Assessing and constructing a cost effective bridge replacement christopher sichak, pe

798 views

Published on

Published in: Technology, Business
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
798
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
3
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
16
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Assessing and constructing a cost effective bridge replacement christopher sichak, pe

  1. 1. Presentation for: 2012 NYSCHSA Summer Conference August 28, 2012 By: Christopher Sichak, P.E.
  2. 2. Outline• Introduction• Existing Conditions• Environmental Considerations• Project Needs• Development of Alternatives• Project Costs• Selection of Preferred Alternative• Construction Phase• Lessons Learned• Summary• Learning Assessment• Questions
  3. 3. IntroductionProject 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
  4. 4. Introduction Project Team Orleans CountyOwner’s Group • NYSDOT Region 4 • Town of Ridgeway • Federal Highway Administration Clark Patterson Lee / Dewberry-Goodkind, Inc. Engineering • 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) Ramsey Constructors, Inc. Material Suppliers: • Clark Rigging (crane work) • G & J Contracting (reinforcement installation) • • Contech Construction Products, Inc. Construction Buffalo Barricade (detour signage) • C & A Pavement Marking (pavement markings) • Lakelands Concrete Products, Inc. • Villager Construction, Inc. (milling) • Pavilion Drainage Supply Co., Inc. • Elderlee, Inc. (guide-rail and signs) • Suit-Kote • Terry Tree (tree removal) • Hanson Aggregates • Vellano Bros., Inc. • MJ Dreher Trucking (trucking) • Kistner Concrete Products, Inc. • Farrell Landscaping (seeding) • Keystone Builders Supply • Fisher Associates (survey and ROW markers)
  5. 5. 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
  6. 6. 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)
  7. 7. Existing Conditions Safety Flags• Condition presenting a clear and present danger to vehicular or pedestrian traffic, but poses no danger of structural failure. • Spalling of Concrete Parapets • Hole in deck near the pier
  8. 8. Existing ConditionsApproach Roadway• 2 – 11’ travel lanes• Variable width gravel shoulders Two way AADT: • 2000: 944 • 2009: 992
  9. 9. Existing ConditionsGeotechnical Investigations Boring Recovery RQD B-1 81% 51% • Shale bedrock below apparent fill soils B-2 91% 28% • RQD (Rock Quality Designation) RQD Rock Mass Quality length of pieces exceeding 4” ____________________ <25% very poor= x 100% 25-50% poor length of core run 50-75% fair 75-90% good •Bearing capacity of 8 tons/sf 90-100% excellent
  10. 10. Existing ConditionsUtilities Electric (National Grid) Telephone (Verizon) Water (Town of Ridgeway) o Relocate aerial o Relocate aerial o Coordinate geometry facilities and street facilities along east with 8” Direct bored light along east side side of the roadway watermain along east of the roadway side of the roadway
  11. 11. Existing ConditionsHydraulics • History of debris snagging on pier • Pier erosion and scour • Exposed pier footing
  12. 12. Existing Conditions Hydraulics• 48 mile upstream length• Initiates in Genesee County PROJECT LOCATION• 192 square miles drainage area• Upstream flow controlled 50 Year Flood ` Model Elevation (m)Existing Structure 353.34Replacement 353.27Option 1Replacement 353.37Option 2
  13. 13. Environmental ConsiderationsArcheological Sensitive Area SHPO Project Review Application completed2/9/09 detailing previous Project Location disturbance SHPO concurrence with2/24/09 previous disturbance FHWA concurrence no3/13/09 Phase I Cultural Resources neccesary
  14. 14. Environmental ConsiderationsEnvironmental Screenings and Permitting • USACOE Nationwide Permit #3 • NYSDEC Excavation and Fill in Navigable Waters • NYSDEC Water Quality CertificationEndangered Species = Stream Restriction • Longear Sunfish (Lepomis Megalotis) • June 15 to September 15
  15. 15. Project NeedsGoals• Replace existing structure within available funding limits• Provide structural service life of 75 years• Meet current standards• Enhance safety• Minimize stream disturbance in accordance with permits
  16. 16. Development of AlternativesConceptual Alternatives:1. Rehabilitation2. 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)3. Single Span Concrete Buried Structure4. Two-Span Bridge Replacement (Steel or Concrete Superstructure)5. Multi-Span Concrete Buried Structure
  17. 17. Development of AlternativesConceptual Alternatives:1. Rehabilitation2. 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)3. Single Span Concrete Buried Structure4. Two-Span Bridge Replacement (Steel or Concrete Superstructure) Dropped due to Hydraulic Characteristics5. Multi-Span Concrete Buried Structure
  18. 18. Development of Alternatives1. 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
  19. 19. Development of AlternativesConceptual Alternatives:1. Rehabilitation2. 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) Dropped due to Anticipated Costs3. Single Span Concrete Buried Structure
  20. 20. Development of Alternatives2. Adjacent Prestressed Concrete Box Beam Replacement 100’ (+/-) Proposed Elevation• Lower initial construction cost than steel multigirder • deck forming and thickness• Tall Concrete Abutments and Wingwalls with spread footings on bedrock (25’ – 30’)
  21. 21. Development of Alternatives3. Single Span Concrete Buried Structure• Lower maintenance costs • Arch: o Absence of features o Geometry fits well with requiring maintenance: site topography  Joints o Structurally sound and  Bearings efficient shape  Deck o Most economical  Primary Members foundation size• Lower construction costs o Limited field construction (precast) o Limited field specialty work
  22. 22. Development of Alternatives3. Single Span Concrete Buried Structure (Precast Arch) 77’-9” 21’-10” Proposed Elevation • Detailed as a precast structure o Twin leaf structure, headwalls, and wingwalls o E78T/0: Contech BEBO (77’ -9” Span x 21’ –10” Rise)
  23. 23. Development of Alternatives •LRFD Specifications mandated for bridge design by October 1, 2007 EI 05-003 •Exception: LRFD implementation for design of buried structures in 2010 EI 07-014EI 07-030 •Release of 2007 (Metric and US) and 2008 (US) LRFD SpecificationsEI 08 -042 •Release of 2010 US Customary LRFD Specifications EI 10-013 •Implementation for buried structures if the project’s preliminary engineering design phase begins after October 1, 2010Design Criteria Standard Value Existing Value Proposed ValueStructural HL-93 and NYS Design Permit Vehicle (LRFD Replacement Min.) MS-23 (AASHTO Replacement Min.) N/A MS-23Capacity MS-18 (AASHTO Rehabilitation Min.)
  24. 24. Development of AlternativesMaintenance and Protection of Traffic • Traffic maintained via offsite detour • NYSDOT Highway Work Permit (PERM 33)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
  25. 25. Project Costs Preliminary Engineer’s Estimates Precast Concrete Arch Single-Span MultigirderWork Item Replacement ReplacementRight-of-Way $ 14,000 $ 14,000Structure Removal $ 225,000 $ 170,000Bridge Construction $ 755,800 $ 1,074,400Highway $ 211,000 $ 176,500M&PT $ 21,300 $ 21,300Mobilization (4%) $ 40,100 $ 51,200Contingency (10%) $ 126,800 $ 150,800Total $ 1,394,000 $ 1,658,500
  26. 26. Selection of Preferred AlternativePreferred 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
  27. 27. Selection of Preferred AlternativePreferred Alternative: Precast Concrete Arch Replacement 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 Constructors, Inc. (4 bidders) o 92% Engineers Estimate
  28. 28. Construction PhaseNotice to ProceedMay 13, 2010 Existing Bridge Demolition June 3 through June 15, 2010
  29. 29. Construction Phase Precast Arch Concrete Footing PlacementCompleted July 30, 2010
  30. 30. Construction Phase Precast Concrete Shop Drawings Submitted July 2, 2010Approvals:Foundation Layout: July 12, 2010Arch Units: July 27, 2010Wingwalls/Headwalls: August 11, 2010
  31. 31. Construction Phase Arch PlacementSeptember 22, 2010
  32. 32. Construction Phase ArchErection9/22/10
  33. 33. Construction Phase ArchErection9/22/10
  34. 34. Construction Phase ArchErection9/22/10
  35. 35. Construction Phase ArchErection9/22/10
  36. 36. Construction PhaseArch Erection 9/22/10
  37. 37. Construction Phase CrownClosure Pour9/27/10
  38. 38. Construction Phase Headwall and Wingwall Placement October 7 and 8, 2010
  39. 39. Construction Phase Headwall and Wingwall Bracing
  40. 40. Construction PhaseHeadwall andWingwall Bracing
  41. 41. Construction Phase Headwall and Wingwall Installation“Everyone is OK”
  42. 42. Construction Phase Headwall and Wingwall Installation
  43. 43. Construction Phase RockOutcropRemoval 10/9/10 to10/13/10
  44. 44. Construction Phase Backfill and Geotextile InstallationBodkin Bar Connection
  45. 45. Construction PhaseBackfill and GeotextileInstallationCommences 10/13/10
  46. 46. Construction Phase Precast HeadwallInstallation Complete 10/19/10
  47. 47. Construction Phase Nearing Backfill CompletionOctober 23, 2010
  48. 48. Construction PhaseNew Bridge opened on November 5, 2010 • 60 working days utilized to complete project
  49. 49. Construction Phase • Average of 9.5 hours per working day
  50. 50. Lessons Learned• Appropriate Geotechnical Explorations • Pay attention to surrounding existing features• Permitting / Stream Restrictions • May impact the preferred alternative• Constructability • Utilize input from others to understand the process
  51. 51. Summary
  52. 52. Learning AssessmentQ: 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
  53. 53. Learning AssessmentQ: Which statement(s) is/are true of a structurally deficient bridge: The bridge a) doesnt 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
  54. 54. Learning AssessmentQ: 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.
  55. 55. Learning AssessmentQ: In geotechnical exploration, what does RQD stand for?A: Rock Quality Designation
  56. 56. Learning AssessmentQ: (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.
  57. 57. Learning AssessmentQ: (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.
  58. 58. Learning AssessmentQ: 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
  59. 59. Learning AssessmentQ: 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.
  60. 60. Learning AssessmentQ: 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
  61. 61. Learning AssessmentQ: (True/False) It is possible to construct a bridge over a stream with a restriction during the prime construction season.A: True.
  62. 62. Questions

×