Ferry Dock Collapse 13

[dik]

"At least seven people were killed and several others injured Saturday after part of a ferry dock collapsed on Georgia’s Sapelo Island, according to the Georgia Department of Natural Resources.

It happened as crowds gathered on the island for a celebration of its tiny Gullah-Geechee community of Black slave descendants.

At least 20 people were plunged into the water when a gangway collapsed on the visitor ferry dock shortly before 4 p.m., Georgia DNR Capt. Chris Hodge said at a Saturday night news conference. A McIntosh County commissioner previously said a boat hit the dock but a DNR spokesperson later told The Associated Press there was no collision and it is unclear why the dock collapsed."

https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/19/us/sapelo-island-georgia-boat-dock-collapse/index.html

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

 

[Sym P. le]

Just having fun picking out the many flaws. It would also be interesting understanding how a "pre-engineered" structure doesn't match any of the standard models.

 

[Oops409]

Any idea how to do a Quote with this 'New Software' ? Or how to see all pages at once rather than 1-2 posts per page?

Quote: "Personally I'm surprised this is still being talked about as an engineering disaster. There are so many flaws are so many here that one questions whether anything involved in the design and supply of this gangway counts as engineering."

No matter who was responsible for this defective gangway design and fabrication, it always falls on Licensed Professional Engineers, as experts, to sort it all out for the legal beagles.

Edit: It appears you reply directly to post your want quoted!

New is not always better......, Looks like Good with Bad

 

[Oops409]

Just having fun picking out the many flaws. It would also be interesting understanding how a "pre-engineered" structure doesn't match any of the standard models.

Test of New Reply Function......... to see what happens.......

 

[LittleInch]

I think the pages thing is his it works so that you don't download all the posts so it's faster.

 

[Oops409]

LI, never had an issue loading the threads even when 500 posts. on old site. However, the old web server application really lowered resolution of images. I imagine the pages things will allow more pixels per image, BUT it really sucks when trying to scan a thread quickly looking for something.

Also the low contrast display of web site is very hard on OLD eyes.

New usually means improvements in some areas but loss of functionality in others.

I see we are now closely tracked by AWS, and that unwelcome feature.

 

[3DDave]

So much screen space wasted, most of it on the gamification - all those statistics about users along the side and the giant spot for a picture for each user. Not to mention the banner at the top of each message that serves to mainly house the time, the rest blank, unused.

It seems to work but, so far, it's taken a lot more scrolling.

 

[Sym P. le]

Crescent Marine Access is another business structure through which the underlying entity operates. It's active web site, crescentmarineaccess.com, is identical to the archived crescentdock.com and has been surveyed by the web archive far more frequently.

I notice under their commercial link a photo of their St. Augustine installation with two single aisle Howe type gangways (approx. 65' long) that otherwise appear similar to the failed Sapelo Island gangway.

 

[Sym P. le]

Georgia Department of National Resources - Sapelo Island Incident

News4JAX The Local Station - here and here

Apparently there is a dropbox repository but to my knowledge, they're not sharing. The blueprint looks rather generic despite the stamp.

 

[Sym P. le]

Georgia DNR looped me in on the Dropbox. From the Documents, Addendum No. 2, the gangways were procured separate from the construction contract. I haven't come across the design documents yet.



The bid documents indicate an 80 foot gangway to be installed but these are not fabrication drawings.



From the specifications prepared by S&W, I see the following two sections pertaining to gangways. The first from Part 2 - Products ...



and the second from Part 3 - Execution.



Is it possible that the heavier specification for the 80' gangway was missed by the supplier and thus only designed to the lighter specification for the shorter and narrower gangways? This, however, would not explain why two different designs were provided for the 80 foot gangways.

 

[SocklessJ]

Design documents? You’re lookin at ‘em. Hopefully the civil engineer who sealed this drawing specified (either on this sheet or in a spec) that the gangway needed to be designed by a licensed structural engineer.

 

[Sym P. le]

GA-DNR has not provided any documents in the Dropbox specifically regarding procurement of gangways. It is obvious they were not fabricated directly from the bid document. The RFI (above) seems to indicate, in the end, they were provided directly by GA-DNR. Nonetheless, here is Crescent's warranty, good for 36 months, complete with wiggle room.

 

[SocklessJ]

Was there anything in the quality assurance section of the spec (I think part 1) requiring submittal of signed and sealed calcs?

Such a requirement should have been in there, though I’m not sure if what’s legally required. Is an 80’ gangway just a product?

 

[Sym P. le]

Sorry, those crops were under SECTION 355113 - CONCRETE FLOATING DOCK SYSTEMS AND GANGWAYS. All of the standard boilerplate language is included in this section, Part 1. (I'd upload the Specifications but the file might be too large)

A few items pertaining to the involved parties. There is a contract with S&W ...



another contract with Centennial Contractors ...



and also weighing in is GEORGIA FINANCIAL AND INVESTMENT COMMISSION PROCUREMENT DIVISION (see attached Addendum #5) ...



It seems this could be a source of confusion whether S&W is merely overseeing the provision of stock items. In circumstances such as this, surely someone is tasked with ensuring the product is suitable.

 

[LittleInch]

That cross section from S&W looks awfully similar to the standard crescent drawing below.

 

[LittleInch]

I read that section 2.8 to be free issue of the gangway built by Crescent.

Now who completed and certified the design is the key. And what they used for loading

The scope of works seems to point the finger at S&W. But we don't have the full spec of the gangway or drawings I think .

 

[Sym P. le]

The project was divided into three phases. The "section 2.8" (see attachment) pertains specifically to the "Meridian Dock Replacement". I haven't identified clear delineation of phases in terms of contracts. It's all rather vague. Note that SSOE acquired S&W along the way so early documents do not include them in the headers.

Edit: If I now understand the bid/award progression, this addendum pertains to the project as a whole and was issued leading up to bid close and subsequent award. The various phases were introduced post award as a means to execute the project. WRONG

 

[Sym P. le]

Some clarification.

The Owner is Georgia Department of Natural Resources while their Bidding Manager is Georgia State Financing and Investment Commission through its Procurement Division. As indicated above, S&W (later SSOE|S&W) was engaged by GDNR to provide certain services.

The project (where we come in) is titled (by way of the Project Manual) "Sapelo Island Marsh & Meridian Dock Replacement-Phase II" under project number DNR-462-492-88269 (S&W Project No. - 18046.00)

S&W prepares drawings titled "SAPELO ISLAND MARSH & MERIDIAN DOCK REPLACEMENT". They are divided into two sections which are identified with drawing numbers leading with 1 or 2. Section 1 pertains to the Sapelo Island Marsh landing and Section 2 pertains to the Meridian landing.

Specs call for a base bid, all work as indicated in the contract documents, with an alternate deduction eliminating all work associated with the Meridian landing. Apparently, GDNR went with the later and awarded a contract to Centennial Contractors Enterprises, Inc. on June 15, 2020. The contract completion date at the outset was May 28, 2021 though various extensions took the completion into Nov. 2021.

Late summer 2021, a new set of Specifications and Drawings were prepared by SSOE|S&W under their Project No. - 021-01373-00. GDNR's project number is now identified as DNR-462-492-88291. There is some confusion as to what this project is now titled. The moniker "Phase II" is dropped while the title on the Specifications is "Sapelo Island Marsh & Meridian Dock Replacement" and the Drawings are titled "SAPELO MERIDIAN DOCK REPLACEMENT". More frequently the title "Sapelo Island-Meridian Dock Replacement" is found. In Purchase Order documentation, "Phase III" is an added reference.

Barnett Southern Corporation, Inc. was the low bidder and awarded the contract Nov 04, 2021. The completion date for this work is initially Sept 29, 2022 though various extentions take it to December. Completion documents were executed late summer 2023.

The excerpts I posted earlier are a bit of mix between the two projects. I'll update that later as I get a little more familiar with the minuite of the specs.

TLDR - Sapelo Island Marsh Dock work in 2021 by Centennial Contractors, Meridian Dock work in 2022 by Barnett Southern.

 

[Sym P. le]

Crescent invoice to Centennial

 

[SocklessJ]

Ah, my hunch was wrong. Apparently Crescent did provide PE stamped drawings for an extra $3,500.

 

[3DDave]

I'm still surprised by the lack of video. Almost every place that offers a public service like this should have a camera, maybe even a webcam, to continuously monitor what is going on so that if anyone needs help or any crime is in progress that it can be dealt with.

As far as I can tell this ferry trip is part of essentially a pilgrimage for most of the riders.