The Rehabilitation Alternative
Huey P. Long Bridge Case Study
Bruce E. Peterson, P.E.
Project Manager
Modjeski and Masters, Inc.
March 22, 2010
Introduction
•
Replacement vs. Rehabilitation
•
Project Background
•
4 Construction Contracts
– Main Bridge – Substructure
– Main Bridge – Superstructure
Truss Widening
– Railroad Modifications
– Approaches and Main Bridge
Deck Widening
EXISTING
BREAK
•
Project Status
– Project Timeline
– Construction Photographs
PROPOSED WIDENING
Replacement vs. Rehabilitation
Bridge construction represents a large capital investment.
Through time, all bridges receive “routine maintenance”.
However, eventually they must be replaced or rehabilitated.
Beyond the obvious difference in cost, there are other
significant differences between these two approaches.
How is the decision made?
What influences the choice between these two alternatives?
Replacement vs. Rehabilitation
Louisiana Dept. of Transportation and Development
(LADOTD)
Methodology for Selecting and Programming Bridges for
Replacement and Rehabilitation
Priority for the selection of bridges for replacement or
rehabilitation with Federal bridge replacement funds based
on three (3) parameters:
1. Structural adequacy
2. Functional adequacy and serviceability
3. Essential for public use
Replacement vs. Rehabilitation
The three parameters are based on the following information:
1. Structural deficiency
2. Posted bridges (weight limits below statutory limits)
3. Traffic count (ADT)
4. Class of highway
5. Available detour routes
6. Bridge geometry (particularly bridges < 20 ft. wide)
7. Bridge inspection reports
8. Local district recommendations for replacement
(submitted annually)
Replacement vs. Rehabilitation
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) formula for prioritizing
bridges
Overall rating called a “sufficiency rating”
Sufficiency rating assigns a numeric value ranging from 0 to
100 to a given bridge with the following percentage points
applied to each parameter
ITEM
WEIGHT
Structural Adequacy
55 %
Functional Adequacy and
Serviceability
30 %
Essential For Public Use
15 %
Replacement vs. Rehabilitation
Requirement for replacement:
•
Sufficiency Rating < 50
•
Classification as structurally deficient or functionally
obsolete
Requirement for rehabilitation:
•
Sufficiency Rating < 80
Replacement vs. Rehabilitation
As previously noted there are three elements to the Sufficiency
Rating
1. Structural Adequacy
2. Functional Adequacy and Serviceability
3. Essential for Public Use
Let’s examine each in detail.
Replacement vs. Rehabilitation
Structural Adequacy
Most important factor in evaluation process as a bridge failure
could be catastrophic
Determined from:
•
List of posted bridges (bridges with load restrictions)
•
Bridge inspection reports
•
Local district recommendations
Replacement vs. Rehabilitation
Functional Adequacy and Serviceability
Bridge geometry a key element
•
Clear roadway width most important factor
•
Narrow bridges, if structurally adequate, can be widened
rather than replaced
Determined from:
•
Bridge inspection reports
•
Local district recommendations
Replacement vs. Rehabilitation
Functional Adequacy and Serviceability (con’d)
Serviceability is related to factors such as
•
Stream scour
•
Maintenance for movable bridges
•
Deck deterioration
Other important factors include frequency and severity of
marine, railroad, and automotive traffic accidents
Replacement vs. Rehabilitation
Essential For Public Use
Determined by the:
•
Traffic count (ADT)
•
Class of highway
•
Available detour routes
Structural and functional adequacy of the bridge is evaluated
with the traffic count in order to minimize exposure to
unsafe conditions
Example: two bridges with the same degree of
inadequacy, the one with the higher traffic volume
would receive the higher priority
Replacement vs. Rehabilitation
Essential For Public Use (con’d)
Bridges located on a truck or school bus route or crosses a
major river or stream receive extra attention
Non-redundant routes (no available detours) receive a higher
priority than bridges on redundant routes
Replacement vs. Rehabilitation
How Select?
Numerous rational methods available
Recommended procedure for State of Louisiana
1. Compile 3 lists
•
Bridges with lowest sufficiency rating
•
Bridges with the highest priority based on local district
recommendations
•
Bridges that are most severely posted for load
restrictions
2. Generally, if a bridge makes all three lists, it will have a high
priority for replacement
Replacement vs. Rehabilitation
Sufficiency Rating
Posted Bridges List
STRUCTURAL
ADEQUACY
Sufficiency Rating
FUNCTIONAL
Bridge Geometry,
ADEQUACY AND
Accidents, etc.
SERVICEABILITY
Bridge Inspection Report
District Recommendations
Bridge Inspection Report
District Recommendations
Available Detour Routes
Sufficiency Rating
ESSENTIALLITY
Highway Class and
TO THE PUBLIC
District Recommendations
Traffic Type
Traffic Count (ADT)
FINAL ORDER
OF PRIORITY
Source: LADOTD Bridge Design Manual
Replacement vs. Rehabilitation
Other Considerations - Replacement
Pros:
Cons:
1. New structure would meet all current
standards
1. Potential for greater environmental
impacts
•
Loads
2. Potential for greater costs
•
Geometry
3. Potential need for more right-of-way
•
Highway standards
4. Can require time for public to agree on
a location and other impacts related to
a new structure
2. New Construction
•
Do not have to connect new
components with existing ones.
•
Reduced potential for
“surprises” during construction
3. Estimating construction cost
potentially more accurate
5. Can take more time from start of
planning to final completion and
delivery to public
6. Removal of an historic structure
Replacement vs. Rehabilitation
Other Considerations - Rehabilitation
Pros:
Cons:
1. Have the potential to reuse existing
elements, thus saving time and
money
1. Increased potential for problems and
unknown discoveries with the existing
structure
2. Potentially less environmental
impacts
2. Greater demands on determination of
existing conditions, details, geometry,
etc. in order to produce accurate plans
3. Potentially less right-of-way
requirements
4. Can fix some “legacy issues” that do
not meet current standards or are
less than desirable
3. Ability to meet all current standards
may be difficult
4. Accurate estimation of construction
costs can be difficult
5. Modification of an historic structure
Replacement vs. Rehabilitation
Other Considerations (con’d)
Environmental
• Historic structure?
• Impacts?
Remaining life of structure
• Structural condition (corrosion) and capacity
• Remaining fatigue life
Replacement vs. Rehabilitation
Other Considerations (con’d)
Owner’s Concerns and Issues
1. Time required to perform the work
2. Funding
•
Available local funding?
•
Federal funds available?
3. Public
•
Wants the work completed “yesterday”
•
Does not want to be inconvenienced during the work
•
Low cost (no increased direct costs; e.g.. taxes, tolls, etc.)
•
While doing this work, why not fix these other problems and/or
address other needs....”it’s only a little more $$” (scope creep)
Replacement vs. Rehabilitation
Where does the Huey P. Long Bridge fit within this
criteria?
Structurally Adequacy? - GOOD
•
Excellent condition; adequate strength
•
Reduced fatigue life of stringers and floorbeam brackets
Functionally Adequacy and Serviceability? - POOR
•
18 feet wide roadways
•
Barriers not current standards
Essential For Public Use? - ESSENTIAL
•
Few Mississippi River crossings in metro region; essential for
highway traffic
•
Only rail crossing of Miss. River south of Baton Rouge
Location
New Orleans Metro Area
Huey P. Long Bridge
French
Quarter
Before the Bridge
Before the Bridge
Construction of The Existing Bridge
Construction of The Existing Bridge
Construction of The Existing Bridge
Construction of The Existing Bridge
Construction of The Existing Bridge
Construction of The Existing Bridge
Background – Huey P. Long Bridge
• Completed in December 1935, the bridge is
one of the longest railroad bridges in the world.
Background – Huey P. Long Bridge
• Combined
railroad –
highway
bridge
– 2 tracks
– 4 lanes – 9 ft.
width
Background – Huey P. Long Bridge
• Very heavily
built
• Carries largest
modern RR
load without
distress
• Many years of
service life
remaining
Project Background
• By widening the existing
structure rather than
constructing a new river
crossing:
– Reduce environmental
impact, property takings.
– Reduce project cost.
– Reuse existing right-ofway and traffic corridors.
• Final report published
April 1988.
Project Background
EXISTING
PROPOSED WIDENING
Project Background
1982
Study of new bridge in corridor; 5 alternates considered.
High cost and large amount of ROW; project dropped.
1986
LADOTD authorized M&M to perform conceptual widening study.
3 widening alternates considered.
1990
Geotechnical investigation of soil capacity under caissons.
19921996
Preliminary Design Main Bridge; Fatigue Evaluation.
Line and Grade Study Approaches.
19992000
Environmental Processing
Agency Consensus
20002007
Completion of final design plans; main bridge widening, railroad
modifications, and approaches,
Construction main bridge substructure widening, railroad
2006Present modifications, and main bridge superstructure widening.
Huey P. Long Widening Project
START PROJECT
WEST BANK RR MOD
EAST BANK APPR.
END PROJECT
WEST BANK
APPR.
EAST BANK RR MOD
MAIN BRIDGE PIER, TRUSS, AND
DECK WIDENING
Main Bridge Pier Widening
START PROJECT
WEST BANK RR MOD
EAST BANK APPR.
END PROJECT
WEST BANK
APPR.
EAST BANK RR MOD
MAIN BRIDGE PIER, TRUSS, AND
DECK WIDENING
Main Bridge Pier Widening
EXISTING
Pier A
Piers I & II
Pier III
Pier IV
PROPOSED WIDENING
Widened Pier
Steel
Frame
Upper
Encase
Lower
Encase
Caisson
Widened Pier - Details
• The upper portion of
the pier widening is
composed of a steel
frame.
• The steel frame significantly reduces the loads on
the pier by eliminating concrete and permits the
center bearing to be jacked, relieving load from the
exterior bearings.
• This is beneficial by reducing load on the end faces
of the existing concrete distribution block on top of
the existing caisson.
Widened Pier - Details
• The steel frame will
also permit more
accurate setting and
adjustment of the final
bearing elevations after
the lower encasement
is poured.
• Inspection access will be provided for the steel metalwork
in the upper portion of the pier widening.
Widened Pier - Details
Constructability of Pier Frame
• Must be constructed around existing pier
• No construction access from above due to
existing superstructure
• Staged construction
• Key splice locations.
Widened Pier - Details
The lower portion of the
encasement serves
several functions
• The nose areas are
columns to support the
widening truss support
bearings.
• The remainder confines the existing pier concrete
and granite masonry blocks which currently has
minimal reinforcing.
Widened Pier - Details
Widened Pier - Details
Strength of the Existing Concrete
• One of the major questions for widening the
substructure was the strength of the existing
concrete.
• Existing concrete was specified for 2000 psi.
• Based on construction records, actual strength
much higher
• Using methods to estimate moderate amount of
additional concrete strengthening with aging,
4000 psi could be used with confidence for the
strength of the existing concrete.
Strength of the Existing Concrete
PIER AND CAISSON CONCRETE STRENGTHS
LOCATION
1930
2000 - 1
2000 - 2
USED
Piers
3,800
4,500
8,800
4,000
Caisson
3,300
3,870
7,565
3,800
2000-1 = ACI Committee 209, “Prediction of Creep, Shrinkage, and
Temperature Effects in Concrete Structures” (ACI 209R-92)
2000-2 = Properties of Concrete” by A. M. Neville
Existing Pier Conditions
Underwater Acoustic Inspection performed April 2006 by C.
H. Fenstermaker & Associates.
Piers I, II, III, & IV examined and found to be in good
condition.
The equipment provided detailed information of the existing
conditions.
Examination though the use of a diver would be more costly,
must be performed in extreme low to no visibility, and is
dangerous.
Existing Pier Conditions
Pier I – North Face
Existing Pier Conditions
Pier II – West Nose
Main Bridge Truss Widening
START PROJECT
WEST BANK RR MOD
EAST BANK APPR.
END PROJECT
WEST BANK
APPR.
EAST BANK RR MOD
MAIN BRIDGE PIER, TRUSS, AND
DECK WIDENING
Main Bridge Truss Widening
Cantilever Truss Span
Simple
Through
Truss Span
EXISTING
PROPOSED WIDENING
Cross Sections – Existing Bridge
Widened Main Bridge Features
•
2 new trusses added, parallel
to existing trusses.
•
Roadways widened from 18
ft. to 43 ft.
•
Currently:
•
Proposed:
lanes
2 – 9 ft. lanes
No offset
3 – 11 ft.
8 ft. shoulder
2 ft. offset
Nomenclature
• Normal terminology
for truss bridges
would be U.S. & D.S.
trusses.
• Widened HPL Bridge
is a multiple truss
plane structure
–
–
–
–
U.S. Widening Truss
U.S. Existing Truss
D.S. Existing Truss
D.S. Widening Truss
2D versus 3D Analysis and Design
Traditional Truss Analysis (2D)
• Vertical loads, e.g. D & L, supported by main (vertical)
trusses
• Transverse loads, e.g. W, supported by top and bottom
lateral trusses, sway frames, and portals
2D versus 3D Analysis and Design
3 Dimensional Analysis Used
• Widened bridge is multiple truss plane
system
• 3D analysis reflects the reality of the
structure and its behavior
• Load sharing will occur and it is beneficial
• Members not normally supporting live load
will have live loads
• Need to know the amount of live load in
non-traditional live load supporting
members.
2D versus 3D Analysis and Design
3D SAP Computer Model
Floorbeam and Hangers
• Superposition needed to
solve final forces in the
existing and widened
hangers
• Moment and sequence of
construction affect forces
Construction and Erection
• Method and Sequence
of Construction
provided in Contract
Plans
• Contractor proposed
option also available in
contract plans
• Contractor proposed
his own method
Maintenance of Traffic Through Construction
• Marine Traffic Maintained
– same vertical and horizontal
clearances
• Rail Traffic Maintained
• Vehicular Traffic Maintained
– by use of staged construction
Main Bridge
Maintenance of Traffic
WORK PERFORMED IN
TRUSS WIDENING
CONTRACT
Main Bridge
Maintenance of Traffic - Stage 1
WORK PERFORMED IN
TRUSS WIDENING
CONTRACT
Main Bridge
Maintenance of Traffic - Stage 2
WORK PERFORMED IN
TRUSS WIDENING
CONTRACT
PREVIOUS STAGE
Main Bridge
Maintenance of Traffic - Stage 3
WORK PERFORMED IN
TRUSS WIDENING
CONTRACT
PREVIOUS STAGE
Main Bridge
Maintenance of Traffic - Stage 4
WORK PERFORMED IN
APPROACH AND DECK
WIDENING CONTRACT
PREVIOUS STAGE
Main Bridge
Maintenance of Traffic - Stage 4 - 5
SWITCH TRAFFIC
Main Bridge
Maintenance of Traffic - Stage 5
WORK PERFORMED IN
APPROACH AND DECK
WIDENING CONTRACT
PREVIOUS STAGE
Main Bridge
Maintenance of Traffic - Stage 6
WORK PERFORMED IN
APPROACH AND DECK
WIDENING CONTRACT
PREVIOUS STAGE
Main Bridge
Maintenance of Traffic - Stage 7
WORK PERFORMED IN
APPROACH AND DECK
WIDENING CONTRACT
PREVIOUS STAGE
Deflection Issues
• Top laterals, bottom
laterals, sway
frames, and portal
frames must hinge
to permit movement
• Erect rigid part over
roadways open to
traffic; hinge
remaining part.
Railroad Modifications - Westbank
START PROJECT
WEST BANK RR MOD
EAST BANK APPR.
END PROJECT
WEST BANK
APPR.
EAST BANK RR MOD
MAIN BRIDGE PIER, TRUSS, AND
DECK WIDENING
Railroad Modifications - Westbank
Project Site
Railroad
LA 18
EXISTING
Hwy. 90
Huey P. Long Widening Project
Westbank Railroad Modifications
18
LA
Y 90
US HW
To Huey P. Long Bridge
Existing Site Conditions
Huey P. Long Widening Project
Westbank Railroad Modifications
Replacement Support
18
LA
tur
Fu
w
ad
o
eR
ay
Y 90
US HW
To Huey P. Long Bridge
Final Site Conditions
Huey P. Long Widening Project
Westbank Railroad Modifications
Huey P. Long Widening Project
Westbank Railroad Modifications
Huey P. Long Widening Project
Westbank Railroad Modifications
1.
Construct foundations for new
cross girders
2.
Install falsework to lift existing
girder spans
3.
Begin 24 hour rail traffic closure
4.
Lift existing girder spans off steel
tower
5.
Remove upper portion steel tower
6.
Erect cross girders
7.
Lower existing girder spans onto
new cross girders
8.
Restore rail traffic
9.
Remove remaining portion of steel
tower
24 HOUR RAIL CLOSURE
Westbank
Sequence of Construction
Railroad Modifications - Eastbank
START PROJECT
WESTBANK RR MOD
EASTBANK APPR.
END PROJECT
WESTBANK
APPR.
EASTBANK RR MOD
MAIN BRIDGE PIER, TRUSS, AND
DECK WIDENING
Railroad Modifications - Eastbank
Clearview Pkwy.
EXISTING
Project Site
Jefferson Hwy
Huey P. Long Widening Project
Eastbank Railroad Modifications
Gas
ant
Vac ation
St
y.
Pkw
w
rvie
Clea
Power Poles & Power Line
dge
. Long Bri
Jeffers
on Hw
y.
To Huey P
QWEST Line
Existing Site Conditions
Existing Superstructure
and Towers to be
Replaced
Huey P. Long Widening Project
Eastbank Railroad Modifications
New Bents
. Long Bri
dge
Jeffers
on Hw
y.
To Huey P
Gas
ant
Vac ation
St
y.
Pkw
w
rvie
Clea
d
ate
v
le
e E way
r
u
t
d
Fu Roa
tur
u
F
w
ad
o
eR
ay
Final Site Conditions
QWEST Line
Huey P. Long Widening Project
Eastbank Railroad Modifications
1.
Construct new concrete straddle
bents
2.
Prepare steel tower and other
falsework
3.
Begin 24 hour rail traffic closure
4.
Remove girders under one of the
tracks
5.
Erect new girders for one track
6.
Re-establish track
7.
Restore rail traffic
8.
Repeat girder replacement for
other track (Steps 3 – 7 above)
9.
Remove steel tower
24 HOUR RAIL
CLOSURE
Eastbank
Sequence of Construction
Approaches & Deck Widening
START PROJECT
WEST BANK RR MOD
EAST BANK APPR.
END PROJECT
WEST BANK
APPR.
EAST BANK RR MOD
MAIN BRIDGE PIER, TRUSS, AND
DECK WIDENING
Approaches & Deck Widening
Bridge City Ave.
Interchange
Start Project
WEST BANK
APPROACH
Conflict w/
Existing Rdwy
Approaches & Deck Widening
Cantilever Truss Span
Simple
Through
Truss Span
EXISTING
PROPOSED WIDENING
Approaches & Deck Widening
Jefferson Hwy
Interchange
End Project
NOPBRR Spur
Conflict w/
Existing Rdwy
EAST BANK
APPROACH
Approaches & Deck Widening
Approaches & Deck Widening
EB APPR.
EB APPR.
Approaches & Deck Widening
Created using Google SketchUp
Approaches & Deck Widening
W.P.
CAP
TRUMPET
TRUMPET PC
COLUMN
FOUNDATION
Approaches & Deck Widening
184 - TOTAL SUBSTRUCTURE UNITS
123 - 4’ X 6’ COLUMN BENTS
8’ x 14’
8’ x 12’
6’ x 12’
4’ x 6’
Approaches & Deck Widening
Column Type 4: 8’ x 14’
Column Type 3: 8’ x 12’
Column Type 2: 6’ x 12’
Column Type 1: 4’ x 6’
Approaches & Deck Widening
Trumpet for 8’ x
14’ Columns
Trumpets for 6’
& 8’ x 12’
columns
Trumpet for 4’
x 6’ columns
8’ x 14’
8’ x 12’
6’ x 12’
4’ x 6’
Approaches & Deck Widening
Adjust Footing Depth As Necessary
Typical
Bent
Full
Height
Trumpet
SubTrumpet
Size 1
SubTrumpet
Size 2
Main Bridge Deck Widening
WORK PERFORMED IN
APPROACH CONTRACT
Approaches & Deck Widening
West Bank Approach - West Bank Bound
East Bank Approach - East Bank Bound
Approaches & Deck Widening
WB APPR.
Location of West Bank
Steel Girder Spans
West Bank Approach
East Bank Bound
Approaches & Deck Widening
EB APPR.
Location of East Bank
Steel Girder Spans
East Bank Approach
West Bank Bound
Approaches & Deck Widening
Approaches & Deck Widening
SWITCH TRAFFIC
Project Timeline
Project Schedule
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Main Bridge Substructure
Railroad Modifications
Superstructure Fabrication & Erection
Approaches & Main Bridge Re-decking
• Work Completed
– Railroad Modifications
– Main Bridge Pier Widening
• Work Under Construction
– Main Bridge Truss Widening
– West Bank Approach, Main Bridge Deck Widening,
East Bank Approach
2013
Project Status – Completed
Main Bridge Pier Widening
• Letting Date:
– December 14, 2005
• Notice To Proceed Date:
– April 10, 2006
• Construction Bid:
– $ 98,826,907
• Contractor:
– Massman Construction Co.
Main Bridge Pier Widening
EXISTING
Pier A
Piers I & II
Pier III
Pier IV
PROPOSED WIDENING
Main Bridge Pier Widening
Main Bridge Pier Widening
Main Bridge Pier Widening
Main Bridge Pier Widening
Main Bridge Pier Widening
Distribution
Block
Main Bridge Pier Widening
Main Bridge Pier Widening
Main Bridge Pier Widening
Main Bridge Pier Widening
Main Bridge Pier Widening
Main Bridge Pier Widening
Main Bridge Pier Widening
Main Bridge Pier Widening
Main Bridge Pier Widening
Main Bridge Pier Widening
Main Bridge Pier Widening
Main Bridge Pier Widening
Main Bridge Pier Widening
Main Bridge Pier Widening
G&G Steel
New Orleans
Main Bridge Pier Widening
Main Bridge Pier Widening
Main Bridge Pier Widening
Main Bridge Pier Widening
Main Bridge Pier Widening
Main Bridge Pier Widening
Main Bridge Pier Widening
Main Bridge Pier Widening
Main Bridge Pier Widening
Main Bridge Pier Widening
Main Bridge Pier Widening
Main Bridge Pier Widening
Main Bridge Pier Widening
Main Bridge Pier Widening
Main Bridge Pier Widening
Main Bridge Pier Widening
Project Status - Completed
Railroad Modifications
• Letting Date:
– May 10, 2006
• Notice To Proceed Date:
– August 28, 2006
• Construction Bid:
– $ 13,782,713
• Contractor:
– Boh Bros. Construction Co.
Railroad Modifications - Westbank
Project Site
Railroad
LA 18
EXISTING
Hwy. 90
Railroad Modifications - Westbank
Railroad Modifications - Westbank
Railroad Modifications - Westbank
Railroad Modifications - Westbank
G&G Steel
New Orleans
Railroad Modifications - Westbank
Railroad Modifications - Westbank
Railroad Modifications - Westbank
Railroad Modifications - Westbank
Railroad Modifications - Westbank
Railroad Modifications - Westbank
Railroad Modifications - Westbank
Railroad Modifications - Eastbank
Clearview Pkwy.
EXISTING
Project Site
Jefferson Hwy
Railroad Modifications - Eastbank
Railroad Modifications - Eastbank
Huey P. Long Widening Project
Eastbank Railroad Modifications
Railroad Modifications - Eastbank
Railroad Modifications - Eastbank
Railroad Modifications - Eastbank
Railroad Modifications - Eastbank
Railroad Modifications - Eastbank
Railroad Modifications - Eastbank
Railroad Modifications - Eastbank
Railroad Modifications - Eastbank
Railroad Modifications - Eastbank
Project Status – Under Construction
Main Bridge Truss Widening
• Letting Date:
– March 28, 2007
• Notice to Proceed Date:
– November 5, 2007
• Construction Bid:
– $ 452,605,568
• Contractor:
– Massman Construction Co., Traylor Brothers
Inc., and IHI, Inc.
Main Bridge Truss Widening
Cantilever Truss Span
Simple
Through
Truss Span
EXISTING
PROPOSED WIDENING
Main Bridge Truss Widening
Industrial Steel
Construction
Gary, IN
New Orleans
Main Bridge Truss Widening
Truss Monitoring
STATIC MONITORING
SYSTEM
– 433 Members (777
Vibrating Wire Strain
Gages)
– 5 Piers (10 Vibrating
Wire Tilt Meters)
– Wind
Speed/Direction
DYNAMIC (LIVE LOAD)
MONITORING
SYSTEM
– 31 Members (50
Electrical Resistance
Strain Gages)
Main Bridge Truss Widening
Work Platform
Main Bridge Truss Widening
Work Platform
Main Bridge Truss Widening
Floorbeam Modifications
Template Fit Up Check
Main Bridge Truss Widening
Floorbeam Modifications
Installation of Wedge Fill
Main Bridge Truss Widening
Floorbeam Modifications
Installation of Wedge Fill
Main Bridge Truss Widening
Work on Existing Structure – Bottom Chord
Main Bridge Truss Widening
Work on Existing Structure – Top Chord
Main Bridge Truss Widening
Widening Truss Bottom Laterals
Main Bridge Truss Widening
Remove Existing Sidewalk – Install Temporary Steel Barrier
Main Bridge Truss Widening
Main Bridge Erection - Methods
A
B
A = “Stick Build”
A
B
B = “Span by Span”
B
Main Bridge Truss Widening
Main Bridge Erection
Main Bridge Truss Widening
Main Bridge Erection
Main Bridge Truss Widening
Main Bridge Erection
Main Bridge Truss Widening
Main Bridge Erection
Main Bridge Truss Widening
Main Bridge Erection
Main Bridge Truss Widening
Main Bridge Erection
Main Bridge Truss Widening
Main Bridge Erection
Main Bridge Truss Widening
Main Bridge Erection
Main Bridge Truss Widening
Main Bridge Erection
December 2009
Main Bridge Truss Widening
Main Bridge Erection
December 2009
Main Bridge Truss Widening
Contractor’s Erection Scheme – “Span by Span” Erection
•
•
•
East Anchor Arm
Suspended Span
Through Truss
Span
Project Status – Under Construction
West Bank Approach, Main Bridge Deck
Widening, East Bank Approach
• Letting Date:
– March 19, 2008
• Notice to Proceed Date:
– May 5, 2008
• Construction Bid:
– $ 433,950,000
• Contractor:
– Kiewit Massman Traylor Constructors
Approaches & Deck Widening
START PROJECT
WEST BANK RR MOD
EAST BANK APPR.
END PROJECT
WEST BANK
APPR.
EAST BANK RR MOD
MAIN BRIDGE PIER, TRUSS, AND
DECK WIDENING
Approaches & Deck Widening
Box Culverts
Approaches & Deck Widening
At Grade Roadways – West Bank
Approaches & Deck Widening
Foundations - Westbank
Approaches & Deck Widening
Foundations - Westbank
Approaches & Deck Widening
Substructure - Westbank
Approaches & Deck Widening
Substructure Westbank
Approaches & Deck Widening
Superstructure
- Westbank
Approaches & Deck Widening
Superstructure
- Westbank
Approaches & Deck Widening
Superstructure
- Westbank
Approaches & Deck Widening
Superstructure - Westbank
Approaches & Deck Widening
Superstructure - Westbank
Approaches & Deck Widening
Superstructure - Westbank
Approaches & Deck Widening
Superstructure - Westbank
Approaches & Deck Widening
Substructure – Pier IVA
Created using
Google SketchUp
Approaches & Deck Widening
Substructure – Pier IVA
The Rehabilitation Alternative
Huey P. Long Bridge Case Study
Q&A
1.
Priority for the selection of bridges for replacement or rehabilitation with Federal
bridge replacement funds based on three parameters. Name them.
?
2.
Of the three parameters above, which is given the highest weight?
?
3.
What Sufficiency Rating is required for replacement?
?
4.
Bridge geometry is a key element of Functional Adequacy and Serviceability.
What is the most important factor within bridge geometry?
?
5.
For the case study project, name one key design challenge?
?
6.
For the case study project, how was approach bent formwork simplified?
?
Q&A
1.
Priority for the selection of bridges for replacement or rehabilitation with Federal
bridge replacement funds based on three parameters. Name them.
Structural adequacy, functional adequacy and serviceability, and
essential for public use.
2.
Of the three parameters above, which is given the highest weight?
Structural adequacy
3.
What Sufficiency Rating is required for replacement?
< 50
4.
Bridge geometry is a key element of Functional Adequacy and Serviceability.
What is the most important factor within bridge geometry?
Clear roadway width
5.
For the case study project, name one key design challenge?
Maintenance of traffic, deflection between existing and widened
structures, not imposing deflection induced loads into the existing
bridge.
6.
For the case study project, how was approach bent formwork simplified?
2/3’s of the forms were the same, and the rest required only simple
formwork changes