bridge alternate type study - stream crossing (09-04-12)v2
TRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: Bridge Alternate Type Study - Stream Crossing (09-04-12)v2](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032421/55a69dc31a28abf67d8b481b/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Structure Type Studies for
Local Infrastructure Managers
![Page 2: Bridge Alternate Type Study - Stream Crossing (09-04-12)v2](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032421/55a69dc31a28abf67d8b481b/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Structure Type Study Reference Paper
![Page 3: Bridge Alternate Type Study - Stream Crossing (09-04-12)v2](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032421/55a69dc31a28abf67d8b481b/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Purpose of the Paper
To give local infrastructure managers a guide and
reference to use when scoping and evaluating a site
for a bridge project.
Ensures all costs and factors are considered,
including life cycle costs.
Real world sites and examples.
First of a 3 Part Series. Eventually 2 more sites will
be investigated.
![Page 4: Bridge Alternate Type Study - Stream Crossing (09-04-12)v2](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032421/55a69dc31a28abf67d8b481b/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Engineers Club of Memphis - 8.22.2011
Why was THIS bridge built here?
![Page 5: Bridge Alternate Type Study - Stream Crossing (09-04-12)v2](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032421/55a69dc31a28abf67d8b481b/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Existing Site, Bridge & Conditions
Situated in a low-land area
Rural character (narrow 10 ft. lanes, no shoulders)
Low Volume ~ 350 vehicles per day (vpd)
Loosely consolidated sandy-silt, silt and clay
Bedrock not encountered in the soil borings
Existing 3-span beam bridge (simple spans)
Steel floor with asphalt fill and wearing surface
Frame-bent piers from steel caps on piles
Built as a temporary structure 30 years prior
Bridge in poor condition and closed
![Page 6: Bridge Alternate Type Study - Stream Crossing (09-04-12)v2](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032421/55a69dc31a28abf67d8b481b/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Hydraulic Conditions
Engineers Club of Memphis - 8.22.2011
Channel was wooded & unmaintained
Woody debris on the piers a maintenance problem
Flooding of approach roadways
Flood level at, or nearly at low-steel elevation
Channel was constricting, as velocities through
channel were 5x greater than up- or downstream
![Page 7: Bridge Alternate Type Study - Stream Crossing (09-04-12)v2](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032421/55a69dc31a28abf67d8b481b/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Existing bridge
![Page 8: Bridge Alternate Type Study - Stream Crossing (09-04-12)v2](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032421/55a69dc31a28abf67d8b481b/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Surrounding low land
Utilities
Rural roadway & character
Farm drive
![Page 9: Bridge Alternate Type Study - Stream Crossing (09-04-12)v2](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032421/55a69dc31a28abf67d8b481b/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
DETOURED! Subsurface Conditions
![Page 10: Bridge Alternate Type Study - Stream Crossing (09-04-12)v2](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032421/55a69dc31a28abf67d8b481b/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Entrenched streamWooded area
Woody debris
![Page 11: Bridge Alternate Type Study - Stream Crossing (09-04-12)v2](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032421/55a69dc31a28abf67d8b481b/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
What goes into Scoping a project
What’s important to consider?
Funding strings? or no funding strings?
What are the goals of the project?
How easy is it going to be to build?
Maintenance - What am I going to be stuck
with?
How long will this bridge be here?
What else is important?
![Page 12: Bridge Alternate Type Study - Stream Crossing (09-04-12)v2](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032421/55a69dc31a28abf67d8b481b/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Goals for the Project
Provide adequate bridge width for facility
Provide adequate span to allow hydraulic clearance
Minimized impacts to profile grade
Minimized in-stream work
Minimize impacted R/W & construction footprints
Minimize detour (closure duration)
Minimize adjacent road damage
Minimize construction risk
Minimize construction costs
![Page 13: Bridge Alternate Type Study - Stream Crossing (09-04-12)v2](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032421/55a69dc31a28abf67d8b481b/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Scope of Proposed Work
Projected Traffic: 500 vpd.
Bridge Width: 11ft lanes plus 4 ft shoulders = 30 ft rail/rail
Approach slabs, guardrail, embankment & pavement
Design Year Flood: 10-year, Low steel = EL 1028.0 ft
Ordinary High Water (OHW) = EL 1024.0 ft.
Increase hyd. opening using 2:1 slopes & spill-thru
abutments
Deep foundations using friction resistance CIP/steel pipe
piles
Over-the-side drainage with splash guards
120 ft. (+/- ) span range
New rock channel protection along end slopes & aprons
Taper improvements into existing
![Page 14: Bridge Alternate Type Study - Stream Crossing (09-04-12)v2](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032421/55a69dc31a28abf67d8b481b/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
What’s left?
Alternates of span configurations?
Alternates of structure types?
![Page 15: Bridge Alternate Type Study - Stream Crossing (09-04-12)v2](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032421/55a69dc31a28abf67d8b481b/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Remaining Variables
Structure Depth
Profile Grade
Impacted Footprint
10-year EL = 1028.0
100-year EL = 1029.6
Exist Span = 90 ft (+/-)
Proposed Span ~ 120 ft
STRUCTURE DEPTH
OHW EL = 1024.0
Normal EL = 1020.0
![Page 16: Bridge Alternate Type Study - Stream Crossing (09-04-12)v2](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032421/55a69dc31a28abf67d8b481b/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Case Study No. 1
Structure Type Study Narrative (21
Pages)
Alternate Descriptions
Life Cycle Cost Analysis
Evaluation Matrix
Evaluation of Alternatives
Evaluation of NPV of Alternatives
Conclusion & Summary
6 Appendices with drawings, cost
estimates, etc.
![Page 17: Bridge Alternate Type Study - Stream Crossing (09-04-12)v2](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032421/55a69dc31a28abf67d8b481b/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Alternatives
Alt. 1 – 3-Span, Cast-in-Place Slab
Alt. 2 – Single Span, P/S AASHTO Girders
Alt. 3 – Single Span, Steel Low (Pony) Truss
Alt. 4 – 3-Span, Composite P/S Concrete Box
Beams
![Page 18: Bridge Alternate Type Study - Stream Crossing (09-04-12)v2](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032421/55a69dc31a28abf67d8b481b/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Basis for Comparisons
Initial Construction
Engineering costs (15% of construction)
Roadway pay items (Appendices A & B)
Bridge pay items (Appendices A & B)
Right-of-way costs
![Page 19: Bridge Alternate Type Study - Stream Crossing (09-04-12)v2](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032421/55a69dc31a28abf67d8b481b/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Basis for Comparisons
Life Cycle Costs
Initial cost to construct
Annual maintenance and inspections
Annual work activities
Minor rehabilitation projects (20 years)
Major rehabilitation projects (50 years)
Residual Values
Net Present Value (NPV)
![Page 20: Bridge Alternate Type Study - Stream Crossing (09-04-12)v2](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032421/55a69dc31a28abf67d8b481b/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
Annual Work Activities
Debris Removal
Bridge Inspection
![Page 21: Bridge Alternate Type Study - Stream Crossing (09-04-12)v2](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032421/55a69dc31a28abf67d8b481b/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
10 Year Work Activities
Silane Sealer
Light Patching
![Page 22: Bridge Alternate Type Study - Stream Crossing (09-04-12)v2](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032421/55a69dc31a28abf67d8b481b/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
50 Year Work Activities
Deck slab replacement
Deck edge replacement
Superstructure replacement
or reconditioning
![Page 23: Bridge Alternate Type Study - Stream Crossing (09-04-12)v2](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032421/55a69dc31a28abf67d8b481b/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
… and also qualitative measures
Temporary construction
Environmental permitting
Ease of delivery
Construction equipment
![Page 24: Bridge Alternate Type Study - Stream Crossing (09-04-12)v2](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032421/55a69dc31a28abf67d8b481b/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
Life Cycle Costs: Net Present Values
Cost basis = 2002 State Bid Tabulations
Design Life Term = 75 years
Interval timeline = 10 years; 20 years; 50 years
Inflation (2002 – 2010) = 135%
Discount rate = 2.7% per year n
NPV = Σ RCFt / (1+i)t
t=0
where:
RCFt
i
n
=
=
=
Real Cash Flow
Annual Discount Rate
term
to calculate NPV:
![Page 25: Bridge Alternate Type Study - Stream Crossing (09-04-12)v2](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032421/55a69dc31a28abf67d8b481b/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
#1 3-Span Concrete Slab Bridge
36 ft - 45 ft - 36 ft spans c/c of bearings
Bridge Limits = 118.3 ft
Project Limits = 450 ft
Structure depth = 2.07 ft (Slab thickness = 22 in.)
Profile grade impacts: similar to existing
Engineering = $113,000
Construction = $753,000
Maintenance: 7 projects in 75 yrs @ $1,332,800
Life Cycle Costs (NPV) = $1,124,115
![Page 26: Bridge Alternate Type Study - Stream Crossing (09-04-12)v2](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032421/55a69dc31a28abf67d8b481b/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
#1 3-Span Concrete Slab Bridge
![Page 27: Bridge Alternate Type Study - Stream Crossing (09-04-12)v2](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032421/55a69dc31a28abf67d8b481b/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
#1 – Three Span Concrete Slab Bridge
Engineers Club of Memphis - 8.22.2011
![Page 28: Bridge Alternate Type Study - Stream Crossing (09-04-12)v2](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032421/55a69dc31a28abf67d8b481b/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
Engineers Club of Memphis - 8.22.2011
![Page 29: Bridge Alternate Type Study - Stream Crossing (09-04-12)v2](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032421/55a69dc31a28abf67d8b481b/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
#2 Single Span Prestressed I-Beam Bridge
Engineers Club of Memphis - 8.22.2011
114 ft span c/c of bearings
Bridge Limits = 117.2 ft
Project Limits = 1,350 ft
Structure depth = 7.07 ft (AASHTO Type IV = 72 in.)
Profile grade impacts: +3.3 ft
Engineering = $145,800
Construction = $972,00
Maintenance: 7 projects in 75 yrs @ $2,155,400
Life Cycle Costs (NPV) = $1,432,261
![Page 30: Bridge Alternate Type Study - Stream Crossing (09-04-12)v2](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032421/55a69dc31a28abf67d8b481b/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
#2 Single Span Prestressed I-Beam Bridge
Engineers Club of Memphis - 8.22.2011
![Page 31: Bridge Alternate Type Study - Stream Crossing (09-04-12)v2](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032421/55a69dc31a28abf67d8b481b/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
#2 Single Span Prestressed I-Beam Bridge
![Page 32: Bridge Alternate Type Study - Stream Crossing (09-04-12)v2](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032421/55a69dc31a28abf67d8b481b/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
![Page 33: Bridge Alternate Type Study - Stream Crossing (09-04-12)v2](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032421/55a69dc31a28abf67d8b481b/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
#3 Single Span Steel Half-Through Truss
116 ft span c/c of bearings
Bridge Limits = 120.0 ft
Project Limits = 450 ft
Structure depth = 3.56 ft (W30 FB + 10 ½” Slab)
Profile grade impacts: similar to existing
Engineering = $104,400
Construction = $835,000
Maintenance: 7 projects in 75 yrs @ $1,886,600
Life Cycle Costs (NPV) = $1,212,231
![Page 34: Bridge Alternate Type Study - Stream Crossing (09-04-12)v2](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032421/55a69dc31a28abf67d8b481b/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
#3 Single Span Steel Half-Through Truss
![Page 35: Bridge Alternate Type Study - Stream Crossing (09-04-12)v2](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032421/55a69dc31a28abf67d8b481b/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
#3 Single Span Steel Half-Through Truss
![Page 36: Bridge Alternate Type Study - Stream Crossing (09-04-12)v2](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032421/55a69dc31a28abf67d8b481b/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
![Page 37: Bridge Alternate Type Study - Stream Crossing (09-04-12)v2](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032421/55a69dc31a28abf67d8b481b/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
#4 3-Span Composite Box Beam Bridge
36 ft - 45 ft - 36 ft spans c/c of bearings
Bridge Limits = 118.5 ft
Project Limits = 450 ft
Structure depth = 2.16 ft (CB17 + 6” Topping)
Profile grade impacts: similar to existing
Engineering = $109,400
Construction = $729,000
Maintenance: 7 projects in 75 yrs @ $1,763,200
Life Cycle Costs (NPV) = $1,188,875
![Page 38: Bridge Alternate Type Study - Stream Crossing (09-04-12)v2](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032421/55a69dc31a28abf67d8b481b/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
#4 3-Span Composite Box Beam Bridge
![Page 39: Bridge Alternate Type Study - Stream Crossing (09-04-12)v2](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032421/55a69dc31a28abf67d8b481b/html5/thumbnails/39.jpg)
#4 3-Span Composite Box Beam Bridge
![Page 40: Bridge Alternate Type Study - Stream Crossing (09-04-12)v2](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032421/55a69dc31a28abf67d8b481b/html5/thumbnails/40.jpg)
![Page 41: Bridge Alternate Type Study - Stream Crossing (09-04-12)v2](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032421/55a69dc31a28abf67d8b481b/html5/thumbnails/41.jpg)
Comparison MatrixComparisons Alternate 1
(3-Span
CIP Slab)
Alternate 2
(1-Span
P/S Girder)
Alternate 3
(1-Span Steel Half
Truss, DOT)
Alternate 4
(3-Span Comp.
Box Beam)
Construction
Cost
(+/- % Min.)
$876,000(3.2%)
$1,143,000(34.7%)
$949,400(11.9%)
$848,400(0.0%)
Life Cycle Cost
(+/- % Min.)$1,124,000
(0.0%)
$1,432,000(27.4%)
$1,212,000(7.8%)
$1,189,000(5.8%)
Total Cost/
SF of Bridge$247/sf $325 /sf $264 /sf $239 /sf
Spans:
Bridge Limits:
Work Limits:
3 spans
118.32 ft
450 ft
1 span
117.16 ft
1,350 ft
1 span
120.0 ft
450 ft
3 spans
118.50 ft
450 ft
Embankment
Rise0.07 ft 3.35 ft -0.09 ft 0.07 ft
![Page 42: Bridge Alternate Type Study - Stream Crossing (09-04-12)v2](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032421/55a69dc31a28abf67d8b481b/html5/thumbnails/42.jpg)
Comparison Matrix, cont’dComparisons Alternate 1
(3-Span
CIP Slab)
Alternate 2
(1-Span
P/S Girder)
Alternate 3
(1-Span Steel Half
Truss, DOT)
Alternate 4
(3-Span Box
Beam)
Hydraulic
Clearance
(10 yr flood)
1.9 ft 0.3 ft 0.3 ft 1.8 ft
Substructure
Units4 2 2 4
Deep
Foundations
4,680 ft
Driven
5,760 ft
Driven
3,960 ft
Driven
4,770 ft
Driven
Environmental
Impacts
ACOE 404 Permit
for pier const.
ACOE 404 temp.
work areaNo work in stream
ACOE 404 Permit
for pier const.
R/W
Impacts
Strip take on 1 side
(ditch)
Strip take on 2
sides (embank &
ditch)
Strip take on 1 side
(ditch)
Strip take on 1 side
(ditch)
![Page 43: Bridge Alternate Type Study - Stream Crossing (09-04-12)v2](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032421/55a69dc31a28abf67d8b481b/html5/thumbnails/43.jpg)
Comparison Matrix, cont’dConstruction
Comparisons
Alternate 1
(3-Span
CIP Slab)
Alternate 2
(1-Span
P/S Girder)
Alternate 3
(1-Span Steel Half
Truss, DOT)
Alternate 4
(3-Span Box
Beam)
Temporary
Works or Areas
Causeway
& form shoring
Work area for lifting
beams
(60T ea.)
noneCauseway to
construct piers
Flood Risk
during Const.High Medium Low Medium
Utilities n/a n/a n/a n/a
Equipment
NeededConcrete pump
500T Crane;
Concrete pump
250T Crane;
Concrete pump
250T Crane;
Concrete pump
Other
Factors
In-stream piers are
susceptible to
debris
Delivery of long
beams; road
damage
Smaller crane lifts;
crane lifts from
roadway
In-stream piers are
susceptible to
debris; smaller
crane lifts
![Page 44: Bridge Alternate Type Study - Stream Crossing (09-04-12)v2](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032421/55a69dc31a28abf67d8b481b/html5/thumbnails/44.jpg)
Conclusions
Based on the owner preference for a clear-span
bridge, the lowest cost one-span bridge is the steel
low-truss bridge. This is, in fact, what the owner
selected, and the structure was constructed in 2002.
The premium to do the selected alternative over
least cost alternative is $101,000 (initial costs) which
is reduced over time to a Net Present Value premium
of only $23,000 (75 years).