2019 APWA NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION AWARDnorthernca.apwa.net/Content/Chapters/northernca... · Neil...

2019 APWA NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION AWARD

MARSH CREEK ROAD BRIDGE REPLACEMENT

CONTRA COSTRA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF

PUBLIC WORKS

PRESENTERS

Kevin Emigh, PE – Design/Construction Division Manager

Neil Leary, PE – Senior Civil Engineer

Sunny Jhutti, PE, SE – Resident Engineer

2019 APWA NATIONAL AWARD TRANSPORTATION < $5 MILLION

Marsh Creek Road

Bridge Replacement

2019 National

Project of the Year -

Category

Transportation $5

Million or Less


• Originally planned to be a 2 year project, but the objective

was to deliver it in one construction season.

• Several Accelerated Bridge Construction (ABC) techniques

were employed that help led to this project’s success.

• We will be going over some of the reasons that this

project was a success and was chosen as a National Award

winning project.


Overview of this Presentation

• Project Team

• Project Overview

• Project Challenges & Results

PROJECT TEAM

AGENCY: CONTRA COSTA COUNTY

• Neil Leary, PE – Project Manager

• Kevin Emigh, PE – Construction Division Manager

• Ave Brown – Environmental

• Laura Cremin - Environmental

BRIDGE/CIVIL DESIGNER: MARK THOMAS

• WRECO

• Parikh

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS

• LSA

• Balance Hydraulics

• Anchor QEA

PROJECT TEAM (CONT)

CONSTRUCTION MGMT: SUBSTRATE, INC

• SUBSTRATE, INC (PRIME), RE/Structure’s Rep

• Sub - Hill International (Inspector/part time OE)

• Sub - BSK Associates (Materials Testing)

• Sub - Thunder Mountain Enterprises (SWPPP)

OTHER AGENCY: CONTRA COSTA WATER DISTRICT

• Sean Maurel, Project Manager

PROJECT TEAM (CONT)

CONTRACTOR: BRIDGEWAY CIVIL CONSTRUCTORS,

INC

• Sub WC Maloney

• Sub – Gallaway Enterprises - Contractor

Supplied Biologist

• Sub – AVAR Construction, Inc

• Sub - Bigge-Crane & Rigging Co

• Sub- Griffin Soil Group

• Sub - A&S Pipelines

• Sub – CMC Rebar

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

• Replace an existing structurally deficient and narrow bridge with a new, wider, 100 year flood compliant, bridge built to current safety standards.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY(CONT)

• New Structure: 91 ft long, single span, PC/PS California Bulb Tee Girders.

• Project Cost: $4.9 Million

• Temporary Waterline Bypass

• Permanent relocated 8” dia water main.


• 22’0” tall temporary soil-nail shoring walls to facilitate stage bridge construction.


• Remove existing steel girder bridge.

• Maintain 2 lanes of through traffic (6,000 ADT).

- Construction Zone Enhanced Enforcement Program (COZEEP)


• Soldier Pile Wall with decorative concrete facing.


• COIR Block Mechanically Stabilized Embankment wall for bank stabilization.


• Realign and Reconstruct roadway approaches.

• Reconstructed driveways.


• Four stages of construction

• Traffic Handling

• Tight work space


• The end result was two - 12’0” lanes and two 8’0” shoulders.

• Critical milestone: October 31, 2018 deadline for work within Marsh Creek.

PROJECT CHALLENGES



PUBLIC WORKS

PROJECT CHALLENGES

Biggest Challenges on Marsh Creek Road Bridge

Replacement

1) Schedule Performance

2) Environmental Compliance

3) Heavy Precast Girder Placement

4) Community Relations/Partnering

CHALLENGE #1–SCHEDULE PERFORMANCE

Challenge #1 – Deliver a two season project in one season

Approach:

Preconstruction meeting (4/18/18), the following goals and milestones were identified:

1) Late Start (April 30, 2018)

2) Finish the in-creek work by October 31, 2018

3) Avoid costly winterization

4) Maintain a Positive public perception (6,000) commuters a day on MCR

5) Substantially Complete by Dec 21, 2018

How was this schedule managed by the Project Team?

CHALLENGE #1– SCHEDULE PERFORMANCE - APPROACH

• GO-NO GO DECISION (BIG PICTURE)

Action – Go

• Determined at each stage, if the contractor had enough resources and commitment to finish.

• Evaluated and determined if we needed permit extensions as safeguard –401, 404, and 1602.

• Discussed about acceleration – Premium Time and Saturdays.

• Developed a Contingency Plan.

Action - No Go

• Set up Long Term Traffic Control.

• Clean Up Creek, Prepare for Winterization, Remove Stream Diversion.

• Contractor to de-mob. No overhead costs. Re-mob is paid per spec.


Schedule Approach

• Developed Our Own Independent Schedule

• Identified critical milestones

• Critical Target Date - Start Bridge Demolition around Sept 3rd, 2018

• Critical Target Date - Start Stage 4 Bridge Construction before Sept 10, 2018

• Critical Target Date - $20,000 penalty for not finishing creek work by Oct 31st


Schedule Performance

• Critical Target Date - Start Bridge Demolition around Sept 3rd, 2018

• Actual Date September 12, 2018

• Critical Target Date - Start Stage 4 Bridge Construction before Sept 10, 2018

• Actual Date September 21, 2018

• Critical Target Date - $20,000 penalty for not finishing creek work by Oct 31st

• Actual Date October 31, 2018


Approach – How we met those dates?

• Met with the Contractor and County to discuss CPM Schedule Update early and often. Exclusive schedule meetings were performed during:

1) Preconstruction (4/13/18)

2) After Project Start Inefficiencies (7/17/18) – Shoring took longer than anticipated.

3) After Stage 2 Construction, (9/11/18) – During Bridge Removal we asked for a revised recovery schedule to determine there were enough resources to complete Stage 4 substructures.

4) After Stage 4 Abutment/Wingwalls complete (10/16/18) – We determined if two weeks was enough time to finish creek restoration work.


Approach

• Determined as a team if the Schedule was reasonable and whether it was worth the risk to continue to push forward.

• This included determining if the Contractor had sufficient resources to do the job.

• After 10/16/18, we made a final push to finish all the RSP, COIR Block Walls Remove Steam Diversion, and Restore the Creek.


Result

By using:• Critical schedule management techniques.• ABC construction practices.• Working Premium Time and Saturdays.• We avoided costly winterization. • Met the Permit Deadline of October 31, 2018, by finishing all Stage 4 substructure

work, rock slope protection, removed stream diversion, and restored creek.


Accelerated Bridge Construction (ABC) Techniques employed at Marsh Creek Bridge:

• Complex and Innovative Shoring Design

• Soil-Cement Backfill with Geogrid MSE Wall

• Deleted Stage 3 Construction

• Used High Early Strength Concrete & Concrete Accelerants

• Reduced Closure Pour Settlement time from 60 days to 15 days

• Worked Premium Time and Saturdays

INNOVATIVE APPROACH – STAGE 2 TEMPORARY SHORING SCHEDULE PERFORMANCE (CONT)

STAGE 2 TEMPORARY SHORING

• Needed a shoring solution to allow for stage construction.

• The existing Marsh Creek bridge Abutment was unique in that is served more as a bulkhead, rather than as an abutment.

• Through a repeated review process, the Construction Manager, the County, the Designer and the Contractor were satisfied with the solution.


INNOVATIVE SOLUTION:

• Partial soil nail wall and partial tieback wall.

• This solution allowed the Contractor to perform a partial demo, protect the 6” bypass water line and build the Stage 2 – Bridge Substructure and Superstructure.

• Stabilized the directly adjacent MCR serving 6,000 vehicles a day.

• Finally, it doubled as a form for the Soil-Cement MSE wall that facilitated Stage 4 Bridge Construction.


INNOVATIVE SOLUTION: Temporary Shoring

• Need for compression strut frame, as we demolished € wingwalls


INNOVATIVE SOLUTION: Temporary Shoring

• Tiebacks and Walers

INNOVATIVE APPROACH – SOIL CEMENT MSE SHORING

SCHEDULE PERFORMANCE (CONT)

INNOVATIVE SOLUTIONS:

• Soil-Cement MSE Shoring - Contractor proposed innovation shoring solution in Stage 2 that would eventually facilitate Stage 4 bridge construction.

• This was achieved by utilizing soil-cement backfill behind the Abutment with Tensar Geogrid, which would serve as a Temporary Mechanically Stabilized Embankment (MSE) wall.

• Saved several days in traditional backfill.

• Saved at least a week, as no additional shoring system was required for Stage 4. (Doubled as Shoring)

INNOVATIVE APPROACH – SOIL CEMENT MSE SHORING



• Soil cement being pumped into abutment. Substrate and BSK developed testing criteria. We ended up utilizing ASTM D-1633, in lieu of the no longer method used by Caltrans CT-221.

• Structural Backfill areas above and below the soil cement were created to allow for migration of water as we were concerned about the permeability of the soil cement.

• Soil Cement Geogrid MSE Wall doubled as Shoring for Stage 4 (Saved at least 1 week)

INNOVATIVE APPROACH – DELETE STAGE 3 CONSTRUCTION



• Deleting Stage 3 - By slighting over-paving Stage 2, the project team deleted the entire Stage 3 Construction (saved 10 working days).

• Stage 3 was a sliver-pave widening in the center of the roadway. Split K-Rail configuration.

• Inefficient and unsafe as the Contractor would have to work in a tight Krail configuration.



INNOVATIVE SOLUTIONS – Deleting Stage 3

• In addition, local residents would be impacted as they would have to drive past the krail and perform an unsafe U-turn to get back to their driveways, as access would be cut off.



INNOVATIVE SOLUTIONS – Deleting Stage 3

Summary

By deleting Stage 3, we eliminated:

1) Driver confusion that would have resulted from the split traffic switch.

2) an unsafe U-turn condition, as the Krail would block driveways on both sides.

3) Several thousand feet of Krail installation and take down.

4) Additional COZEEP Support

5) At least 10 working days

INNOVATIVE APPROACH – HIGH EARLY STRENGTH CONCRETE



High-Early Strength Mix Designs

The project team approved two special concrete mix designs:

• One with higher cement content and water reducers (Delvo).

• Another with concrete accelerant BASF MasterSet AC 534 (Caltrans prequalified product).

• By using these mixes in the Abutment pours, retaining walls, approach slabs, the Contractor was able to shave off several days from the project.

• They were able to backfill sooner in the case of Abutments and retaining walls, and were also able to drive on the approach slabs sooner as strength came up in 3 days, rather than waiting 7 days.

• That’s over 4,200 psi concrete in 3 days!




High-Early Strength Mix Designs

• RESULTS: By utilizing high-early strength concrete and accelerants, we are able to shave off several days, if not weeks of the schedule.

INNOVATIVE APPROACH –SHORTEN CLOSURE POUR TIME



• Reduced Closure Pour Settlement Time – As mentioned previously, the designer intended this job to be completed in two seasons and, therefore, did not include a settlement period.

• The standard settlement period from bridge closure pours is 60 calendar days.




Closure Pour Settlement Time - the Traditional Approach

• Where did the 60 day settlement period come from?

• Caltrans only discusses CIP-PS Box Girders, as this was the bulk of their bridge inventory

• Creep behavior was well understood by Caltrans for CIP-PS Box Girders (Caltrans Deflection Curve MTD 11-34)

• Caltrans Alternate 1 – Falsework shall be released as soon as permitted by the Specs. Closure pour shall not be placed sooner than 60 days after the Falsework has been released. (Total Duration 70 Days)

• Caltrans Alternate 2 – Falsework shall not be released less than 28 days after the last deck concrete has been placed. Closure pour shall not be placed sooner than 14 days after Falsework has been released. (Total Duration 42 Days)




Closure Pour Settlement Time

• How to Reduce from 60 Days to 15?

• Joint Caltrans/UC Davis Study (June 2011)

• Legitimizes the Caltrans Deflection Curve

(MTD 11-34) for Alt 1 (60 Days in place)

• Proves Alt 2 (28 days) does not follow

Caltrans Curve (MTD 11-34)

• Demonstrates that most of the settlement in Alt 2 occurs instantaneously

• Opened up the possibility to reduce closure pour settlement time




Caltrans Deflection Curve (MTD 11-34) and UC Davis Study




Reduced Closure Pour Settlement Time

• The UC Davis study indicated that the Alt 2 bridge creep behavior more closely resembled that of precast girder bridges as the superstructure cured with Falsework in place.

• This study lead to further research on closure pour settlement - looking at different bridge types – in particular Precast Girder Bridges and Precast Voided Slabs

• The result Caltrans Memo’s to Designers 8-3 “Deck Closure Pour and Waiting Period for Bridge Widening or Staged Construction”

• Memo became “Official” in September 2018 – perfect timing!



INNOVATIVE SOLUTIONS: MTD 8-3




• One Issue - Our Barrier Subcontractor was pushed out by 1 week.




• We used K-rail to simulate the weight of the permanent Type 732 Barrier.

• Method concurred by Designer



RESULT

• We were able to reduce the closure pour wait period from 60 days to 15 days, saving 45 calendar days from the contract.

INNOVATIVE APPROACH –PREMIUM TIME AND SAT WORK



• Premium Time and Saturday Work

• Finally, from June 15th to October 27th, the Contractor began working premium time and Saturdays, including sometimes on Sundays to get the project back on schedule.

• The cost of Premium Time Compensation was compared to a Independent Cost Evaluation (ICE) of the Cost of Winterization to help justify the dollars spent.

• We only compensated the Contractor for the premium time component only, not all additional overtime and Saturday work.




Premium Time and Saturdays

• ICE developed indicated

Approximately $100 K in premium

without taking into account

Contractor inefficiencies.

• The Actual Premium Time Change

Order was written for $60K NTE.

• This number was compared to

Winterization Costs.



INNOVATIVE SOLUTIONS: Winterization Costs

• This ICE looked at the cost of: Re-Installing Stream Diversion, Partial Reinstall TWEF and Repair, Winterization SWPPP BMP’s, RE Trailer Rental Costs, Bridgeway Office OH Charges, Field Personnel Once per week to check on jobsite and ensure SWPPP BMPS are holding up, and perform Dust Control, Sweeping and other maintenance/house keeping.

• It also included remobilization of Equipment and Material Storage Fees. And Cost of Support for Consultants for nominal Resident Engineering Services, County PM and Environmental Support costs required during Winterization, as well as, additional permit fees.

• The costs were well over 2.5X the cost of the Premium Time Compensation provided to the Contractor.

• Moral of Story: Did not simply throw money at the project.

• Reimbursable by Caltrans.



INNOVATIVE SOLUTIONS: Winterization Costs

CHALLENGE #1 – SCHEDULE PERFORMANCE - RESULTS


SUMMARY:

• By utilizing all these methods, the Contractor was able to remove the stream diversion and restore the creek prior to October 31, 2018, our environmental permit deadline.

• This project continued on and was substantially complete on January 4, 2019.

PROJECT CHALLENGES


Replacement





CHALLENGE #2 –ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE

ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE

The wildlife species on this contract included:

• Federally Protected Species

• State Species of Special Consideration

• East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) species

California Red-Legged Frog, California Tiger Salamander, Alameda Whipsnake, Giant Garter Snake, San Joaquin Kit Fox, Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp, Longhorn Fairy Shrimp, Vernal Pool Tadpole Shrimp, Western Pond Turtle, Townsend Big-eared Bat, Western Burrowing Owl, and Golden Eagle.

Coast Horned Lizard, Pallid Bat, White-tailed kite, Ringtail, and American Badger.

CHALLENGE #2 – ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE - APPROACH

ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE (CONT)

• Temporary Wildlife Exclusion Fencing (TWEF)

- Silt Fence/ 4’0” Orange Plastic Fence.

• Dripline fencing around trees.


ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE (CONT) – NESTING BIRD

• February 2018: Tree Removal (County Practice)

• Contractor Supplied Biologist (CSB): Gallaway Enterprises.

• Contract Change Order: Nest Management Services through LSA Associates.

• June 4th, 2018 two Black Phoebes successfully nested on the existing Marsh Creek Bridge and laid eggs.

CHALLENGE #2 – ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE - APPROACHENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE (CONT) – NESTING BIRD

• Innovative compromise: Contractor Supplied Biologist, Gallaway Enterprise, and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW); the Contractor continued working under reduced buffer and full time monitoring. Approved by CDFW.

• The full-time Biologist monitored the birds to ensure no distress from the nearby construction operations.

• July 6th, 2018: Phoebes Fledged.

• Nest Management operations continued till the end of nesting season.

CHALLENGE #2 – ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE - APPROACHENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE (CONT) - STREAM DIVERSION

• Temporary stream diversion:

� Ensured Wildlife Protection.

� Two 52” diameter pipes - 250 CFS

� Installed May 25, 2018

� Removed October 27, 2018.

� Creek restored by October 31, 2018.


• Water-tight System:

� Cofferdams and pipes.

� TWEF over Cofferdams fully closed system.

� full-time Biological Monitoring.

� Relocations: Over 500 fish, several CRLF’s, and a couple of Western Pond Turtles.


• Dewatering plan:

� Two holding tanks – “clean water”, and “dirty water”.

� Clean water – returned to creek via turbidity curtain.

� Dirty water – treated (and tested) and used as dust control


ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE (CONT) - BANK STABILIZATION

• Deep foundation excavations: disturbances of creek bank outside planned limits.

• Bank stabilization: COIR Block MSE Wall.

• Preferred by the owner.

• Owner engaged from pre-construction meeting throughout construction.

• Negotiated/developed permanent easement agreements.

• The Rolanka COIR Block Wall System.

CHALLENGE #2 – ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE - RESOLUTION

ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE (CONT)

SUMMARY:

• Environmental Stewardship:

� TWEF Fencing

� Nesting Bird Management (compromise on buffer to keep working)

� Temporary Stream Diversion

� Dewatering Plan

� COIR Block Bank Stabilization

• Partnering facilitates construction

PROJECT CHALLENGES


Replacement





CHALLENGE #3– HEAVY PRECAST GIRDER PLACEMENT

HEAVY PRECAST GIRDER PLACEMENT

• Girders were 4’0 deep by 4’0” wide wide-flange California Bulb Tee girders, approximately 88’3” long (6 Total).

• Though seemingly small, they weighed about 44 tons each.

• As such, a Special P-9 truck route and a double-crane pick was required to successfully place these girders.

• Long lead time item, the Precast Girder Shop Drawings and Precast Quality Control Plan had to be reviewed and approved from the outset of the project.

CHALLENGE #3– HEAVY PRECAST GIRDER PLACEMENT

HEAVY PRECAST GIRDER PLACEMENT - LOCAL FABRICATION AND SOURCE INSPECTION

• The six – 88’3” long girders were fabricated in Lathrop, California at Confab LLC.

• The fabrication was Source Inspected and the Quality Assurance was performed by BSK Associates.

CHALLENGE #3 - HEAVY PRECAST GIRDER PLACEMENT APPROACH

HEAVY PRECAST GIRDER PLACEMENT (CONT)

• The RE and the Contractor and his subs (including his truckers) had an early logistics meeting part of the submittal requirements.

• The RE asked the Contractor to provide information about the truck route to ensure safe delivery on a P-9 truck route, which included evaluation of Permit rated bridges and turn radii.


HEAVY PRECAST GIRDER PLACEMENT (CONT)

• The following truck route was used:


HEAVY PRECAST GIRDER PLACEMENT (CONT) – STAGE 2 GIRDER PLACEMENT

• Stage 2 Girder Erection: Once delivered to the site, the girder were erected at two different Stages.

• Stage 2 Girders were placed on August 2nd, 2018.

• Double crane pick – two 265-ton telescoping cranes.

• The four 44-ton California Bulb-Tee girders were placed in only 3 hrs limiting exposure and delays to the traveling public.

CHALLENGE #3 - HEAVY PRECAST GIRDER PLACEMENT – STAGE 2


HEAVY PRECAST GIRDER PLACEMENT (CONT) – STAGE 4 GIRDER PLACEMENT

• Stage 4 Girder Erection:

• On November 2, 2018, this operation was repeated for the remaining two girders, again with the two 265-ton telescoping cranes.

• Work was once again completed in less than 3 hrs limiting exposure and delays to the traveling public.

CHALLENGE #3 - HEAVY PRECAST GIRDER PLACEMENT RESULTS

HEAVY PRECAST GIRDER PLACEMENT (CONT) - RESULTS

Results:

• All six girders were determined to have been placed within ¼” of theoretical values.

• No safety issues have occurred as a result of the placement activities.

• No traffic delays longer than 15 minutes.

• Significant coordination was required to ensure this success of these activities, which included:

Public Outreach, COZEEP, pre-erection logistics meetings (total 2), pre-erection safety meetings (total 2).

This included earlier submittal reviews.

PROJECT CHALLENGES


Replacement





CHALLENGE #4 - COMMMUNITY RELATIONS/PARTNERING

APPROACH: PUBLIC OUTREACH

• Critical outreach was performed through the County Public Information Officer, Steve Padilla, who sent out information leaflets, updated the County website, and various other social media outlets.

The following milestone events were relayed

by the County PIO:

• Stage 2 – Girder Placement (Aug 2, 2018).

• Stage 2 to 4 Traffic Switch (Sept 11, 2018).

• Stage 4 – Girder Placement (Nov 2, 2018).

• Final Traffic Switch (Dec 21, 2018).



• In addition to the outreach, the project had 4 Portable Changeable Message Signs (PCMS) relaying project information, two near the project site, and two several miles away, to give advanced warning to commuters from Brentwood and Concord.



• The County utilized the use of COZEEP to have CHP on site during critical operations.

• Continual updates on the County website to inform commuters of potential delays.

Corridor Zone Enhanced Enforcement Program (COZEEP)


APPROACH: Adjacent Neighbor Coordination:


APPROACH: Adjacent Neighbor Coordination:

• Ensured access and safety, while keeping them informed of potential impacts, including the additional creek work and driveway access.

• This included formal outreach meetings, sharing the Contractor’s Baseline Schedule and providing weekly 3-week look ahead schedules.


APPROACH: Adjacent Neighbor Coordination (CONT):

• The team also ensured the resident had safe access to mail and garbage.

• Coordination with Cal-Fire occurred and fine adjustments to the temporary driveway had to be made to ensure that the residents could access the residence.

CHALLENGE #4 - COMMMUNITY RELATIONS/PARTNERING - APPROACH

PARTNERING:

• Partnering on this project was a necessity.

• Partnering between the Agency, Designer, CM team, and Contractor, made the difference.

• From the outset, even before the prejob, the project team brainstormed with the Contractor.

• All aspects of the job had full buy-in of all parties.

CHALLENGE #4 - COMMMUNITY RELATIONS/PARTNERING - RESULTS

COMMUNITY RELATIONS/PARTNERING - RESULTS

Results:

• The project team delivered this project in less than 1 year, with no claims!

• As a bonus, the project won the 2019 APWA National Project of the Year Award.

• To deliver this project, it really was team effort with Bridgeway, Gallaway, Mark Thomas, Contra Costa Water District, Contra Costa County and the Substrate team that made this project successful and award winning.

2019 APWA NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION AWARD



PUBLIC WORKS

THANK YOU!

QUESTIONS?

CONTACT INFO

Mr. Kevin Emigh, PE (925) [email protected]

Mr. Neil Leary, PE(925) [email protected]

Mr. Sunny Jhutti, PE, SE - Substrate, Inc

(415) 246-4920

[email protected]

2019 APWA NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION AWARDnorthernca.apwa.net/Content/Chapters/northernca... · Neil...

Documents

Transcript of 2019 APWA NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION AWARDnorthernca.apwa.net/Content/Chapters/northernca... · Neil...