2009 AASHTO Value Engineering Conference San Diego,...

transcript

Value Engineering Study Value Engineering Study -- De Soto Bridge Over Mississippi RiverDe Soto Bridge Over Mississippi River 11

2009 AASHTO Value Engineering Conference2009 AASHTO Value Engineering ConferenceSan Diego, CaliforniaSan Diego, California

September 1, 2009September 1, 2009

Value Engineering StudyValue Engineering StudyDe Soto Bridge Over the Mississippi RiverDe Soto Bridge Over the Mississippi River

City of St. Cloud, MinnesotaCity of St. Cloud, Minnesota

Presenters:Presenters: Minnie Milkert P.E.Minnie Milkert P.E.State Value EngineerState Value EngineerMinnesota Dept. of TransportationMinnesota Dept. of TransportationSt. Paul, MinnesotaSt. Paul, Minnesota

Darrell Berry, P.E., S.E., VMPDarrell Berry, P.E., S.E., VMP--LifeLifeSenior Project ManagerSenior Project ManagerMead & Hunt, Inc.Mead & Hunt, Inc.Milwaukee, WisconsinMilwaukee, Wisconsin

Value Engineering StudyValue Engineering StudyDe Soto Bridge Over the Mississippi RiverDe Soto Bridge Over the Mississippi River

City of St. Cloud, MinnesotaCity of St. Cloud, Minnesota

Description of ProjectDescription of Project

Description of projectDescription of projectGoals and Objectives of VE StudyGoals and Objectives of VE StudyVE Team MembersVE Team MembersDates and Location of VE StudyDates and Location of VE StudyVE Study Work planVE Study Work planResults Obtained from VE StudyResults Obtained from VE StudyDesign Considerations and SuggestionsDesign Considerations and SuggestionsQuestionsQuestions

Located on Trunk highway 23Located on Trunk highway 23–– 33,000 vehicles per day33,000 vehicles per day

Old Bridge BR # 6748Old Bridge BR # 6748–– Officially opened in 1959Officially opened in 1959–– Continuous Steel Truss BridgeContinuous Steel Truss Bridge–– 890 feet long890 feet long–– 71 feet wide71 feet wide–– 4 traffic lanes, each 11 feet4 traffic lanes, each 11 feet–– 5 foot sidewalk, each side5 foot sidewalk, each side

Roadway work:Roadway work:–– 44thth Avenue to West end of bridgeAvenue to West end of bridge–– East end of bridge to Wilson Ave.East end of bridge to Wilson Ave.

Riverwalk Trail Riverwalk Trail –– West EndWest EndPedestrian/Bicycle Trail Connection Pedestrian/Bicycle Trail Connection –– East EndEast End

Inspection on March 20, 2008 found deformations in four criticalInspection on March 20, 2008 found deformations in four critical gusset gusset plates.plates.Bridge was immediately closed to vehicular traffic and TH 23 wasBridge was immediately closed to vehicular traffic and TH 23 was detoured.detoured.Mn/DOT did not want a situation similar to the collapse of the IMn/DOT did not want a situation similar to the collapse of the I--35W bridge in 35W bridge in MinneapolisMinneapolis

Alternatives considered by design team:Alternatives considered by design team:–– Repair and rehabilitate the existing bridgeRepair and rehabilitate the existing bridge–– Replace the bridge with a new bridgeReplace the bridge with a new bridge

Decision to replace the bridge with a new haunched, continuous sDecision to replace the bridge with a new haunched, continuous span steel pan steel plate girder structure:plate girder structure:

–– 890 feet long890 feet long–– 4 traffic lanes with center median4 traffic lanes with center median–– 6 foot shoulders, each side6 foot shoulders, each side–– 8 foot sidewalks, each side8 foot sidewalks, each side–– 90 feet wide out90 feet wide out--toto--outout

Estimated Cost: $25 MillionEstimated Cost: $25 Million–– Bridge Removal & ReplacementBridge Removal & Replacement–– Roadway WorkRoadway Work–– Real EstateReal Estate–– ContingenciesContingencies

Project Design Status at time of VE Study:Project Design Status at time of VE Study:–– Bridge Design : 75% CompleteBridge Design : 75% Complete–– Roadway Design : 50% CompleteRoadway Design : 50% Complete

Goals and Objectives of VE StudyGoals and Objectives of VE Study

Review and evaluate alternatives developed by design teamReview and evaluate alternatives developed by design teamDevelop and evaluate new alternativesDevelop and evaluate new alternativesMake recommendations for value improvementMake recommendations for value improvementValidate, as appropriate, elements of propose designValidate, as appropriate, elements of propose designOptimize project costsOptimize project costs

VE Team MembersVE Team Members

Darrell Berry Darrell Berry –– Team Leader/FacilitatorTeam Leader/FacilitatorDean Freitag Dean Freitag –– Mn/DOT Central Office Design/GeometricsMn/DOT Central Office Design/GeometricsMicky Klasen Micky Klasen –– MnMn/DOT District 3 Bridge Construction/DOT District 3 Bridge ConstructionTodd Stevens Todd Stevens –– Mn/DOT Central Office Bridge DesignMn/DOT Central Office Bridge DesignScott Bradley Scott Bradley –– Mn/DOT Central Office Landscape Architect and Context Mn/DOT Central Office Landscape Architect and Context Sensitive SolutionsSensitive SolutionsVince Gastoni Vince Gastoni –– Parsons Transportation Senior Bridge EngineerParsons Transportation Senior Bridge EngineerChris Cromwell Chris Cromwell –– FHWAFHWAMinnie Milkert Minnie Milkert –– MnMn/DOT Value Engineer/DOT Value Engineer

Dates and Location of VE StudyDates and Location of VE Study

Dates : May 5 to 7, 2008Dates : May 5 to 7, 2008Location : St. Cloud Civic Center Location : St. Cloud Civic Center

(two blocks from the bridge)(two blocks from the bridge)

VE Study Work PlanVE Study Work Plan

Information Phase Information Phase –– Day 1Day 1Investigative Phase Investigative Phase –– Day 1Day 1

Analysis Phase Analysis Phase –– Day1Day1

Speculation Phase Speculation Phase –– Day 2Day 2Evaluation Phase Evaluation Phase –– Day 2Day 2

Development Phase Development Phase –– Day 2/Day 3Day 2/Day 3Presentation Phase Presentation Phase –– Day 3Day 3

Implementation Phase Implementation Phase –– Post VE StudyPost VE Study

VE Study Work PlanVE Study Work Plan

Fast tracked VE study, put together within two weeks Fast tracked VE study, put together within two weeks –– conducted in three conducted in three days. The team worked many hours each day to complete their wordays. The team worked many hours each day to complete their work.k.

Holding the VE study close to the project site was a big plus. Holding the VE study close to the project site was a big plus. The group was The group was able to walk the project site and learn about the project firstable to walk the project site and learn about the project first--hand.hand.

Team members were able to revisit the site several times as the Team members were able to revisit the site several times as the study study progressed.progressed.

Results Obtained from the VE StudyResults Obtained from the VE Study

32 Potential VE Study Ideas32 Potential VE Study Ideas18 Developed Ideas18 Developed Ideas13 Recommendations13 Recommendations

–– 5 Accepted for implementation5 Accepted for implementation–– 8 Rejected8 Rejected

3 Design considerations and Suggestions3 Design considerations and Suggestions

The VE team validated the decision by the design team to The VE team validated the decision by the design team to NOTNOT rehabilitate rehabilitate the existing truss bridge.the existing truss bridge.

Results Obtained from VE StudyResults Obtained from VE Study

Evaluation Process Evaluation Process –– 2 Steps2 Steps

Step 1:Step 1:Pass/FailPass/Fail

Step 2:Step 2:Rating : Scale of 10 to 1Rating : Scale of 10 to 1

All ideas that passed and had a rating of 6 and higher were carrAll ideas that passed and had a rating of 6 and higher were carried into Development Phase.ied into Development Phase.

Accepted Recommendations:Accepted Recommendations:

1.1. Do not paint structural steel, which is weathering steel. PaintDo not paint structural steel, which is weathering steel. Painting will be ing will be limited to the fascia girders (for aesthetics) and locations ovelimited to the fascia girders (for aesthetics) and locations over piers (stain r piers (stain prevention)prevention)

Cost savings : Approx. $1 million (lifeCost savings : Approx. $1 million (life--cycle)cycle)

2.2. Combine demolition of existing bridge with contract for construcCombine demolition of existing bridge with contract for construction of new tion of new bridge, rather than separate contracts.bridge, rather than separate contracts.

Cost savings : $60,000Cost savings : $60,000

The design team and the VE team came to this conclusion concurreThe design team and the VE team came to this conclusion concurrently, based on ntly, based on discussions with demolition contractors the same week as the VE discussions with demolition contractors the same week as the VE studystudy

3. 3. For pedestrian ramp at east end of bridge, add another leg for tFor pedestrian ramp at east end of bridge, add another leg for the ramp he ramp running to the east toward Wilson Avenue.running to the east toward Wilson Avenue.

Additional initial cost : $2,000 Additional initial cost : $2,000

4.4. For pedestrian switchFor pedestrian switch--back ramp at west end of bridge, remove and replace back ramp at west end of bridge, remove and replace all timber lagging and piling on south side of road.all timber lagging and piling on south side of road.

The design team and the VE team came to this conclusion concurreThe design team and the VE team came to this conclusion concurrently. ntly. The VE team concluded that this element was included in the $276The VE team concluded that this element was included in the $276, 000 , 000 cost for the retaining wall.cost for the retaining wall.

5.5. At west end, reconstruct pedestrian trail as necessary to accommAt west end, reconstruct pedestrian trail as necessary to accommodate odate west abutment construction and roadway construction.west abutment construction and roadway construction.

Additional Initial Cost : $75,000Additional Initial Cost : $75,000

The design team and the VE team came to this conclusion concurreThe design team and the VE team came to this conclusion concurrently.ntly.

Rejected Recommendations:Rejected Recommendations:

1.1. Use narrower bridge with 4Use narrower bridge with 4--11 foot traffic lanes; use one 1211 foot traffic lanes; use one 12--foot wide foot wide raised multiraised multi--use use ““side pathside path”” on south side of bridge only; no sidewalks on on south side of bridge only; no sidewalks on south side of bridge.south side of bridge.

Cost Savings : $2,473,000Cost Savings : $2,473,000

Commitments made to city for sidewalks on both sides of bridge. Commitments made to city for sidewalks on both sides of bridge. Need wider lanes Need wider lanes to accommodate deck drainage design and to accommodate projectedto accommodate deck drainage design and to accommodate projected traffic.traffic.

2.2. Use precast prestressed concrete type bridge with IUse precast prestressed concrete type bridge with I--girders.girders.

This type of bridge requires 2 additional piers in the river. DThis type of bridge requires 2 additional piers in the river. DNR accepted the proposedNR accepted the proposeddesign two pier configuration. Securing DNR approval for 4 pierdesign two pier configuration. Securing DNR approval for 4 piers in the river would likelys in the river would likelyadversely effect the construction schedule.adversely effect the construction schedule.

3.3. Use precast concrete deck elements instead of cast in place concUse precast concrete deck elements instead of cast in place concrete deck.rete deck.

Although this recommendation could potentially help on a fast trAlthough this recommendation could potentially help on a fast track construction schedule, ack construction schedule, it was rejected for this project due to concern for time needed it was rejected for this project due to concern for time needed to resolve detailing issues. to resolve detailing issues.

This recommendation could be considered for future bridge projecThis recommendation could be considered for future bridge projects.ts.

4.4. Use spliced bulbUse spliced bulb--T precast prestressed concrete girder bridge.T precast prestressed concrete girder bridge.

Contractors and precasters in the area are not familiar with thiContractors and precasters in the area are not familiar with this type of construction. s type of construction. The risks associated with unfamiliar bridge types are too high.The risks associated with unfamiliar bridge types are too high.

5.5. Use steel stringer deck system with longitudinal girders, resultUse steel stringer deck system with longitudinal girders, resulting in thinner ing in thinner concrete deck, but more steel.concrete deck, but more steel.

Bridge office does not prefer this system, because the addition Bridge office does not prefer this system, because the addition of steel stringers in theof steel stringers in theframing system has performed poorly in other known locations.framing system has performed poorly in other known locations.

6.6. Include foundation piling with early superstructure steel fabricInclude foundation piling with early superstructure steel fabrication ation contract.contract.

Cost Savings : $33,000Cost Savings : $33,000

Subsurface information which became available on the last day ofSubsurface information which became available on the last day of the VE study indicates the VE study indicates that granite is much shallower than first thought. Thus, spreadthat granite is much shallower than first thought. Thus, spread footings may be morefootings may be morefeasible than steel piling for some substructure units.feasible than steel piling for some substructure units.

7.7. Revise roadway geometry for transition from 11 foot lanes at theRevise roadway geometry for transition from 11 foot lanes at the west end.west end.

““Value AddedValue Added”” (no cost savings)(no cost savings)

This recommendation was rejected because of drainage issues and This recommendation was rejected because of drainage issues and for driver familiarity for driver familiarity and expectations.and expectations.

8.8. Revise horizontal alignment of roadway and bridge for entire proRevise horizontal alignment of roadway and bridge for entire project length, ject length, to eliminate small curves; bridge would remain straight, but woto eliminate small curves; bridge would remain straight, but would be uld be slightly rotated to improve geometrics.slightly rotated to improve geometrics.

““Value AddedValue Added”” (no cost savings)(no cost savings)

This recommendation was rejected due to potential rightThis recommendation was rejected due to potential right--ofof--way and trail impacts.way and trail impacts.

Design Considerations and SuggestionsDesign Considerations and Suggestions

1.1. Extend project limits to the east, beyond Wilson Avenue, to provExtend project limits to the east, beyond Wilson Avenue, to provide better ide better transitions to sidewalks and the wider roadway.transitions to sidewalks and the wider roadway.

2.2. Perform an Intersection Control Evaluation (ICE) for the Wilson Perform an Intersection Control Evaluation (ICE) for the Wilson Avenue Avenue intersection, including consideration of a roundabout.intersection, including consideration of a roundabout.

3.3. Use the existing city storm sewer on Riverside Drive for an outlUse the existing city storm sewer on Riverside Drive for an outlet et connection for the grit chamber, for convenient access for the cconnection for the grit chamber, for convenient access for the city to ity to maintain the grit chamber from a lower traffic volume road.maintain the grit chamber from a lower traffic volume road.

Project StatusProject Status

Steel fabrication contract let on June 6, 2008 for $7.3 MSteel fabrication contract let on June 6, 2008 for $7.3 MPaint encapsulation contract let on June 27, 2008 for $0.3 MPaint encapsulation contract let on June 27, 2008 for $0.3 MMain contract let on July 25, 2008 for $12.2M; construction begaMain contract let on July 25, 2008 for $12.2M; construction began on August n on August 25, 2008.25, 2008.Total project bid price : $19.8 MTotal project bid price : $19.8 MTo be essentially complete and open to traffic by November 1, 20To be essentially complete and open to traffic by November 1, 200909Final cleanFinal clean--up to be completed by June 1, 2010up to be completed by June 1, 2010

QUESTIONS?QUESTIONS?

Contact Information for PresentersContact Information for Presenters

Minnie Milkert, P.E.Minnie Milkert, P.E.State Value EngineerState Value EngineerMinnesota Dept. of TransportationMinnesota Dept. of TransportationMS 696, Transportation BuildingMS 696, Transportation Building395 John Ireland Blvd.395 John Ireland Blvd.St. Paul, MN 55155St. Paul, MN 55155Phone:Phone: 651651--366366--46484648Fax:Fax: 651651--366366--46994699Email: Email: minnie.milkert@dot.state.mn.usminnie.milkert@dot.state.mn.us

Darrell Berry, P.E., S.E., VMPDarrell Berry, P.E., S.E., VMP--LifeLifeMead & Hunt, Inc.Mead & Hunt, Inc.10700 W. Research Drive, Suite 15510700 W. Research Drive, Suite 155Milwaukee, WI 53226Milwaukee, WI 53226Phone:Phone: 262262--790790--02320232Fax:Fax: 262262--790790--02330233Email: darrell.berry@meadhunt.comEmail: darrell.berry@meadhunt.com

2009 AASHTO Value Engineering Conference San Diego,...

Documents