STATE OF NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Transcription

1 STATE OF NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION PRELIMINARY DESIGN SUBMISSION REPORT For U.S. Route 130 Over Raccoon Creek Bridge Township of Logan Gloucester County, New Jersey Prepared By: Structural Design Unit Division of Design Services New Jersey Department of Transportation September

2 PRELIMINARY DESIGN SUBMISSION REPORT U.S. Route 130 Over Raccoon Creek Bridge Township of Logan Gloucester County, New Jersey Table of Contents I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION.. 3 A. Location B. Existing Bridge 3 C. Project Assignment.. 3 D. Initially Preferred Alternative II. PROPOSED STRUCTURES A. U.S. Route 130 over Raccoon Creek. 5 i) Proposed Bridge.. 5 ii) Design Standards 6 iii) Bridge Elements Selection Design Considerations Design Alternatives.. 7 a) Bridge Spans 7 b) Bridge Superstructure Alternatives Prestressed Concrete Girders Steel Girders Comparison of Alternatives Recommendation. 10 c) Bridge Substructure Alternatives 10 B. Retaining Walls 11 C. Overhead Sign Structure.. 11 Page No. 2

3 I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION A. Location The Bridge over Raccoon Creek is located along U.S. Route 130 at milepost The project is located in Logan Township, Gloucester County. B. Existing Bridge The existing bridge (Structure No ) was constructed in 1940, and is a 5-span bridge with one through girder/floor beam/stringer vertical lift span and two south and two north concrete encased steel multi-girder approach spans on concrete abutments and piers. The bridge has a total length of The width of the bridge is The thru-girder lift span has a length of 86 center-to-center of the bearings. The main span s deck lifts vertically to allow watercrafts to navigate along Raccoon Creek past U.S. Route 130. The structure currently has a vertical navigational clearance of 6 feet above mean high water elevation in closed position and 64 feet when the bridge is opened. The overall condition of the bridge is evaluated as being in poor condition and structurally deficient according to the Bridge Re-evaluation Report, Cycle 15, dated November 17, The superstructure is in poor condition due to the deteriorated condition of the superstructure steel in the lift span. Underwater Bridge Survey Report of February 27, 2009 indicated that the bridge appears to be vulnerable to minor to moderate scour damage at all sub-structure elements. C. Project Assignment The Problem Statement indicated the U.S. Route 130 Bridge over Raccoon Creek has an overall condition listed as serious and has deteriorated to the point that it requires replacement or rehabilitation. Following the Problem Statement, the Concept Development Report was completed by McCormick Taylor, Inc. to further assess the needs and deficiencies of the bridge. The Feasibility Assessment phase was initiated by McCormick Taylor, Inc. following Concept Development. Several alternatives were developed to address the deficient structure, safety concerns, and access issues. The alternatives evaluated during Feasibility Assessment included structure rehabilitation, movable structures, fixed span structures, existing alignment, and new alignment. These alternatives were developed, evaluated, and refined based on several meetings with the Subject Matter Experts of New Jersey Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Delaware River Port Authority, Logan Township officials, marina owners, and residents. After evaluating different alternatives, it was determined that U.S. Route 130 over Raccoon Creek Bridge requires total replacement due to the poor condition of the superstructure/substructure, unknown existing foundation capacities, and vulnerability to scour damage. 3

4 The existing structure has a vertical navigational clearance of 6 feet above the mean high water elevation in the closed position and 64 feet when the bridge is opened for navigation traffic. Upstream along the Raccoon Creek, the next bridge is the I-295 Bridge over Raccoon Creek with the highest fixed navigational vertical clearance of 25 feet. Based on the information gathered from the vessel survey and the meetings with representatives from the local marine businesses in the vicinity of Raccoon Creek, it was determined that a 25 feet vertical clearance would be reasonable to accommodate the vast majority of the water craft passing below the new structure. A Resolution of Support from Logan Township was received by the Department on December 19, The New Jersey State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) agreed with NJDOT that due to unknown capacity and quality of concrete of the existing substructure, the bridge should be replaced rather than rehabilitated. Subsequently, the following alternatives were evaluated for the replacement of the bridge: i) Alternative A (Movable Bridge) - along existing alignment ii) Alternative A1 (Fixed Span Bridge) - along existing alignment iii) Alternative B (Movable Bridge) - to the west of the existing alignment iv) Alternative B1 (Fixed Span Bridge) or Initially Preferred Alternative - to the west of the existing alignment v) Alternative C fixed span bridge with connector road vi) Alternative D - modification to Alternative B1 Fixed Span Bridge to provide access to U.S. Route 130 from Main Street and Island Road vii) Alternative E - modification to Alternative B1 Fixed Span Bridge to provide access to U.S. Route 130 from Main Street and Island Road with unsignalized U.S. Route 130/Connector Road intersection viii) Alternative F - two (2) structures: a fly-over for U.S. Route 322 eastbound/u.s. Route 130 southbound ramp and the Raccoon Creek Bridge ix) Alternative G - A low profile fixed span structure with a six (6) foot vertical clearance over the Raccoon Creek As a result of the Feasibility Assessment, McCormick Taylor, Inc. recommended Alternative B1 (Fixed Span Bridge) with Retaining Walls as the Initially Preferred Alternative. This alternative was presented to and approved by the Capital Program Committee on June 26, 2007 for advancement to Preliminary Design. According to the Feasibility Report, the construction cost estimate and life cycle cost estimate for Alternative B1 Fixed Span Bridge with Retaining Walls was approximately $25,890,000 and $29,997,250, respectively. 4

5 D. Initially Preferred Alternative The initially Preferred Alternative (IPA) will replace the entire bridge over Raccoon Creek with a new fixed span bridge and retaining walls along the roadway approaches. The proposed bridge will provide a 25 feet vertical clearance from the mean high water elevation to the bottom of the bridge superstructure in the navigational channel. The new bridge center line will be offset approximately 45 feet to the west of the center line of the existing U.S. Route 130 Bridge. A detour will not be required for the construction of the IPA. The existing bridge will maintain traffic during the initial stage while the western portion of the structure is being constructed. Subsequent to the completion of the western portion, the traffic will be shifted from the existing structure to newly constructed structure. The existing movable bridge will be demolished and the remaining portion of the structure will be constructed. The improvement limits along U.S. Route 130 extend approximately 1200 feet north and 3200 feet south of Raccoon Creek. Access to U.S. Route 130 from Island Road and Main Street will be eliminated. The intersection at Barker Avenue will provide access to U.S. Route 130. The U.S. Route 130/Sheets Avenue intersection will be eliminated due to the difference in elevation and NJDOT access code violation. A direct connection from Island Avenue to Main Street beneath US Route 130 will reestablish the connection between the two sections of Bridgeport. A 25 foot wide access road will be constructed parallel to U.S. Route 130 from Sheets Avenue to Main Street to maintain access for the residents along Sheets Avenue and for Emergency Services. Two designs were compared utilizing slopes and retaining walls. Although the fill slopes are less expensive to construct, the retaining walls were recommended because the fill slopes have adverse impacts on the environment, Right of Way and residential properties if compared to constructing retaining walls. II. PROPOSED STRUCTURES The proposed scope of work developed at the conclusion of the feasibility assessment includes the replacement of the U.S. Route 130 Bridge over Raccoon Creek, building the Retaining Walls along U.S. Route 130, replacing fender system and replacing a sub-standard overhead sign structure located in NB roadway before US 322 inersection. A. U.S. Route 130 over Raccoon Creek i) Proposed Bridge The new bridge is proposed to have a fixed span with a minimum vertical clearance of 25 feet in the navigational channel. The bridge will carry, in each northbound and southbound direction, two 12 feet lanes, one 8 feet right shoulder, and 3 feet left shoulder. The structure will have two standard 1-9 wide by 2-10 high New Jersey Concrete Barriers in each bound. The total bridge width out to out of the barriers will be

6 Figure 1 shows the location of existing and proposed bridge. Figure 2 shows the general plan and elevation of the proposed bridge. ii) Design Standards The following is a list of the applicable design standards for the design of the structure. AASHTO 1. AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, 5 th Edition, AASHTO/AWS Bridge Welding Code D1.5 with NJDOT amendments NJDOT 1. Design Manual for Bridges & Structures, Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction, Standard Roadway Construction- Traffic Control - Bridge Construction Details 4. Sample Plans 5. Design Exceptions Manual 6. Survey Manual 7. CADD Standards Manual English OTHERS 1. Hydraulic Engineering Circular No. 18, Evaluating Scour at Bridges iii) Bridge Elements Selection 1. Design Cosiderations a) The proposed bridge will be built in two stages. The traffic will be maintained on existing bridge during the initial stage while the western portion of the structure is constructed. Subsequent to the completion of the western portion, the traffic will be shifted to the newly constructed western portion of the bridge. The existing movable bridge will then be demolished and the remaining portion of the structure will be constructed. The bridge will consist of two independent structures separated by a 4 inch open joint in the deck and piers, an expansion joint in the abutment stems, and a contraction joint in the footings. 6

7 b) The existing navigation channel will remain at the same location under the proposed structure. c) The abutments will be cast-in-place reinforced concrete full height U- Type abutments. d) Piers will be cast-in-place reinforced concrete multi-column bent type on a plinth with a fender system attached to the plinth of each of the two piers in the river. e) Standard 25 feet long approach slabs will be constructed at both ends of the bridge. 2. Design Alternatives a) Bridge Spans During the initial span layout determination, the following essential factors were considered: Minimize the interference of the existing bridge, including avoiding conflict with existing piles as much as possible. Keep the existing navigation channel at the same location. Provide a fixed span over navigation channel with a minimum 25-0 vertical clearance. Provide a fixed span over Main Street with a minimum of 14 6 vertical clearance. In order to maintain the location of existing navigation channel and to avoid conflict with existing bridge foundations and river piers the span length over the navigation channel is set at 130. This span length was also selected to facilite staged construction and maintaining traffic. The bottom of the bridge superstructure in this span will be 25 above the Mean High Water (MHW) elevation. The adjacent spans will be feet each to minimize conflict with the existing abutments and to yield an economical span ratio for a continuous structure. The fourth span was selected to be also to clear Main Street/Island Road and for uniformity of the design and appereance. The total length of the bridge between centerline of bearings at the abutments is 460. Figure 1 provides the bridge span layout. b) Bridge Superstructure Alternatives Two alternatives are considered for the bridge superstructure. The common criteria for both types is the requirement to keep the profile of the bottom of the superstructure such that it provides 25 feet vertical clearance above MHW in the navigation channel and at least 14-6 vertical clearance over the Main Street in the north span of the bridge. The alternatives are described as follows: 7

8 1) Prestressed Concrete Girders This alternative is comprised of 9 concrete deck supported on five 72 deep prestressed concrete girders for each northbound and southbound superstructure. Due to the limitation in providing the camber and vertical curve in these beams during fabrication, it is estimated that with 4 to 8 of haunch, this alternative will have a total superstructure depth of 89. The other option would be to flatten the curve to reduce the haunch thickness. In this case the length of the project will interfere with the nearby Rt 322 interchange. In order to keep the existing vertical clearance at the bridge under Rt. 322 the profile of Rt. 130 must meet the existing grade well before the approach at the underpass. Furthermore, flattening the curve will extend the project limit and hence increase the cost of the project. The beams will be designed as simply supported for dead load and continuous for live load with expansion joints located at both abutments. Figure 3 shows the cross section of this alternative. The required roadway profile to satisfy the clearance requirements described above is 20 inches higher than the steel girder alternative. Figure 5 shows the required profile. 2) Steel Girders This alternative is comprised of 9 concrete deck supported on five 56 3/4 deep steel girders for each northbound and southbound superstructure. It is estimated that with a 3 of haunch, this alternative will have a total superstructure depth of about 69. Figure 4 shows the cross section of this alternative. In order to achieve an economical design and eliminate expansion joints a four span continuous steel beams will be designed with joints located at both abutments. The vertical grades needed for this alternative is 2.720% and %. The required profile to satisfy the clearance requirements described above is shown in Figure 5. We compared three steel alternatives, such as Painted Grade 50 steel, Weathering Steel (Grade 50W) and Hybrid Steel (Grade 50W web and Grade 70W flanges). The design of hybrid steel does not provide a significant advantage from section properties aspects and it will cost minimum of $ 0.20 per pound more than regular steel; therefore this type of steel was not considered for further consideration. As per our discussion with fabricator representatives from High Steel and cost comparison between the other two types of steel alternates, it appears that weathering steel is the preferred alternative for this location. The cost difference between weathering steel and regular painted steel is only $ 0.05 per pound. Therefore, to eliminate future cost of 8

9 maintenance painting we are recommending weathering steel for this location. 3) Comparision of Alternates - PROS and CONS of Alternatives Prestressed Concrete Girders Alternative The vertical grades needed for this alternative is 2.848% and %. Since the grade of % is steeper than maximum allowed grade by design manual, a design exception will be required for this substandard feature if we elect to use prestressed concrete superstructure. The total estimated cost of this alternative is $ 30, (see Table 1). Steel Girders Alternative The vertical grades needed for this alternative is 2.720% and %. The required profile to satisfy the clearance requirements described above is shown in Figure 5. The total estimated cost of this alternative is $ 29,288,767 (see Table 2). Based on recent economical trend and price swings it appears that there is no clear difference between steel and concrete alternative. However, due to lower profile, steel alternative will cost approximately $ 989,354 less than the prestressed concrete alternative. A temporary access road, west of the new widened bridge will be required to erect new beams. Since the prestressed concrete beams will be almost five times heavier than the steel beams, from a constructability perspective, it will be easier to erect steel beams using lighter cranes in combination with the use of barges. If prestressed concrete beam option is selected it appears that large cranes with long boom, would be required to erect these heavier beams. Also, a more expensive access road combined with pile supported trestle or an erection platform will be required. Transportation of 130 feet long prestressed concrete beams to the bridge site would be difficult and and more expensive than transporting the lighter, shorter steel beam sections. A weathering steel alternative will provide an aesthetically pleasing, shallow prismatic depth superstructure an important consideration since the existing vertical lift steel bridge is eligible for National Register of Historic Bridges and also, it is located within view shade of adjacent Logan Township historic district. Therefore, it appears that this alternate will be more suitable to reduce adverse effects than the prestressed concrete superstructure. Steel alternative will not require any design exception for substandard vertical grades. This bridge is located 25 ft. above MHW sufficiently high above marine environment, so that use of weathering steel should not be a concern from environmental/corrosion perspective. 9

10 Weathering steel will provide maintenance free superstructure similar to prestressed concrete beams. The steel alternate provides true continuity design for dead and live loads and a better continuity performance over the piers, whereas the prestressed concrete beams provide continuity for live loads only. 4) Recommendation Based on the above discussion and comparison, we recommend using Grade 50W Weathering Steel superstructure alternative for the proposed bridge. c) Bridge Substructure Alternatives The substructure consists of two abutments and three piers. The piers are comprised of round columns with column caps. The piers will be provided with a solid concrete plinth. See Figure 2. Bridges in the vicinity of the proposed structure, all have piers with round columns so the proposed piers shapes were selected for compatability in appearance.. The original Subsurface Exploration & Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Report recommended that the South Abutment, Piers 1 and 2 be founded on piles and the North Abutment and Pier 3 be founded on spread footings. Upon further studies and review of the report by our consultant, The Louis Berger Group, Inc., the following concerns were raised: 1. The proposed profile will result in approximately 25 feet high embankment at the North Abutment. 2. The soils strata suitable for using spread footings at the North Abutment and Pier No. 3 were found at a depth of approximately 12 to 17 feet respectively below the existing ground surface and within the ground water table. Founding these two substructures at this depth would require substantial quantities of excavation with dewatering and would preclude an economical design. 3. Due to the additional load of 25 fill, the existing ground may experience consolidation over time. Constructing spread footing at North abutment will experience the differential settlement which would have adverse effect on the four span continuous superstructure supported by substructures founded on piles. The above concerns were brought to the attention of the geotechnical consultant. The geotechnical consultant revised the foundation report to recommend the pile foundation for both pier 3 and North abutment as presented in Figure 2 and Preliminary GP&E plan. 10

11 Initial scour depth analysis has been made for both the 100 and 500 year flood. These reports indicate a scour depth between 7 feet to 13 feet. The length and design of piles will account for the scour depths, as recommended in the Geotechnical Engineering Report. Fender systems will be incorporated into the pier designs. Comparisons have been made between the typical dolphin type fender systems and absorption types. The absorption type system is mounted on the side of the piers. This approach will maintain the necessary width of the navigable waterway between the piers. These absorption fender systems are made of synthetic rubber, as such have a longer life than the timber type fender systems. In view of this, the design will incorporate the absorption type fender systems. B. Retaining Walls The proposed bridge will be constructed at an elevated profile. As described in the Initially Preferred Alternative analysis, the retaining walls were selected over the slopes to reduce the Right-of- Way and environmental impact. At the south end of the bridge there will be two 3200 feet long walls, one on each side of the roadway. At the north end of the bridge there will be two 1200 feet long walls. The wall height ranges from 29 feet at the abutments to 7 feet at the lower end. Cast- in- place reinforced concrete walls are not selected because of higher cost and increased construction duration. The walls being considered include precast modular wall such as T-wall, and Doublewal, as well as Mechanically Stabilized Earth Wall such as Reinforced Earth Wall. As per the Department s guidelines, the contract plans will be prepared to allow for all of the above wall types. The south side walls will be founded on a load transfer mat supported by vibro concrete columns while the North side walls will be directly founded on the embarkment. The appearance of the wall, such as texture, color etc. will be in accordance with the requirement of the Cultural Resource Report. C. Overhead Sign Structure Existing overhead sign structure on US 130 NB roadway at Sta is located within project limit and does not comply with the current design standards. This sign structure will be impacted due to construction and proposed roadway improvements. This overhead sign structure will be replaced with a new overhead sign structure that meets the current standard. See Photo 1. 11

12 PAY ITEM NO. ROUTE 130 over RACCOON CREEK Logan Township, Gloucester County COST ESTIMATES (Prestressed Pretensioned Concrete Beam Framed Bridge) UNIT ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY NO. COST A Bridge Structure No SF 35, P Clearing Site, Bridge (Structure No ) LS 1 300, , P Temporary Shielding LS 1 50, , P Excavation, Unclassified CY 2, ,500 Total Off-Site Management of Regulated Waste, Hazardous T 1, , M P Temporary Cofferdam LS 1 1,000, ,000, P Furnishing Equipment for Driving piles LS 1 100, , P Prebored Hole LF 1, , M Test plie, Furnished LF , M Test Pile, Driven LF , M Static Pile Load Test U 10 15, , M Dynamic Pile Load Test U 10 2, , M Concrete-Filled Steel Pipe pile, Furnished, 18" Dia. LF 26, ,775, M Concrete-Filled Steel Pipe pile, Driven, 18" Dia. LF 26, ,802, P Reinforcement Steel, Epoxy-Coated LB 1,540, ,696, P Concrete Footing CY 1, , P Concrete Abutment Wall CY , P Concrete Pier Column and Cap CY 406 1, , P Concrete Pier Shaft CY 1,869 1, ,868, P Epoxy Waterproofing SY , P Pretensioned Prestressed Concrete Beam, 72" LF 4, ,610, P Reinforced Elastomeric Bearing Assembly U 80 3, , P Strip Seal Expansion Joint Assembly LF , P Concrete Bridge Deck, HPC CY 1,421 1, ,563, P Date Panel U 4 1, , P Concrete Bridge Approach CY , M Sawcut Grooved Surface SF 32, , P Concrete Bridge Parapet, HPC LF 1, , P 3" Rigid Metallic Conduit on Structure LF 1, , M 18" x 36" Junction Box U 8 1, , M Junction Box Frame and Cover U 8 2, ,000 Total = 16,777,553 PAY UNIT ITEM ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY Total NO. NO. COST B MSE Retaining Walls SF P Retaining Wall, Location No._1,2,3 & 4 SF ,126, P Concrete Bridge Parapet, HPC LF 4, ,192 Total = 13,100,568 C Fendering System P Energy Absorption Fender LS ,000 Total = 300,000 D Overhead Sign Support, Structure No. 1 U 1 100, ,000 Grand Total Cost = 30,278,121 Table 1 12

13 PAY ITEM NO. ROUTE 130 over RACCOON CREEK Logan Township, Gloucester County COST ESTIMATES (Structural Steel Beam Framed Bridge) ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY Total NO. COST A Bridge Structure No SF 35, P Clearing Site, Bridge (Structure No ) LS 1 300, , P Temporary Shielding LS 1 50, , P Excavation, Unclassified CY 2, ,500 UNIT Off-Site Management of Regulated Waste, Hazardous T 1, , M P Temporary Cofferdam LS 1 1,000, ,000, P Furnishing Equipment for Driving piles LS 1 100, , P Prebored Hole LF 1, , M Test plie, Furnished LF , M Test Pile, Driven LF , M Static Pile Load Test U 10 15, , M Dynamic Pile Load Test U 10 2, , M Concrete-Filled Steel Pipe pile, Furnished, 18" Dia. LF 23, ,543, M Concrete-Filled Steel Pipe pile, Driven, 18" Dia. LF 23, ,566, P Reinforcement Steel, Epoxy-Coated LB 1,540, ,696, P Concrete Footing CY 1, , P Concrete Abutment Wall CY , P Concrete Pier Column and Cap CY 406 1, , P Concrete Pier Shaft CY 1,869 1, ,868, P Epoxy Waterproofing SY , P Structural Steel LB 1,338, ,008, P Reinforced Elastomeric Bearing Assembly U 50 3, , P Strip Seal Expansion Joint Assembly LF , P Concrete Bridge Deck, HPC CY 1,216 1, ,337, P Date Panel U 4 1, , P Concrete Bridge Approach CY , M Sawcut Grooved Surface SF 32, , P Concrete Bridge Parapet, HPC LF 1, , P 3" Rigid Metallic Conduit on Structure LF 1, , M 18" x 36" Junction Box U 8 1, , M Junction Box Frame and Cover U 8 2, ,000 Total = 16,363,581 PAY UNIT ITEM ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY Total NO. NO. COST B MSE Retaining Walls SF P Retaining Wall, Location No._1,2,3 & 4 SF ,550, P Concrete Bridge Parapet, HPC LF 4, ,192 Total = 12,525,186 C D Fendering System P Energy Absorption Fender LS ,000 Total = 300,000 Overhead Sign Structure M Overhead Sign Support, Structure No. 1 U 1 100, ,000 Grand Total Cost = 29,288,767 Table 2 13

14 Figure 1 14

15 Figure 2 15

16 Figure 3 16

17 Figure 4 17

18 Figure 5 18

19 Existing overhead sign structure on Rt. 130 NB roadway at US 130 Baseline Sta Photo 1 19