Instrumentation and Monitoring of Port Facilities: Planning, Funding, Field Applications, and Long-Term Benefits

The widespread application of sensors and instrumentation systems at port facilities has substantially lagged behind that of other sectors of civil infrastructure due to a combination of factors that include: lack of external funding sources for geotechnical and structural instrumentation, difficulties in coordinating the installation with construction schedules, instrument longevity and maintenance concerns in the marine environment, location and access considerations in active terminals, and resources for data acquisition and archiving efforts. Most of these issues have been overcome for buildings, bridges and dams where the application of advanced sensors with real-time data processing and visualization software yield direct benefits to engineering evaluation of system performance under operating loads and extreme natural hazards, maintenance, and lifecycle management. Given the tremendous benefits of performance monitoring, progress is being made at ports and marine oil terminals in California where instrumentation has recently been deployed to obtain data on near shore currents, vessel impact and mooring loads, ground and wharf foundation deformations, and the seismic response of waterfront structures. The lessons learned during these recent projects will benefit current planning and installation efforts at other ports. This paper summarizes field applications for instrumentation at ports and related civil infrastructure, and demonstrates the advances made in seismic performance evaluation of port facilities that have been facilitated by field monitoring. This paper supplements the companion paper in these proceedings prepared by the ASCE-TCLEE Ports Lifelines Committee on the monograph, "Instrumentation for Monitoring the Performance of Port and Coastal Infrastructure." The monograph was prepared to highlight recent experience with instrumentation programs for major port projects in the United States.

[1]  John Dunnicliff,et al.  Geotechnical Instrumentation for Monitoring Field Performance , 1988 .

[2]  Mehmet Çelebi,et al.  Real-Time Seismic Monitoring of the New Cape Girardeau Bridge and Preliminary Analyses of Recorded Data: An Overview , 2006 .

[3]  Youssef M A Hashash,et al.  Temperature Correction and Strut Loads in Central Artery Excavations , 2003 .

[4]  Roy A. Bell,et al.  Pile Foundation Movements During Construction , 1984 .

[5]  Stuart D. Werner.  Seismic Guidelines for Ports , 1998 .

[6]  Raj V. Siddharthan,et al.  SOIL-FOUNDATION-STRUCTURE BEHAVIOR AT THE OAKLAND OUTER HARBOR WHARF , 1996 .

[7]  Peter F. Lagasse,et al.  SONAR SCOUR MONITOR: INSTALLATION, OPERATION, AND FABRICATION MANUAL , 1997 .

[8]  Demetrious C. Koutsoftas,et al.  Test Fill at Chek Lap Kok, Hong Kong , 1987 .

[9]  Jon O. Brazee,et al.  Northside Container Yard Port Canaveral, Florida , 1998 .

[10]  P Davies,et al.  RESEARCH PAYS OFF: INSTRUMENTATION FOR MEASURING SCOUR AT BRIDGE PIERS AND ABUTMENTS , 1997 .

[11]  S. J. Boone,et al.  BRACED EXCAVATIONS: TEMPERATURE, ELASTIC MODULUS, AND STRUT LOADS , 2000 .

[12]  Xxyyzz,et al.  Instrumentation of Embankment Dams and Levees , 1999 .

[13]  Charles H. Dowding,et al.  Monitoring deformation in rock and soil with TDR sensor cables: Part 2. Lessons learned using time domain reflectometry , 2003 .

[14]  Susumu Iai.  Seismic Analysis and Performance of Retaining Structures , 1998 .

[15]  Toshikazu Morita,et al.  Response of a dense sand deposit during 1993 Kushiro-Oki earthquake , 1995 .

[16]  Demetrious C. Koutsoftas,et al.  Instrumentation for Test Fill in Hong Kong , 1987 .

[17]  Gerald M. Serventi,et al.  The Design of Earthquake Damage Repairs to Wharves Before the Earthquake Occurs , 2004 .

[18]  W. H. Roth,et al.  Analyzing the Seismic Performance of Wharves, Part 2: SSI Analysis with Non-Linear, Effective-Stress Soil Models , 2003 .

[19]  Sami F. Masri,et al.  Application of a Web-enabled real-time structural health monitoring system for civil infrastructure systems , 2004 .

[20]  Anthony R. Dover,et al.  Geotechnical Engineering and Surprising Performance of Dredged Fill at Port of Oakland's Berth 55/56 Terminal , 2004 .

[21]  W. H. Roth,et al.  Analyzing the Seismic Performance of Wharves, Part 1: Structural-Engineering Approach , 2003 .

[22]  Dong-Shan Yang,et al.  Seismically-Induced Deformations of Caisson Retaining Walls in Improved Soils , 1998 .

[23]  Thomas H. Miller,et al.  Implications of the Observed Seismic Performance of a Pile-Supported Wharf for Numerical Modeling , 2005 .

[24]  Foster Pelton,et al.  Guidelines for Instrumentation and Measurements for Monitoring Dam Performance , 2000 .

[25]  J. P. Reilly,et al.  APPLICATIONS OF GPS FOR SURVEYING AND OTHER POSITIONING NEEDS IN DEPARTMENTS OF TRANSPORTATION , 1998 .

[26]  Mourad Zeghal,et al.  LIQUEFACTION OF RECLAIMED ISLAND IN KOBE, JAPAN , 1996 .

[27]  M Nykamp,et al.  GEOTECHNICAL CHALLENGES OF PILE DRIVING IN A MARGINALLY STABLE SLOPE: TERMINAL 46 APRON UPGRADE, PORT OF SEATTLE, WASHINGTON , 2004 .

[28]  Stephen E. Dickenson,et al.  Estimation of Seismically Induced Lateral Deformations for Anchored Sheetpile Bulkheads , 1998 .