Author: Carlo Bardoli

Case study on the sustainable design of the Arthur Ravenel Jr. Bridge

Introduction
21st century construction has vastly extoled sustainability within planning and design. The IPCC’s
team of adept personal has changed our outlook on the effects of human induced greenhouse gases.
It is Projected that the “global mean sea level could rise by 0.18-0.59m” (IPCC AR4 SYR, 2007) due to
partial negligence towards the wellbeing of our planet. Modern Construction rightfully aims to
contribute in reducing the preceding emissions of greenhouse gasses and unnecessary waste.
Architecture of bridges has become significantly intricate, with aesthetics becoming a crucial aspect
in design. Combined with sustainability, life span and safety the pre planning of a bridge for the
modern era is now a much more demanding task compared to previous centuries. This case study
will provide an insight into the sustainable design of the Arthur Ravenel Jr. Bridge in terms of
material choice, community involvement and environmental consideration.

Body
The Arthur Ravenel Jr. Bridge, located between Charleston and Mount Pleasant, is a cable stayed
bridge spanning the River Cooper (Fig 1). It was built as a replacement for two older fatigued
bridges, these bridges were incapable of meeting the growing demand in transport usage, they were
too low for large ships and were unfit for purpose with restricted emergency access. The Arthur
Ravenel Jr. Bridge has a main span of 471m, supported by 128 cables, has a length of 3 miles and is
notably the longest cable stayed bridge in North America. To accommodate eight lanes, a bikeway
and pedestrian path the bridge deck dimensions at 43m in width (Fig 2). The bridge was built using
the design – build method which is a typical project delivery system used in the construction
industry allowing construction and design to simultaneously occur. Parsons Brinkerhoff were
responsible for the design whilst Skanska dealt with construction, this union of two astute
companies minimised project completion time ;the bridge was publicly opened in 2005 a year earlier
than planned decreasing the cost of overheads. "The project saved the South Carolina Department
of Transportation an estimated $150 million". (Cowan, 2006) The total project cost was 631 million
dollars, with 100 million being spent on "alignment, environmental permits and preliminary
engineering" (Abrahams & Ghannam, 2001) the remaining 531 million was used to fund construction
and design. The funding was received as follows "325 million from the State Infrastructure Bank,
96.6 million from the Federal Highway Administration and others from Federal loan”. (Abrahams ＆
Ghannam, 2001)

Throughout construction sustainability was made a priority. Material choice, construction methods
and finishes were just a few tasks of which were preformed innovatively, awarding the bridge with
the “American Transportation and Road Builders Association’s Globe Award for Environmental
Excellence and a PRIDE Award for community relations ". (Caulfield, 2006) The build started on July
16 2001 and was split into "five simultaneous $150-million construction projects (two highway
interchanges, two approach spans and a cable – stayed span".(Wood, 2005) This allowed each
construction team to efficiently complete their work thus minimising residential impact due to
quicker completion. Wastage of material was kept to a minimum to ensure sustainability was of a
particular excellence, an example of this intuition was during Foundation work. The Bridge itself is
Author: Carlo Bardoli

made to withstand exceedingly large lateral and seismic loads due to the locations expected annual
number of hurricanes and seismic movement; "FEE earthquake 6.5 magnitude (Richter Scale), 500
year return period” are expected. (Carrier, 2004) This large lateral capacity was achieved by
supporting drilled shafts (8-10 in) diameter. Each drilled shaft was covered by a thick steel casing and
embedded 5ft into the Cooper Marl. "The advantages of these drilled shafts include providing large
axial and lateral capacities, minimizing the number of substructure units, and cost-effective
installation”. (Shen & Bittner, 2010) The bridge was evidently designed with location specific
features thus ensuring the bridges life span is exceptional, reducing future demolition and rebuild.
This is specifically important when the average annual daily flow is in excesses of 63,500 vehicles.
(SCDOT, 2005) The cable stayed design was another measure to increase design life, the high
stiffness of the design reduced decking deformations hence extending the lifespan of the bridge. It is
important to note that the overall structure is designed to remain elastic under an FEE earthquake
and prevent collapse under SEE earthquake. CAP structure can then undergo maintenance and
servicing promptly to ensure the bridges structural integrity is satisfactory. These features are
possible due to the effective and robust materials chosen to perform the build. To choose cross
section size, design calculations were preformed revealing maximum bending moments and loads of
which could be applied. Using these conditions the smallest cross sections of beams and columns
were used while remaining structurally safe, minimising material usage.

Making use of recycled materials effectively reduced the carbon footprint of construction. For
example the concrete mix used for the structural build consisted of “high percentages (up to 43%) of
industrial by-product cements, which include fly-ash, silica fume, and steel blast-furnace slag”.
(Pollalis, 2012) Waste material from demolition was also used to aid in the creation of a new habitat,
benefiting localised nature. “Over 80 percent of the replaced bridge material was reused to produce
an artificial ocean reef to provide habitat and simulate diving”. (Pollalis, 2012) It was the SCDOT and
PBC environmental specialists’ job to inspect progression of environmental impacts the project was
making. Analyses of previous projects such as the John P. Grace Memorial Bridge were undertaken
and effective solutions were provided. Routine control for site runoff was provided, ensuring no oil
spills would occur. This is essential with the statistic that oil spills have killed up to 82000 birds and
25,900 marine animals. (Bundy, 2011) As another precautionary measure “all hydraulic systems that
operated near water used biodegradable oil”. (Morrin, 2008) Physical pollution was not the only
concern with light pollution causing an issue for nearby residents. To ensure this problem was
addressed, special dimmed illumination systems were installed along with an automated system
which reduces the intensity of light by 40%. Despite this the lighting was still identified to be a
habitat disturbance for migratory birds and nestling loggerhead sea turtles. During nestling season,
bridge lights are turned off at night to reduce the consequential disturbance.

Charleston has seen a dramatic rise in population; “for several years it was one of the state's fastest
growing areas, literally doubling in population size between 1990 and 2000. The population was
67,843 at the 2010 census” (census, 2010) The Arthur Ravenel Jr. Bridge provided a solution for this
increase in population and vehicle usage. It promoted traffic flow by reducing stagnant
transportation; promotion of air quality and less air pollution followed the changes. The increased
population has also driven unemployment figures to a new high within Charleston. The build
therefore ensured community involvement was a crucial asset, a legal binding clause was even
Author: Carlo Bardoli

added to the contract. “SCDOT officials included in the contract a requirement to train local
residents in building trades. PBS provided a two-week course to teach job-readiness skills and safety
to 82 unemployed or underemployed residents, then offered on-the-job training in crafts”. (Wood,
2005) The local resident therefore benefited dramatically from construction, the build provided
opportunities within education and work while effectively tackling transport issues within the town.
Throughout community involvement was actively welcomed , for example at the beginning of the
build 20 mature trees were relocated upon recommendation by the local community, this decision
ensured a good relationship was kept while promoting sustainability of the project. Disturbed
wetlands were also restored to their natural condition because of resident’s inputs. This idea was
further developed with “sections of the old bridge being excavated and rehabilitated to wetlands”.
(Morrin, 2008) The close work that the PBC and SCDOT undertook with local authorities and
communities showed that they were actively learning from good practice. Environmental issues, if
identified were immediately made critical and solutions were provided. Other ideas on the bridge
driven by community involvement were the inclusion of cycle paths, pedestrian lanes and the
selection of the ‘diamond tower’ design.

Conclusion
This article illustrates the ideas and initiative the design and construction team underwent to tackle
the issue of sustainability head on. The bridge rightfully earned the Globe award for ‘environmental
excellence.’ The methods taken to reuse and recycle materials were unique and some were even
down to community input. The whole project involved the city, gave residents jobs and reduced
localised pollution. There are no obvious negative points to be raised about the build and it is a clear
example of how 21st century construction has changed the industry so dramatically. The work
undertaken has bettered the environment, whether it be through the use of modernised cables and
SLAC decking or more simplified techniques such as using recycled materials within the concrete
mix. Sustainability is now a key consideration within engineering projects, it is something that will
keep improving as time progresses and the importance of it will never fade.
Author: Carlo Bardoli

References

 Abrahams, M. (2001). The new Cooper River bridge. Available:

http://ravenelbridge.net/papers/july2_spec.pdf. Last accessed 11th April 2014.

 Bundy, K. (2011). A Deadly Toll: The Gulf Oil Spill and the Unfolding Wildlife Disaster. Available:
http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/public_lands/energy/dirty_energy_development/
oil_and_gas/gulf_oil_spill/a_deadly_toll.html. Last accessed 11th April 2014.

 Caulfield, P. (2006). New Arthur Ravenel Bridge Praised With Awards.Available:

http://www.flatironcorp.com/index.asp?w=pages&r=9&pid=42&n=36. Last accessed 11th April 2014.

 Carrier, D. (2004). Cooper River Bridge. Available:

http://ravenelbridge.net/papers/Parsons_Brinckerhoff.pdf. Last accessed 11th April 2014.

 Cowan, W. (2006). Arthur Ravenel Jr. Bridge. Available:

http://www.asce.org/People-and-Projects/Projects/Arthur-Ravenel-Jr--Bridge/. Last accessed 11th
April 2014.

 IPCC AR4 SYR (2007). Core Writing Team; Pachauri, R.K; and Reisinger, A., ed. Climate Change 2007:
Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. IPCC. ISBN 92-9169-122-4.

 Morrin, N. (2008). Cooper River Bridge, U.S.A.. Available: http://skanska-sustainability-case-

studies.com/Case-Studies/Cooper-River-Bridge-U.S.A.html?print=1&tmpl=component. Last accessed
11th April 2014.

 Pollalis, S. (2012). Sustainable Transportation. In: Georgoulias, A , Stephen, J , Schodek,

D Infrastructure Sustainability and Design. America: Taylor & Francis Ltd. p130.

 SCDOT. (2005). Arthur Ravenel, Jr. Bridge. Available: http://www.emporis.com/building/arthur-

ravenel-jr-bridge-charleston-sc-usa. Last accessed 11th April 2014.

 Shen, L & Bittner, R. (2010). DESIGN OF THE DRILLED SHAFT FOUNDATIONS FOR THE COOPER RIVER
BRIDGE. Available:
http://www.bittner-shen.com/publication/Bridge_Foundations/Design_of_the_Drilled_Shaft_Founda
tions_for_the_Cooper_River_Bridge.pdf. Last accessed 11th April 2014.
Author: Carlo Bardoli

 Wood, D. (2005). A Graceful Link. Available:

http://constructoragc.construction.com/coverStories/archives/2005-09.asp. Last accessed 11th April
2014.

 "2010 Census Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171) Summary File". American FactFinder. United
States Census Bureau. Retrieved 5 August 2012.
Author: Carlo Bardoli

Appendix

 Fig.1 , Guerry, G. (2004). Bridge Alignment At:

http://ravenelbridge.net/papers/july2_spec.pdf (Accessed on 11.04.14)

 Fig.2 , Guerry, G. (2004). Roadbed configuration At:

http://ravenelbridge.net/papers/july2_spec.pdf (Accessed on 11.04.14)