The model results have been compared with field observations, including offshore buoy data of
surface waves, tide gage data and post-storm survey of high watermarks. Generally good
agreement is found (Chen et al., 2006). The combination of strong winds, shallow water depth
and the funneling effect of the coastal geometry resulted in the record surge elevations.

Figure 3.4 shows the computational mesh for the surge model of the northern Gulf Mexico. The
complex coastal geometry and abrupt changes in water depth in this region present a unique
technical challenge. The finite-element method in the storm surge model allows the study

1
Really two bridges: 1) the U.S. 90 bridge destroyed by Katrina, and 2) the older, abandoned U.S. 90
bridge that had been damaged by Camille.

19
investigators to resolve the barrier islands, estuaries, bayous, and ship channels with fine
resolution, while the nesting technique in the wave model enables the study to focus on the
areas near the collapsed bridges.

Figure 3.4. Computational mesh used for the storm surge modeling.

A flood map of the maximum surge predicted by the storm surge model is shown in Figure 3.5.
The highest surge reached 33 ft (10 m) above the mean sea level (MSL). This value agrees with
those reported in post-storm surveys. By coupling the storm surge model with the wind wave
model, we are able to predict the hurricane waves riding on the storm surge.

A local-scale domain with a spatial resolution of 328 ft (100 m) for Biloxi Bay, Mississippi is
nested within the regional-scale wave model for the northern Gulf of Mexico. The nesting
technique allowed the study to better resolve the topography and bathymetry around the bridge.

Figure 3.6 shows the spatial distribution of the maximum significant wave heights in Biloxi Bay
predicted by the unsteady, coupled surge-wave modeling system. The arrows represent the
corresponding mean wave directions. Wave heights varied from 8.2 ft to 9.8 ft (2.5 m to 3.0 m)
along the U.S. 90 Bridge across Biloxi Bay. The dashed line on Figure 3.6 indicates the bridge
location. Because of the smaller water depth on the flooded uplands, the wave heights were
reduced to less than 5 ft (1.5 m) by depth-limited wave breaking.

The temporal variations of the storm surge and wave heights predicted by the coupled modeling
system are shown in Figure 3.7. These estimates are model results at the location of the high
span of the bridge during landfall of Hurricane Katrina. First, the results illustrate that wave
heights increased as the water level rose. Second, it is seen that the peak of the storm waves
were slightly ahead of the peak of the water surge and did not decay as fast as the peak surge
did. This suggests that the bridge could have been exposed to large waves for a fairly long
period of time.

20
Figure 3.5. Maximum surge heights predicted by the storm surge model (ADCIRC) for
Hurricane Katrina along the U.S. Gulf coast.

Figure 3.6. Maximum significant wave heights generated during Hurricane Katrina in the
immediate vicinity of the U.S. 90 bridge over Biloxi Bay as estimated by SWAN. The dashed
line shows the bridge location. The colors refer to estimated significant wave heights for
each location and the arrows show the mean wave direction at the maximum height.

21
 25

Storm Surge Elevation

20
Significant Wave Height

Surge
(ft above NGVD) 15

and
Wave Height
(ft) 10

0
12:00 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 5:00 6:00 7:00 8:00 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00
AM AM AM AM AM AM AM AM AM AM AM AM PM PM PM PM PM

Time (CDT on Aug 29, 2005)

Figure 3.7. Estimated storm surge and wave heights at the U.S. 90 bridge across Biloxi Bay
during landfall of Hurricane Katrina. These estimates are hindcast data at the location of the
high-span of the bridge based on ADCIRC modeling of surge and SWAN modeling of waves.

The predicted surge and wave conditions near the bridge allowed the study to estimate the
wave forces on the bridge decks. The methodologies developed can be used to evaluate the
vulnerability of coastal bridges in hurricane-prone areas and improve the design of coastal
transportation infrastructure.

3.3 Damage to U.S. 90 bridge across Biloxi Bay from Katrina

The U.S. 90 bridge across Biloxi Bay was essentially destroyed by Hurricane Katrina. The
photograph in Figure 1.2 shows the deck spans were removed from the pile caps and fell in the
water. Field inspection showed that most, if not all, of the spans moved landward and were in
the water either between the pile caps or on the northwest (landward) side of the bridge.

Figure 3.8 shows several spans that are in the water on that side of the bridge. Interestingly,
several of these are flipped upside down with the girders protruding from the shallow water. This
flipping was also observed in the model tests run at Texas A&M University as part of this study
and discussed in Chapter 4 of this report.

While Katrina removed all the spans at lower elevations, the spans at the higher elevations were
not destroyed. Figure 3.9 shows the middle spans that were not removed. Spans that were not
removed were those between pile cap bent #86 and pile cap bent #100. The seaward half of the
span between bent #100 and #101 was removed and the landward half was just displaced as
shown in the photograph of Figure 3.10.

22
Figure 3.8. Photograph of U.S. 90 bridge over Biloxi Bay showing bridge deck spans that
were moved off the pile caps into shallow water on the northwest (landward) side of the
bridge during passage of Hurricane Katrina. Note that several of the spans are flipped over
and moved a significant distance north. Similar movement, including flipping, was observed
in the laboratory simulations undertaken as part of this study (see Chapter 4). Also note that
the corners of the concrete surfaces of the remaining pile cap bents (left side of photo, right
side of pile cap bents) are freshly damaged and rounded off. Many of the bearing pads have
been removed too. The bridge on the left is the U.S. 90 bridge and the piles to the right are
from an old, predecessor bridge. (This photo was taken 2/19/06 looking southwest from
Ocean Springs towards Biloxi).

23
Figure 3.9. Photograph of U.S. 90 bridge over Biloxi Bay showing high spans which were not
knocked off pile cap bents during Hurricane Katrina. (This photo was taken 2/19/06 looking
west from Ocean Springs.)

Figure 3.10. Photograph of U.S. 90 bridge over Biloxi Bay showing the westbound half-span
#100 that is still on pile caps but rotated and displaced to the landward side. The eastbound
half-span was knocked completely off. The spans at higher elevations, beginning with span
#99, were not knocked off the pile caps by the storm. (This photo was taken 2/19/06 looking
southwest from Ocean Springs towards Biloxi.)

24
Likewise at the other side of the high-span, detailed inspection of Figure 1.2 shows one set of
spans moved to the landward but still remained on the pile caps. This was span #85 (between
bent #85 and #86).

The damage suggests (e.g. see Figures 1.2 and 3.10) that there was a critical elevation for this
design during Katrina. Spans below that elevation were moved off the pile caps and spans
above that elevation were not. The critical span elevation for the bridge damage was an
average low-chord elevation of roughly 23 feet (NGVD). All span elevations in this paragraph
are average elevations of the bottom of the outer girder as calculated from Table 3.1. There
may have been damage at higher elevations that was not visible from the shore. On the east
side of the drawbridge, span #99 (elevation = 24.5 feet) stayed in place and span #100
(elevation = 22.9 feet) moved. On the west side, span #86 (elevation = 23.1 feet) stayed and
span #85 (elevation = 21.8 feet) moved. The corresponding critical elevation of the bottom of
the main horizontal deck, where most of the uplift surface area exists, was roughly 26 feet (3
feet above the low-chord).

These critical elevations for the Biloxi Bay bridge in Hurricane Katrina, about 23 feet for the low-
chord and 26 feet for the bottom of the deck, compare with an estimated maximum surge
elevation, at 10:30 CDT August 29, 2005, at the bridge of η = 21.5 feet above NGVD.

The bridges were damaged above the elevation of the still water level. Thus, the implication is
that the wave-induced loads due to wave crests hitting the decks were the damaging agent.
Buoyancy loads, including additional buoyancy due to trapped air under the deck, was likely
only of secondary importance since the spans were not submerged. This finding, damage to
spans with a low-chord elevation slightly above the still-water surge elevation, is consistent with
that at the I-10 bridge across Escambia Bay, Florida in Hurricane Ivan (2004).

Inspection of the damage to the U.S. 90 bridge across Biloxi Bay after Hurricane Katrina
revealed two other, consistent observations. One, there was damage to the bearing pad
assemblies with the exception of the seaward side of the seaward-most bearing pads. Two,
there was more damage to the concrete surface of the pile caps on the landward side than on
the seaward side. Figure 3.11 shows the bearing pads remaining on the tops of the pile cap
under the eastbound (seaward) lanes. In particular, note the close-up insert of the seaward end
of one of the pile cap bents. There are two steel angles and two steel bolts extending vertically
from the seaward ends of the two (one for each girder end) bearing pads. The bearing pad was
a steel pad with 2½ inch high angles bolted down at each end. The girders rested between the
vertical portion of the angles. There are no vertical portions of angles or bolts on the landward
side of the bearing pad. They were all broken off during Katrina. This is an indication that the
girders moved landward during Katrina due to wave forces. Figure 3.12 shows a close-up of a
single bearing pad taken looking the other direction from the other side of the bridge. It shows
the same thing, the seaward angle and bolt are intact but the landward one is broken off. The
angles were L-shaped steel 3½”x2½”x½”x4”-long and the bolts were 1¼” diameter.

25
Figure 3.11. Photograph of bearing pads remaining on pile caps on the eastbound side of
the U.S. 90 bridge across Biloxi Bay. The close-up insert photo shows two bearing pads with
steel angles and bolts remaining on the seaward side. Identical angles and bolts on the other
side of these bearing pads as well as on all the other internal bearing pads were sheared off.
This is an indication that the girders were moved to the right (northwest) by wave action
during the storm. (This photo was taken 2/19/06 looking southwest from Ocean Springs
towards Biloxi.)

Figure 3.12. A close-up example of the damage to a bearing pad assembly on the U.S. 90
bridge across Biloxi Bay caused by Hurricane Katrina. The right side of this photo is the
seaward end of a pile cap bent near the Biloxi side of the bridge. The steel bearing pads
were held with an angle and bolt at each end of the pad (plus the weight of the girder on the
pad). The bolts connected the pads to the concrete and the angles to the pad. The angle
and bolt on the landward side of this assembly are missing and presumed sheared off during
Katrina by the force of the lateral wave loads or the weight of the girder after it had been
lifted up onto the angle by the waves. Only the seaward-most angles and bolts remained on
any of these bearings. (This photo taken looking north-northeast from Biloxi 2/19/06)

26
Inspection of the damage also showed that the concrete at the seaward ends of the pile caps
was not damaged during Katrina (Figures 3.10 and 3.11). However, most of the landward ends
were damaged as can be seen by close inspection of the left side of Figure 3.8 or the right side
of Figure 3.10. The damage looks fresh and is essentially a rounding of the top corners that
likely occurred as the span girders slid over the end. This damage is consistent with the
scenario and mechanism described below.

3.4 Conclusions about the damage mechanisms

The post-storm inspections of the damaged U.S. 90 bridge across Biloxi Bay, Mississippi, and
the numerical model hindcasts of the wave and surge conditions during the storm provide an
answer to one of the fundamental questions addressed by this report: what is the specific
damage mechanism that caused the damage to highway bridges in the recent hurricanes?

The damage was likely caused as the storm surge raised the water level to an elevation where
larger waves could strike the bridge superstructure. The individual waves produced both an
uplift force and a horizontal force on the deck. The magnitude of wave uplift force from individual
waves exceeded the weight of the simple span bridge decks and the total resultant force was
able to overcome any resistance provided by the connections. At some point in time during the
storm, the decks begin to progressively slide, “bump” or “hop” across the pile caps in the
direction of wave propagation due to individual large waves in the storm sea-state. This point in
time was likely when the storm surge (mean water level) was still below the elevation of the low-
chord of the spans.

The bridge decks probably fell prior to buoyancy having much impact. The buoyancy of the
bridge decks and any additional buoyancy provided by any air pockets trapped under the bridge
decks would have contributed to the total force on the individual bridge decks when the storm
surge elevation exceeded the bridge decks. However, there is no indication that the decks
survived that long through the storm.

3.5 Estimates of wave loads using available methods

The available methods in the literature can be applied to the case study of the U.S. 90 bridge
across Biloxi Bay. The specific time chosen for the case study is at 8:00 a.m. CDT on August
29, 2005. The assumed wave and surge conditions are:

Significant wave height Hs = 6.2 feet

Wave period (peak) T = 6s
Water depth d = 16 feet
Storm surge η̄ = 12 feet

The low-chord on the bridge deck was 13 feet NGVD. This elevation is for span #47 which was
selected as a representative span. The span weighed 340 kips. Appendix A presents the details
of the calculations for each method. The available methods estimate different loads.

Using the methodology outlined in McConnell, et al. (2004), maximum vertical uplift loads of 520
kips and maximum horizontal loads of 165 kips are estimated for this test case. This
methodology is the most directly applicable to the highway bridge problem.

Using an adaptation of Bea, et al. (1999), maximum vertical uplift loads are 320 kips due to
inertia and 130 kips due to drag are estimated. While inertia and drag will not be acting in

27
phase, they will be acting together at some phases. Phases of the loadings were not estimated
here. The uplift estimates are less than but similar in magnitude to those from McConnell’s
method. However, it should be noted that Bea, et al. (1999) did not focus on uplift loads since
open grates are usually used in offshore rigs. Maximum horizontal loads of 40 kips of drag, 420
kips of inertia, and 250 kips of impact are estimated for the case study. These maximum
horizontal loads are higher than those estimated using McConnell’s method.

The two Denson papers provide very different estimates of wave loads on the Biloxi bridge case
study. The procedure and empirical curves in Denson (1978) produce an estimate of horizontal
and vertical loads of 9 kips and 50 kips, respectively. The procedure and empirical curves of
Denson (1980) produce corresponding estimates of 150 kips and 710 kips, respectively. Neither
Denson approach is recommended but it is interesting that these values bracket the above
estimates for maximum uplift.

The order of magnitude of the above estimates may be correct. Kaplan’s method produces
results that are also in the same general order of magnitude as the above results for vertical
loads but may produce larger estimated horizontal loads (Sheppard, 2005). Given the
uncertainties in the applications of the methodologies to the highway bridge deck problem, none
of these methods from the existing literature can really be considered adequate for design (see
Section 2.10).

28
 Chapter 4 – Laboratory experiments of waves on bridge
decks

In support of this research effort, Texas A&M University conducted scaled model tests in the
Haynes Coastal Engineering Laboratory. These exploratory model tests lead to a better
understanding of the bridge-wave interaction including a better understanding of the physics of
this interaction. They also provide some additional understanding of the magnitude of the forces
that occur for a set of wave conditions and given bridge geometry.

4.1 Model setup

A model was constructed in the three dimensional (3-D) wave basin in the Haynes Laboratory.
To meet the schedule of the research project, the model was constructed based upon a similar,
proposed design for LA 1 in Louisiana with available design drawings. This bridge consists of a
span that is approximately 40 ft wide and 60 ft long. The bridge is supported by four 3.8 ft
girders on a pile cap. A diaphragm is located at each end of the deck and in the middle of the
span.

The laboratory model was scaled using the Froude criteria. Selecting a model:prototype scale of
1:15 gave a deck with dimensions of approximately 32 inches by 48 inches. The bottom of the
girders was approximately 1.53 ft above the floor of the basin giving a prototype depth above
bottom of 23 ft.

The bridge is shown with three spans in Figure 4.1. The two outside spans, pile caps and
support piles are fixed in place so they cannot move. The center span can be lifted and slide on
the pile caps. The center panel weighs 54 lbs and the lead weights used to hold the structure in
place weigh approximately 54 lbs each. Thus the total deadload of the structure and three lead
weights is approximately 160 lbs. With Froude scaling, the forces scale by the cube of the
length ratio, this would represent a prototype weight of 540 kips.

4.2 Model test conditions

For the purposes of this research project, it was desired to test the effect of waves on the
structure under different water levels and wave conditions. The distance from the bridge
supports to the floor of the basin was not changed during the experiments. Initially the water
level elevation was set at 1.53 ft with a wave height of 0.32 ft. A period of T=1.3 s was used
initially (about 5 s prototype), then the period was changed to 1.8 s (about 7 s prototype). Both
regular (harmonic) and irregular (TMA wave spectrum) were used. All waves traveled normal to
the bridge axis.

After these conditions were tested, the water level was raised to the bottom of the deck
elevation of 1.78 ft. The wave height for this case was set at 0.32 ft with a period of 1.8 s. The
wave heights were also increased by 10, 25 and 33%. An example of the wave conditions at the
structure is shown in Figure 4.2.

Finally, the water level was raised to the top of the bridge deck railing with a total depth of
approximately 2.1 ft. The wave conditions for the previous water depth were repeated.

29
 Figure 4.1. Laboratory model of three bridge deck sections.

Figure 4.2. Wave action on laboratory test section (direction of wave motion is to the left and
the test section has been moved in that direction by the wave action).

30
4.3 Results of experiments

For the initial water depth, the wave-induced forces on the bridge were not sufficient to cause
movement of the deck. The weight of the deck plus three lead weights was greater than the
vertical forces so there was no movement vertically or horizontally. However, when the deck
was made lighter by removing two weights, it was easily moved by the waves. One of the
phenomena observed was a jet like exit from the rear of the structure. The surface of the wave
was accelerated as it left from the structure and quickly plunged downward. It was also
recognized that there was a significant reflection of the incident wave from the structure. As the
water depth increased, the reflection became greater and the exiting wave became relatively
smaller. For this case it was also observed, primarily by feel, that the wave had an impact load
as it encountered each of the girders beneath the deck.

For the second water level, the movement of the deck was not initiated at the lower wave
heights. However, when the wave height increased by 10%, both vertical and horizontal
movement was initiated. In Figure 4.2, the center span has moved in the direction of wave
travel. This behavior is consistent with that seen at several of the damaged prototype bridges.
As the wave height was further increased, the rate at which the structure moved off the pile
caps accelerated.

The tests were continued for the third water level which submerged the entire bridge structure. It
is not obvious that this created larger forces. The movement of the structure seemed to be at
about the same rate as the previous water level. The structure however was clearly more
buoyant as it was fully submerged.

Lastly, the structure was subjected to waves with a period of 1.8 s and a height of 0.66 ft. For
this condition the structure quickly proceeded to move in the down-wave direction. Total failure,
complete removal from the pile caps, was observed in less than twenty waves. The behavior of
the test section at this time was noteworthy. As the structure progressively moved back on the
pile caps, it reached a location where it started to rotate off the back. In several cases, this
rotation was complete enough to flip the structure over. Similar behavior is evident in the
prototype failure at Biloxi (see Figure 3.8).

4.4 Planned experimental setup

Plans are underway to supplement these force observations with measurements of the forces
and moments. The structure to be used for these experiments will be modeled after the U.S. 90
bridge across Biloxi Bay. Plexiglas will be used for constructing the bridge deck. This will
certainly help in understanding the hydrodynamic phenomena that can otherwise only be
measured without knowledge of detailed processes. For example, one can ‘feel’ the impact of
the traveling wave on the understructure, but hopefully with the transparent deck, this can also
be seen. The bridge deck will be instrumented with a force transducer that can measure forces
in three directions and the moments in three directions. This will provide a set of data to
compare against the available models for prediction of forces on bridge decks. A planned layout
is shown in Figure 4.3.

Error!

31
 One 6-Component (Fx, Fy, Fz, Mx, My, Mz) Load Cell

Plan View
Fz

6 Components
Load Cell
Z

Fx My
X

Cross Section View

Oblique View

Figure 4.3. Planned layout for future experiments at Texas A&M on wave loads on bridge decks.

4.5 Future experiments

Detailed experiments are very important to understanding the physics of the current, wave, and
structure interactions. These interactions need to be understood well enough to allow validation
of the approaches used by highway engineers in designing new structures and retrofits to older
structures. Whether the approach is a simple empirical approach or a more complex numerical
model, there is a need for laboratory validation and as much field observation of the prototype
results as possible, including measured oceanographic features – tide, surge, waves and
currents. Since the latter is usually only available via a numerical hindcast using sparse data for
calibration, the physical model results provide a way of testing with known conditions.

32
As noted above, the tests conducted at the Haynes Coastal Engineering Laboratory and the
future measurements planned are only valid for normally incident waves. To advance to the next
level of understanding, the following should be considered in future model studies:

• Short crested or multi directional waves

• Long length of bridge to eliminate the end effects and possible rip currents
• Model of stiffness of the deck and support structure
• Strong currents for high surge conditions
• Different elevations of the bridge above the mud layer
• The bridge should be instrumented with accelerometers (in addition to force and moment
transducers)
• Non-normally incident wave fields

33
This page is purposely left blank.

34
 Chapter 5 – Evaluation of Related Foundation issues
The primary goals of this report relate to estimating wave-induced loads on highway bridge
decks. A full exploration of the implications of those loads is beyond the scope of this report.
However, this chapter briefly considers the magnitude of the wave loads compared to other
forces such as vessel impact forces, wind loads, and current loads typically used in design to
determine if the foundation integrity of a bridge might be jeopardized if the bridge deck were
secured to withstand the wave loads.

The failure of the U.S. 90 bridge across Biloxi Bay was characterized by displacement of the
bridge deck and girder sections on their supporting pile bents with the most heavily loaded
sections being pushed off the bents. One possible solution suggested to mitigate this mode of
failure is better securing of the bridge elements to the underlying bents. This will then ultimately
transfer the full wave forces to the foundation system. Such a scheme would only be successful
in the future if the foundation system could sustain such high loads without failure.

An evaluation of the potential to mitigate future damage to highway bridges during hurricanes by
securing the bridge elements to the underlying pile bents was completed by Dan Brown &
Associates (DB&A), consulting geotechnical engineers, as part of this report (see Appendix B
for the full DB&A report). They used the U.S. 90 bridge across Biloxi Bay as their case study
(see Chapter 3 of this report). Input to the foundation analysis were wave load estimates
developed as part of this study. Two load cases were suggested for the foundation analysis: the
estimated maximum loads at 8:00 a.m. CDT on August 29, 2005 (horizontal = 230 kips and
vertical = 440 kips); and, the estimated maximum loads at 10:30 a.m (horizontal = 950 kips and
vertical = 1900 kips). The 10:30 a.m. load estimates are for fully submerged decks that had
survived up until that time. The foundation analysis focused on the more severe load condition.

DB&A stated that in their experience, these estimated maximum loads “… are actually quite
similar in load and duration to barge impact loads on a bridge of this size.” However, the
duration of a storm’s wave-loads could lead to a cyclical degradation of the soil response found
for offshore platforms that is an uncommon design condition for highway bridges.

The primary conclusion of the foundation analysis is “… that the pile bents typical of this bridge
are not capable of supporting the estimated forces associated with the maximum storm surge
from hurricane Katrina on a bridge deck and girder system that was somehow tied down to the
pile cap.” For the larger of the two estimated loadings, failure of the foundation system was
inevitable. The existing foundation system is inadequate to resist the large loads to which the
bridge would have been subjected and thus attaching the bridge elements to the pile bents
would not have prevented a bridge failure. The input horizontal loads were problematic.

The analysis indicates that the soft character of the soils comprising the Biloxi Bay subsurface
negatively affected the foundation performance. Considering a subsurface with natural sands
improved performance but the analysis suggests this improvement would not have prevented a
bridge failure. It is also clear, with the significant increase in the lateral loads when the deck is
submerged, that bridge performance could be improved by raising the bridge such that the
lateral loads on the pile bents are significantly reduced.

Most of the conclusions of the DB&A report are based on the more severe of the two input load
scenarios. Unfortunately, that scenario, submergence of the decks, is a situation for which the
available methods are least appropriate. None of the available methods, including the method

35
used here, can be considered to adequately estimate loads for the case where the bridge deck
is completely submerged at significant depth below the still-water level (see section 2.10). The
submerged loads were estimated here only for the purposes of this analysis. DB&As’ conclusion
that the forces associated with the submerged scenario “… would exceed the pile moment
capacity by a factor greater than 2 …” implies that if the wave loads were overestimated by a
factor of 2 or more, there is the potential for foundation strength to be adequate. Essentially, the
wave loads are near enough to the critical level that more research on these loads is
appropriate.

Raising the bridge decks as a solution to potential foundation failure is supported by the rest of
this report and is the primary approach that has proven to work for fishing piers and other similar
structures. In addition to raising bridge heights, the foundation analysis suggests that
developing improved foundation systems and/or improvement of subsurface soils could be
undertaken as possible alternatives for new construction as well as remediation of existing
bridges that are at risk. Such development will likely involve not only the evaluation and
modification of existing technologies but also research on foundation systems for such large,
primarily lateral, loads.

It is evident that an effort needs to be undertaken to identify existing bridges that may be at risk
and only continue to function because they have not been subjected to the loads that a strong
hurricane may bring. The identification and evaluation of such bridges will require an analysis to
determine the possible maximum water levels during a hurricane and the resulting loads on the
structures. For those bridges determined to be at high risk, an assessment of the subsurface
conditions and foundation adequacy should be undertaken. On the basis of such an
assessment site-specific remedies can be designed to decrease the risk of failure of such
bridges.

36
Chapter 6 – A Method For Estimating Wave Forces On Bridge
Decks

This chapter presents a new method for estimating wave loads on typical U.S. bridge spans.
This method is recommended as interim guidance until a more appropriate methodology can be
developed based on quantitative laboratory tests with realistic bridge models and properly
scaled waves. This recommended approach is intended to be simple to apply, consistent with
the available technical knowledge, and such that it can be applied conservatively. It is also
intended to be an approach that can be tested and improved upon relatively easily in future
laboratory and prototype experiments. The method does a good job of explaining the recent
damage to three bridges.

6.1 Recommended method and equations

The following approach is recommended for estimating wave loads on elevated bridge decks as
interim guidance. The loads imparted on elevated highway bridge decks by waves are
estimated in terms of their vertical and horizontal components as:

Fv = c v − va Fv* (6.1)

and

Fh = [ 1 + c r ( N − 1) ] c h − va Fh* (6.2)

where:

Fv = the estimated, vertical, wave-induced load component

Fh = the estimated, horizontal, wave-induced load component
Fv* = a “reference” vertical load defined by Equation 6.3
Fh* = a “reference” horizontal load defined by Equation 6.4
cv-va = an empirical coefficient for the vertical “varying” load
ch-va = an empirical coefficient for the horizontal “varying” load
cr = a reduction coefficient for reduced horizontal load on the internal (i.e. not the
wave ward-most) girders (recommended value is cr = 0.4)
N = the number of girders supporting the bridge span deck

Fv* = γ ( Δz v ) A v (6.3)

where:

Av = the area the bridge contributing to vertical uplift, i.e. the projection of the bridge
deck onto the horizontal plane
Δzv = difference between the elevation of the crest of the maximum wave and the
elevation of the underside of the bridge deck (see Figure 6.1 for definition
sketch)
γ = unit weight of water (64 lb/ft3 for saltwater)

37
Fh* = γ ( Δzh ) A h (6.4)

where:

Ah = the area of the projection of the bridge deck onto the vertical plane
Δzh = difference between the elevation of the crest of the maximum wave and the
elevation of the centroid of Ah (see Figure 6.1 for definition sketch).
γ = unit weight of water (64 lb/ft3 for saltwater)

When the wave crest elevation does not exceed the top of the bridge, a reduced area and
lowered centroid corresponding to the area below the wave crest elevation can be used in
Equation (6.4).

Figure 6.1. Definition sketch for Δzh , Δzv, Ah, Av, and ηmax used in the equations in the
recommended, interim guidance for estimating wave loads on elevated bridge decks

The wave crest elevation used in Δzv and Δzh should be that corresponding to a very large wave
height estimated in the design sea state, ηmax.

38
Given a design sea state with a significant wave height (Hs), this elevation can be estimated as:

ηmax ≈ (0.8)(1.67) Hs = 1.3 Hs (6.5)

as measured from the design storm surge elevation (see Figure 6.1).

The recommended value of each of the empirical coefficients cv-va and ch-va is given here as 1.
These recommended values are discussed in the next section and are not intended to be
conservative. Thus, they should be increased for conservative design values. Given the
uncertainties involved in the application of the available methods for estimating wave loads on
U.S. highway bridges, doubling these loads (i.e. factor-of-safety = 2) is recommended for
conservative design.

It can be assumed (for the purposes of this recommended guidance) that the two components
(horizontal and vertical) of the wave-induced loads given above act in phase. Thus, a maximum
resultant load can be resolved as usual from the two components. This resultant load can be
assumed to be acting through the centroid of the cross-section.

Figure 6.2 shows a schematic of an assumed, typical time-history of one component (either
vertical or horizontal) of wave-induced loads. Such loading is consistent with measured
laboratory loads reported in the literature (e.g. see Figure 2.1 of this report or El Ghamry, 1963).
One part (as shown in Figure 6.2) of the wave-induced force is a longer-duration slowly
“varying” force. This “varying” force changes magnitude and direction with the phase (crest or
trough) of the wave as the wave passes under or across the structure. The horizontal slowly
varying loads are in the landward direction (based on direction of wave propagation) for the
wave crest but can reverse to the seaward direction in the wave trough. Likewise, the vertical
slowly varying loads are directed up (i.e. lift) for part of the wave but can be downward for part
of the wave. This part of the wave-induced load has been called “quasi-static,” or simply “wave”
force by others in the coastal engineering literature. The duration of the “varying” load
corresponds with the period of the incident waves that is typically on the order of 3 to 15
seconds.

The other part of the wave-induced load (see Figure 6.2) is a very short-duration (maybe less
than 0.1 to 0.001 seconds long) “impact” force as the wave crest first begins to hit the deck. This
force is directed in the horizontal direction of wave propagation and in the upward vertical
direction. This impact force does not typically reverse direction. The impact force is often
associated with the trapping of a small pocket of air between the structure and the wave face.

The recommended approach outlined in the equations above is for the peak of the slowly
“varying” loads as shown in Figure 6.2. The above equations do not include the magnitude of
the peak of the impact load because they are often ignored by structural engineers due to their
extremely short duration relative to the response of the structure. However, if the design
engineer is concerned that any aspect of the design (connections, members, geotechnical) will
respond to these impact loads, then higher maximum loads that include impact loads can be
estimated as outlined in a separate Section 6.4 below.

6.2 Example application – Biloxi case study

Application of the methodology recommended for interim guidance is demonstrated using the
U.S. 90 bridge across Biloxi Bay, Mississippi as a case study. The bridge, damage, and storm
conditions for this damage are presented in Chapter 3 of this report above. For the purposes of

39
this example, a specific span, span #47 (that between bent #47 and #48) of the westbound
(seaward) lanes has been selected as representative. This span is roughly in the middle of the
western side of the bridge as shown in Figure 1.2. The low-chord elevation of the span (bottom
of girders) was about +13 feet NGVD (Table 3.1) with the top of the bridge deck at +16.5 feet,
and the bottom of the deck at +16 feet. In this portion of the bay, the depth is fairly shallow and
it is assumed here that the bottom, mud-line elevation was about -4 feet NGVD.

The storm surge and wave hindcast modeling results presented above (see Figure 3.6) indicate
that at 8:00 a.m. CDT on August 29, 2005, the mean water level had risen to an elevation of η̄
= 11.9 feet and there was a significant wave height at the bridge location of Hs = 6.2 feet. Thus,
the waves were beginning to hit the span by that time in the storm.

The wave loads on the deck at that time are estimated as follows using the above equations:

elevation of maximum wave crest = η̄ +ηmax = 11.9 + 1.3(6.2) = 19.96 ft,

Δzv = (elev max crest) - (elev bottom deck) = 19.96 - 16.0 = 3.96 ft

Fv = cv-va Fv*= cv-va γ (Δzv) Av = 1(64 lb/ft3)(3.96 ft)[(52)(33.4)ft2] = 440,000 lb

Δzh = (elev max crest) - (elev centroid of Ah) = 19.96 – 15.7 = 4.26 ft

Fh = [1+cr(N-1)] ch-va Fh*= [1+0.4(6-1)] (1)(64 lb/ft3)(4.26 ft)(286 ft2) = 230,000 lb

where Ah has been estimated as 286 ft2 with a centroid elevation of +15.7 (this value is obtained
by accounting for the design of the rail) and there are 6 girders based on engineering plans
obtained from Mississippi DOT for the Biloxi bridge.

So in summary, at 8:00 a.m. the wave-induced loads on this span are estimated as being
cyclical with maximum “varying” loads of 440 kips of vertical uplift and 230 kips of horizontal
landward force. It should be noted that these decks weighed about 340 kips and there was
essentially no resistance to uplift provided by any connections. Thus, the implication of these
calculations is that the uplift from some of the largest waves in the sea state at this time was
enough to exceed the weight of the bridge span at the same time it was experiencing large
lateral loads. Thus, these spans were probably beginning to get bumped, by individual large
waves, up and over on the pile caps at about this time in the storm. Such behavior is consistent
with the evidence. The storm surge (and wave heights) continued to increase to a peak mean
water level of about +21.5 feet at around 10:30 a.m.

6.3 Technical justification for recommended approach

The fundamental aspect of the recommended approach is that the wave-induced loads are
linearly proportional to a corresponding, theoretical hydrostatic “reference” load. This “reference”
load is the equivalent hydrostatic pressure load that would be acting on the bridge surface if
there were air on the other side of the structure. The important variable is the magnitude of
inundation, i.e. the hypothetical elevation difference between the crest of the wave and the
important surface of the deck, Δz. This approach is generally consistent with the methods of
Wang (1970), French (1970), McConnell, et. al. (2004) and the method used by Overbeek and
Klabbers (2001). It is also consistent with an approach found for uplift in the Chinese literature
(Li and Huang 1997). The empirical proportionality coefficient, cv-va, can be considered to
include the effects of other important parameters such as deck geometry and wave period.

40
Figure 6.2. Typical time-history of wave loads on bridge decks with a slowly “varying” load
with a duration related to the wave period and an “impact” load with a duration is that is
extremely short.

41
The specific recommended values of the empirical coefficients have been selected based on
inspection of existing laboratory results and investigation of the prototype damages in Hurricane
Katrina and Ivan. Existing literature based on laboratory data suggest that both could be set
equal to 1. Some of the existing literature would suggest higher values and some would suggest
lower values. Preliminary analysis from some of the damage in Hurricanes Ivan and Katrina
generally confirm these values.

The laboratory-based values are interpretations and simplifications of the small-scale laboratory
experimental results from McConnell, et al. (2004) for U.S. highway bridge geometry. The
vertical load, “varying” coefficient, cv-va = 1 is consistent with inspection of the small-scale data
shown in figure 5.18 of McConnell, et al. (2004). The horizontal, “varying” load coefficient, ch-va =
1, is consistent with inspection of figure 5.25 of McConnell, et al. (2004). These recommended
values of c = 1 are reasonably in the middle of the data scatter and are likely somewhat
conservative for low bridge decks and non-conservative for high bridge decks (and thus lower
loads). The value of cv-va = 1 also generally agrees with that suggested by French (1970), Wang
(1970), and Overbeek and Klabbers (2001). For example, Wang (1970) measured maximum
pressure at a point under a flat plate and found that the coefficient was between 1 and 2.
However, considering the size of bridge decks, it is reasonable that when averaged over the
entire uplift area, the value of 1 could be reasonable.

The interim guidance recommended above gives similar results as the other common, simple
approach that relates wave loads directly to the incident wave height (e.g. Overbeek and
Klabbers (2001) for “slamming” vertical loads, Goda (2000) for horizontal loads on rigid walls, El
Ghamry (1963) for uplift loads). The primary reason for this similarity is that these approaches
have some method for decreasing loadings with increasing deck elevation above the mean
water level. Such a decrease is inherent in the method recommended here.

6.4 Wave “impact” loads

If the design engineer is concerned with the short-duration impact loads (Figure 6.2), then this
recommended approach can be extended to estimate them as,

Fv = {c v − va + c v −im } Fv* (6.6)

and

Fh = { [ 1 + c r ( N − 1) ] c h − va + c h −im } Fh* (6.7)

where:

cv-im = an empirical coefficient for the vertical “impact” load (recommended value of
cv-im = 3)
ch-im = an empirical coefficient for the horizontal “impact” load (recommended value of
ch-im = 6)

The recommendation for vertical “impact” coefficient, cv-im = 3, is selected consistent with
inspection of figure 5.29 of McConnell, et al. (2004). It also is generally consistent with the
prototype finding of Overbeek and Klabbers (2001) that their impact load coefficient was about 3
times higher than they originally assumed. The recommendation for horizontal “impact”
coefficient, ch-im = 6, selected above is based in part on inspection of Figure 5.33 of McConnell,

42
et al., in part on the similar coefficients found in the different method of Bea, et al. (1999), and in
part on the recognition that the shape of the seaward face of many U.S. bridge decks is
conducive to very high impact loads.

The two types of loads, “impact” and slowly “varying” will be additive but not necessarily in
phase, i.e. they won’t both be at their peak at the same moment in time. However, given the
uncertainties inherent in this recommended interim guidance, adding the two together is
reasonable when the short-duration impact loads are deemed to be important. If the bridge
engineer determines that the bridge deck will respond to the higher, shorter duration “impact”
loads (i.e. bolts will fail or concrete will fail), then both coefficients should be used. The duration
of the “impact” and the magnitude of the peak “impact” force are inversely proportional for this
type of wave load (Weggel 1997).

6.5 Discussion of recommended approach

The recommended, interim approach outlined above is relatively simple to apply, can be applied
in a conservative manner, is consistent with the available literature, and can be used to provide
first estimates of the wave loads on bridge decks.

Required input for the recommended, interim approach includes the basic bridge deck cross-
section and elevation information and estimates of storm surge elevation and wave height.

The recommended, interim approach is not necessarily conservative. However, it can be

conservatively applied through an appropriate factor of safety. The factor of safety
recommended above (f.s. = 2) is based on the complexities of the process, the uncertainties in
estimating design wave conditions, the limited available lab-scale load data, the lack of bridge-
specific lab results, and the relatively small scales of the available lab data. A similar load factor,
2, has been adopted in the ASCE/SEI-7 Standards for wave loads on buildings (see paragraph
2.3.3 of ASCE 2006) for similar reasons.

The recommended, interim approach only provides an estimate of the total overall load without
information concerning where that load is applied on the structure. Essentially, it thus implicitly
assumes the load is applied through centroid of the cross-sectional area of the bridge. This is
not particularly realistic. Also not considered are the details of wave phase and the fact that the
down-wave width of U.S. bridge decks will likely cause spatially-varying loads, particularly uplift,
that will impart a moment. This was noticed in the laboratory experiments discussed in Chapter
4 of this report. These moments may be the most critical aspects of bridge deck response.

The recommended, interim approach is not based on differentiating between the drag and
inertial forces as is commonly done for wave loads on piles. This may be both a theoretical
disadvantage and a theoretical advantage. Bridge decks clearly influence the wave field and this
diffraction/interaction can be large. It is likely that the approach, with the coefficients selected
above, will under-estimate the loads on high bridges that just barely get clipped by the crests of
waves.

The recommended, interim approach has theoretical shortcomings related to wave period and
level of submergence. El Ghamry (1963) found that wave loads were sensitive to wave period.
This approach does not consider any variation in period. This approach also continues to
estimate higher and higher loads with greater levels of submergence below the crest of the
wave that could be due to increased storm surge instead of increased submergence.

43
Theoretically, one would expect the loads to decrease with level of submergence at some
depth.

If a more specific estimate of wave loads is needed, the methods outlined in McConnell, et al.
(2004), Kaplan (1995), or Bea, et al. (1999) can be adapted. However, it must be kept in mind
that these methods have been developed for deck geometries that are not typical of U.S.
highway bridges and only considered the case of non-submergence.

The assumed general characteristics of wave-induced loads shown in Figure 6.2 have been
measured by numerous small-scale laboratory investigators including El Ghamry (1963) and
McConnell, et al. (2004). The assumption is also consistent with the general approach for
estimating wave loads on offshore platform decks as discussed by Kaplan (1992), Kaplan, et al.
(1995), and Bea, et al. (1999).

Impact forces may ultimately prove to be the most critical because the seaward face of the outer
girder/deck/rail for U.S. highway bridges is concave directly toward the incoming wave crest.
Thus, it is likely that these shapes act as almost perfect “wave-catchers” that allow for a pocket
of air to be trapped in the corner. It has long been recognized in the coastal engineering
community that the trapping of a pocket of air by a wave can lead to tremendously high,
extremely short-duration forces. These “Minikin-like” impact forces are typically found on vertical
wall structures that have a rubble-mound foundation just seaward that trips the wave and allows
for the formation of an air pocket trapped between the wave and the structure. It is speculated
here that a similar phenomenon occurs on U.S. highway bridge decks. The typical highway deck
shape precludes the need for something to cause the wave to break in order for the air pocket
to form. For this reason, it is important that the bridge engineer give adequate consideration to
the likelihood of the impact loads as shown in Figure 6.2. Weggel (1997) presents an approach
to evaluating the relationship between the impact duration and force that may be of value.
Future research may determine that much of the momentum transferred as waves hit highway
bridge decks is transferred very rapidly, and thus at high loads, because of this impact.

The recommended interim approach is primarily for the case where storm surge elevation is
roughly near the bridge deck elevation. Analyses indicate that this was the critical case during
Hurricanes Ivan and Katrina. The selection of the empirical coefficients was based on
McConnell, et al. (2004) results for that situation.

However, there are two other situational cases for bridge decks. One, the deck is much higher
than the storm surge such that only the crests of a very few waves in the storm sea state hit the
girders. It is stated above that this recommended interim approach is not conservative for this
case (based on the lab work of McConnell, et al. 2004). Two, the surge is so high that the bridge
deck is completely inundated. This method is only very tentatively recommended for bridge
decks that become completely inundated to the point where the wave troughs do not expose
any of the bridge deck. McConnell, et al. (2004), which is a primary reference here, did not test
any structures that were submerged. While there will still be strong drag and inertial loads
during such conditions, there is little guidance in the literature that suggests appropriate
coefficients for bridge deck geometries.

44
The equation in the recommended interim guidance above for maximum wave crest elevation is
based on several assumptions:

1. The Rayleigh distribution of wave heights adequately describes the relationship

between the significant wave (Hs) and the average of the 1% highest waves in a sea-
state (H1), i.e., H1 = 1.67 Hs

2. H1 is an appropriate wave statistic for describing the maximum waves in a given sea-
state for this problem.

3. The portion of the wave height above the storm surge elevation is 80%.

This approach implicitly assumes that the depth, including storm surge, is adequate for this
large of a wave to exist without breaking. The depth limitation for an individual maximum
wave is Hmax = (0.8)d , where d = depth.

6.6 Comparisons with recent damage: Ivan and Katrina

The recommended method for estimating wave loads on bridge decks explains the prototype
damage that occurred in Hurricanes Ivan and Katrina reasonably well. The estimated loads
differentiate the spans that broke their connections and moved from those at higher elevations
that did not move at three bridges: the I-10 Escambia Bay, Florida bridge; the I-10 on ramp near
Mobile, Alabama; and the U.S. 90 bridge across Biloxi Bay.

6.6.1 I-10 on ramp near Mobile, Alabama, in Katrina

The recommended method does a good job of explaining the prototype damage to the I-10 on-
ramp near Mobile, Alabama, during Hurricane Katrina. Although Hurricane Katrina made landfall
almost 100 miles away, the storm surge in Mobile Bay caused significant damage to an on-ramp
to I-10 near Mobile, Alabama. The damage included the lateral movement of simply-supported
spans as shown in Figure 6.3. The on-ramp is from a lower elevation highway (US 90/98) up to
the elevated interstate. Of particular note is that only the lowest five simply-supported spans
moved. The spans at higher elevations were not moved. Thus, this upper limit of movement
provides a valuable prototype test of methods for estimating wave loads. All span movement
was northward in the direction that wave loads would push them. Two ramp spans moved
farther than the others. The maximum movement is estimated at about 6 feet. The ramp leading
up to these five moved spans (in the foreground of Figure 6.3) was not a simple-span
construction but rather a deck cast directly with the piles and with significantly shorter span
length between piles.

The peak of the Katrina storm surge at the on-ramp location is estimated at about a level of η̄ =
12 feet (NGVD) based on the high water data at the nearby USS Alabama Battleship Park
(National Weather Service, 2005). The corresponding significant wave height at that location at
the peak of the storm is estimated as Hs=5.6 feet using the wave generation equations from the
Shore Protection Manual (US Army, 1984) with the available, local windspeed data (National
Weather Service, 2005).

45
 Figure 6.3 The damage to the I-10 on ramp near Mobile, Alabama, caused by Hurricane
Katrina. The lower, simple-span portions of the ramp have been moved to the left (north) by
the waves during the storm. Five of the spans were moved with the second and third moving
the farthest (about 6 feet). The ramp in the foreground is not a simple-span and the spans in
the background were apparently at high enough elevations to avoid enough of the wave
loads for their connections to survive. The storm surge during Katrina was estimated at 12
feet here.

The moved spans had low-chord elevations at or below the peak of the storm surge. The sixth
simply-supported span up the ramp (span #14 using the Alabama DOT numbering), i.e. the first
one not damaged, had an elevation with about 1.4 feet of clearance between the low-chord
elevation and the surge elevation. Thus, it was being hit by waves at the peak of the storm. The
elevations and dimensions of the on-ramp spans have been obtained from engineering plans.
The ramps are sloping up as well as on a horizontal curve to the left with superelevation that
sets the south side higher. The five ramp spans that moved had top-of-deck elevations of
between 8.0 and 13.7 feet (NGVD) as measured at the center of the span. The corresponding
“low-chord” elevations at the mid-point of the south side of the spans was typically about 3.7
feet lower than the top-of-deck elevation.

The Mobile on-ramp spans had some small connection resistance to movement. The spans
were physically connected to the pile caps by angles and bolts on the outside girders. A failed
connection is shown in Figure 6.4.

46
 Figure 6.4 Photo of an outside (north) girder under a span of the I-10 on-ramp near Mobile,
Alabama, that was moved off its pile cap when the entire span moved. The pile cap is in the
bottom left corner of the photo and the girder that is overhanging to the right was moved
from that pile cap. The broken concrete/bolt connection is shown. The angle on the right
attached to the pile cap was attached to the outside of the overhanging girder and another
(not shown) was attached to the inside. This photograph was the northeast corner of span
#11 (ALDOT numbering). (photo by J. White)

Figure 6.5 shows a connection with concrete failure but no subsequent movement. One of these
connections that survived is shown in Figure 6.6. There were eight sets of bolts in each span -
the inside and the outside of the girders in each corner of the span. Inspection indicates that the
bolts did not shear but rather the concrete broke. Using a typical value for the tensile strength of
concrete and estimating the failure area based on inspection, the total resistance to movement
for each span provided by the bolt system is approximated as 200 to 400 kips. As the spans
began to move, their resistance to further movement probably increased significantly because of
the horizontal curve. The individual spans were driven into each other because of their slight
“pie-shape” due to the curve. There was evidence of them jamming into each other and
crushing the edges of the concrete in compression.

47
 Figure 6.5. Photo of the same type of connection typical of the I-10 on-ramp near Mobile that
shows failure of the concrete around bolts but without subsequent displacement in this
photograph at this location. The pile cap is at the bottom and the girder flange is to the upper
right. (photo by J. White).

The recommended methodology for estimating wave loads has been applied to each of the 6
spans in question (the five that moved plus the next one up that did not move). The results are
shown graphically in Figure 6.7. The resultant peak horizontal and vertical wave load have been
calculated by using the above equations and the resultant load has been calculated by
combining the weight with the vertical uplift load and taking the resultant of that net vertical load
and the horizontal load. The spans weigh 250 kips, are 50 feet long, 27.75 feet wide and have a
total height of about 6.2 feet (girder plus deck plus Jersey barrier) and have a total of four
girders. The elevations used in the analysis are the elevation of the bottom of the center of each
deck. Given the shape of the siderails (a “Jersey” barrier with a height of 2.67 feet above the
road surface, the depth of the girders (3 ft), and the thickness of the deck (7”), the elevation of
the bottom of the center of each span is a reasonable approximation of the elevation of the
projection of the span into the vertical plane for calculating Δzh as well as Δzv.

The implication of Figure 6.7 is that the method for estimating wave loads recommended above
does a reasonably good job of explaining the damage at the on-ramp. Since the connection
resistance is between 200 and 400 kips, spans with loads below that level should have stayed
and those above should have moved. That is what happened. Spans #9 (lowest span) to #13
moved and span #14 did not.

48
 Figure 6.6. Photo of connection between the pile cap and girder that did not fail on another
part of a different I-10 on-ramp near Mobile. The pile cap is at the bottom and the girder
flange is at the far left. (photo by J. White)

6.6.2 I-10 bridge across Escambia Bay, Florida, in Ivan

The recommended method for estimating wave loads on bridge decks also does a good job of
explaining the prototype damage to the I-10 bridge across Escambia Bay, Florida, caused by
Hurricane Ivan. The damage mechanism at that bridge was the same as outlined above: the
storm surge raising the water level to an elevation that allowed individual waves to hit the bridge
spans. The spans were progressively “bumped” off the pile caps by larger waves in the sea-
state during the peak of the storm. Inspection indicates that the surge and wave forces were just
barely sufficient to damage the spans. Thus, any phenomenon that reduced the wave heights
slightly was enough to reduce the movement and damage. This explains why some spans
moved farther than others. Figure 6.8 shows that the lower spans near the shore were not
moved, but the lower spans in the middle of the bay were moved in the direction that waves
would push them and some fell off the pile caps. This was likely because the wave heights were
slightly lower near the shore due to wave directionality and energy dissipation (Douglass, et al.
2004). Also, Figure 6.8 shows that the movement and damage was more severe on the
southern lanes. This was likely because the southern bridge was acting like a breakwater and
reducing the wave loads on the northern bridge at the peak of the storm.

49
 16.0

span #14
15.0

14.0 span #13

13.0
span #12

12.0
Elevation

span #11
11.0

10.0
span #10

9.0

span #9
8.0

7.0

6.0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Estimated max wave load (kips)

Figure 6.7. Reduction in estimated wave loads (on the I-10 on ramp near Mobile, Alabama,
at the peak of Hurricane Katrina) with elevation. The method recommended in this chapter
was used to estimate wave loads. The average elevation of six ramp spans are shown.
Spans # 9-13 broke their connections and moved. An estimate of the resistance provided by
the failed span connections is 200 to 400 kips. Thus, the method for estimating loads
appears to describe which spans failed fairly well.

The estimated peak surge elevation and significant wave height at the I-10 Escambia Bay
bridge were η̄ = 10.7 feet (NAVD88) and Hs = 6.5 feet, respectively (Ocean Engineering
Associates, 2005). The bridge spans were simply supported spans with the deck cast integrally
with six girders. There were small bolt connections between the pile caps and the girders. The
top of the bridge decks for most of the spans was 16 feet and the low-chord elevation of the
girders was 11.5 feet (NGVD) (Renna and Sheppard, 2004). (Note: the difference between
survey datums is small and ignored for this analysis). Thus, the surge still-water level was
almost, but not quite at, the bottom of the girders and there was no reason to consider additional
buoyancy due to pockets of air trapped under the deck.

50
The new method for estimating wave loads on bridge decks outlined above estimates horizontal
and vertical loads of 190 kips and 380 kips respectively. The resultant load, accounting for the
220 kip span weight (Renna and Sheppard, 2004), is 250 kips. A reasonable estimate of the
resistance of the bolted connections is 200 to 400 kips. Thus, the estimated wave loads are just
about enough to break the resistance connection strength. This result agrees with the inspection
observations above, i.e. explains why the damage and movement was so sensitive to wave
height as shown in Figure 6.8. Slight reductions in wave heights near the shore or in the lee of
the other bridge would have been enough to reduce the loads to a level that the connections
could hold the deck.

Figure 6.8 Photograph of damage to I-10 bridge across Escambia Bay, Florida, due to
Hurricane Ivan. Note that the spans in center of the photograph have been moved to the left
and some have fallen off the pile caps. The spans in the foreground, which are at the same
elevation as the ones in the center, have not moved because the wave heights were slightly
lower. The spans in the background have not moved because they are elevated higher
above the waves. The spans on the westbound bridge (left side of photo) are less damaged
than the ones on the eastbound bridge because the eastbound bridge acted like a
breakwater and reduced the wave heights slightly. This photo was taken looking east from
Pensacola after the peak of the storm surge September 16, 2004. (Pensacola News Journal
photo).

6.6.3 U.S. 90 bridge across Biloxi Bay, Mississippi, in Katrina

The recommended method for estimating wave loads on bridge decks also explains the details
of the prototype damage to the U.S. 90 bridge across Biloxi Bay reasonably well. However, in
this case, the explanation is not as clear as for the other two bridges above. The estimated
loads indicate that one or two more of the elevated spans on each side of the drawbridge (see

51
Figure 1.2) should have been moved. However, the results are still reasonable. Given the
uncertainty including wave height estimates and connection strength estimates, the results are
good enough to provide some assurance that the method produces reasonable estimates for
design.

When applied to the low span used for the case study of the Biloxi bridge outlined in Chapter 3
of this report, the method estimates horizontal and vertical maximum loads as 220 kips and 440
kips, respectively at 8:00 a.m on August 29, 2004. The vertical uplift exceeds the weight of the
structure (340 kips). Inspection of the original engineering plans dated 1959 shows no
connections that would resist any vertical uplift. It is possible, but not known, that there was a
retrofit strengthening of these connections in the years since initial construction. There were
small steel angles that would have resisted lateral loads up to about 800 kips in the original
design. However, without any vertical resistance when wave uplift exceeded the weight, the
girders likely lifted up and onto or over the angles.

The new method can be applied to the higher elevation spans at the peak of the storm at 10:30
a.m. on August 29, 2004. The estimated surge elevation was 21.5 ft and the estimated
significant wave height was 9.1 ft (see Section 3.2 of this report). Application of the new method
for these conditions indicates that deck sections with an average bottom of deck elevation of
less than 30 ft should have experienced uplift loads greater than or equal to 340 kips (the weight
of the spans). Assuming that this is the critical condition for movement, i.e. there is no additional
resistance to movement once this condition is met, five more spans, should have moved. On the
west side, 2 more span sections, #98 and #99, should have moved. On the east side, three
more spans sections, #86, #87, and #88) should have moved. These higher spans may indeed
have been lifted slightly during the storm under individual wave loads. But, without enough force
to move the span vertically far enough to be lifted above the angles that restricted lateral
movement, they may have just stayed in place.

It may be valuable to consider what the wave loads would have been if the connections on all
the spans at Biloxi were strong enough to survive until the peak of the storm at 10:30 a.m. This
was the input condition for the foundation analysis described in Chapter 5. By 10:30 a.m. the
low spans on the bridge were completely inundated by the storm surge. The estimated
maximum wave-induced loads on span 47, if it had survived intact until that time, are 950 kips
(horizontal) and 1900 kips (vertical). The uplift at that time might have been partially increased
by the additional buoyancy of air trapped between the girders and the diaphragms on the
underside of the bridge. In any case, these extreme loads, approaching 2000 kips, may be
difficult for bridge engineers to accommodate and thus, they may have to be avoided by building
at higher elevations.

The uncertainty involved in the recommended method is greatest for these highest loads when
the deck is completely inundated. No laboratory tests of this inundation or submergence level
are available in the literature. More laboratory testing for this case is strongly recommended
prior to the use of this method (or any method in the literature) for the design of decks that are
expected to be this submerged. These case study load estimates are likely more reliable for the
8:00 a.m. case where the still-water level was near the elevation of the deck.

52
 Chapter 7 – Recommendations for Future Research
Original research on wave loads on bridge decks is recommended for both appropriately
engineered retrofits of existing vulnerable bridges and in the design and planning of new and
replacement coastal bridges.

The most significant research needs related to estimating wave-induced loads on U.S. bridges
are measurements on structures with the appropriate geometry and experiments with various
levels of inundation. This includes small- and moderate-scale physical laboratory experiments
and full-scale prototype measurements. Research is needed on a cross-sectional geometry that
is typical of U.S. bridges. Research is needed on all three situational cases of decks high above
the storm surge level, decks roughly even with the storm surge level, and decks inundated by
the storm surge level. Laboratory research should investigate (calibrate) the empirical
coefficients for the new method for estimating wave loads on bridge decks outlined in Chapter 6.

Also, research on appropriate design procedures to avoid or design for these loads in the future,
including designed and retrofit countermeasures for these loads is appropriate.

There are an unknown number of coastal bridges that could be damaged by the same
mechanisms that damaged bridges in Hurricanes Ivan and Katrina. A survey of the vulnerability
of existing bridges is appropriate to define the problem.

53
This page is purposely left blank.

54
 Chapter 8 – Conclusions
The damage to U.S. highway bridges in recent hurricanes was primarily due to wave attack on
storm surge. The damage was caused as the storm surge raised the water level to an elevation
where larger waves could strike the bridge superstructure. Individual waves produce both an
uplift force and a horizontal force on the bridge decks. The magnitude of wave uplift force from
individual waves can exceed the weight of the simple span bridge decks. The total resultant
force is able to overcome any resistance provided by the, typically small, connections between
the pile caps and bridge decks. The decks begin to progressively slide, “bump,” or “hop” across
the pile caps in the direction of wave propagation.

The buoyancy of the bridge decks and any additional buoyancy provided by any air pockets
trapped under the bridge decks contribute to the total force on the individual bridge decks when
the deck is submerged, i.e. when the storm surge elevation exceeds the bridge decks. However,
bridge decks that were elevated above the storm surge still-water elevation were damaged in
both Hurricanes Ivan and Katrina.

This primary conclusion, that wave loads were the primary cause of damage, is based on post-
storm inspections of the damaged bridges with numerical model hindcasts of the wave and
surge conditions during the storms, some exploratory laboratory tests conducted as part of this
study, and a review of the related coastal engineering literature.

The engineering literature contains relatively limited guidance on methods for estimating wave
loads on bridge decks. The literature includes research from the transportation engineering
community as well as some research on related issues in the coastal and ocean engineering
community. Some of the methods from the coastal and ocean engineering literature can be
adapted to provide preliminary estimates of wave loads on highway bridge decks. In particular,
the method recently developed by McConnell, et al. (2004), based on small-scale hydrodynamic
laboratory tests, is probably the most applicable to the U.S. highway bridge damage problem.

However, there are no available laboratory data, of acceptable quality, for the geometry that is
typical of highway bridge decks. This is particularly problematic since the typical bridge deck
geometry can be considered as almost a perfect “wave-catcher” in that overhanging decks
above concave girders allow for pockets of air to be trapped between the wave surface and the
structure.

The new method for estimating wave loads on bridge decks presented here is recommended to
FHWA as interim guidance. It is simple, can be applied conservatively, and is consistent with
the existing coastal engineering research literature (primarily McConnell, et al. 2004 and Wang
1970). The new method helps explain the damage to bridges in Hurricanes Katrina and Ivan.
Estimated wave loads are sufficient to overcome the weight and connection resistance for the
spans that moved but not sufficient for the spans at higher elevations that did not move at three
bridges: the I-10 Escambia Bay, Florida, bridge; the I-10 on ramp near Mobile, Alabama; and
U.S. 90 bridge across Biloxi Bay. This interim guidance can be replaced or modified as research
addresses some of the important questions more appropriately than the existing literature.

The magnitude of wave-induced loads on bridge decks can be addressed by considering the
U.S. 90 bridge across Biloxi Bay, Mississippi, in Hurricane Katrina as a test case using the
newly recommended method. The deck was likely experiencing wave-induced horizontal and

55
vertical loads of up to 230 kips and 440 kips, respectively, by 8:00 a.m. CDT on August 29,
2005. At that point in time in the storm, the storm surge had risen to a mean level about one foot
below the low-chord elevation of the bridge spans (bottom of girders). The vertical load is an
uplift load acting opposite the 340 kip weight of the span. These estimated loads are maximum
(slowly “varying”) loads at the crest of the largest incoming waves in the sea state at that time.
They would have been adequate to begin to lift and move the spans off their pile caps in the
downwave direction as was observed.

The peak of Hurricane Katrina, however, was not until 10:30 a.m. The loads would have
increased, had the decks remained in-place, to an estimated 950 kips and 1900 kips (horizontal
and vertical) by then. It must be noted that the conditions for which these extreme loads are
predicted are the conditions for which the estimation method has the most uncertainty. The
conditions of total inundation of the bridge deck are beyond the available range of laboratory
data. The load estimates are more reliable for the 8:00 a.m. case, with the lower loads, where
the still-water level was near the elevation of the deck.

The magnitudes of the estimated wave loads, 200 to 2000 kips, are significant and present a
challenge to the bridge engineer. The typical force-time history associated with these wave
loads also presents a challenge. The slowly “varying” loads can be combined with higher
magnitude, much shorter duration “impact” loads that occur if a pocket of air is trapped between
an incoming wave and the bridge deck. The implications of strengthening the bridges to
withstand these extreme wave loads and the directly related foundation issues are serious.

The easiest design solution is to avoid all wave loads by elevating the decks to a level where
wave crests are not a factor. This has been the preferred design approach. Given the existence
of many bridges at lower elevations that could possibly be retrofitted for more resistance, more
research on reducing the uncertainties of the magnitudes of wave loads is justified. New bridge
design will also benefit from a better understanding of wave loads since the recent damage did
not extend up to the top of the largest wave crests in the storm sea-state. Bridge decks elevated
just a few feet above the storm surge survived the wave attack. The inherent strength of the
bridges was able to tolerate some level of wave attack. Research into that critical level of wave
attack is appropriate.

Given the magnitudes of the estimated wave loads, the seriousness of the implications of them
for design, the significant uncertainty in the available methods for estimating the loads, and the
likelihood that the uncertainty can be reduced, further research is strongly recommended to
FHWA. This research should include quantitative laboratory force measurements for the cross-
sectional geometry typical of simple-span bridge decks used in U.S. highways across coastal
waters. Three cases of relative inundation should be considered: one, the deck is much higher
than the storm surge such that only the crests of a very few waves in the storm sea state hit the
girders, two, the surge is just about even with the bridge deck elevation (this is the case where
the prototype damage has occurred), and three, the surge is so high that the bridge deck is
completely inundated.

The most significant need related to project-specific applications of estimated wave-induced

loads on bridges for design is a multidisciplinary collaboration of hydraulic, structural and
geotechnical engineers. However, an additional and critical element of this team will include the
active involvement of a qualified, experienced, coastal engineering specialist.

Coastal engineering is a specialty area of civil engineering that involves the unique design
environment – waves, water levels, and sand transport, experienced along the coast. As in any

56
specialty area, specialized formal training (in wave mechanics, sand transport and engineering
solutions for the coastal environment) and experience are required. The use of a coastal
engineering consultant is highly recommended for any design or retrofit of coastal bridges that
may occasionally be subjected to storm surge and waves.

57
This page is purposely left blank.

58
 References

Allsop, W. (2006) Personal communication.

American Petroleum Institute (2000) Recommended Practice for Planning, Designing and
Constructing Fixed Offshore Platforms – Working Stress Design, American Petroleum
Institute, 277 pp.

American Society of Civil Engineers (2006) Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other
Structures (ASCE Standard), ASCE/SEI-7-05, American Society of Civil Engineers, 376
pp.

ASCE TCLEE (2006) Performance of Transportation Systems During Hurricane Katrina, draft
report by the American Society of Civil Engineers Technical Council on Lifeline
Earthquake Engineering, Reston, Virginia.

Bea, R. G., Xu, T., Stear, J., and Ramos, R. (1999) Wave Forces on Decks of Offshore
Platforms, Journal of Waterway, Port, Coastal and Ocean Engineering, American
Society of Civil Engineers, May/June, vol. 125, no. 3, p. 136-144.

Bea, R.G., Iversen, R., and Xu, T. (2001) Wave-In-Deck Forces on Offshore Platforms, Journal
of Offshore Mechanics and Artic Engineering, Feb., vol. 123, p. 10-21.

Broughton, P. and Horn, E. (1987) Ekofisk Platform 2/4C: Reanalysis due to Subsidence,
Proceedings of the Institute of Civil Engineering. London, October, p. 949-979.

Chen, Q. (2005) How to determine surge and wave conditions near coastal bridges,
presentation at Wave Force Symposium organized by FHWA, Turner-Fairbank Highway
Research Center, McLean, Virginia, December 5, 2005.

Chen, Q., Zhao, H., Hu, K, and Douglass, S. L. (2005) Prediction of wind waves in a shallow
estuary. Journal of Waterway, Port, Coastal and Ocean Engineering, American Society
of Civil Engineers, vol. 131, no. 4, p. 137-148.

Chen, Q., Wang, L., and Zhao, H. (2006) Simulation of storm surges and wind waves on the
Mississippi and Alabama coasts during Hurricane Katrina, presentation at AGU Ocean
Sciences Meeting, Honolulu, Hawaii, February 20-24.

Denson, K. H. (1978) Wave Forces on Causeway-Type Coastal Bridges, Water Resources

Research Institute, Mississippi State University, 42 pp.

Denson, K. H. (1980) Wave Forces on Causeway-Type Coastal Bridges: Effects of Angle of

Wave Incidence and Cross-Section Shape, Water Resources Research Institute,
Mississippi State University, 242 pp.

Douglass, S.L., Hughes, S.A., Rogers, S., and Chen, Q. (2004) The Impact of Hurricane Ivan
on the Coastal Roads of Florida and Alabama: A Preliminary Report, Coastal
Transportation Engineering Research & Education Center, University of South Alabama,
Mobile, Alabama, 19 pp.

59
El Ghamry, O. A. (1963) Wave Forces on a Dock, Hydraulic Engineering Laboratory, Institute of
Engineering Research Technical Report HEL-9-1, University of California, Berkeley,
California, 206 pp.

French J.A. (1970) Wave Uplift Pressures on Horizontal Platforms, Proceedings of the Civil
Engineering in the Oceans Conference, American Society of Civil Engineers, p. 187-202.

Goda, Y. (2000) Random Seas and Design of Maritime Structures, 2nd ed., World Scientific
Press, New Jersey.

Graumann, A., Houston, T., Lawrimore, J., Levinson, D., Lott, N., McCown, S., Stephens, S.,
and Wuerts, D. (2005) Hurricane Katrina: A Climatological Perspective – Preliminary
Report, Technical Report 2005-01, NOAA National Climate Data Center.

Kaplan, P. (1992) Wave Impact Forces on Offshore Structures: Re-Examination and New
Interpretations, Proceedings of the 24th Annual Conference on Offshore Technology,
OTC 6814, Houston, Texas, p. 79-86.

Kaplan, P., Murray, J.J., and Yu, W.C. (1995) “Theoretical Analysis of Wave Impact Forces on
Platform Deck Structure,” Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Offshore
Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, vol. 1-A,
p. 189-198.

Li, Y., and Huang, L. (1997) An Experimental Study on the Wave Uplift Force on the
Superstructure of Piers, Harbor Engineering, vol. 6, p. 9-13 (in Chinese).

McConnell, K. J., Allsop, W., Cuomo, G., and Cruickshank, I. C. (2003) New Guidance for Wave
Forces on Jetties in Exposed Locations. Proceedings of the Sixth Conference on
Coastal and Port Engineering Developing Countries (COPEDEC VI), Colombo, Sri
Lanka, 20 pp.

McConnell, K., Allsop, W., and Cruickshank, I. (2004) Piers, jetties, and related structures
exposed to waves: Guidelines for hydraulic loadings. Thomas Telford Press, London.
148 pp.

National Weather Service (2005) Extremely Powerful Hurricane Katrina leaves a Historic Mark
on the Northern Gulf Coast, report on website www.srh.noaa.gov/mob posted by the
Mobile Forecast office, Aug. 5, 2005.

Ocean Engineering Associates (2005) Hurricane Impact Analysis and Development of Design
Criteria for the I-10 Bridges over Escambia Bay Escambia County, Florida, report to
Florida Department of Transportation Drainage Design Office, January, 77 pp.

Overbeek, J., and Klabbers, I. M. (2001) Design of Jetty Decks for Extreme Vertical Loads,
Proceedings of the Ports 2001 Conference, American Society of Civil Engineers, 10 pp.

Renna, R. and Sheppard, D.M. (2004) Preliminary Forensic Investigation of Damage at the I-10
Bridge Over Escambia Bay During Hurricane Ivan, Sept 20, 2004, 6 pp.

60
Sheppard, D.M. (2005) Example Problem Solution using Kaplan’s Method, presentation at
Wave Force Symposium organized by FHWA, Turner-Fairbank Highway Research
Center, McLean, Virginia, December 7, 2005.

Tirindelli, M., Cuomo, G., Allsop, W., McConnell, K. (2002) "Exposed Jetties: Inconsistencies
and Gaps in Design Methods for Wave-Induced Forces." Proceedings of the
International Conference on Coastal Engineering, American Society of Civil Engineers,
13 pp.

US Army (1984) Shore Protection Manual, Coastal Engineering Research Center, US Army
Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, 2 volumes, US Government Printing Office.

US Army Engineer District, Mobile (1981) Hurricane Frederic Post Disaster Report: 30 August -
14 September 1979, February 1981.

Wang, H. (1970) Water Wave Pressure on Horizontal Plate, Journal of the Hydraulics Division,
American Society of Civil Engineers, vol. 96, no. HY10, p. 1997-2017.

Weggel. J.R. (1997) Breaking-Wave Loads on Vertical Walls Suspended Above Mean Sea
Level, discussion of paper by Chan, et al., Journal of Waterway, Port, Coastal and
Ocean Engineering, American Society of Civil Engineers, vol. 123, no 3, p. 143-146.

61
This page is purposely left blank.

62
 Appendix A

Example calculations of wave loads for the Biloxi case study

using adaptations of existing methods
This appendix presents details of applications and adaptations of the existing methods to
estimate wave loads on the U.S. 90 bridge across Biloxi Bay. The case study is at 8:00 a.m.
CDT on August 29, 2005 and the assumed wave and surge conditions are:

Hs = 6.2 feet, T = 5 s, d = 16 ft, (η̄ = 12 feet) and the low-chord on the bridge deck was 13 ft
NGVD.

The geometry of the bridge deck is as presented in Chapter 3. In the following calculations, the
notation of the original reference is used and it is assumed that the reader has access to those
references. The following calculations are for demonstration purposes only.

McConnell, et al. (2004) method adapted to Biloxi

Using the methodology outlined in McConnell, et al. (2004) to estimate the wave loads on the
Biloxi Bay Bridge span #47 at 8:00 am CDT on August 29, 2005 (Katrina) results in maximum
vertical uplift loads of 520 kips and maximum horizontal loads of 165 kips. These are the values
used in section 3.5 of this report. They were computed as follows.

McConnell, et al.’s (2004) method requires the estimation of loads on individual parts, beams
and decks, of the superstructure. To apply this method to bridge decks, loads were computed
for each girder (considered a “beam” in McConnell) of the Biloxi bridge and each portion of the
deck between the girders as well as the short portion of the deck at the leeward side that is
cantilevered 2’ 2” (see Figure 3.1). Thus, there were 12 components of the vertical load; one
seaward beam and five internal beams as well as one seaward deck and five internal decks.
The seaward beam uplift was 31 kips and each internal beam uplift was 32 kips. The seaward
deck uplift was 75 kips and the internal deck uplift was 60 kips except for the cantilevered part
which was 18 kips. Thus, the total uplift load was computed as 31+5(32)+75+4(60)+18=520
kips. This assumes that each component of the bridge deck is experiencing uplift at the same
time.

The maximum load on the each girder-“beam” was estimated as follows using the equations
and notation from McConnell, et al. (2004). The crest of the maximum wave was:

ηmax ≈ (0.8)(1.8) Hs = 1.44 Hs = 1.44(6.2) = 8.9 ft.

The clearance between the surge elevation and the low chord of the girder was cl = 13-12 = 1 ft.

So, the “basic reference” load is (equation 5-16 of McConnell):

Fv* = (A)(p) = (1.67 ft)(52 ft)(64 lb/ft3)(8.9 ft -1 ft) = 44,000 lb = 44 kips.

The dimensionless load on the seaward beam is (McConnell equation 5.19 with a = 0.82 and b
= 0.61 from McConnell’s Table 5.4):

63
Fvqs a 0.82
*
= b
= 0.61
= 0.71
Fv
⎡
⎢ (ηmax − c l ⎤⎥ ⎡
⎢ (8.9 − 1) ⎤⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎢
⎣⎢
Hs ⎦⎥ ⎣⎢ 6.2 ⎥⎦⎥

and the vertical load is Fvqs = 0.71(44 kips) = 31 kips.

Likewise for the internal beams using a = 0.84 and b = 0.66, Fv* = 44 kips and the dimensionless
load is 0.72 and thus the uplift load on each internal girder is 32 kips.

The maximum uplift load on the “deck” portions were estimated as follows.

For the seaward portion of the deck the reference load was:

Fv*= (A)(p) = (6.5 ft - 1.67 ft)(52 ft)(64 lb/ft3)(8.9 ft - 4 ft) = 79 kips

The dimensionless load is (using a=0.82, b=0.61):

Fvqs a 0.82
*
= b
= 0.61
= 0.95
Fv
⎡
⎢ (ηmax − c l ⎤⎥ ⎡
⎢ (8.9 − 4) ⎤⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎢
⎢⎣ Hs ⎥⎦ ⎢⎣ 6.2 ⎥⎥⎦

and the vertical load is: Fvqs = 0.95(79 kips) = 75 kips.

Likewise for the internal decks:

Fv*= (A)(p) = (6 ft - 1.67 ft)(52 ft)(64 lb/ft3)(8.9 ft - 4 ft) = 71 kips.

Using a = 0.71 and b = 0.71, the dimensionless load is 0.84 and the vertical load on the internal
decks is Fvqs = 0.84(71 kips) = 60 kips.

The uplift on the cantilevered portion of the deck is estimated by its proportion of the area
exposed to the 60 kip loads = 30%(60) = 18 kips.

The horizontal loads are calculated using an estimated height exposed to waves on the
seaward side of 6 ft and for each girder of 3 ft. The maximum horizontal load on the seaward
“beam” includes the deck and rail heights. The reference load is:

Fh*= (A)(p) = (6 ft)(52 ft)(64 lb/ft3)(8.9 ft - 4 ft) = 98 kips

The dimensionless load is:

Fhqs a 0.45
*
= b
= 1.56
= 0.31
Fh
⎡
⎢ (ηmax − c l ⎤⎥ ⎡
⎢ (8.9 − 1⎤⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎢
⎢⎣ Hs ⎥⎦ ⎢⎣ 6.2 ⎥⎥⎦

and the horizontal load is: Fhqs = 0.31(98 kips) = 30 kips.

64
Likewise for the internal girder-“beams”, the reference load is:

Fh* = (A)(p) = (3 ft)(52 ft)(64 lb/ft3)(8.9 ft - 2.5 ft) = 64 kips

The dimensionless load is:

Fhqs a 0.72
*
= b
= 2.3
= 0.42
Fh
⎡
⎢ (ηmax − c l ⎤⎥ ⎡
⎢ (8.9 − 1⎤⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎢
⎣⎢
Hs ⎦⎥ ⎣⎢ 6.2 ⎥⎦⎥

and the horizontal load is: Fhqs = 0.42(64 kips) = 27 kips.

Thus, the total horizontal load, assuming each girder is loaded at the same time (conservative
assumption) is: 30 + 27 (5) = 165 kips.

Bea, et al. (1999) method adapted to Biloxi

Using an adaptation of the approach outlined in Bea, et al. (1999), wave loads on the U.S. 90
bridge across Biloxi Bay on span #47 at at 8:00 am CDT on August 29, 2005 (Katrina) are
estimated as follows. The maximum vertical uplift loads are 320 kips due to inertia and 130 kips
due to drag. While inertia and drag will not be in complete phase, they will be acting together at
some phases. Phases of the loadings were not estimated here. Maximum horizontal loads of 40
kips of drag, 430 kips of inertia, and 250 kips of impact (or slamming) are estimated. These are
the values used in section 3.5 of this report. They were computed as follows.

The inertial loads were computed using:

Fi = Cm ρ( Vol ) a

with a Cm = 3.5, and a maximum acceleration from linear wave theory.

For the horizontal direction, the maximum acceleration is:

a = g π H / L = (32.2) π (10.4)/(104) = 10.1 ft/s2

where H = 1.67 Hs = 1.67 (6.2) = 10.4 ft.

Wavelength is estimated as 104 ft using Ekerts approximation of linear wave theory for that
depth of 16 feet.

The maximum horizontal inertial load is:

Fi = 3.5 (2) [ (52)(3.5)(33.4) ] (10.1) = 430 kips.

65
For the vertical direction, the vertical acceleration is:

a = g π H / L { tanh( 2 π d / L ) } = (32.2) π (10.4) / (104) { tanh[ 2π(16) / (104) ] } = 7.6 ft/s2.

The maximum vertical inertial load is:

Fi = 3.5 (2) [ (52) (3.5) (33.4) ] (7.6) = 320 kips,

The volume of the span is taken to include the air between the girders and the density of
seawater is taken as 2 slugs/ft3.

Drag loads are estimated as:

u2
Fd = Cd A p ρ
2

where Cd = 2.

For the horizontal loads this is:

Fd = (2) [ (6)(52) ] (2)(8.1)2 / 2 = 40 kips.

For the vertical loads this is:

Fd = (2) [ ( 33.4)(52)] (2)(6.1)2 / 2 = 130 kips.

Maximum velocities of 8.1 ft/s for the horizontal and 6.1 ft/s for the vertical are from linear wave
theory using:

umax = H g T / ( 2 L ) = (10.4)(32.2)(5) / [ 2 (104) ] = 8.1 ft/s.

and

wmax = [ H g T / ( 2 L ) ] { tanh( 2 π d / L ) } =
= (10.4)(32.2)(5) / [ 2 (104) ] { tanh( 2 π (16) / (104) ) } = 6.1.

Impact loads, called “slamming loads” by Bea, et al. (1999), are estimated as:

u2
Fs = Cs ρ A p ,
2

where Cs= 6 and they are assumed to only act in the horizontal direction.

So, Fs= (6) (2) [ (6) (52) ] (8.1)2 = 250 kips.

66
Denson (1978, 1980) methods applied to Biloxi

The two Denson papers provide very different estimates of wave loads on the Biloxi bridge. The
procedure and empirical curves in Denson (1978) produce an estimate of horizontal and vertical
loads of 9 kips and 50 kips, respectively.

The procedure and empirical curves of Denson (1980) produce corresponding estimates of 150
kips and 710 kips, respectively.

Neither Denson approach is recommended.

Denson’s (1978) results are presented in a series of dimensionless empirical curves.

Figure S3L is used here since h / W = (17)/(33.4) = 0.51.

That figure yields, with H / D = (10.4)/(16) = 0.65 and h / D = (17)/(16) = 1.06

Fl / (γ W2) x 104 = 130

so

Fl = (130)(64)(33.4)2(52) / 10,000 = 50 kips.

Likewise from Figure S3D:

Fd / (γ W2) x 104 = 23

so

Fd = (23)(64)(33.4)2(52) / 10,000 = 9 kips.

Denson’s (1980) results are presented in a different series of dimensionless empirical curves
with different notation.

Figure S90Fy (p. 95) gives:

Fy / (GW3) x 103 = 60

with H / D = (10.4)/(16) = 0.65 and h / D = (17)/(16) =1.06

so

Fy = (60)(64)(33.4)3(52 / 47.25) / 1000 = 150 kips.

The result has been adjusted for the longer spans used on the Biloxi bridge compared with the
47.25 feet long Bay St. Louis spans used in the tests. Likewise from Figure S90Fz (p. 96):

Fz / (GW3) x 103 = 270

67
So

Fz = (270)(64)(33.4)3(52 / 47.25) / 1000 = 710 kips.

68
 Appendix B

Report of Foundation Evaluation to Extreme Event Loading

U.S. 90 Biloxi Bay Bridge

by
Dan Brown & Associates
Introduction

The purpose of this report is to support the research study of the response of highway bridges
to extreme event storm loading from waves and tidal surge by evaluating the geotechnical and
structural performance of the pile foundations. This study is intended to outline and address the
fundamental issues related to whether or not strengthening the super-structure of these bridges
might lead to geotechnical failures. Specifically:

1. Evaluate the magnitude and type of proposed wave forces compared to other forces
such as vessel impact forces, wind loads, and current loads typically used in design to
determine if foundation integrity of a bridge might be jeopardized if the bridge deck were
secured to withstand wave forces. For site-specific geotechnical data, the old (the one
that fell down in Katrina) U.S. 90 bridge across Biloxi Bay is to be used as a test-case
location. Wave load estimates for that bridge and situation have been provided by Dr.
Scott Douglass in a memo dated March 1, 2006.

2. Prepare a brief report summarizing the methods used to evaluate potential danger to the
foundation integrity if the bridge decks were tied secured with wave loads ultimately
absorbed by the foundation. Include an outline and description of research questions,
further analysis, and experiments needed to better address this fundamental question.

Loadings

The anticipated loadings from a Katrina-type storm surge occur as a sinusoidal time-dependent
cyclic load, with a period expected to be in the range of 4 to 6 seconds. This load includes a
coupled vertical and horizontal force on the deck and girders, which are expected to be in-phase.
The maximum loads for the U.S. 90 Biloxi Bay Bridge are estimated to occur when the bridge is
completely submerged and may be in the range of 950 kips horizontal and 1930 kips vertical.
Loads associated with waves hitting the bridge girders and deck (when not submerged by the
storm surge) are estimated at around 220 kips horizontal and 380 kips vertical. Also associated
with this wave loading is a higher spike in the load which is of very short duration (fraction of a
second), and is referred to as a “slamming” load.

In the experience of the writers, these maximum loads are actually quite similar in load and
duration to barge impact loads on a bridge of this size. However, the several hours duration of the
storm loading can lead to cyclic degradation in the soil response in a manner similar to storm
loadings of offshore platforms. This is an uncommon design condition for highway bridge
foundations. Even seismic loadings result in relatively few cycles of load compared to the
hundreds of load cycles over the several hour duration of a hurricane storm surge. The U.S. 90

69
Biloxi Bay Bridge clearly was not designed for lateral loads of anything approaching these
magnitudes.

Foundation Model for Analysis

An analytical model was used to evaluate the response of pile foundations to wave loads
applied to the pile group as a result of bridge deck secured to the bents. This model was based
on plans dated 1959 for the U.S. 90 bridge across Biloxi Bay constructed in the early 1960’s
(and destroyed by Hurricane Katrina in 2005) as well as estimated wave loads described above.
The loads were considered as applied at the approximate centroid of the deck and girder
system, and therefore the horizontal component of the load was coupled with a 5 foot moment
arm to apply forces at the centroid of the pile cap.

The destroyed U.S. 90 bridge consisted of pre-cast concrete girders and a concrete deck
supported by driven pile bents. The typical span length was 52 feet. Several pile sizes were
used to construct the bents, depending on the location along the alignment. Pre-cast 20-inch
piles and pre-stressed concrete pile sizes of 24-inch, 30-inch, and 36-inch were used. Bents
utilizing 20-inch or 24-inch piles had 10 piles per bent, with the two outboard piles on either end
of the bent installed at a batter ranging from 1:6 to 1:12. Eight piles per bent were used for the
other two pile sizes, with the outboard pile on each end of the bent battered at 1:8. Every fifth
bent was built with all piles battered longitudinally with the bridge (along centerline). The
direction of batter was alternated every other pile.

The analytical model was constructed using Bents 44 and 45 of the 1959 bridge plans. These
bents were supported by 24-inch piles driven a minimum of 20 feet into firm material and a
minimum axial capacity of 60 tons. The single pile nonlinear response in shear and bending was
evaluated using the computer program LPILE (Version 5), based on structural detail drawings. A
range of behavior at the pile/cap connection was evaluated, ranging from a full moment
connection to one of partial fixity. There are numerous computer models for analysis of pile
groups with which the writers are well familiar; however, these models typically are used to
perform a pushover analysis and physical instability is usually associated with a failure to
achieve numerical convergence. For this study a simple group model of coupled translational
and rotational stiffness was developed using hand and spreadsheet calculations (and the results
of nonlinear single pile analyses in axial and transverse directions) so that the post-yield
behavior could be better evaluated.

The soil profile shown in Table 1 was developed using the boring data included in the 1959
project plans and borings performed in 2005 for design of the replacement bridge. Though the
depth to the mudline and the strata thicknesses vary somewhat along the bridge alignment, the
table below outlines the typical subsurface conditions.

Elevation (feet, MSL) Soil

0 to –10 Bay Water
-10 to –30 Very Soft Clay (c = 50 psf)
-30 to –65 Stiff Clay (c = 2000 psf)
-65 to –100 Sand (φ = 35°)
-100 to –130 Stiff Clay (c = 2000 psf)
-130+ Sand (φ = 38°)

70
Based upon the writer’s experience along the Gulf Coast, the soil conditions used for the
evaluation of the U.S. 90 Biloxi Bay Bridge are similar in many respects to those at the U.S. 90
Bay St. Louis bridge site in Mississippi, the I-10 Twin Span bridge in Louisiana, the I-10
Escambia Bay Bridge in Florida, all of which were damaged by storm surges associated with
hurricanes. It is the opinion of the writers that these conditions represent a reasonably typical
condition for coastal bridges elsewhere in the Gulf coast and southern Atlantic coastal areas.

Analysis

The single pile model included three pile head conditions as simulated by the loads applied in
the computer model: a fixed head condition (Shear = Vx and Slope = 0), a post-yield hinged-
head condition (Shear = Vx, Moment = -Mmax), and a partially fixed condition (Shear = Vx,
Moment = -Mx), where Vx is the applied shear (lateral) load at the pile head, Mx is the applied
moment at the pile head, and Mmax is the maximum moment for the pile section. Each of these
conditions was evaluated for a range of shear loads (and moments in the partially fixed case),
increasing the load until the pile moment capacity was exceeded. The results of these analyses
provide the basis to calculate a transverse single pile stiffness, kt for each case at or near failure
of the pile.

In addition to the range of pile-head restraint conditions, analyses were performed using a range
of soil properties, including: a) increased soil strength and stiffness associated with rate-
dependent damping, b) reduced soil strength and stiffness associated with cyclic degradation,
and c) more favorable soil conditions represented by a sand deposit below the soil surface
without the deep soft organic clay in the first 20 feet below the mudline. These variations
provide a form of sensitivity analysis for the possible range of soil conditions.

Axial stiffness, kax, was estimated using an axial load resistance of 200 kips per pile based on
the minimum design load of the piles, the dead load estimated from the design drawings, and
experience (which suggests that the axial capacity of these driven piles is likely somewhat
higher than the design values given the long time for soil setup). Plan notes indicate that the 24
inch width piles are to be driven to a capacity of 60 tons, presumably indicating that the piles
should achieve a resistance sufficient for a service load of 60 tons (120 kips) with a factor of
safety of at least 2. Thus, the ultimate resistance should be at least 240 kips, less the sustained
dead load on the structure.

The group response is related to the lateral and axial forces at the top of each pile of the group
as a function of pile stiffness (kt and kax) and the group displacement vector (x, y, ψ). The
equations of the total forces applied to the pile group (VT, PT, and MT) were then developed by
static equilibrium, combining the stiffness terms to create the group equilibrium equations of the
group force vector as a function of the group stiffness and the group displacement vector.

⎧ VT ⎫ ⎡ K xx K xy K xψ ⎤ ⎧x⎫
⎪ ⎪ ⎢ ⎥ ⎪ ⎪
⎨ PT ⎬ = ⎢ K yx K yy K yψ ⎥ • ⎨y⎬
⎪M ⎪ ⎢K ψ x K ψx K ψψ ⎥ ⎪⎩ ψ ⎪⎭
⎩ T ⎭ ⎣ ⎦
Group Force Group Stiffness Matrix Group Displacement
Vector Vector

71
The group displacement vector is solved by using the peak loads for the group and the
calculated stiffness terms. Once the group displacements were solved, the lateral and axial
forces in each pile could be solved and compared to the pile capacity.

Analytical Results

Analyses of a single 24 inch pile typical of the Biloxi Bridge subject to transverse shear indicate
the following:

1. The flexural capacity of the pile with a full moment connection at the pile top will be
exceeded at a transverse shear force of between 20 and 30 kips per pile. When the pile-
top condition is replaced by a plastic hinge at the yield moment value, the pile will
accommodate greater deflection but relatively insignificantly more shear force before a
subsurface yield in flexure occurs.
2. The flexural capacity is somewhat reduced for conditions of partial fixity at the pile top,
with maximum shear forces of around 20 kips per pile.
3. Cyclic degradation reduces the stiffness and capacity slightly, but including a rate-
dependent damping contribution approximately offsets this reduction. Both conditions
are likely within the range of general uncertainty associated with site-specific soil
conditions.
4. Replacement of the 20 feet of soft organic clay immediately below the mudline by a
more favorable soil profile consisting of sand can potentially increase the transverse
shear capacity to as much as 35 to 40 kips per pile.

Variations in transverse pile stiffness for different conditions are illustrated on Figure B-1.

Pile Stiffness vs. Lateral Load

25
Transverse Pile Stiffness (kips/in)

20

15

10

0
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Lateral Load on Pile (kips)
Soft Clay Model - Static - Fixed Soft Clay Model - Cyclic - Fixed
Soft Clay Model - Cyclic 2.0p - Fixed Sand Model - Static - Fixed
Soft Clay Model - Cyclic - Partial Soft Clay Model - Cyclic - Partial
Soft Clay Model - Cyclic 2.0p - Partial Sand Model - Static - Partial
Figure B-1. Transverse Pile Stiffness Values for a Range of Conditions

72
Analyses of the response of the 24 inch, 10 pile group indicate the following:

1. The primary mode of movement was horizontal translation, with very small rotational
movements until pile axial failure occurs.
2. The horizontal force on the pile bent results in transverse shear forces to the piles which
are approximately equally distributed to the piles in the row.
3. Many if not all of the piles will yield in flexure at around 30% to 40% of the peak load
associated with the maximum storm surge for the range of soft clay soil conditions
evaluated. See Figure B-2 for a typical plot of lateral force vs horizontal translation. If the
more favorable sand conditions were present, this value might be as high as 40% to
50% of the maximum loads described earlier. Note that these data suggest that the
foundation might survive the horizontal loads associated with the wave loadings (which
were about 23% of the maximum storm surge), although some damage would be
anticipated.
4. The coupled vertical, horizontal, and overturning forces on the pile groups may start to
overstress one or more of the batter piles at loads in the range of 40% to 50% of the
peak load associated with the maximum storm surge (Figure B-3). An overstress of a
single pile does not constitute a rotational failure of the group, since this response is
expected to be ductile and strain-hardening, and additional capacity is available from
other piles in the group. Thus, it is likely that bending failure of the piles would occur
before overturning due to axial geotechnical failure.

Group Response and Pile Lateral Load

24-inch pile - Soft Clay Model
Static Load

16 100

90
14
80
Pile Lateral Load (kips)
Group Deflection (inches)

12
70
10 Yield 60
Group
8 50
Piles 1 - 10
40
6
30
4
20
2
10

0 0
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
% of Max Group Load

Figure B-2 Horizontal Force vs Translation, with Associated Individual Pile Shear Forces

73
 Group Response and Pile Axial Load
24-inch pile - Soft Clay Model
Static Load

16 1200

14 1000
Group Deflection (inches)

Pile Axial Load (kips)

12 800
Group
10 600 Pile 1
Pile 2
8 400 Piles 3 - 5
Piles 6 - 8
6 200 Pile 9
Pile 10
4 0

2 -200

0 -400
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
% of Max Group Load

Figure B-3 Horizontal Force vs Translation, with Associated Individual Pile Axial Forces

Other Foundation Types

Limited additional analyses were performed of pile bents constructed of 30 and 36 inch square
precast piles as used for the U.S. 90 Biloxi Bay Bridge. These pile bents utilized fewer numbers
of piles than the 10 pile bent of 24 inch square piles, and generally were found to have a
pushover capacity that was similar or slightly higher than the 24 inch piles.

Conclusions

Analyses of the U.S. 90 Biloxi Bay Bridge suggests that the pile bents typical of this bridge are
not capable of supporting the estimated forces associated with the maximum storm surge from
hurricane Katrina on a bridge deck and girder system that was somehow tied down to the pile
cap. No structural analyses of the pile cap itself have been performed. The load levels
estimated for the wave loading prior to submergence of the bridge may be survivable, although
some damage might be anticipated. Forces associated with submergence as provided for this
analysis would exceed the pile moment capacity by a factor greater than 2; thus it would appear
that the use of structural tie-down of the bridge and girder system would likely result in
foundation failure unless significant strengthening of the foundation system were employed. No
analyses of possible strengthening schemes have been conducted. If existing or future bridges
are to be designed for such large extreme event loads, additional research into possible
foundation strengthening approaches is greatly needed.

74