Results you can rely on - Louisiana Transportation … you can rely on AGENDA 3 •PROJECT OVERVIEW...

Results you can rely on

z

1


I-49 North Segment K Project

2


AGENDA

3

• PROJECT OVERVIEW

• BRIDGE DESIGN

• ARCHITECTURAL ENHANCEMENTS

• SPECIAL PROVISIONS

• COST ESTIMATE AND FINAL BIDS

• CONSTRUCTION


ARKANSAS

SITE LOCATION

4

185 MILES TO

DALLAS, TX

T

E

X

A

S

M

I

S

S

I

S

S

I

P

P

I

PROJECT

SITE

LAFAYETTE BATON

ROUGE

NEW

ORLEANS


I-49 NORTH CORRIDOR

5

SEGMENTS A – J

ALL UNDER

CONSTRUCTION

OR COMPLETED

SEGMENT K


6

• INTERCHANGE BRIDGE AESTHETICS

• VISUAL QUALITY MANUAL

PRIME CONSULTANT - BRIDGE DESIGN:

• COORDINATION WITH DOTD AND TEAM MEMBERS

• DEVELOPMENT OF DESIGN CRITERIA & QC/QA PLAN

• 5 DESIGN TEAMS

• DESIGN OF ALL STEEL BOX GIRDER BRIDGES

• DESIGN OF RAMP EN (SEGMENTAL) BRIDGE PRIME

CONSULTANT

- ROADWAY

DESIGN. • DESIGN OF RAMPS SE, WN (SEGMENTAL)

• PEER REVIEW OF TRC’S BRIDGE DESIGN.

PROJECT TEAM

• DESIGN OF I-220 BRIDGE WIDENING NTB

Associates,

Inc.


PROJECT TIME LINE

• TIMELINE OF EVENTS

7

DATE EVENT

JUN 6, 2006 NTP FOR PRELIMINARY BRIDGE DESIGN

MAY 25, 2007 PROJECT PLACED ON-HOLD

JUL 7, 2011 DOTD, ASBI, TRC – DISCUSS POTENTIAL

IMPLEMENTATION OF SEGMENTAL ALTERNATIVE

JAN 5, 2012

DOTD/TRC STEPS TO MOVE INTO FINAL PLANS

THAT INCLUDE IMPLEMENTATION OF SEGMENTAL

BRIDGE DESIGN

JAN 2, 2013 ADVANCED NTP ISSUED

DEC 6, 2013 PHASE I PS&E SUBMITTAL

FEB 5, 2014 PHASE I LETTING

FEB 14, 2014 PHASE II PS&E SUBMITTAL

APR 30, 2014 PHASE II LETTING


CONSTRUCTION PHASES

8

PHASE I • INTERCHANGE ROADWAYS

• I-49 BRIDGE OVER MLK DR. (4-SPAN PPC GIRDER)

PHASE II • RAMP EN, SE & WN BRIDGES

• I-220 AT RUSSELL RD BRIDGE WIDENING


BRIDGE DESIGN

9

RAMP BRIDGES • Ramp EN:

• Length = 3,070’

• Width = Varies 42.5’ to

64’

• Curvature = 3,500’ Rad.

• Max. Ht. = 80’ (3rd Level)

• Ramp SE:

• Length = 3,300’

• Width = 35.5’

• Curvature = 840’ Radius

• Max. Ht. = 105’ (4th

Level)

• Ramp WN:

• Length = 700’

• Width = 31.5’

• Curvature = 550’ Radius

• Max. Ht. = 60’


BRIDGE DESIGN

10

DUAL DESIGN ALTERNATES • POST-TENSIONED SEGMENTAL CONCRETE

• STEEL TRAPEZOIDAL BOX GIRDERS


BRIDGE DESIGN

11

PROJECT SPECIFIC QC/QA PLAN • DEFINE ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

• REQUIRED PROCEDURES FOR THE QC

AND QA PROCESS

• ADHEARANCE TO CAD STANDARDS

• INDEPENDENT PEER REVIEW

STANDARDIZE DESIGN

METHODOLOGY • COMPREHENSIVE DESIGN CRITERIA

• DESIGN DIRECTIVES – SOFTWARE &

DESIGN APPROACH


BRIDGE DESIGN

12

SUBSTRUCTURE • SIMILAR FOR EACH ALTERNATE

• MULTI-DRILLED SHAFT (66”Φ) FOOTINGS

• HAMMERHEAD BENTS

• STRADDLE BENTS

• CANTILEVER BENT

HAMMERHEAD

BENT STRADDLE BENT

CANTILEVER

BENT


BRIDGE DESIGN - SEGMENTAL ALTERNATE

13

DESIGN METHODOLOGY &

CONSTRUCTIBILITY: • PRECAST SEGMENTAL

• BALANCED CANTILEVER ERECTION

• TEMPORARY SHORING

• ERECTION BY CRANES

• OFFSITE CASTING YARD

• ONE SET OF CASTING MACHINES FOR

ALL SEGMENTS



14

DESIGN METHODOLOGY & CONSTRUCTIBILITY • 732 SEGMENTS

• TYPICAL SEGMENT LENGTH +/-10’

• SPLIT PIER SEGMENTS

• LINEAR HAUNCH AT PIERS

• TYPICAL SPAN LENGTHS:

• +/-250’ INTERIOR SPANS

• +/-160’ END SPANS

TYPICAL SECTION

ELEVATION



15

SEGMENT BOX DESIGN • SAME CORE DIMENSION

• VARYING WING DIMENSION TO ACCOMMODATE DIFFERENT

BRIDGE WIDTH

RAMP EN 50’-11” TO 42’-6”

RAMP SE 35’-6”

RAMP WN 31’-6”

TYPICAL SECTION

BOX 20’-2”



16

POST-TENSIONING SYSTEM • CONTINUITY TENDONS

• CANTILEVER TENDONS

• TEMPORARY & PERMANENT PT BARS

• TRANSVERSE TENDONS

CONTINUITY TENDONS

CANTILEVER TENDONS

BALANCED CANTILEVER

ERECTION



17

SUPERSTRUCTURE

• PRECAST SEG. CONTINUOUS UNITS ARRANGEMENT

RAMP # OF SPANS LENGTH (FT) DESIGN BY

EN 4 803

EN 5 1070

EN 5 1070

SE 8 1900

SE 6 1400

WN 4 700

GENERAL ELEVATION VIEW OF RAMP EN BRIDGE

127’ 160.5’-241’-241’-160.5’ 164’-246’-250’-246’-164’ 164’-246’-250’-246’-164’ UNIT1 = 803’ UNIT2 = 1070’ UNIT3 = 1070’ SPAN1


BRIDGE DESIGN - STEEL ALTERNATE

18

DESIGN METHODOLOGY BRIDGE GEOMETRY SIMILAR TO

THE SEGMENTAL ALTERNATE

TRAPEZOIDAL BOX GIRDERS WITH

STANDARDIZED WEB SLOPE

CONSTANT WEB HEIGHT PER

BRIDGE

SHOP PIECES LIMITED TO 130’ &

170 KIPS

CROSS FRAMES DESIGNED AS

PRIMARY MEMBERS

AASHTO M270 Gr. 50 STEEL

PERMANENT EXTERNAL CROSS

FRAMES



19

C L GIRDER 2

C L GIRDER 1 SECTION A-A

EXTERNAL BRACING

INTERNAL

BRACING

C L BRG

BENT 2

TYP. SE FRAMING PLAN C L SPLICE

TOP FLANGE LATERAL

BRACING (TYP)

INTERNAL “K”

BRACING (TYP)

EXTERNAL

BRACING (TYP)

A

A

C L BRG

BENT 1


ARCHITECTURAL ENHANCEMENTS

PIER DESIGN • SHAPE AND COLOR

• DECORATIVE PANELS AND RUSTICATION

20

SEGMENTAL ALTERNATIVE STEEL

ALTERNATIVE



STRADDLE BENT AND C-BENT

21

STRADDLE BENT C-BENT



DECORATIVE PANELS

• ARTWORK SHOWN FOR REFERENCE ONLY

• FINAL ARTWORK TO BE DETERMINED THROUGH

CALL-TO-ARTISTS AND PROVIDED TO THE

CONTRACTOR TO FABRICATE

22



LIGHTING

• COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT

• COLOR CHANGING OPTION

23


DESIGN CHALLENGES

24

ARCHITECTURAL ENHANCEMENTS – FROM

CONCEPT TO CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS • Agreement between City and State for the Incorporation of

Aesthetics into the Interchange Design

• No Cost / Low Cost Aesthetic Methodology

• Shape

• Color

• Lighting

• Architect Produced – Visual

Quality Manual (VQM) – NOT

Part of the Contract Documents

• Engineer Produced

Bid/Contract Documents


DESIGN CHALLENGES

25


CONCEPT TO CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS • PIER SHAPE

• INITIAL SELECTION OF THEME

• DETERMINATION OF DIMENSIONS


DESIGN CHALLENGES

26


CONCEPT TO CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS • COLOR

• PLANS IDENTIFIED LOCATIONS AND FEDERAL COLOR

NUMBERS

• SPECIAL SURFACE FINISH FOR CONCRETE

• PAINT COLOR FOR STEEL


DESIGN CHALLENGES

27


CONCEPT TO CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS • LIGHTING

• SELECTION OF LIGHTING SYSTEM & LOCATIONS

• PHOTOMETRIC & GLARE ANALYSIS


DESIGN CHALLENGES

28


CONCEPT TO CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS

• DECORATIVE PANELS

• CALL TO ARTISTS FOR

SELECTION OF DESIGN

• PLANS SHOW

LOCATIONS &

CONCEPTUAL DETAILS

• SPECIAL PROVISION

INDICATES

QUALIFICATIONS, TYPE,

ETC…

• VECTOR FILE PROVIDED

TO THE CONTRACTOR


SPECIAL PROVISIONS

29

• A SIGNIFICANT EFFORT FOR SEGMENTAL

ALTERNATIVE

• REVIEWED OTHER STATE DOT’S SPECIFICATION

AND BEST-PRACTICES

• CONSULTED WITH ASBI & PTI, INCORPORATED

LATEST TECHNOLOGY, SPECIFICATION AND

PUBLICATIONS

• USED NON-STANDARD PAY ITEMS:

• PRECAST SEGMENTAL SUPERSTRUCTURE BY

LN. FOOT

• POST-TENSIONING STEEL BY LBS.


COST ESTIMATE AND FINAL BIDS

30

FINAL BID RESULTS-PHASE I • LETTING DATE: 2/5/2014, WINNING BID: $33.2M

RANK BID

ALTERNATIVE BID ESTIMATE

% OVER

ESTIMATE

1 SEGMENTAL $137.8M $135.9M 1.4%

2 SEGMENTAL $143.9M $135.9M 5.9%

3 STEEL $154.2M $129.4M 19.2%

4 SEGMENTAL $159.1M $135.9M 17.1%

FINAL BID RESULTS-PHASE II • LETTING DATE: 4/30/2014

• FINAL BIDS

• TOTAL PROJECT BID COST: $ 17I M


CONSTRUCTION

31

SUBMITTALS

• TYPES • RFI’S

• SHOP DRAWINGS:

• SEGMENT DRAWINGS FOR PRECAST SUPERSTRUCTURE (PIER, HAUNCHED, TYPICAL, EXPANSION & CLOSURE)

• DISC BEARING ASSEMBLIES

• EXPANSION JOINTS

• DECK DRAINAGE

• DECORATIVE PANELS

• TEMPORARY WORKS:

• LIFTING BEAMS,

• STRONGBACKS/CLOSURE BEAMS,

• STRESSING/ACCESS PLATFORMS,

• SHORING TOWERS FOR BALANCE CANTILEVER SUPERSTRUCTURE/STRADDLE BENTS/RAMP EN SPAN 1 CIP SPAN,

• FORMWORK FOR HAMMERHEAD, CANTILEVER AND STRADDLE BENTS, RAMP EN SPAN 1 CIP SPAN AND SEGMENTAL SUPERSTRUCTURE CLOSURE

POURS

• CONSTRUCTION ANALYSIS:

• LONGITUDINAL CONSTRUCTION ANALYSIS – CONTRACTOR’S SCHEDULE, MEANS AND METHODS AND SEQUENCE WITH RESULTING COMPUTER

MODELS TO DETERMINE CAMBER

• TRANSVERSE CONSTRUCTION ANALYSIS – CALCULATIONS SUPPORTING CONTRACTOR’S MEANS AND METHODS FOR TEMPORARY WORKS,

JACKING, TIE-DOWNS, ETC…

• POST-TENSIONING:

• POST-TENSIONING SYSTEM DRAWINGS

• POST-TENSIONING LAYOUT DRAWINGS FOR SEGMENTAL SUPERSTRUCTURE, RAMP EN SPAN 1, STRADDLE BENTS

• TENDON ELONGATIONS/STRESSING DATA (LONGITUDINAL AND TRANSVERSE)

• POST-TENSIONING PLAN/MANUAL

• FRICTION AND WOBBLE TEST DATA

• CASTING YARD SUBMITTALS (PER SPECIAL PROVISIONS) – INCLUDES DETAILS OF SEGMENT CASTING FORMS AND CELLS

• GEOMETRY CONTROL:

• CASTING MANUAL (SEE ATTACHED EXCERPT FROM SPECIAL PROVISIONS)

• UNCAMBERED & CAMBERED SEGMENT GEOMETRY

• AS-CAST SEGMENT GEOMETRY AND CORRECTIONS

• AS-ERECTED SEGMENT GEOMETRY AND CORRECTIONS

• ERECTION MANUAL (SEE ATTACHED EXCERPT FROM SPECIAL PROVISIONS)

• FULL SCALE GROUTING MOCK-UP PLAN

• GROUTING OPERATIONS MANUAL/PLAN

• JACKING PLAN FOR FUTURE BEARING REPLACEMENT

• MATERIAL, VENDOR & PERSONNEL QUALIFICATIONS

• ELECTRICAL/LIGHTING: SHOP DRAWINGS, EQUIPMENT SUBMITTALS AND O&M MANUALS

• ETC…

• TRACKING & DOCUMENTATION


CONSTRUCTION

32

VALUE ENGINEERING PROPOSALS

• CONTRACTOR PROPOSAL FOR

REPLACEMENT OF 60 KSI

REINFORCEMENT WITH 75 KSI

• RE-GRADING POND AND RAISE

FOOTINGS AT EN & WN

• REPLACE RAMP WN BRIDGE WITH

FILL


CONSTRUCTION

33


CONSTRUCTION

34


CONSTRUCTION

35


CONSTRUCTION

36


CONSTRUCTION

37


CONSTRUCTION

38


CONSTRUCTION

39


CONSTRUCTION

40


CONSTRUCTION

41


CONSTRUCTION

42


CONSTRUCTION

43


CONSTRUCTION

44

GROUTING MOCK-UP

• SPECIAL PROVISIONS REQUIRED THE GROUTING MOCK-UP

OF AN ENTIRE CONTINUITY TENDON

• RAMP EN TENDON D1-1 (400’ LENGTH, 13’ HEIGHT)


CONSTRUCTION

45


CONSTRUCTION

46


CONSTRUCTION

47


CONSTRUCTION

48

RAMP SE – BENT 2


CONSTRUCTION

49

• RAMP SE – BENT 2


CONSTRUCTION

50


Construction

51

Decorative Panels


CONSTRUCTION

52

• RAMP EN


QUESTIONS / ANSWERS

53

Durk Krone, P.E., Principal

TRC Engineers, Inc.

8550 United Plaza Boulevard, Suite 502

Baton Rouge, LA 70809

[email protected]

T: 225.216.7483

Follow us LinkedIn Twitter

www.trcsolutions.com

Mike Paul, P.E., Project Manager

TRC Engineers, Inc.

8550 United Plaza Boulevard, Suite 502

Baton Rouge, LA 70809

[email protected]

T: 225.216.7483

Follow us LinkedIn Twitter

www.trcsolutions.com

http://www.linkedin.com/company/7886

http://twitter.com/TRC_Companies

http://www.trcsolutions.com/



http://twitter.com/TRC_Companies

http://www.trcsolutions.com/


Results you can rely on 54

BASEMENT


DESIGN CHALLENGES

55

SEISMIC DESIGN (2012 AASHTO LRFD)

• SEISMIC ZONE 1 (SECTION 3.10.9.2)

• As = 0.06

• CONECTION FORCE = 0.25 x TRIB VERT LOAD

• ADDRESS CONNECTION FORCE

FROM POINT OF

APPLICATION TO THE

FOUNDATION

• OPTIMIZED DESIGN WITH

SEISMIC ANALYSIS 0.00

0.04

0.08

0.12

0.16

0.20

0.24

0.28

0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00

Sa (

g)

PERIOD, T (SEC)

DESIGN RESPONSE SPECTRUM

(Tributary Vertical Load = 0.25)

SDS = 0.15

SD1 = 0.10


DESIGN CHALLENGES

56

BEARING TYPE SELECTION

• POLYETHER URETHANE DISK BEARINGS WITH PTFE

SLIDING SURFACES

BEARING CONFIGURATION & ORIENTATION

• SHORT CHORD MOVEMENT

FIXED UNI DIR. MULTI DIR.


DESIGN CHALLENGES

57

RAMP EN/ES GORE AREA • GEOMETRIC CONSTRICTIONS

• CANTILEVERED APPROACH SLAB

• TAPERED RAMP EN BRIDGE

• GEOTECH. CONSIDERATIONS FOR

MSEw


DESIGN CHALLENGES

58

BRIDGE ABUTMENT ON MSE WALL • 40’ TALL MSEw

• ABUTMENT SPREAD FOOTING (20’x55’x4’)

• LOAD TRANSFER PLATFORM (113’x54’x3’)


CONSTRUCTION

59

POND NEAR RAMPS EN & WN


CONSTRUCTION

60

SEGMENT CASTING YARD



61

• CONSTRUCTION DETAILS • FORMS TO ACCOMMODATE VARIABLE DEPTH

• FORMS TO ACCOMMODATE VARIABLE WIDTH


CONSTRUCTION

62

FLOODING


DESIGN CHALLENGES

63

EXPANSION JOINTS • SELECTION TYPE - FINGER

JOINTS

• DETAILS – CONSIDERATION OF

LONGIT & LATERAL

MOVEMENT

F°

C

6”

6”

A

B

A



64

• SEGMENT BOX DESIGN • PIER SEG. SECTION DEPTH = 13FT

• TYP. SEG. SECTION DEPTH = 9FT

• LINEAR TRANSITION - 5 HAUNCH SEGMENTS EACH SIDE

OF PIER SEGMENT

VARIABLE DEPTH SECTION

9’-0

”

13’-

0”


BRIDGE DESIGN

65

CONCEPTUAL STAGE • INTERACTION BETWEEN ROADWAY & BRIDGE DESIGNERS

• CONCEPTUAL BRIDGE GEOMETRY

• FINAL ROADWAY GEOMETRY



66

• RAMP EN SPAN 1 - C.I.P CONCRETE BOX • VARYING BRIDGE WIDTH, TOO WIDE FOR THE TYPICAL

SEGEMENT DESIGN

• CANTILEVER TO WINGS MATCH SEGMENTAL BRIDGE FOR

AESTHETICS

TYPICAL SECTION

SPAN 1 PLAN VIEW - SPAN 1


LONGITUDINAL MODEL


67

• SEGMENTAL DESIGN

• LONGITUDINAL DESIGN

• COMMERCIALLY AVAILABLE

SOFTWARE PACKAGE

• TIME DEPENDENT

• STAGED CONSTRUCTION

• TENDON GEOMETRY AND

STRESSING SCHEDULE

• TRANSVERSE DESIGN

• 3-D FEM MODEL

• SHELL ELEMENTS

• SEGMENT DESIGN

• 3D FEM & STM MODELS TRANSVERSE-MODEL

X

YZ

Loadcase: 4:LL: Cantilever Tandem

Results file: Transverse_46Width_Final.mys

Entity: Force/Moment - Thick Shell

Component: Mx

13.1687

11.2874

9.40618

7.52494

5.64371

3.76247

1.88124

0.0

-1.88124

Maximum 14.981 at node 2767

Minimum -1.95011 at node 2953



68

POST-TENSIONING DETAILS

• DIABOLOS

zzzz

DIABOLOS LOCATIONS

CONTINUITY TENDONS



69

POST-TENSIONING SYSTEM • CONTINUITY TENDONS WITH DIABOLOS

• CANTILEVER TENDONS



70

C L GIRDER 3 C L GIRDER 1 C L GIRDER 2

VARIES 44’-10 ½” TO 64’-0”

VARIES

13’-5 1/4”

TO 22’-11 5/8”

8’-

0”

1’-

2 3

/4”

VARIES

13’-5 1/4”

TO 22’-11 5/8”

BRIDGE SECTION - RAMP EN - UNIT 1



71

DESIGN SOFTWARE • COMMERCIALLY AVAILABLE GRILLAGE ANALYSIS

SOFTWARE PACKAGE FOR DESIGN PRODUCTION

• VERIFIED GRILLAGE RESULTS WITH 3D FEM MODELS



72

W

RW

S2 S1

C L GIRDER 2 C L GIRDER 1

TYPICAL BOX GIRDER SECTION

RAMP EN SE WN

W (FT) 42.5-44.8 35.5 31.5

RW (FT) 40-42.3 33.0 29.0

D (FT) 8.0 7.5 6.3

S1 (FT) 11.7-12.3 9.17 8.2

S2 (FT) 11.2-12.3 9.17 8.2



73

RAMP EN SE WN

TOTAL LENGTH (FT) 3,070 3,300 700

UNITS 5 4 1

SPANS 15 16 4

MAX. SPAN (FT) 255 230 195

WIDTH VARIES (FT) 42.5 - 64 35.5 31.5


CONSTRUCTION

74

• PROPOSED DESIGN

MODIFICATIONS

• SEGMENTAL ERECTION SCHEME

• DESIGN DOCUMENTS INDICATE

GROUTING BEARINGS AFTER

CLOSURE POURS

• CONTRACTOR PROPOSED TO

GROUT BEARINGS AFTER

ERECTION OF 1D/1U SEGMENTS


CONSTRUCTION

75

• VALUE ENGINEERING PROPOSALS

• RE-GRADING POND AND RAISE FOOTINGS AT SE & WN

• INITIAL PROPOSAL ABANDONED DUE TO GEOTECHNICAL AND

SCHEDULE ISSUES

• SUBSEQUENT PROPOSAL HAD LESSER FOOTING ELEVATION

INCREASES

• REQUIRED RE-DESIGN BY EOR’S

• IMPLICATIONS FOR SEISMIC & POST TENSIONING


CONSTRUCTION

76

• VALUE ENGINEERING PROPOSALS

• REPLACE RAMP WN BRIDGE WITH FILL

• PROPOSAL ABANDONED DUE TO LARGE MAGNITUDES OF

REQUIRED FILL AND UNKNOWN SOIL IMPROVEMENT

REQUIREMENTS


PROJECT TIME LINE

• TIMELINE OF EVENTS

77

DATE EVENT

JAN 2, 2013 ADVANCED NTP ISSUED FOR FINAL DESIGN

DEC 6, 2013 PHASE I - PS&E SUBMITTAL

FEB 5, 2014 PHASE I - LETTING

FEB 14, 2014 PHASE II - PS&E SUBMITTAL

APR 30, 2014 PHASE II - LETTING

APR 28, 2014 PHASE I - NTP FOR CONSTRUCTION

SEP 15, 2014 PHASE II - NTP FOR CONSTRUCTION

JUN 1, 2014 PHASE I - BEGIN CONSTRUCTION

NOV 3, 2014 PHASE II - BEGIN CONSTRUCTION

FEB 1, 2017 PHASE I - ESTIMATED COMPLETION DATE

APR 4, 2017 PHASE II - ESTIMATED COMPLETION DATE

Results you can rely on - Louisiana Transportation … you can rely on AGENDA 3 •PROJECT OVERVIEW...

Documents

Transcript of Results you can rely on - Louisiana Transportation … you can rely on AGENDA 3 •PROJECT OVERVIEW...