DOCSLIB.ORG

Columbia River Crossing Project Bridge Review Panel Final Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Columbia River Crossing Project Bridge Review Panel Final Report Columbia River Crossing Project Bridge Review Panel Final Report February 3, 2011 Chair/Contact: Thomas R. Warne, PE • Tom Warne & Associates 9874 S Spruce Grove Way • South Jordan, UT 84095 [email protected] • 801.302.8300 Table of Contents Executive Summary .......................................................................................... 11 Recommendations .......................................................................................................................................................... 13 Secondary Recommendations / Opportunities for Improvement ............................................................................ 14 Introduction ........................................................................................................ 15 Background ........................................................................................................................................................................ 15 Bridge Review Panel (BRP) ........................................................................................................................................... 15 Purpose .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 16 Objectives ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 17 Approach ............................................................................................................. 19 Understand Current Proposed Alternative (Open-Web Box Girder) ......................................................... 20 Identify Challenges Associated with the Open-Web Box Girder ................................................................... 20 Operational Reliability .............................................................................................................................................................. 21 Structural Complexity ............................................................................................................................................................... 21 Maintainability ............................................................................................................................................................................. 22 Aesthetics ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 22 Cost Uncertainty ......................................................................................................................................................................... 22 Review Project Constraints ......................................................................................................................................... 23 Identify Bridge Type Alternatives ............................................................................................................................... 24 Conduct Bridge Type Assessment ............................................................................................................................. 25 Develop Bridge Type Recommendations ................................................................................................................ 27 Explore Additional Considerations ............................................................................................................................ 29 Review of Open-Web Box Girder Design ...................................................... 31 Cable-Stayed Alternative ................................................................................. 33 General Description .................................................................................................................................................................. 33 Superstructure Layout .............................................................................................................................................................. 34 Tower Layout ............................................................................................................................................................................... 35 Erection .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 37 Aesthetics ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 38 Tied Arch Alternative ....................................................................................... 47 3 CRC Bridge Expert Review Panel Final Report General Description .................................................................................................................................................................. 47 Superstructure Layout .............................................................................................................................................................. 49 Foundations .................................................................................................................................................................................. 51 Erection .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 52 Aesthetics ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 53 Composite Deck Truss ..................................................................................... 59 General Description ....................................................................................................................................................... 59 Superstructure Layout .............................................................................................................................................................. 60 Pier Layout and Articulation ................................................................................................................................................... 63 Foundation .................................................................................................................................................................................... 64 Erection .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 65 Aesthetics ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 66 Cost Estimates ................................................................................................... 75 Additional Considerations Impacting Bridge Type Recommendations ... 79 Aviation ............................................................................................................................................................................... 79 Navigation .......................................................................................................................................................................... 82 In-Water Impacts ............................................................................................................................................................. 83 Risk ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 85 Additional Findings and Recommendations .................................................. 89 Alignment Considerations for the Columbia River Crossing ........................................................................... 89 Upstream Alignment ................................................................................................................................................................ 90 Upstream & Downstream Tangent Alignment .............................................................................................................. 92 Straight Alignments and the Influence of the North Portland Harbor Bridge ..................................................... 95 Substandard Interchange Spacing and Project Impacts ........................................................................................ 96 North Portland Harbor Bridge Replacement ......................................................................................................... 97 Structural Design Criteria Review ............................................................................................................................. 98 Conclusions and Recommendations ............................................................... 99 Recommendations ....................................................................................................................................................... 103 Secondary Recommendations / Opportunities for Improvement
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Bridges and Applications Bridges and Applications Bridges and Applications Arch Bridges
    10/23/2014 Bridges and Applications Bridges and Applications • Bridges are used to span across distances that are difficult to otherwise pass through. • Rivers • Deep gorges • Other roadways Bridges and Applications Arch Bridges • There are four basic types of bridges – Arch – Beam – Suspension – Cable‐stayed • Each type has different design and is therefore better suited to different applications 1 10/23/2014 Arch Bridges Arch Bridges • Instead of pushing straight down, the weight of an arch bridge is carried outward along the curve of the arch to the supports at each end. Abutments, carry • These supports, called the abutments, carry the load the load and keep the ends of the bridge from spreading outward. and keep the ends of the bridge from spreading outward Arch Bridges Arch Bridges • When supporting its own weight and the • Today, materials like steel and pre‐stressed weight of crossing traffic, every part of the concrete have made it possible to build longer arch is under compression. and more elegant arches. • For this reason, arch bridges must be made of materials that are strong under compression. New River Gorge, – Rock West Virginia. – Concrete 2 10/23/2014 Arch Bridges Arch Bridges • Usually arch bridges employ vertical supports • Typically, arch bridges span between 200 and called spandrels to distribute the weight of 800 feet. the roadway to the arch below. Arch Bridges One of the most revolutionary arch bridges in recent years is the Natchez Trace Parkway Bridge in Franklin, Tennessee, which was opened to traffic in 1994. It's the first American arch bridge to be constructed from segments of precast concrete, a highly economical material.
    [Show full text]
  • Simple Innovative Comparison of Costs Between Tied-Arch Bridge and Cable-Stayed Bridge
    MATEC Web of Conferences 258, 02015 (2019) https://doi.org/10.1051/matecconf/20192 5802015 SCESCM 20 18 Simple innovative comparison of costs between tied-arch bridge and cable-stayed bridge Järvenpää Esko1,*, Quach Thanh Tung2 1WSP Finland, Oulu, Finland 2WSP Finland, Ho Chi Minh, Vietnam Abstract. The proposed paper compares tied-arch bridge alternatives and cable-stayed bridge alternatives based on needed load-bearing construction material amounts in the superstructure. The comparisons are prepared between four tied arch bridge solutions and four cable-stayed bridge solutions of the same span lengths. The sum of the span lengths is 300 m. The rise of arch as well as the height of pylon and cable arrangements follow optimal dimensions. The theoretic optimum rise of tied-arch for minimum material amount is higher than traditionally used for aesthetic reason. The optimum rise for minimum material amount parabolic arch is shown in the paper. The mathematical solution uses axial force index method presented in the paper. For the tied-arches the span-rise-ration of 3 is used. The hangers of the tied-arches are vertical-The tied-arches are calculated by numeric iteration method in order to get moment-less arch. The arches are designed as constant stress arch. The area and the weight of the cross section follow the compression force in the arch. In addition the self-weight of the suspender cables are included in the calculation. The influence of traffic loads are calculated by using a separate FEM program. It is concluded that tied-arch is a competitive alternative to cable-stayed bridge especially when asymmetric bridge spans are considered.
    [Show full text]
  • Background Region 1 Q&A: ODOT Winter Preparations & Operations—Portland
    Oregon Department of Transportation Background Region 1 Q&A: ODOT Winter Preparations & Operations—Portland 1. What type of bad weather equipment does ODOT have (# of snowplows, gravel droppers, etc)? In the Portland metro area, including Mount Hood, I-84 to Hood River, U.S. 30 through Clatskanie and the Sunset Highway past Manning: 120 maintenance personnel (plus additional others who used to be in maintenance and still volunteer, when needed!); 50+ dump trucks mounted with (a) snow plow; or (b) sand spreader; or (c) chemical de-icing agent spreader; or (d) some combination of the other three. ODOT also has about a half dozen road graders, used in the winter to plow snow and remove ice. And, to nitpick a point: ODOT doesn’t spread gravel; we spread sand. Please see #3 & footnote! For updated information on highway work and current travel information throughout Oregon, visit www.tripcheck.com or call the Oregon road report at 511 or (800) 977-6368 Visit the ODOT News Media Center at www.oregon.gov/ODOT/COMM/ Background: Q&A: ODOT Winter Preparations & Operations—Portland Page 2 2. What roads create the most problems for drivers when the weather is icy or snowy? In the Portland metro area, four sections of roadway traditionally see the most trouble from ice, snow and extreme cold: a. Sylvan Hill on U.S. 26, both directions—but people have more trouble going uphill; b. Breeze Hill on northbound Interstate 5—the area where there’s an extra truck lane from Oregon 99W up and over the hill toward that long straight-away before you get into the Terwilliger Curves; and c.
    [Show full text]
  • Arched Bridges Lily Beyer University of New Hampshire - Main Campus
    University of New Hampshire University of New Hampshire Scholars' Repository Honors Theses and Capstones Student Scholarship Spring 2012 Arched Bridges Lily Beyer University of New Hampshire - Main Campus Follow this and additional works at: https://scholars.unh.edu/honors Part of the Civil and Environmental Engineering Commons Recommended Citation Beyer, Lily, "Arched Bridges" (2012). Honors Theses and Capstones. 33. https://scholars.unh.edu/honors/33 This Senior Honors Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Scholarship at University of New Hampshire Scholars' Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Honors Theses and Capstones by an authorized administrator of University of New Hampshire Scholars' Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE CIVIL ENGINEERING Arched Bridges History and Analysis Lily Beyer 5/4/2012 An exploration of arched bridges design, construction, and analysis through history; with a case study of the Chesterfield Brattleboro Bridge. UNH Civil Engineering Arched Bridges Lily Beyer Contents Contents ..................................................................................................................................... i List of Figures ........................................................................................................................... ii Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 1 Chapter I: History
    [Show full text]
  • Bayonne Bridge Lesson Plan
    The Bayonne Bridge: The Beautiful Arch Resources for Teachers and Students [Printable and Electronic Versions] The Bayonne Bridge: The Beautiful Arch Resources for Teachers And Students [Printable and Electronic Versions] OVERVIEW/OBJECTIVE: Students will be able to understand and discuss the history of NOTES: the Bayonne Bridge and use science and engineering basics • Key words indicated in to investigate bridge design and test an arch bridge model. Bold are defined in call- out boxes. TARGET GRADE LEVEL: • Teacher-only text Fourth grade instruction, adaptable to higher levels as indicated with Italics. desired in the subjects of Social Studies and Engineering. FOCUS: In Part I, students learn about history of the Bayonne Bridge including the many engineering challenges encountered during the project and the people who helped overcome those challenges. In Part II, students learn engineering concepts to understand how bridges stay up and use these concepts to complete activities on bridge design before applying these concepts to theorize how the Bayonne Bridge works. MATERIALS: • Part I: DVD of “The Bayonne Bridge Documentary” • Part II: 2–4 heavy textbooks or 2 bricks per group; 2 pieces of “cereal box” cardboard or similar, 12 x 8 in; weights (anything small that can be stacked on the structure); red and blue marker, crayon or colored pencil for each student or group. The Bayonne Bridge: The Beautiful Arch Contents Teacher Materials | Part I: History of the Bayonne Bridge . T-1 Teacher Materials | Part II: Bridge Engineering . T-7 Student Materials | Part I: History of the Bayonne Bridge . S-1 Student Materials | Part II: Bridge Engineering .
    [Show full text]
  • Marquam Bridge Repair: Latex-Modified- Concrete Overlay
    TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH RECORD 1204 59 Marquam Bridge Repair: Latex-Modified­ Concrete Overlay and Joint Replacement JOHN D. HOWARD The Marguam Bridge in Portland, Oregon, provides a crossing CONDITION OF DECK AND JOINTS of the Willamette River for the north-south 1-5 freeway. After 17 yr of service, the bridge, which was opened to traffic in Prior to and after award of the contract, surveys were made 1966, had a badly worn deck and numerous deck expansion to determine the extent of work needed to be done. (Overlay joints in need of repair. The bridge has a daily traffic count contract was awarded May 10, 1983.) Both surveys found of approximately 86,000 vehicles. Because of lack of capacity of detour routes, complete closure to traffic could be permitted significant wear throughout the structure, with a number of only during night hours. To correct the deck and joint prob­ spans that had the top mat of reinforcing exposed and a num­ lems, a contract was awarded in May 1983 for a latex-modified­ ber of locations with loose angles at the joints (Figures 4 and concrete overlay and joint repair. On a previous job with a 3- 5). Based on the elevation of the armored corners at the joint, percent grade, the tendency of the finished surface to shift approximately 0.5-1 in. of rutting in the wheel tracks occurred downhill during the early cure stages was noted, and it was during the 17-yr life of the deck. Bridge plans showed 1.5-in. thought that this tendency could be a major problem on this cover on the top mat of reinforcing, which apparently was structure with ramps on 6-percent grades and 0.10 ft/ft supers.
    [Show full text]
  • G 13.1 Guidelines for Steel Girder Bridge Analysis.Pdf
    G13.1 Guidelines for Steel Girder Bridge Analysis 2nd Edition American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials National Steel Bridge Alliance AASHTO/NSBA Steel Bridge Collaboration Copyright © 2014 by the AASHTO/NSBA Steel Bridge Collaboration All rights reserved. ii G13.1 Guidelines for Steel Girder Bridge Analysis PREFACE This document is a standard developed by the AASHTO/NSBA Steel Bridge Collaboration. The primary goal of the Collaboration is to achieve steel bridge design and construction of the highest quality and value through standardization of the design, fabrication, and erection processes. Each standard represents the consensus of a diverse group of professionals. It is intended that Owners adopt and implement Collaboration standards in their entirety to facilitate the achievement of standardization. It is understood, however, that local statutes or preferences may prevent full adoption of the document. In such cases Owners should adopt these documents with the exceptions they feel are necessary. Cover graphics courtesy of HDR Engineering. DISCLAIMER The information presented in this publication has been prepared in accordance with recognized engineering principles and is for general information only. While it is believed to be accurate, this information should not be used or relied upon for any specific application without competent professional examination and verification of its accuracy, suitability, and applicability by a licensed professional engineer, designer, or architect. The publication of the material contained herein is not intended as a representation or warranty of the part of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) or the National Steel Bridge Alliance (NSBA) or of any other person named herein, that this information is suitable for any general or particular use or of freedom from infringement of any patent or patents.
    [Show full text]
  • August 8 2010 60+ Events
    cElEbrAtinG thE bridGES thAt cOnnEct uS All July 23 — AuGuSt 8 2010 60+ events. More than two dozen bands, DJs, and performers. Over 150 artists. 24 films. One historic picnic. And a few unavoidably large art installations. All of it taking place at more than 27 venues around the city. This is the PDX Bridge Festival by the numbers—but you’ll quickly realize as you explore this festival guide, we are more than a string of numbers. Much more. In 2010, our inaugural year, our goal is to celebrate what makes Portland a great city in which to live, work, play, and create — by celebrating the bridges that connect us all. We created a civic celebration to engage Portlanders on their own cultural terms, and we hope that you’ll support it. We founded the PDX Bridge Festival as a nonprofit organization dedicated to marking the centennials of our Willamette River Bridges. This year, we celebrate the 100th anniversary of the Hawthorne Bridge, whose iconic span has carried many, many millions of horses, buggies, streetcars, Model Ts, Studebakers, semi trucks, Trimet buses, hybrid vehicles, bicycles, and feet across the river that runs through the heart our city. No matter who you are, we believe that somewhere in these pages you’ll find something that sparks your interest, whether it be a storytelling tour of the river and its bridges, a free outdoor concert, a bohemian circus, groundbreaking work by a local artist, an engaging speaker, an interactive installation along your daily commute, or even a film with Jeff Bridges.
    [Show full text]
  • County Measure); Hydroelelctric Power Facilities Bonds (Portland Measure 33); Increasing Funds for War Veterans' Loans (State Measure 2
    Portland State University PDXScholar City Club of Portland Oregon Sustainable Community Digital Library 10-31-1958 Bridge Bonds for New Bridge Adjacent and Parallel to Ross Island Bridge (County Measure); Hydroelelctric Power Facilities Bonds (Portland Measure 33); Increasing Funds for War Veterans' Loans (State Measure 2) City Club of Portland (Portland, Or.) Follow this and additional works at: https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/oscdl_cityclub Part of the Urban Studies Commons, and the Urban Studies and Planning Commons Let us know how access to this document benefits ou.y Recommended Citation City Club of Portland (Portland, Or.), "Bridge Bonds for New Bridge Adjacent and Parallel to Ross Island Bridge (County Measure); Hydroelelctric Power Facilities Bonds (Portland Measure 33); Increasing Funds for War Veterans' Loans (State Measure 2)" (1958). City Club of Portland. 188. https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/oscdl_cityclub/188 This Report is brought to you for free and open access. It has been accepted for inclusion in City Club of Portland by an authorized administrator of PDXScholar. Please contact us if we can make this document more accessible: [email protected]. PORTLAND CITY CLUB BULLETIN 617 REPORT ON BRIDGE BONDS FOR NEW BRIDGE ADJACENT AND PARALLEL TO ROSS ISLAND BRIDGE (County Measure on November Ballot) To THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS, THE CITY CLUB OF PORTLAND: Your committee has studied the proposal of the Board of Commissioners of Mult- nomah County, to be submitted to Multnomah County voters on November 4, 1958, which reads as follows: "Shall $7,000,000 of bridge bonds be issued by Multnomah County, Oregon, for the construction of a new bridge adjacent and parallel to the Ross Island Bridge crossing the Willamette River in Portland, Multnomah County, Oregon?" SOURCES We have consulted with Paul C.
    [Show full text]
  • K'nex Intro to Structures: Bridges Teacher Guide
    INTRO TO STRUCTURES BRIDGES Teacher’s Guide KNX 96168-V2 K’NEX Education is a Registered Trademark © 2007 K’NEX Limited Partnership Group of K’NEX Limited Partnership Group. and its licensors. Conforms to the Requirements of ASTM Standard Consumer Safety Specification on Toy Safety, F963-03. Manufactured under U.S. Patents 5,061,219; 5,199,919; 5,350,331; 5,137,486. Other U.S. and foreign patents pending. Protected by International Copyright. All rights reserved. A NOTE ABOUT SAFETY: CAUTIONS: Safety is of primary concern in science and Students should not overstretch or overwind their technology classrooms. It is recommended that Rubber Bands. Overstretching and overwinding you develop a set of rules that governs the safe, can cause the Rubber Band to snap and cause proper use of K’NEX in your classroom. Safety, personal injury. Any wear and tear or deterioration as it relates to the use of the Rubber Bands of Rubber Bands should be reported immediately should be specifically addressed. to the teacher. Teachers and students should inspect Rubber Bands for deterioration before each experiment. Caution students to keep hands and hair away from all moving parts. Never put fingers in moving Gears or other moving parts. CHOKE HAZARD - Small parts. Not for children under 3 years. BRIDGES Introduction: OVERVIEW This Teacher’s Guide has been developed to support you as your students investigate the K’NEX Introduction to Structures: Bridges set. In conjunction with the K’NEX materials and individual student journals that we suggest your students maintain throughout their investigations, the information and resources included here can be used to build your students’ understanding of scientific, technical and design concepts and to channel their inquiries into active and meaningful learning experiences.
    [Show full text]
  • People and Power to Move the World
    Parsons Bridge and Tunnel People and power to move the world. 100 M Street, S.E. Washington, D.C. 20003 U.S.A. Phone: +1 202.775.3300 www.parsons.com Power to Connecting past, change present, the global and future. Parsons is a recognized leader in the design and landscape. construction of complex structures and bridges across the globe. Having completed more than 4,500 bridges and 250 tunnels around the world, we apply creative expertise to solve the most challenging issues our customers face today with a vision for the future. Massive or modest, new or rehabilitated, our purpose in every bridge and tunnel is to carry traffic safely with sound engineering and exceptional style while connecting people and places. Parsons’ Bridge and Tunnel Division provides connections and cost-efficient. By combining form with function, economy, to communities of the past, present, and future. We and sustainability, our award-winning bridges and tunnels understand the importance of our customers’ existing fulfill an important purpose and often serve as historic or infrastructure and the history of their community, as well as world-class landmarks. the principles of sustainability, safety, and quality. Parsons Across the globe, our bridges enrich skylines and our tunnels has proudly provided design, construction management, feature state-of-the-art technology. And by minimizing and inspection services for some of the world’s largest and impacts to the environment and maintaining the culture of most complex bridges. Our reputation for innovative the community, Parsons’ custom infrastructure pays homage design and construction methods, and our commitment to to the past while recognizing the importance of tomorrow.
    [Show full text]
  • Bridge Strength: Truss Vs. Arch Vs. Beam
    CALIFORNIA STATE SCIENCE FAIR 2015 PROJECT SUMMARY Name(s) Project Number Christopher J. Nagelvoort J0322 Project Title Bridge Strength: Truss vs. Arch vs. Beam Abstract Objectives/Goals The objective of this experiment was to determine which bridge design is the strongest against heavy loads through deflection testing on three bridge models. Also the goal was to understand and analyze how much greater the strength would be between the three models and plausibly why their strengths differ. Methods/Materials The project began with the design and then construction of the bridge models that were 0.75 meters long, out of glue and wooden popsicle sticks. Before deflection testing occurred, supplies need were a bucket, bag of sand, string, scale, caliber, construction paper, and a testing stand to stabilize the bridge models before loads were attached. Finally deflection testing initiated by loading each bridge model with 1 # 7 pounds of sand, with 1 pound increments. For each load the deflection was measured and recorded. Results For cumulative deflection, the truss bridge under 7 pounds of load deflected 0.2 cm. The arch bridge under 7 pounds achieved 0.69 cm. While the span/beam bridge deflected by 2.01 cm under the same 7 pound load. The deflection for each 1 pound load increment was also measured and recorded. This deflection is referred as incremental deflection. The average incremental deflection for the truss bridge was 0.0285 cm. For the arch bridge, the average is 0.0985 cm and the span/beam bridge#s average is 0.2871 cm. Conclusions/Discussion With the bridge#s designs researched and tested, it was determined that the truss is the strongest bridge, with arch the second, and span/beam dramatically weaker than the other two.
    [Show full text]