assessing and constructing a cost effective bridge replacement christopher sichak, pe
Post on 13-Sep-2014
552 views
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
Presentation for: 2012 NYSCHSA Summer Conference
August 28, 2012
By: Christopher Sichak, P.E.
• Introduction • Existing Conditions • Environmental Considerations • Project Needs • Development of Alternatives • Project Costs • Selection of Preferred Alternative • Construction Phase • Lessons Learned • Summary • Learning Assessment • Questions
Outline
Introduction
Project Location • NYSDOT Region 4, Orleans County, Town of Ridgeway
• Between Ridge Road (SR 104) and Oak Orchard River Road
• Oak Orchard River upstream of Waterport Pond (Lake Alice)
PROJECT
LOCATION `
Introduction Project Team
Orleans County • NYSDOT Region 4
• Town of Ridgeway
• Federal Highway Administration Ow
ner
’s G
rou
p
Clark Patterson Lee / Dewberry-Goodkind, Inc. • Ravi Engineering & Land Surveying (survey, mapping, environmental, construction inspection)
• SJB, Empire Geo Services, Inc. (geotechnical, construction material testing)
• BME Associates (wetland delineation)
• R K Hite & Co., Inc. (right of way acquisition)
Engi
nee
rin
g
Ramsey Constructors, Inc. • Clark Rigging (crane work) • G & J Contracting (reinforcement installation) • Buffalo Barricade (detour signage) • C & A Pavement Marking (pavement markings) • Villager Construction, Inc. (milling) • Elderlee, Inc. (guide-rail and signs) • Terry Tree (tree removal) • MJ Dreher Trucking (trucking) • Farrell Landscaping (seeding) • Fisher Associates (survey and ROW markers)
Co
nst
ruct
ion
Material Suppliers:
• Contech Construction Products, Inc. • Lakelands Concrete Products, Inc. • Pavilion Drainage Supply Co., Inc. • Suit-Kote • Hanson Aggregates • Vellano Bros., Inc. • Kistner Concrete Products, Inc. • Keystone Builders Supply
Introduction
• Bridge Constructed in 1930
• Steel Jack Arch Structure
• Two 40.7’ Spans (85’ total)
• 24’ curb-to-curb
• 27’ out-to-out
• No skew
• Reinforced Concrete Substructures
Existing Conditions
2006 Biennial Inspection • 31 of the 50 (62%) rated elements had poor values (4 or lower)
• NYSDOT Condition Rating = 4.015, FHWA Sufficiency Rating = 39.9, General Rec. = 4
• Structurally Deficient (Condition < 5, significant maintenance to remain in service)
Existing Conditions
• Spalling of Concrete Parapets • Hole in deck near the pier
Safety Flags • Condition presenting a clear and present danger to vehicular or
pedestrian traffic, but poses no danger of structural failure.
Existing Conditions
Approach Roadway
• 2 – 11’ travel lanes
• Variable width gravel shoulders
Two way AADT:
• 2000: 944
• 2009: 992
Existing Conditions
Geotechnical Investigations
• Shale bedrock below apparent fill soils
Boring Recovery RQD B-1 81% 51% B-2 91% 28%
RQD Rock Mass
Quality <25% very poor
25-50% poor 50-75% fair
75-90% good 90-100% excellent •Bearing capacity of 8 tons/sf
•RQD (Rock Quality Designation)
length of pieces exceeding 4” length of core run
=
x 100%
____________________
Existing Conditions
Utilities Electric (National Grid)
oRelocate aerial facilities and street light along east side of the roadway
Telephone (Verizon)
oRelocate aerial facilities along east side of the roadway
Water (Town of Ridgeway)
oCoordinate geometry with 8” Direct bored watermain along east side of the roadway
Existing Conditions
Hydraulics
• History of debris snagging on pier
• Pier erosion and scour
• Exposed pier footing
Existing Conditions
Hydraulics • 48 mile upstream length
• Initiates in Genesee County
• 192 square miles drainage area
• Upstream flow controlled
PROJECT
LOCATION
` Model
50 Year Flood Elevation (m)
Existing Structure 353.34
Replacement Option 1
353.27
Replacement Option 2
353.37
Environmental Considerations Archeological Sensitive Area
Project Location
2/9/09
SHPO Project Review Application completed detailing previous disturbance
2/24/09 SHPO concurrence with previous disturbance
FHWA concurrence no Phase I Cultural Resources neccesary
3/13/09
Environmental Considerations
Endangered Species = Stream Restriction • Longear Sunfish (Lepomis Megalotis)
• June 15 to September 15
Environmental Screenings and Permitting • USACOE Nationwide Permit #3
• NYSDEC Excavation and Fill in Navigable Waters
• NYSDEC Water Quality Certification
Project Needs Goals
• Meet current standards
• Provide structural service life of 75 years
• Minimize stream disturbance in accordance with permits
• Enhance safety
• Replace existing structure within available funding limits
3. Single Span Concrete Buried Structure
Development of Alternatives
2. Single Span Multigirder Replacement:
a. Steel
b. Spread or Adjacent Prestressed Concrete Box Beam
c. Other Prestressed Concrete Shapes (AASHTO I, New England Bulb Tee)
4. Two-Span Bridge Replacement (Steel or Concrete Superstructure)
Conceptual Alternatives:
1. Rehabilitation
5. Multi-Span Concrete Buried Structure
3. Single Span Concrete Buried Structure
Development of Alternatives
2. Single Span Multigirder Replacement:
a. Steel
b. Spread or Adjacent Prestressed Concrete Box Beam
c. Other Prestressed Concrete Shapes (AASHTO I, New England Bulb Tee)
4. Two-Span Bridge Replacement (Steel or Concrete Superstructure)
Conceptual Alternatives:
1. Rehabilitation
5. Multi-Span Concrete Buried Structure
Dropped due to Hydraulic Characteristics
Development of Alternatives
1. Rehabilitation • Replace the superstructure
• Repair and reuse the existing substructures
• Retained existing features would continue to deteriorate
• Initial construction cost
• Anticipated future maintenance costs
• Continued stream obstruction from pier
3. Single Span Concrete Buried Structure
Development of Alternatives
2. Single Span Multigirder Replacement:
a. Steel
b. Spread or Adjacent Prestressed Concrete Box Beam
c. Other Prestressed Concrete Shapes (AASHTO I, New England Bulb Tee)
Conceptual Alternatives:
1. Rehabilitation
Dropped due to Anticipated Costs
Development of Alternatives
2. Adjacent Prestressed Concrete Box Beam Replacement
Proposed Elevation
100’ (+/-)
• Lower initial construction cost than steel multigirder
• deck forming and thickness
• Tall Concrete Abutments and Wingwalls with spread footings on bedrock (25’ – 30’)
Development of Alternatives
3. Single Span Concrete Buried Structure
• Arch:
o Geometry fits well with site topography
o Structurally sound and efficient shape
o Most economical foundation size
• Lower maintenance costs
o Absence of features requiring maintenance:
Joints
Bearings
Deck
Primary Members
• Lower construction costs
o Limited field construction (precast)
o Limited field specialty work
Development of Alternatives
• Detailed as a precast structure o Twin leaf structure, headwalls, and wingwalls o E78T/0: Contech BEBO (77’ -9” Span x 21’ –10” Rise)
Proposed Elevation
77’-9”
21
’-1
0”
3. Single Span Concrete Buried Structure (Precast Arch)
Development of Alternatives
Design Criteria Standard Value Existing Value Proposed Value Structural Capacity
HL-93 and NYS Design Permit Vehicle (LRFD Replacement Min.) MS-23 (AASHTO Replacement Min.) MS-18 (AASHTO Rehabilitation Min.)
N/A MS-23
EI 05-003 •LRFD Specifications mandated for bridge design by October 1, 2007 •Exception: LRFD implementation for design of buried structures in 2010
EI 07-014
EI 07-030
EI 08 -042
•Release of 2007 (Metric and US) and 2008 (US) LRFD Specifications
•Release of 2010 US Customary LRFD Specifications •Implementation for buried structures if the project’s preliminary engineering design phase begins after October 1, 2010
EI 10-013
Maintenance and Protection of Traffic
• Traffic maintained via offsite detour
• NYSDOT Highway Work Permit (PERM 33)
Development of Alternatives
Right of Way
• 66’ ROW width
• Single property owner (Erie Boulevard Hydropower) adjacent to structure
• Temporary easements taken at the four corners of the bridge
o Constructing wingwalls
o Placing stone filling
• Donation streamlined the ROW process and minimized project costs
Project Costs
Work Item Precast Concrete Arch
Replacement Single-Span Multigirder
Replacement
Right-of-Way $ 14,000 $ 14,000
Structure Removal $ 225,000 $ 170,000
Bridge Construction $ 755,800 $ 1,074,400
Highway $ 211,000 $ 176,500
M&PT $ 21,300 $ 21,300
Mobilization (4%) $ 40,100 $ 51,200
Contingency (10%) $ 126,800 $ 150,800
Total $ 1,394,000 $ 1,658,500
Preliminary Engineer’s Estimates
Selection of Preferred Alternative
Preferred Alternative: Precast Concrete Arch Replacement
• Lowest Initial Construction Cost
• Precast Components
o Quality Control During Fabrication
o Expedited Installation
o Minimal Environmental Impacts
• Lowest Maintenance Costs
• Aesthetics - recreational area during summer months
oForm liner considered but dropped due to:
Cost (not federally reimbursable)
Rural Location
Selection of Preferred Alternative
Bid, Letting, and Award
• Advertised on April 14, 2010
o Delayed due to federal fund availability
o 75 calendar days from anticipated NTP to completion date
32 calendar days prior to stream restriction
51 calendar days post stream restriction
• Bid opening on May 5, 2010
o Low Bidder: Ramsey Constructor's, Inc. (4 bidders)
o 92% Engineers Estimate
Preferred Alternative: Precast Concrete Arch Replacement
Construction Phase
Notice to Proceed
May 13, 2010
Existing Bridge Demolition June 3 through June 15, 2010
Construction Phase
Precast Arch Concrete Footing Placement
Completed July 30, 2010
Construction Phase
Precast Concrete Shop Drawings
Submitted July 2, 2010
Approvals: Foundation Layout: July 12, 2010 Arch Units: July 27, 2010 Wingwalls/Headwalls: August 11, 2010
Construction Phase
Arch Placement
September 22, 2010
Construction Phase Arch
Erection 9/22/10
Construction Phase Arch
Erection 9/22/10
Construction Phase Arch
Erection 9/22/10
Construction Phase Arch
Erection 9/22/10
Construction Phase
C:\Users\csichak\Desktop\ABCD Presentation\movies
C:\Documents and Settings\guest_cpl\Desktop\ABCD
Presentation\movies
Arch Erection 9/22/10
Construction Phase Crown Closure
Pour 9/27/10
Construction Phase
Headwall and Wingwall Placement
October 7 and 8, 2010
Construction Phase
Headwall and Wingwall Bracing
Construction Phase Headwall
and Wingwall Bracing
Construction Phase
Headwall and Wingwall
Installation
“Everyone is OK”
Construction Phase
Headwall and Wingwall Installation
Construction Phase Rock
Outcrop Removal 10/9/10
to 10/13/10
Construction Phase
Backfill and Geotextile Installation
Bodkin Bar Connection
Construction Phase Backfill and Geotextile Installation Commences
10/13/10
Construction Phase Precast
Headwall Installation Complete 10/19/10
Construction Phase Nearing Backfill Completion
October 23, 2010
Construction Phase
New Bridge opened on November 5, 2010
• 60 working days utilized to complete project
Construction Phase
• Average of 9.5 hours per working day
• Appropriate Geotechnical Explorations • Pay attention to surrounding existing features
Lessons Learned
• Permitting / Stream Restrictions • May impact the preferred alternative
• Constructability • Utilize input from others to understand the process
Summary
Learning Assessment
Q: What NYSDOT bridge rating typically constitutes a “poor” rating?: a) 5: Minor deterioration, but functioning as originally designed. b) 4: Between a 5 and a 3 rating. c) 3: Serious deterioration, or not functioning as originally designed. d) 2: Between a 3 and a 1 rating. e) 1: Totally deteriorated, or in failed condition.
A: b) 4
Learning Assessment
Q: Which statement(s) is/are true of a structurally deficient bridge: The bridge a) doesn't meet current standards for managing traffic volumes. b) has a condition rating < 5. c) has narrow lanes, no shoulders, or low clearances. d) requires significant maintenance to remain in service. e) is unsafe or likely to collapse.
A: b) has a condition rating < 5
and
d) requires significant maintenance to remain in service
Learning Assessment
Q: Which statement is true of a Safety Flag: a) Reports a condition presenting a clear and present danger to vehicular or
pedestrian traffic, but poses no danger of structural failure.
b) Reports a potentially hazardous structural condition, which if left unattended could become a clear and present danger before the next scheduled inspection.
c) Reports the failure or potential failure of a primary structural component that is likely to occur before the next schedule biennial inspection.
A: a) Reports a condition presenting a clear and present danger to vehicular or pedestrian traffic, but poses no danger of structural failure.
Q: In geotechnical exploration, what does RQD stand for?
A: Rock Quality Designation
Learning Assessment
Q: (True/False) Meeting the freeboard recommendation is the primary concern on all bridge replacement projects over water.
A: False, while true for most projects, other considerations such as recurring scour or stream obstacles (pier) need to be taken into consideration.
Learning Assessment
Q: (True/False) Structural design criteria currently requires the use of AASHTO Standard Specifications (Allowable Stress Design) for Buried Structures.
A: False, LRFD specifications are required if the project’s preliminary engineering design phase began after October 1, 2010.
Learning Assessment
Q: Identify four conventional bridge elements not contained as part of precast concrete buried structures which account for lower maintenance costs.
A: 1. Joints
2. Bearings
3. Deck
4. Conventional Primary Members
Learning Assessment
Q: What benefits can be realized during the construction of a precast concrete buried structure resulting in minimized construction costs and an enhanced finished product?
A: 1. Increased quality control during fabrication.
2. Expedited installation (lack of forming, pouring, cure times)
3. Minimization of environmental impacts.
Learning Assessment
Q: What is the name Contech gives to the mechanism which connects the geotextile “tabs” cast into the back face of the MSE style walls and the Tesar geotextile within the backfill zone?
A: Bodkin Bar
Learning Assessment
Q: (True/False) It is possible to construct a bridge over a stream with a restriction during the prime construction season.
A: True.
Learning Assessment
Questions