METHODOLOGY : SAN FRANCISCO OAKLAND BAY BRIDGE

PROCESS OF BUILDING, TECHNIQUE USED AND MATERIAL USED

The California Toll Bridge Authority was tasked with the monumental challenge of planning and building
the Bay Bridge. While the Golden Gate Bridge was able to use a suspension design to span over one and
a half miles of water, the Bay Bridge couldn't use such a design. The distance between San Francisco and
Oakland was too great. Thankfully, Yurba Buena Island jutted out from the bay and provided a halfway
point between the two shores. But the distance between San Francisco and the island was still two
miles. Instead of building a single suspension bridge between the city and the island, the architects built
two, supported by a massive center anchorage made of concrete. The center support settled into the
bay 220 feet below the water line.

With the central support in place, the western span of the Bay Bridge was constructed using a
suspension design connecting San Francisco and Yerba Buena Island. The eastern span called for an
entirely different design. The bridge from Yerba Buena to Oakland was built using a cantilever truss
system with a bridge pier sunk to 242 feet below the water line. Connecting the two was a challenge in
and of itself: The two bridges were joined in a tunnel cut through Yerba Buena Island. And not just any
tunnel -- at 76 feet wide and 56 feet tall, the Yerba Buena tunnel is the largest diameter bore tunnel in
the world. It runs more than 500 feet long

Construction of the Bay Bridge began in July 1933 and the bridge was opened for traffic in November
1936, about six months before the Golden Gate Bridge was completed and made operational. Overall,
the project cost $77 million, which was paid off from tolls collected on the Oakland side of the bridge.

The bridge is an extremely wide bridge capable of carrying large volumes of traffic, and indeed it carries
an enormous amount, with an Average Daily Traffic of 270,000. One of the uncommon features of the
bridge that allows it to carry this amount of traffic is that it is a double-deck bridge. The upper level
carries westbound traffic, while the the lower level carries eastbound traffic. Originally, the lower deck
was divided and also was able to carry railroad traffic.

The bridge is actually several structures with distinctly different systems, strung together to form about
a 8.5-mile (13.7-km) cross-bay roadway, nearly 4.4-miles over water (7.1km). The main portions of the
original were:
  West crossing: Nearly 2 miles (3,140 m) from San Francisco to Yerba Buena Island (YBI),
including a twin suspension bridge with central spans of over 2310 feet (704

 YBI segment: 1800 feet (549 m) featuring a tunnel and short concrete viaduct.

 East crossing: A more than 2-mile (3,417 m) crossing from YBI to Oakland, consisting of several
different steel truss systems: four short (approximately 288-foot; 88 m) spans on YBI, followed
by the 2420-foot-long (738 m) cantilever structure, then five deep through-truss spans at 509
feet (155 m), fourteen deck-truss spans at 288 feet (88 m), and the remainder on simple land-
based steel structures.

The original bridge was designed by Ralph Modjeski, Charles Purcell et al. and built by American Bridge
Company using steel from United States Steel. At the time of completion, it was the longest bridge in the
world and featured the second longest suspension span (2310 feet; 704 m), the third longest cantilever
truss span (1400 feet; 427 m), the deepest pier foundation (243 feet; 74 m) below water surface at low
tide), and the largest bored tunnel. The west crossing was the only major bridge with two consecutive
suspension spans.

Design and Construction

The Bay Bridge is a double-decker. The original design featured six automobile lanes on the top deck
(three in each direction). The bottom deck provided three truck lanes and two lanes (one in each
direction) for an interurban commuter train. Around 1960, the arrangement was converted to five
eastbound lanes of traffic on the lower deck and five westbound lanes on the upper deck.

The bridge was designed and built using state-of-the-art techniques available in the 1930s. For example,
the engineers specified the highest-strength steel available for critical elements. Nickel (55 ksi; Grade
380 MPa) and silicon steel (45 ksi; Grade 311 MPa) for the east crossing make up 62% of the total steel
used there, and 72% of the cantilever section. Even the carbon steel used in this bridge was higher-
strength (37 ksi; Grade 255 MPa) than is normally used today. High-strength cable steel (120 ksi; Grade
828 MPa) was specified for the west crossing suspension cables. The entire bridge required 167,100 tons
(151,593 metric tons) of structural steel, or 115 psf (561 kg/m2).

The Bay Bridge and its neighbor, the Golden Gate Bridge (completed in 1937), represent the culmination
of more than 100 years of development of bridge engineering and construction in the United States. To
fully appreciate the achievement of completing the construction so quickly, consider the technical level
of the industry at the time. In addition to the lack of modern devices – heavy equipment, vehicles,
cranes, etc. – all steel connections were made using rivets, requiring much more time and labor than
modern high-strength bolting and welding. Compare this achievement with the 12 years it took to build
the new replacement bridge just for the east crossing!

Amazingly, the 167,100 tons (151,593 metric tons) of steel used for the entire Bay Bridge in 1936 is
considerably less than the tonnage that the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) reported
for building just the superstructure of the new east crossing replacement – 266,750 tons (242,000
metric tons), or 347 psf (1,694 kg/m2). A testament to the wisdom of the design for the Bay Bridge’s
west crossing is that, 62 years later, Japanese engineers chose a very similar design for the towers of the
longest bridge span in the world: the Akashi-Kaikyo (or Pearl) Bridge, with a central span of over 6530
feet (1,991m).

The Conflict/Problems encountered and how they resolved them.

Earthquake Damage
The bridge’s east crossing was locally damaged during the Loma Prieta earthquake of 1989. A 50-foot
(15-m) section of the top deck slipped off its support at an expansion joint; that end of the section then
collapsed onto the lower deck. One motorist was killed.

Caltrans subsequently decided to replace the entire east crossing, calling it an Earthquake Safety project;
an important decision because it meant that only the pre-existing traffic capacity would be restored.
After several years of discussion, planning and design, construction on the new east crossing finally
began in January 2002, and it was completed in September 2013.

West Crossing Improvements and East Crossing Replacement

The west crossing (and its approach) underwent seismic improvements in a five-year project beginning
in 1999, at a reported cost of approximately $759 million. The improvements included massive rollers
installed between the roadway and bridge supports and 96 new viscous dampers inserted at critical
points to allow movement. The bridge’s twin suspension spans were strengthened by adding new steel
plates and replacing half a million original rivets with almost twice that many high-strength bolts. New
bracing was added under both decks, and all of the “laced” truss diagonals connecting the upper and
lower road decks were replaced. In total, the project added about 8500 tons (7,710 metric tons) of
structural steel.

The east crossing replacement was designed by T.Y. Lin International, Moffat & Nichol Engineers,
Weidlinger Associates and Donald MacDonald Architects. It is comprised of a single-tower, self-anchored
suspension steel span of 1266 feet (386 m) and a 14-span (525 feet; 160 m each) concrete skyway. The
new crossing has added shoulders and a bicycle lane. (Since there is no bicycle lane on the west crossing,
it will not be possible to bike the entire length of the bridge.) The cost is about $6.5 billion for a length of
nearly 2.2 miles (3,513 m). Current plans are to demolish all of the original east crossing structures from
YBI to Oakland, and presumably recycle as much material as possible. Demolition is currently estimated
to cost at least $250 million.

Comparing the two east span bridges – the original (1936) and the replacement (2013) – gives an idea of
the efficiency of the old bridge

ENGINEERING METHODS IMPLEMENTED

Traffic Capacity and Population Demographics

With only five traffic lanes in each direction, traffic movement is greatly compromised, especially during
commute hours. Traffic capacity has remained the same from 1960 to 2012 and is no different with the
east crossing replacement.

In 1936, the Bay Area population was about 1,650,000. By 1990, it was about 6,024,000, and by 2010, it
was 7,150,000. The projected population in 2025 is 8,880,000, rising to 9,031,500 in 2035 (50% greater
than in 1990).

Traffic growth has been even more rapid. When the bridge originally opened in 1936, the traffic
equivalent was 50,000 vehicles. As early as 1947, Frank Lloyd Wright called the traffic congestion on the
Bay Bridge intolerable. By the late 1990s, this critical highway link carried about 280,000 vehicles on an
average day. In 2000, it was evaluated as 324,000 vehicles on average. In other words, the growth in
demand has increased nearly six-fold over the past 75 years.

Currently, during commute hours it can take up to 30 minutes to drive the 4.4 miles (7.1 km) from
water’s edge to water’s edge across the bridge. That translates to only 9 miles per hour (14 km/h), and
sometimes it is even worse, especially if there is an accident on the bridge.

The idea of supplementing traffic capacity across the bay is not new. Numerous studies over the past 60
years have been conducted for new crossings (both bridges and tunnels). None of these studies were
pursued, for environmental, political, economic and other reasons. However, these efforts show a great
deal of continuing interest in reducing the pressure on cross-bay traffic.

Seeking a solution for this “problem.

Expanding Bay Area Rapid Transit’s (BART) underwater, cross-bay tunnel. BART has already reached its
maximum capacity during peak commute times. Enlarging the system would be fraught with technical
difficulties, high cost and environmental problems.
Adding more ferries. The Bay Bridge ended the ferry system era long ago. Ferries imply more
automobiles to get to and from the water’s edge. This would be a giant step backward.

Adding a second bridge parallel to the existing Bay Bridge. This idea has already proven more practical in
other cities around the world.

Considering these limited options, a second bridge seems to be the most logical approach to solve the
restricted capacity of the existing bridge. Considering the fact that the replacement of the old East
crossing structure took more than 17 years, now is the time to begin planning and designing a
completely new second SFO Bay Bridge alongside the present one using the retrofitted, old east crossing
structures.