St. Croix River Crossing Project

Transcription

1 St. Croix River Crossing Project Industry Update October 25 th, 2009 April 3, 2012

2 Project Area Minnesota Wisconsin

3 Project Area Protected Resources Riverway Historic Properties Park Properties Endangered Species Floodplains Wetlands

4 Preferred Alternative Package new river crossing location and design

5 Preferred Alternative Package Roadway Approach Design in Minnesota

6 Preferred Alternative Package Roadway Approach Design in Minnesota

7 Preferred Alternative Package Roadway Approach Design in Wisconsin

8 Project Permitting Federal State Local

9 Next Steps Mussel Survey Summer 2012 Underwater surveys

10 Preliminary Bridge Design

11 SCC Pre-Proposal Meeting Preliminary Bridge Design Update A. Background leading to 30% Plans B. Design Criteria (Draft) C. Special Study Reports D. Visual Quality E. Optimization Opportunities/Limitations

12 Preliminary Bridge Design Update A. Background: (2010 Milestone) Previous 2010 effort was for DB Project Concept Refinement Report Foundation Design Options Report Visual Quality Manual Addendum Constructability/Maintenance/Inspection WRE Update (Bridge Portion/Drop Structure) Draft Preliminary Bridge Plans (March 2012) Design Bid Build RFP (2012)

13 Concept Refinement Report

14 Foundations Options Report Posted on website

15 Summary leading to RFP Convert Concept Plans to Prelim Bridge Plans Bridge Drainage System (External to box) WRE revised HZ United 2012 Bridge Fixity Studied Constructability Planning Bridge Maintenance / Drainage Clean-outs Bridge Inspection /Snooper Access Inspection platform concept development Refinement of Draft Design Criteria Draft Criteria in Prelim Plans & in the RFP

16 SCC Pre-Proposal Meeting Preliminary Bridge Design Update A. Background leading to 30% Plans B. Design Criteria (Draft) C. Special Study Reports D. Visual Quality E. Optimization Opportunities/Limitations

17 Extradosed Bridge Type Characteristics of Cable Stay Bridge Type and Beam Type Bridge Load shared by Beam Action (i.e. deck stiffness) and Cables to Towers Cables Stressed to 0.6fpu with limitations on Live Load Stress Range Over 40 Extradosed Bridges Built in Japan Others in France, Korea, and Canada Pearl Harbor Bridge, Connecticut

18 RFP Section Design Criteria Prelim plan sheets 2, 3, 4 include draft design criteria

19 RFP Section Design Criteria

20 Extradosed Bridge Type

21 Design Criteria Bridge Fixity Considerations Thermal affects Creep and shrinkage Required Construction Jacking Forces Any required adjustments during life of bridge Barge Impact Loading Ice Loading

22 RFP Section Preliminary Plan Design Revisions Zone of Intrusion Cables/towers adjusted; set back to not encroach; Prelim Plans recently modified External Drainage System needs improvement on ramp bridges and ; balance hydraulic needs with visual quality to mask external pipes Bridge Fixity Study integral piers vs. mid-span hinge (or other fixity schemes) Report 30% stage

23 Zone of Intrusion (RFP 6.2.a)

24 External Drainage System (RFP 6.2b)

25 Bridge Fixity (RFP 6.2c)

26 SCC Pre-Proposal Meeting Preliminary Bridge Design Update A. Background leading to 30% Plans B. Design Criteria (Draft) C. Special Study Reports D. Visual Quality E. Optimization Opportunities/Limitations

27 Contractor-prepared Specialty Studies and Reports Design and Load Rating Criteria Bridge Rating Manual Bridge Maintenance and Inspection Manual Quality Management Plan Bridge Fixity Study Report Wind Engineering Study Report Redundancy Analysis Report Cable stay system; struts between box girders Bridge Security

28 Specialty Studies and Reports (cont d) Study for FAA Lighting Requirements Bridge Deck Drainage/Drop Shaft Report Special Provisions Engineer s Cost Estimate Document Corrosion Protection Plan

29 Gore Area Framing

30 Gore Area Framing Precast trusses

31 Preliminary Bridge Plan Details Preliminary Bridge Design Update A. Background leading to 30% Plans B. Design Criteria (Draft) C. Special Study Reports D. Visual Quality E. Optimization Opportunities/Limitations

32 Typical Extradosed Pier Note: VQMA shows tower dimensions prior to adjustment for zone of intrusion, see Prelim Plans for adjusted tower location

33 Prelim Plans: Double Box Girder Section Precast vs. CIP

34 Details Inspection inside the Box Connecting Precast Segments

35 Cable Anchorage at Girder

36 Cable Anchorage at Girder

37 Composite Cable Anchorage Plan View

38 Cable Anchorage in Pylon

39 Maintenance Access Platform

40 SCC Pre-Proposal Meeting Preliminary Bridge Design Update A. Background leading to 30% Plans B. Design Criteria (Draft) C. Special Study Reports D. Visual Quality E. Optimization Opportunities/Limitations

41

42 Extradosed Bridge Type - SFEIS

43 Extradosed Bridge Type

44 Preferred Alternative Eight Span Extradosed Bridge SFEIS: 4 to 6 piers In water

45 Typical Extradosed Span

46 Concept Refinement/ VQMA

47 1.1 Pier Configuration

48 1.2 Box Girder Configuration (NOTE: internal box drainage not allowed)

49 1.3 Pedestrian Trail Location

50 Pedestrian Trail/Overlook

51 Pedestrian Trail/Overlook

52 Pedestrian Overlook

53 1.4 Cable Anchorage Details

54 1.5 Approach & Ramp Spans

55 1.6 Approach & Ramp Columns

56 1.6 Approach & Ramp Columns

57 1.7 Bridge Lighting- Roadway

58 1.7 Bridge Lighting- Trail

59 1.7 Bridge Piers

60 Optimization Opportunities/Limitations River Span Arrangement Mn Approach Span Configuration Mn Approach Box Configuration Drainage Approach (visual concerns) Accent Lighting Refinement Bicycle/Pedestrian Path Lighting Refinement

61 Visual Quality Advisory Committee City of Bayport City of Stillwater City of Oak Park Heights Town of St. Joseph National Park Service Mn SHPO Wi SHPO

62 Advisory Committee Role Reinforce the Intent of the VQM Review Proposed Deviations from VQM Provide Community/Agency Input Represent Constituents Endorse Changes/Revisions Conduit between Design Team & Public

63 Foundation Load Test Project 4 Driven Piles Drilled Shaft

64 Load Test Purpose To gather design data for foundations Allows for refined foundation designs Helps designer quantify lateral capacity Gives information/data to set shaft length Helps contractor prepare bid with less contingencies Reduces cost risk, thus reducing project costs Helps prove proposed foundations can be efficiently constructed in river utilizing project specifications Reduces cost risk to project The load test information from the 1990s will be available

65 Driven Pile Load Test Site B Drive two 42 in. pipe piles Drive two 24 in. pipe piles 115 ft. long ± 15 ft. Vertical load test all four piles Horizontal load test on two piles 24 in. closed end pipe pile 42 in. open ended pipe pile

66 Drive Piles 25 ft. water 40 ft. muck 115 ft. 25 ft. loose sand 30 ft. dense sand 25 ft. sandstone

67 Drilled Shaft Load Test Site A 8 ft. diameter in soil 7 ft. 6 in. diameter in rock 125 ft. long, 100 ft. below river bottom Vertical load test Horizontal load test Base grouting

68 Vertical Load Test 25 ft. water 87 ft. muck 169 ft. 2 ft. Sand/Gravel 22 ft. very soft sandstone sandstone Load test jack

69 Horizontal Load Test 25 ft. water load barge 87 ft. muck 169 ft. 2 ft. Sand/Gravel 22 ft. very soft sandstone sandstone

70 4D Visualization

71 Xcel Barge Unloader Facility

72 Project Drainage Design 2006 Water Resources Preliminary Design Report 2012 Amendment

73 Water Quality Study Review of HZ United study Consider staging of project Provide data/handouts for Metro permit applications Deck drainage Drop shaft WRE Review (concurrence or modifications to MnDOT by June 30, 2012)

74 Bridge Deck Drainage & Drop Shaft Review Report

75 Bridge Deck Drainage

76 Bridge Deck Drainage: supports, downspouts, lateral loads

77 Approach & Ramp Spans - Wetlands

78 Schedule Items Coordination with MnDOT Bi-weekly meetings (project management, technical) Coordination with Peer Reviewer is essential CPM cost and resource loaded schedule Engineer of Record responsibility Contractor-style construction cost estimate Peer Reviewer responsibility

79 Schedule for Consultant Acquisition Proposals due April 27, 2012 Technical Selection Committee preliminary review Structured interviews (week of May 14, 2012) Project Manager Lead Extradosed superstructure designer Two other staff members included in org chart, serving under the Project Manager Visual aids to be determined at a later date Technical Selection Committee final review Standard deviation will be applied to technical scores

80 Schedule for Consultant Acquisition (cont d) Anticipated selection for design contract May 18, 2012 (at the earliest) Scope of work and budget due within three days of notice of selection Peer Review selection anticipated to follow within one week Scope of work and budget due within three days of notice of selection

81 Questions?