GILA RIVER / SACATON ROAD BRIDGE A … RIVER / SACATON ROAD BRIDGE A DESIGNER’S PERSPECTIVE ......

1

TACKLING ABC PROJECTSSPOTLIGHT ON SHRP2 RO4

GILA RIVER / SACATON ROAD BRIDGEA DESIGNER’S PERSPECTIVE

Webinar presentation:ABC-UTC at Florida International University (FIU)

January 18, 2018 1:00p-2:00p ESTMark A. Chase, PE

AZTEC Engineering Group, Inc.

2

Gila River / Sacaton Road BridgeA Designer’s PerspectiveJanuary 18, 2018

Collaboration

3


Agenda• Where (Project Location / Vicinity)• What (The A,B,C’s)

– Existing & New Bridge– Reasons for Project

• How (The 1,2,3’s)– Design – The Beginning and A New Door…– The Low-Tech Slide System

• Why (The $’s)• A Designer’s Perspective• Questions

4


Where (Location)

5


Where (Vicinity)

Gila River“1-Mile Wide,1-Foot Deep”

Sacaton, AZ

Bridge Site

6


Where (Vicinity)

Gila River“1-Mile Wide,1-Foot Deep”

Sacaton, AZ

Bridge Site

Photo Courtesy of Gila River Indian Community – www.gilariver.org

7


What (A,B,C’s)Existing Bridge (H145)

8


What (A,B,C’s)Existing Bridge (H145)

• Completed 1961– Replaced original timber bridge

• 4 x 35’ spans – Total Length ~ 140’– 45 Degree Skew

• CIP slab on precast rectangular beams– Plan Alternative – Conventional & Prestressed

• Steel H-Piling (Very Shallow)– Solid Pier Walls and Pile Cap Abutments

• No Approach Slabs or Expansion Joints

9


What (A,B,C’s)New Bridge (H144)

10


What (A,B,C’s)New Bridge (H144)

• Completed Spring 2015– Replaced original concrete slab bridge

• 2 x 70’ spans – Total Length ~ 140’– 15 Degree Skew

• CIP slab on PC/PS AASHTO Type III-Mod• Abut/Pier Caps on Drilled Shafts• Semi-Integral Abutments and Approach Slabs• Expansion Joint – At Pier

11


What (A,B,C’s)Reasons for Project

• Roadway Safety• Roadway Overtopping• Sufficiency Rating

12


Roadway Safety

13


Roadway Safety

14


Roadway Overtopping

15


Roadway Overtopping

16


Roadway Overtopping

17


Sufficiency Rating

18


How (1,2,3's)Design - The Beginning

• Conventional RFQ / Consultant Selection– Preliminary Engineering / Scoping - 2011– Final Design Phase - 2012

• Design – Bid – Build• Evaluated Typical Bridges & Methods

– Typical Boundary Conditions• No temporary supports in the river• Typical DOT Design & Construction Methods• In our Bridge Selection Report we mentioned ABC• Maintain Traffic ( selected “Approved” Detour)

– phased construction, shoofly detour, full closure alternatives

19



AADT ~5100

6-MilesEach Way

20



6-MilesEach Way

AADT ~5100

21



AADT ~5100

6-MilesEach Way

22



• Finalized PS&E Package, Clearances, Etc.– Bid Ready

• Challenges Remained…Or Opportunities?– Funding

• Budget ~$2 million < Estimate ~$2.7 million– Maintenance of Traffic

• 4-6 Month Detour remained a concern

• A New Door Opened…

23



• Finalized PS&E Package, Clearances, Etc.– Bid Ready

• Challenges Remained…Or Opportunities?– Funding

• Budget ~$2 million < Estimate ~$2.7 million– Maintenance of Traffic

• 4-6 Month Detour remained a concern

• A New Door Opened…

24


How (1,2,3's)…A New Door Opened

• SHRP2 Grant (ABC Toolkit/Techniques)– Opportunity for funding of ABC approach– Opportunity to improve Maintenance of Traffic– Opportunity to accelerate Construction– Grant Received Fall 2013 - $500K

25



26



• SHRP2 Grant (ABC Toolkit/Techniques)– Opportunity for funding ABC Approach– Opportunity to Improve Maintenance of Traffic– Opportunity to Speed Construction– Grant Received Fall 2013 - $500K

• Construction Manager/General Contractor (CMGC)– Also known as Construction Manager at Risk (CMAR)

• Contractor selected by Owner based on Qualifications• Guaranteed Maximum Price Negotiated with Owner

– CMGC RFQ / Selection Spring/Summer 2014– FNF Construction Inc., Phoenix, AZ

27


How (1,2,3's)SHRP2 Toolkit & CMGC

• Worthy of separate Presentations on their own• Key Element of this Project’s success

– Applied FNF’s Construction Methods and Expertise• Lateral Slide was first for entire Project Team• Local, Available Tools / Equipment / Techniques• Keep it Simple

– Construction Cost Modeling vs. Engineering Estimates– Risk Identification During Design (Most Important)– Revisited ENTIRE Design

28



• Revisited ENTIRE Design – Some Key Items– 15 degree skew / shift bridge North

• Construct new substructure under existing bridge & across existing road, outboard foundations

29





30





– Minimize Temporary Works• Reduce “Throw-Away”• Mitigate Risk of River Flows

31


How (1,2,3's)Skew/Shift Substructure

32



33



34


How (1,2,3's)Minimize Temporary Works

• Temporary Works Cost Money and Time• Temporary Works in River add Risk

– When will the river flow?– Can we mitigate?– Who owns the risk financially?

• Keep it Simple• Use available tools vs. buying/making expensive new ones

35



• Temporary Support (Pier)

36




37




38



• Permanent “Temporary” Support (Abutment)

39




40




41



42


How (1,2,3's)The Low-Tech Slide System

• Keep it Simple

43



• Keep it Simple

44



• Keep it Simple

45



• Theoretical (Steel-Steel)– Friction (Static/Kinetic)

• Various Sources– Greasy = 0.1/0.05– Plain = 0.78/0.45

• Actual (Steel-Steel)– Friction (Static/Kinetic)

• Greasy 0.25/0.15

• Take-Away– Plan for higher friction (2x

to 3x)– This is not an operating

room…the grease gets dirty just by the wind and air

– Rusty Steel is “sticky”

46



• Theoretical (Steel-Steel)– Forces (Static/Kinetic)

• 4-Girder Element– 265K (Reaxn)– 26.5k / 13.25k

• Actual (Steel-Steel)– Forces (Static/Kinetic)

• 4-Girder Element– 258K (Reaxn)– 63K / 36k

• Capacity – 300k

• Take-Away– Plan for higher forces– Planning with excess

capacity is less expensive than finding out you don’t have enough

47



• Why no “Guides”– No Potential for Binding– Higher friction will control

bridge…won’t “blow away” on its own

• Plan B– Longitudinal Jacking

System– “Steering”

• Take-Away– It Worked…

48



49



50



52



53



54



55



56



57



58



59



60



61



62



63



64



65



66



67



68



69



70



71



72



P1

P2

73



P1 P2

P3

74



• Expansion Joint at Pier, Abutments Pinned

75



76



77


Why ($'s)• Some Quick “Figures”

– Total Project Capital Cost (GMP) – $2.7M• $1.1M Bridge = $125/sf

– ABC Costs - ~$0.4M (15%)– Included Allowances/Enhancements - ~$0.3M (8%)

• Paint the Bridge• Add more bank protection• Contingency/Items – River Flows

78


Why ($'s)• Traffic Impact

– 9 days + 1 weekend vs. 4-6 Months• 14-22 week Saving

– 700K vehicle miles vs. 6M to 9M• 5M to 8M vehicle miles savings

– 3 hours vs. 24 to 36 hours user time• 21 to 33 hours savings per roadway user

– $0.4M vs. $0.9M to $1.4M• ABC Cost vs. Fuel Only Cost• Savings $0.5M to $1.0M

79


One Designer’s Perspective• ABC = Accelerate Bridge Construction

– Contractor’s input and buy-in is essential for success– CMGC made this possible for this project

• Tailor the complexity to the project – Keep it Simple– Fundamental engineering principles really do work– Use existing tools in new ways

• ABC was once “exotic”, Today it’s everyday– As Engineers, we have been trained to be conservative,

methodical and to think things through, this is ABC– Bridge Design, for me is more about the Bridge Construction

because that is the final measurement of what we accomplish

80


Time-Lapse Video Link• Time-lapse Video – AZTEC Engineering on YouTube

– Sacaton Bridge Replacement – Accelerated Bridge Construction– https://youtu.be/Auuq_otR6BY

https://youtu.be/Auuq_otR6BY

81


QuestionsPamela Hutton, PESHRP2 Implementation [email protected]

Mark Chase, PESenior Vice PresidentAZTEC Engineering Group, [email protected]

82


Abutment/Approach Slab

83


Expansion Joint at Pier

84


Deck Closure Pour

85


Diaphragm Closure Pour

86


Internal Shear Key

87


Internal Shear Key

88


Modified AASHTO Type III

Date post:	03-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	lamthuan
View:	228 times
Download:	7 times

GILA RIVER / SACATON ROAD BRIDGE A … RIVER / SACATON ROAD BRIDGE A DESIGNER’S PERSPECTIVE ......

Documents