InnovationExtending Cast-In-Place Box Culverts               With       Precast Box Culverts       ADOT Tucson District   ...
WHY PRECAST ?Anticipated future improvements of transportationsystem • Upgrades • Widening current roadwaysIncreased capac...
Innovative       Construction MethodsPrecast concrete pipesImplemented use of precast items • AASHTO Girders • Concrete Ba...
Recent Projects with           Precast CBCsSR 79, MP 124.1 to 127.4 (Constructed) • First Tucson District Project with Pre...
ProjectsSR 79, MP 124.1 to 125.7James Gomes, ADOT R.E.                           5
SR 79, MP 124.1 to 125.7                           6
SR 79, MP 124.1 to 125.7                           7
SR 79, MP 124.1 to 125.7 Contract Documents •   Special Provisions      •   Project specific requirements •   Project Plan...
SR 79, MP 124.1 to 125.7 Pre-Cast RCBC Submittal • Manufacturer through Contractor • ADOT Bridge Group • ADOT Review & App...
SR 79, MP 124.1 to 125.7 Project Site Preparation •   Traffic Control •   RCBC Wingwall and Headwall Removal •   Structura...
SR 79, MP 124.1 to 125.7                           11
SR 79, MP 124.1 to 125.7 Installation •   Delivery and Inspection •   Survey •   Crane Location •   Alignment and Installa...
SR 79, MP 124.1 to 125.7       Installation                           13
SR 79, MP 124.1 to 125.7       Installation                           14
SR 79, MP 124.1 to 125.7       Installation                           15
SR 79, MP 124.1 to 125.7       Installation                           16
SR 79, MP 124.1 to 125.7       Installation                           17
SR 79, MP 124.1 to 125.7 Closure Pour •   Approved Concrete Mix •   Reinforcement •   Formwork •   Constructability Issues...
Reinforcement                19
Constructability “Formwork”                   20
Constructability“Concrete Placement”                       21
SR 79, MP 124.1 to 125.7Backfill and Clean-up                           22
Lessons Learned    Benefits                   DrawbacksReduced Durations             Closure Pour  •   Work Zone Hazard   ...
Next Project I-10, Val Vista Road to Earley RoadGreg Bambauer, Parsons Brinckerhoff                                       24
I-10, Val Vista Road to               Earley RoadNine-mile interim widening projectA total of 44 cross-drainage structures...
I-10, Val Vista Road to               Earley RoadDiscussions with District identified design criteria• Limit precast exten...
I-10, Val Vista Road to             Earley Road3-Cell Closure                                 27
I-10, Val Vista Road to            Earley Road3-Cell Closure                                28
I-10, Val Vista Road to          Earley RoadCIP closure and end Section•   No standard available•   Many precast options: ...
I-10, Val Vista Road to      Earley Road                          30
I-10, Val Vista Road to               Earley RoadConstruction Award•   Manufacturer Submitted Shop Drawings for Review•   ...
HydraulicsHaunches        Abrupt Transition                                    32
I-10, Val Vista Road to      Earley Road Concerns •   Hydraulics      o   Conducted a simplified HECRAS analysis          ...
I-10, Val Vista Road to Earley             Road                                               Change In HeadlossHydraulics...
I-10, Val Vista Road to               Earley RoadConcerns, con’t•   Potential Debris Collection     o   Transition to CIP ...
I-10, Val Vista Road to      Earley Road   Revised Detail for Smoothing                                  36
I-10, Val Vista Road to      Earley Road                          37
Next ProjectSR 86, Kitt Peak Segment Rick Solis, Kimley-Horn                           38
SR 86, Kitt Peak SegmentPROJECT BACKGROUND 4.3 Mile Roadway Widening Project Purpose to improve Safety and Operational Cha...
SR 86, Kitt Peak Segment General Considerations •   Number of barrels •   Existing skew vs. extension skew       o Design ...
SR 86, Kitt Peak Segment Closure-pour and end section design considerations •   Minimum closure length: 2-foot      o   Al...
SR 86, Kitt Peak SegmentClosure pour and end sectiondesign considerations, cont’d• AASHTO standards include  haunches at a...
SR 86 Kitt Peak Segment Moving Beyond the Old 3-Cell Limit for Extensions •   Consultation with Local Contractors •   4-Ce...
8-Cell Box Extension                       44
Further Evaluation      Cost / Benefit                       45
Cost - Benefit AnalysisAcceleration of construction • Reduced Work Zone Exposure • Reduced Impact to Traffic • Reduced Ins...
Precast verses Cast-In-Place                               47
Maintenance and Protection     of Traffic (MPT) MPT costs include traffic control devices Cost can vary Shorter schedules ...
User CostsUser costs through the traffic control factor• Travel delays as a result of speed limit reductions• Queues as a ...
Compare MPT and User Costs Precast verses Cast-In-Place Determine MPT Costs:  • Determine a traffic control plan  • Quanti...
Compare MPT and User Costs Precast verses Cast-In-Place Determine User Cost Approach •   FHWA has outline of user cost and...
Compare MPT and User Costs Precast verses Cast-In-Place Compare Costs •   Total MPT, User Costs, Construction Costs      o...
Compare MPT and User Costs Precast verses Cast-In-Place Example – SR 79 Culvert Extension  •   MPT Costs - Typical flaggin...
Compare MPT and User Costs Precast verses Cast-In-Place Example – SR 79 Culvert Extension •   User Costs – Using NJDOT Spr...
Compare MPT and User Costs Precast verses Cast-In-PlaceExample – SR 79 Culvert Extension                              Cost...
Other Costs Work Zone Exposure Client Internal Costs •   Inspector Time •   Certificate Processing Contractor Overhead •  ...
FUTURETodd Emery, ADOT Tucson District Engineer                                            57
FUTUREPrecast Transition/Connection•   Alternative Connection OptionsPrecast WingwallsStandardization of Precast Box Culve...
QUESTIONS            59
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Innovation - Extending Cast-In-Place Box Culverts with Precast Box Culverts - ADOT, Tucson District

62,387 views
69,025 views

Published on

Published in: Design
1 Comment
3 Likes
Statistics
Notes
No Downloads
Views
Total views
62,387
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
25
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
1
Likes
3
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Innovation - Extending Cast-In-Place Box Culverts with Precast Box Culverts - ADOT, Tucson District

  1. 1. InnovationExtending Cast-In-Place Box Culverts With Precast Box Culverts ADOT Tucson District 1
  2. 2. WHY PRECAST ?Anticipated future improvements of transportationsystem • Upgrades • Widening current roadwaysIncreased capacitySafety improvementsLess impact to traveling public during constructionImprovements of internal costs for construction throughwork zone efficiency 2
  3. 3. Innovative Construction MethodsPrecast concrete pipesImplemented use of precast items • AASHTO Girders • Concrete Barrier • MSE Wall Panels • Cattle Guards • Catch Basins • ManholesPrecast box culverts • Accelerates construction schedule • Reduces work zone exposure to traveling public and workers 3
  4. 4. Recent Projects with Precast CBCsSR 79, MP 124.1 to 127.4 (Constructed) • First Tucson District Project with Precast Box CulvertsSR 86, Brawley Wash to MP 141 (Constructed)SR 86, MP 141 to Reservation Boundary (Constructed)I-10, Val Vista Road to Earley Road (Parsons Brinckerhoff)(Under Construction)SR 86, San Pedro Segment (Under Construction)SR 86, Kitt Peak (Kimley-Horn) (Stage IV)SR 86, Santa Rosa Segment (Stage IV)SR 86, Fresnal to Sells (Stage II) 4
  5. 5. ProjectsSR 79, MP 124.1 to 125.7James Gomes, ADOT R.E. 5
  6. 6. SR 79, MP 124.1 to 125.7 6
  7. 7. SR 79, MP 124.1 to 125.7 7
  8. 8. SR 79, MP 124.1 to 125.7 Contract Documents • Special Provisions • Project specific requirements • Project Plans • Locations • Details • Standard Drawings • B-Standards • C-Standards 8
  9. 9. SR 79, MP 124.1 to 125.7 Pre-Cast RCBC Submittal • Manufacturer through Contractor • ADOT Bridge Group • ADOT Review & Approval Production • Prepare formwork • Fabrication • Materials Group – Oversight and Inspection 9
  10. 10. SR 79, MP 124.1 to 125.7 Project Site Preparation • Traffic Control • RCBC Wingwall and Headwall Removal • Structural Excavation • Bedding Material 10
  11. 11. SR 79, MP 124.1 to 125.7 11
  12. 12. SR 79, MP 124.1 to 125.7 Installation • Delivery and Inspection • Survey • Crane Location • Alignment and Installation • Finish Work 12
  13. 13. SR 79, MP 124.1 to 125.7 Installation 13
  14. 14. SR 79, MP 124.1 to 125.7 Installation 14
  15. 15. SR 79, MP 124.1 to 125.7 Installation 15
  16. 16. SR 79, MP 124.1 to 125.7 Installation 16
  17. 17. SR 79, MP 124.1 to 125.7 Installation 17
  18. 18. SR 79, MP 124.1 to 125.7 Closure Pour • Approved Concrete Mix • Reinforcement • Formwork • Constructability Issues o Rebar Clearances o Formwork o Concrete Clearances 18
  19. 19. Reinforcement 19
  20. 20. Constructability “Formwork” 20
  21. 21. Constructability“Concrete Placement” 21
  22. 22. SR 79, MP 124.1 to 125.7Backfill and Clean-up 22
  23. 23. Lessons Learned Benefits DrawbacksReduced Durations Closure Pour • Work Zone Hazard Constructability • Traffic Control Costs Need for Standardization • QA Inspection TimeLess Impacts to PublicHigher Strength Material 23
  24. 24. Next Project I-10, Val Vista Road to Earley RoadGreg Bambauer, Parsons Brinckerhoff 24
  25. 25. I-10, Val Vista Road to Earley RoadNine-mile interim widening projectA total of 44 cross-drainage structures• 24 box culvert extensions o 6-Single Cells o 6-Double Cells o 8-Triple Cells o 1-Four Cell o 1-Five Cell o 1-Six Cell 25
  26. 26. I-10, Val Vista Road to Earley RoadDiscussions with District identified design criteria• Limit precast extensions to 3-cells or less• Minimize closure pour o Preference to 1-foot• PB structural engineers designed the closure pour and the cast-in-place end section 26
  27. 27. I-10, Val Vista Road to Earley Road3-Cell Closure 27
  28. 28. I-10, Val Vista Road to Earley Road3-Cell Closure 28
  29. 29. I-10, Val Vista Road to Earley RoadCIP closure and end Section• No standard available• Many precast options: choice is difficult o Need to design a generic closure and end section• District provided previous design for closure pour• PB reviewed and revised slightly to achieve enhanced strength 29
  30. 30. I-10, Val Vista Road to Earley Road 30
  31. 31. I-10, Val Vista Road to Earley RoadConstruction Award• Manufacturer Submitted Shop Drawings for Review• Identified Large Bevels at Base of Precast Section o Concerns  Hydraulics  Transition to CIP is Abrupt  Potential Debris Collection 31
  32. 32. HydraulicsHaunches Abrupt Transition 32
  33. 33. I-10, Val Vista Road to Earley Road Concerns • Hydraulics o Conducted a simplified HECRAS analysis for low flows through Structure o Found minor increases in headwater 33
  34. 34. I-10, Val Vista Road to Earley Road Change In HeadlossHydraulics ∆hL=0.10 12.0% ∆hL=0.10• Single 10’x4’ CBC• Varied discharge 10.0% ∆hL=0.07 ∆hL=0.04• Compared 8.0% ∆hL=0.03 Increase (%) ∆hL=0.02 o Standard CIP 6.0% ∆hL=0.04 ∆hL=0.01 o Precast with abrupt 4.0% and smooth transition 2.0% 0.0% 50 100 150 200 Flow Rates (cfs) Standard Coefficients Smooth: 0.1 Contraction and 0.3 Expansion Abrupt: 0.3 Contraction and 0.5 Expansion 34
  35. 35. I-10, Val Vista Road to Earley RoadConcerns, con’t• Potential Debris Collection o Transition to CIP End section to precast section is abrupt o Revised detail to provide smoothing within the closure and CIP end section to mitigate clogging & enhance performance 35
  36. 36. I-10, Val Vista Road to Earley Road Revised Detail for Smoothing 36
  37. 37. I-10, Val Vista Road to Earley Road 37
  38. 38. Next ProjectSR 86, Kitt Peak Segment Rick Solis, Kimley-Horn 38
  39. 39. SR 86, Kitt Peak SegmentPROJECT BACKGROUND 4.3 Mile Roadway Widening Project Purpose to improve Safety and Operational Characteristics Rural Roadway Located Approx. 30 miles Southwest of Tucson and within the Tohono Oodham Nation 44 Total Cross Drainage Structures 39
  40. 40. SR 86, Kitt Peak Segment General Considerations • Number of barrels • Existing skew vs. extension skew o Design the extension to the flow-line path o Hydraulic limitation • Field measure existing CBC wall thickness • Utilize AASHTO guidelines for precast unit dimensions • Design extension to clear zone with 1-foot holdback • Determine the required closure pour width (2-foot minimum) • Duration of closure 40
  41. 41. SR 86, Kitt Peak Segment Closure-pour and end section design considerations • Minimum closure length: 2-foot o Allows for a transition between existing CBC and precast CBC o Allows for development of edge beam o Constructability is driving the minimum closure length • Closure-pour transition rate o 2:1 maximum • Precast extensions are designed with 1-foot holdback o Allows for development of edge beam incorporated into CIP headwalls and wing walls o Allows for construction of haunch transitions and wedge transition 41
  42. 42. SR 86, Kitt Peak SegmentClosure pour and end sectiondesign considerations, cont’d• AASHTO standards include haunches at all four corners• Haunches require transitions at the bottom of the corners within the closure and end section• Some precast companies in Arizona do not have forms for the AASHTO standard• Review shop drawings for concurrence with AASHTO 42
  43. 43. SR 86 Kitt Peak Segment Moving Beyond the Old 3-Cell Limit for Extensions • Consultation with Local Contractors • 4-Cell Box Culvert Extension Using Precast Box Culverts o Resulting 3-foot Closure Pour • 8-Cell Extension Using Precast Box Culverts o Resulting 6-ft Closure Pour • Project is expected to Bid April 2012 43
  44. 44. 8-Cell Box Extension 44
  45. 45. Further Evaluation Cost / Benefit 45
  46. 46. Cost - Benefit AnalysisAcceleration of construction • Reduced Work Zone Exposure • Reduced Impact to Traffic • Reduced Inspection TimeHigher Strength MaterialReduced Material Waste (Concrete, Forms, etc…)Partnering Between ADOT, Contractors and material suppliersimproves construction efficiency and reduces Public Expenditures 46
  47. 47. Precast verses Cast-In-Place 47
  48. 48. Maintenance and Protection of Traffic (MPT) MPT costs include traffic control devices Cost can vary Shorter schedules reduce MPT costs 48
  49. 49. User CostsUser costs through the traffic control factor• Travel delays as a result of speed limit reductions• Queues as a result of lane capacity reductions• Travel time for use of detours• Delays from flagging operations 49
  50. 50. Compare MPT and User Costs Precast verses Cast-In-Place Determine MPT Costs: • Determine a traffic control plan • Quantify traffic control items • Estimate duration for Precast and for Cast-In-Place • Summarize MPT costs for Precast and Cast-In-Place 50
  51. 51. Compare MPT and User Costs Precast verses Cast-In-Place Determine User Cost Approach • FHWA has outline of user cost and considerations • NJDOT has developed Road User Cost Manual with worksheets for quantifying costs 51
  52. 52. Compare MPT and User Costs Precast verses Cast-In-Place Compare Costs • Total MPT, User Costs, Construction Costs o Precast o Cast-In-Place • Compare cost differential • Evaluate the overall benefits/costs o Are costs worth the savings? 52
  53. 53. Compare MPT and User Costs Precast verses Cast-In-Place Example – SR 79 Culvert Extension • MPT Costs - Typical flagging MPT plan o Includes: Vertical Panels, Portable Sign Stands, Type A and C Warning Lights, Signs, and Flagging Services o Duration Estimated: 250 Days for Precast 330 Days for Cast-In-Place o MPT costs estimated: $76,000 – Precast $104,000 – Cast-In-Place 53
  54. 54. Compare MPT and User Costs Precast verses Cast-In-Place Example – SR 79 Culvert Extension • User Costs – Using NJDOT Spreadsheets o SR 79, 2-lane roadway, 3000 ADT o No anticipated queues from MPT plan o No detour delays o Travel delay in reducing speed from 65 to 35 mph through work zone o Calculated Road User Costs factoring CPI: $800/day o Estimated User Cost: $200,000 – Precast $264,000 – Cast-In-Place 54
  55. 55. Compare MPT and User Costs Precast verses Cast-In-PlaceExample – SR 79 Culvert Extension Cost Comparison MPT User Construction Total Precast $76,000 $200,000 $483,000 $759,000 Cast-In-Place $104,000 $264,000 $480,000 $848,000 55
  56. 56. Other Costs Work Zone Exposure Client Internal Costs • Inspector Time • Certificate Processing Contractor Overhead • Move to next project sooner Efficiency Leads to Cost Saving 56
  57. 57. FUTURETodd Emery, ADOT Tucson District Engineer 57
  58. 58. FUTUREPrecast Transition/Connection• Alternative Connection OptionsPrecast WingwallsStandardization of Precast Box Culverts• ADOT Bridge GroupOther Precast Elements• Bridge Substructure• Bridge Decks 58
  59. 59. QUESTIONS 59

×