AGC / WSDOT Structures Team Meeting Minutes 2016 · AGC/WSDOT Structures Team Meeting Minutes March...

Washington State

Department of Transportation

AGC/WSDOT Structures Team March 25th, 2016 Meeting Minutes

Initials Member Company Phone E-mail

Armour, Tom DBM Constr. 206-730-4591 [email protected] X Ayers, Scott1 Graham Constr. 206-631-2358 [email protected] X Bhalla, Ricky WSDOT 360-538-8502 [email protected] X Bingle, Jed WSDOT 360-705-7222 [email protected] X Binnig, Bill Kiewit Pacific 425-255-8333 [email protected] X Bowles, Eric Conc. Tech. 253-383-3545 [email protected] X DeGasparis, Charlie Atkinson Constr. 425-255-7551 [email protected] X Fell, Susan WSDOT-SWR 360-759-1312 [email protected] X Foster, Marco WSDOT-HQ 360-705-7824 [email protected] X Firth, Jeff Hamilton Const. 541-953-9755 [email protected] X Gaines, Mark1 WSDOT-HQ 360-705-7827 [email protected] X Griffith, Kelly Max J. Kuney 509-535-0651 [email protected] Haas, Carl PCL 425-495-2086 [email protected]

X Hilmes, Bob WSDOT-ER 509-324-6232 [email protected] Lehman, Debbie FHWA 360-753-9482 [email protected]

X Madden, Tom WSDOT-UCO 206-805-5352 [email protected] X Olk, John WSDOT 360-705-7395 [email protected] X Olson, Ryan PCL 425-577-4217 [email protected]

Owen, Geoff Kiewit 360-609-6548 [email protected] Quigg, John Quigg Bros. 360-533-1530 [email protected] Regnier, Ed PCL 425-577-4217 [email protected] Reller, Robert Manson Constr. 206-762-0950 [email protected]

X Smith, Will WSDOT 509-577-1844 [email protected] Swenson, Robb General Constr. 360-394-1407 [email protected]

X Tornberg, Ben Manson Constr. 206-496.9407 [email protected]

X Welch, Pete Granite Constr. 425-551-3100 [email protected] 1 Team co-chair

Guests Attendee Company Phone E-mail Hans Breivik Quigg Bros 360-507-6455 [email protected] Don Ross Granite 425-551-3130 [email protected]

Meeting minutes were prepared by Marco Foster. Topics – Steel Barrier presentation (Pacific Barrier), Concrete-Filled steel tube research 1. Welcome & Review of Agenda

mailto:[email protected]


























AGC/WSDOT Structures Team Meeting Minutes March 25th, 2016

Mark welcomed the group and reviewed the agenda. There were a several guests in attendance so introductions were made. There were no additions to the agenda. Action Item: N/A.

2. Review of November meeting minutes Bob and Tom provided some minor comments. No other comments were provided on the November meeting minutes. Action Item: Mark will post the meeting minutes.

3. Pacific Barrier – Steel Temporary Barrier Brad Arnston and Sam Arnold of Pacific Barrier gave a presentation on a steel temporary traffic barrier product that could be used as an alternate to temporary concrete barrier customarily used to protect work zones. Sam was originally involved in the QMB barrier systems that were used in the 90’s, and water filled barrier – which ended up having a short service life. The advantage to this new product is that it is much lighter and easier to move and handle – yet it still provides the same or better protection as standard plan temporary concrete barrier. Advantages of the BarrierGuard 800 include; - The barrier has a clear distance/scupper beneath it to allow water to flow under. - The BarrierGuard can be stacked multiple levels which saves room. - Because it is much lighter you can also haul much more steel barrier per load

compared to concrete barrier. - Approximately 1000 L.F. per hour can be placed compared to 500 L.F. per hour

for concrete barrier. - There are cost saving opportunities in transportation, installation and handling

compared with conventional concrete barrier.

Sam spent a little time discussing the connections and pinning of the ends. Video of barrier placement to demonstrate rapid installation was viewed. This system can be installed down to a 12’ radius and you can use wheels to allow manual movement of the barrier. The steel barrier system works due to the torsional rigidity of the steel sections. Numerous examples of the barrier guard system being used nationally and internationally were viewed. The barrier guard system has been used extensively in high security situations around the world. Scott asked what limits the service life of the product to 20 years. It is the corrosion protection system (galvanizing) that limits. The product cost is comparable to that of temporary concrete barrier. The BarrierGuard 800 is made internationally; they produce barrier in Pennsylvania and can use barrier sourced there to meet Buy America requirements.


There was some discussion amongst the team about possible spec changes to allow the steel barrier system for standard bid item for temporary concrete barrier. This barrier system has been submitted to WSDOT for inclusion on the QPL. The team took a break to go outside and view sections of the BarrierGuard 800 that Brad and Sam had brought with them. Action Item: No further action needed.

4. Concrete-Filled steel tube research Mark introduced Professors Roeder and Lehman from the University of Washington. Professor Roeder provided an update on recent research work for accelerated bridge construction. The motive for implementing this new research is significant cost savings, design performance from better confinement of the concrete, and accelerated construction. Concrete filled steel tubes (CFSTs) are composite structural elements that provide large strength and stiffness while permitting rapid construction. In bridges, CFSTs may be used as piers, piles and drilled shaft foundations. The steel tube serves as formwork and reinforcement for the concrete fill, eliminating the need for flexible reinforcing cages, shoring, and temporary formwork and increasing safety and reducing labor. The composite action of the CFST is superior to conventional design/construction. The placement of the concrete fill may be further expedited by using self-consolidating concrete (SCC) because vibration is not required. Recent changes in LFRD make it practical to take advantage of CFST’s. Professor Roeder discussed two alternatives for constructing ABC cap to column connection – the Embedded Ring (ER) connection and the Welded Dowel (WD) connection. Both options appear to have pro’s and con’s and the Professor was looking from input from the team with regards. The ER system simply requires the column to be placed in the footing and is grouted in with fiber reinforced grout and then the column tube is filled with concrete. Professor Roeder provided two case studies to demonstrate the materials/cost that could be possibly saved by using the CFST on a bridge column in lieu of conventional design/construction. Professor Roeder then provided some specific information and details with regards to the WD systems and options to construct and implement this system. Three alternatives were reviewed. Team members asked about setting the cap quickly (say a day later) prior to the composite column having a lot of set up time. Professor Lehman indicated that the research shows this is not concern and that composite action will still be developed. Seismic performance tests of CFST and reinforced concrete columns were reviewed; the seismic performance of CFST appears to be slightly better.


Questions asked of the team; 1. Do the Contractor’s see significant cost savings for drilled shaft application?

There was some open discussion with regards to structural field welding of the jackets. It was acknowledged that the reduced the size of CFST shafts would provide cost savings – however reduced diameter size may have a negative impact on shafts designed for skin friction. It was also discussed that there is significant cost associated substructure work and that having the required equipment idle during structural welding may add cost. There was then some open discussion about spiral welds.

2. Do the Contractors think there is time/cost savings with the CFST columns? The question was asked if the tubes could be filled with a lower strength concrete. Lower strength concrete would most likely not have the required properties needed structurally. It was recognized that the weight of the pier caps should be much less as the cap would not need to accommodate the larger diameter columns required for conventional reinforced concrete construction. The idea of monolithic connections was discussed.

3. Which of the 3 alternative discussed for the WD system is preferred. The Contractors generally agreed Alternative A appears most favorable.

There was some open discussion about WSDOT allowing the use of this design in the future. It is possible that WSDOT would provide alternative designs to allow economics to decide if CFST is more cost effective than RC construction. There would be some added cost for the Bridge Office to develop both design but then the Contractors could really evaluate and bid which approach is most cost effective. Action Item: Bijan will be invited to the next meeting to discuss further.

5. Future meeting Dates and Agenda Items The remainder of today’s agenda items will be discussed at the May 6th meeting since there was no time remaining today. Another future agenda item will be FA Drilled shaft obstruction item and how contract time should be addressed. Mark quickly asked Team members for feedback on Apprenticeship. Contractors are already removing Foreman and superintendents hours. Specialized Subs are a problem for the primes – they are having a difficult time getting some of the subs to meet apprenticeship requirements. Action Item: Mark asked Scott if the AGC could provide a list of subs that typically do not employ apprenticeship.

Adjourn Future meeting dates: May 6th, & June 17th.

Washington StateDepartment of Transportation

AGC/WSDOT Structures Team

June 3rd , 2016 Meeting Minutes


X Armour, Tom DBM Constr. 206-730-4591 [email protected]

X Ayers, Scott1 Graham Constr. 206-631-2358 [email protected]

X Bingle, Jed WSDOT 360-705-7222 [email protected]

X Binnig, Bill Kiewit Pacific 425-255-8333 [email protected]

X Bowles, Eric Conc. Tech. 253-383-3545 [email protected]

X DeGasparis, Charlie Atkinson Constr. 425-255-7551 [email protected]

X Fell, Susan WSDOT-SWR 360-759-1312 [email protected]

X Foster, Marco WSDOT-HQ 360-705-7824 [email protected]

X Firth, Jeff Hamilton Const. 541-953-9755 [email protected]

X Gaines, Mark1 WSDOT-HQ 360-705-7827 [email protected]

X Griffith, Kelly Max J. Kuney 509-535-0651 [email protected]

Haas, Carl PCL 425-495-2086 [email protected]

X Hilmes, Bob WSDOT-ER 509-324-6232 [email protected]

Lehman, Debbie FHWA 360-753-9482 [email protected]

X Madden, Tom WSDOT-UCO 206-805-5352 [email protected]

X Olk, John WSDOT 360-705-7395 [email protected]

X Olson, Ryan PCL 425-577-4217 [email protected]

Owen, Geoff Kiewit 360-609-6548 [email protected]

Quigg, John Quigg Bros. 360-533-1530 [email protected]

Regnier, Ed PCL 425-577-4217 [email protected]

Reller, Robert Manson Constr. 206-762-0950 [email protected]

X Smith, Will WSDOT 509-577-1844 [email protected]

Swenson, Robb General Constr. 360-394-1407 [email protected]

Tornberg, Ben Manson Constr. 206-496.9407 [email protected]

om

Welch, Pete Granite Constr. 425-551-3100 [email protected]

X Zeigler, Dave WSDOT 360-357-2745 [email protected] 1 Team co-chair

Guests

Attendee Company Phone E-mail

Travis Thornstad UW 503-347-1723 [email protected]

Marc Eberhard UW 206-715-9751 [email protected]

Meeting minutes were prepared by Marco Foster.

Topics – Pre-tensioned, rocking bridge system; Shaft non-destructive testing;

changes in HQ construction; update on shotcrete spec; Review of Hot/Cold

Weather Protection Specifications; SS Section 2-09.3(3)B Excavation; Temporary

Footings and Mudsills; New Steel – Stripe Coat.


























AGC/WSDOT Structures Team Meeting Minutes June 3rd , 2016

1. Welcome & Review of Agenda

Mark welcomed the group and reviewed the agenda. There were a several guests in

attendance so introductions were made. Mark added a couple of agenda items. It was

noted that Mark did not get the minutes from the last meeting distributed to the team

so Mark will send them out. Mark introduced Dave Zeigler as a new member of the

Team replacing Ricky Bhalla. There are no changes in the AGC membership.

Action Item: Mark to distribute March meeting minutes to the team.

2. Pre-tensioned, rocking bridge system

Mark introduced Professor Stanton, Marc Eberhard, and Travis Thonstad from the

University of Washington. They have been working on new research for rapid bridge

construction and wanted to address the team and solicit information with regards to

constructability. They provided a power point presentation to highlight some of the

research work. The focus of today’s discussion centered on the construction of

precast columns, and the footing and cap beam connections. Conventional methods of

construction were reviewed and types of seismic failure associated with this design

were discussed. The new system, pre-stressed columns, demonstrates superior

seismic performance but also provide opportunities for rapid construction since the

columns are precast.

The basic concept is the precast columns (steel filled tubes) are placed into position

and cast in place to make the footing connection. Then, precast cap beam are placed

over the columns and the connection between the precast column and cap is

completed with grout. Precast columns would be fabricated at a fabrication site so no

pre-tensioning of the columns would be needed at the project site. The details of the

system were reviewed. The pre-stressing in the column allows the column to behave

elastic – similar to rubber bands. This new system provides and rocking behavior at

the connections (footing and cap) as opposed to conventional bending/breaking action

we now observe with conventional CIP construction. Lab testing and analysis were

reviewed and it demonstrated very good seismic performance.

The Professors then reviewed the sequence of construction with the new proposed

system. Precast columns are set into footing and poured in place. Precast caps are

then installed and grouted.

Questions asked of the team;

1. What is the best way to support pre-cast columns?

There was some brief discussion with regards but no real consensus on a best

alternative.

2. How would the Contractor take off/compare the cost of more expensive crane

with reduced construction cost of column? This generated discussion on the


added cost for large cranes to pick the heavy precast columns/caps. Having these

large cranes sitting on the project while concrete and grout are curing at the

footing/caps raised some concerns. If the concrete used to make the footing

connection would provide early/rapid strength to allow construction to continue

this would be helpful. It was also suggested that designing columns to weigh

approximately half the weight of the girders may be efficient. This would allow

the same size crane to be used for setting the column as would be needed to set

the girders. Pre-casting the columns/caps on site may assist in reducing

transportation related challenges (overloads).

3. What is the effect of placing PC column in 2 halves? There did not seem to be a

lot of support for this concept as it was felt that the added step of splicing the

column would delay activities and result in cranes being idle for a longer period.

4. What is the best way of bracing the precast column prior to pouring the footing?

No special requirements/issues were raised by the team.

5. What tolerances are needed when placing the cap beam in a grouted bar

connection? More room/shy distance is better. Having the column fixed prior to

placing the cap is desirable from a safety perspective. Using a template to insure

columns in place prior to casting footing was discussed. There was some merit to

this but it was acknowledged it adds some time to the operation.

6. Are the proposed grouting operations reasonable? Is “buttering” the grout pad

prior to beam placement feasible? No team members expressed concern with the

proposed grouting.

7. How long after grouting before you could place precast girders?

It was generally agreed that grout for the cap connections would not need a lot of

cure time. Grout typically attains the required strength quickly. No concerns.

Strength at the footing connection was a larger concern.

8. What is the value of time in Traffic Control and mobilization costs?

Evaluating the added cost of this type of construction against user impacts or

other costs such as Traffic Control is not an easy comparison as there are some

many variable. User impacts for the Skagit River collapse were very high. Mark

suggested both types of design (rocking bridge and conventional CIP) be included

in a contract and the economics of this proposal could be evaluated through

competitive bid. It was suggested that this may be a cost effective option in lieu

of staged construction.

9. What types of incentives would be needed to make this type of construction

advantages over CIP construction? A + B bidding and incentive/disincentives

were discussed. Although this can be an effective way to motivate the Contractor

to accelerate the work it does create other challenges on the project that can be

costly for both Contractor and Owner.


10. What are the biggest challenges and benefits you see in constructing this type of

precast system? Even if the rocking bridge system cost more to build it appears

the seismic benefit is worth the expense. Having large cranes sitting around while

you are waiting for grout to cure will be expensive. Footing strength would be the

biggest concern. Professor Stanton will give more consideration to the strength

requirement for the individual components (footing and cap). It was suggested

that 100 kips is the weight limit that starts to influence crane size. If the columns

were designed to be half the weight of the girder – crane utilization could be

optimized some.

If the bridges were constructed on a grade/slope (not level) there would be added

concerns with bracing of the cap beam prior to grouting. Alternatives for

modifying the cap beam to address cross slope were discussed.

Mark asked if the same system could be accommodated by drilled shafts. There

was some discussion on the benefits of using drilled shafts and some consensus

that this may have advantages over spread footing. For example – drilled

shaft/column connections would provide more tolerance for column positioning.

There was some open discussion about WSDOT allowing the use of this design in

the future. It is possible that WSDOT would allow alternate design to allow

economics to decide if CFST is more cost effective than RC construction. There

would be some added cost for the Bridge Office to develop both design but then

the Contractors could really evaluate and bid which approach is most cost

effective.

Action Item: Mark will provide a copy of the meeting minutes back the Professors.

3. Changes in the Construction Office

Mark provided and updated table of organization for the construction office and

reviewed with the Team. Four of the ASCE’s will now be reporting to Dave Erickson.

Mark is responsible for most of the Construction Office function outside ASCE

support. He has requested a Bridge position to assist with Bridge Construction issues.

Action Item: No action needed.

4. Update on JTC review of WSDOT DB Program

Mark informed the team that it is the intent of the Construction Office to ramp up

support of the Design Build program – this is especially important in light of the new

connecting Washington package that will expand use of DB. The JTC has recently

budgeted $400k to review Washington State DB practices. The study is revealing

some current WSDOT practices that could be improved – Mark reviewed some of the

comments generated from the JTC review. HQ Construction office recently hired Art

McCluskey to head our DB effort. Art will be filling the position formerly held by

Scotty Ireland. Jolena Missildine has been hired to replace the position formerly held


by Teresa Eckard and will support Art with DB policy. There has also been some

consideration to shuffle duties to add more support for updating WSDOT DB policy.

The plan is that HQ Construction will provide more support to the regions for the

implementation/expansion of DB around the state. There will be Regions executing

and administrating DB contracts that currently do not have much experience in this

type of contracting.

There was some open discussion on how the Project Delivery Selection Method

Guide (PDSMG) process is going and challenges with small DB projects. The

Contractors expressed some concern over WSDOT’s current practice and the

cost/time to bid our DB projects. A one step process raised a lot of concern as the

Contractors felt that the cost of preliminary design is high and they may not want to

spend the effort if there would be no short listing of bidders.

5. Update on Permanent Shotcrete specification

Marco provided a brief update and short slide presentation on a recent project

implementing a new specification for the construction of permanent shotcrete walls.

The benefits of using shotcrete are recognized in cost saving and time during

construction. The main structural concerns with using shotcrete are with regards to

long term durability (freeze/thaw durability and shrinkage cracking). The new

specification is performance based and requires the Contractor can demonstrate his

ability to place the shotcrete and provide required shotcrete properties – primarily air

voids, reduced permeability and compressive strength but also the ability to provide

adequate architectural treatment.

Recently permanent shotcrete walls were successfully constructed on the North

Access contract. The slide show highlighted some of the activities of the pre-

production and production work.


6. Shaft non-destructive testing Mark G. provided a brief overview of proposed changes to standard specification 6-

19 that would require the Contractor to perform no-destructive testing on drilled

shafts to insure they are structurally competent and acceptable to WSDOT. This draft

specification will be presented at ADSC June 16th. The general consensus is that CSL

testing will continue to be the primary method of QA testing of constructed drilled

shafts. Thermal Integrity is an option but it is slightly more expensive and it has

provided us some false results on WSDOT trial projects.

Mark asked the Contractors for some feedback on the proposed changes. No

concerns were raised by these proposed changes.

Mark asked if payment per LF for the shaft (including steel) was acceptable to the

Contractors. The team agreed with the change for measurement and payment. It was

recognized/acknowledged that consideration for additional payment items may be

warranted in special circumstance but they will be addressed on a case by case basis.


Action Item: Mark will incorporate these changes in time for the next amendment

update.

7. Action Items

a) Review of cold/hot weather protection specs.

Mark provided some draft specifications changes to the cold and hot weather

protection specifications. The revised language is focused more on

performance and removes some of the current prescriptive requirements.

There was some question with regards to mass pours and footings. This needs

to be given more consideration and Mark will bring back to the team. There

was some discussion by the team with regards to the requirement that concrete

temperature not fall below 40 degrees.

Bob H. did not support the proposed specification change as it does not

require a cold weather protection plan. He felt strongly that the Contractors

need to address protection with a plan if they intend to proceed with cold

weather concreting. It was suggested that the Standard Specification be

updated to allow data loggers (currently required for bridge decks) to be used

to record surface temps.

Mark will address the footing concern. Data loggers can be used for surface

temp. Add requirement for plan for cold weather protection. Eliminate

mandatory coring for freezing weather. Construction Manual language

revision be considered to address non-working day’s vs cold weather

protection will be visited.

Action Item: Mark will take comments back and revise based on today’s

discussion. The specification will be brought back for additional review at a

future meeting.

b) Standard Specifications Section 2-09.3(3)B Excavation

Mark F had not had the opportunity to work on this issue since the last

meeting. Also – as a holdover from the last meeting - Kelly asked for a future

agenda item to discuss groundwater pumping vs. placing a concrete seal when

constructing foundations.

Action Item: Mark G. will work with Mark F on revised 2-09.3(3)B language

and we will add a new item to an upcoming agenda to discuss groundwater

pumping vs. constructing a seal.

c) Temporary Footings and Mudsills


Mark reviewed proposed changes to the standard specification. Ryan and

Charlie both commented that these proposed changes do not address the

Contractors original concern that the current language requires the Contractor

engage a Geotech on every project that requires false work/mudsills.

John discussed past experience where contractor practice had not been

sufficient. John asked the Contractors if it would help if WSDOT had a max

loading identified in the Contract before the Contractor engaged a Geotech?

Ryan recalled compiling a list of conditions when a Geotech review is

required and when they would not be. Charlie supported the 2 prong approach

to address different conditions.

Action Item: Charlie and Ryan will work on a draft specification revision for

the next meeting.

.

d) New Steel – Stripe Coat Mark informed the team that Geoff Swett is forming a steel coating team and

this issue will be discussed in that format.

Action Item: Mark will update the AGC on steel coating team’s progress.

8. Future meeting Dates

Mark let the team know there is a current dispute between the Carpenters Union and

the Iron Workers Union on who owns the work involved in placing Stay in Place

forms. None of the AGC members were aware of this.

Next meeting: September 23rd, & November 4th, December 16th.

Washington StateDepartment of Transportation

AGC/WSDOT Structures Team

September 23rd, 2016 Meeting Minutes


X Armour, Tom DBM Constr. 206-730-4591 [email protected]

X Ayers, Scott1 Graham Constr. 206-631-2358 [email protected]

X Bingle, Jed WSDOT 360-705-7224 [email protected]

X Binnig, Bill Kiewit Pacific 425-255-8333 [email protected]

X Bowles, Eric Conc. Tech. 253-383-3545 [email protected]

X DeGasparis, Charlie Atkinson Constr. 425-255-7551 [email protected]

Fell, Susan WSDOT-SWR 360-759-1312 [email protected]

X Foster, Marco WSDOT-HQ 360-705-7824 [email protected]

X Firth, Jeff Hamilton Const. 541-953-9755 [email protected]

X Gaines, Mark1 WSDOT-HQ 360-705-7827 [email protected]

X Griffith, Kelly Max J. Kuney 509-535-0651 [email protected]

Haas, Carl PCL 425-495-2086 [email protected]

X Hilmes, Bob WSDOT-ER 509-324-6232 [email protected]

Lehman, Debbie FHWA 360-753-9482 [email protected]

X Madden, Tom WSDOT-UCO 206-805-5352 [email protected]

X Olk, John WSDOT 360-705-7395 [email protected]

X Olson, Ryan PCL 425-577-4217 [email protected]

Owen, Geoff Kiewit 360-609-6548 [email protected]

X Quigg, John Quigg Bros. 360-533-1530 [email protected]

Regnier, Ed PCL 425-577-4217 [email protected]

Reller, Robert Manson Constr. 206-762-0950 [email protected]

X Smith, Will WSDOT 509-577-1844 [email protected]

Swenson, Robb General Constr. 360-394-1407 [email protected]

Tornberg, Ben Manson Constr. 206-496.9407 [email protected]

om

Welch, Pete Granite Constr. 425-551-3100 [email protected]

X Zeigler, Dave WSDOT 360-357-2745 [email protected] 1 Team co-chair

Guests

Attendee Company Phone E-mail

Matt Ohlund Manson Constr.

Nathan Lightner Granite 425-320-9966 [email protected]

Lou Tran WSDOT 360-705-7195 [email protected]

Rich Zeldenrust WSDOT 360-705-7196 [email protected]

Chad Simonson WSDOT 509-324-6252 [email protected]

Chris Heathman WSDOT-Geotec 360-709-5592 [email protected]

Jim Cuthbertson WSDOT-Geotec 360-709-5452 [email protected]




























AGC/WSDOT Structures Team Meeting Minutes September 23rd, 2016

Bijan Khaleghi WSDOT 360-705-7181 [email protected]

Doug Watt CJA 425-988-2150 [email protected]

Charlie Torres WSF 206-515-3862 [email protected]

Bryant Bullamore WSF 425-576-7042 [email protected]

John Chi WSDOT 206-440-4612 [email protected]

Matt Rilling WSDOT 206-440-4625 [email protected]


1. Topics – Constructability Review – East Trent Bridge, Constructability Review – SR

532 Church Creek, Constructability Review – WSF Mukilteo Terminal replacement,

AWV Demo delivery method.


Mark welcomed the group and reviewed the agenda. There were numerous guests and several

new members in attendance so introductions were made.

Action Item: Due to the extremely full agenda – no new items were added.

3. Membership Update

Ricky Bhalla has left the team and Dave Zeigler will be joining the team. Dave has over 30

years’ experience with WSDOT with most of it being construction administration. Tom

Armour has been the ADSC representative on the AGC team. He will now be leaving the

team and Doug Watt from CJA will be the new ADSC representative.

Mark provided a quick review of yesterday’s ADSC meeting and agenda and provided a few

highlights from that meeting.

Action Item: No action required.

4. Review of June 3rd Meeting minutes

Bob Hilmes and Tom Madden provided some minor comments to Mark.

Action Item: Mark will make corrections to the minutes and get them posted to the web.

5. Constructability Review – East Trent Bridge

Rich Zeldenrust from the WSDOT bridge office provided an overview of the East Trent

Bridge replacement project. The project will replace the existing Luten Bridge over the

Spokane River within the City limits of Spokane (built in 1910). The Bridge is past its

service life and is much degraded and in need of replacement. There will be many

environmental compliance challenges on this project associated with removal of the existing

structure and the presence of numerous old piling within the footprint of the new bridge. Rich

provided background on how the structure works (voided elements filled with soil). Some of

the constraints of the project include;








Fixed profile

Multiple shallow spans

Existing footings/cofferdams/woody debris

Limited opportunity to adjust existing alignment

Short in water work window (6/15-8/31)

Besides the current bridge, there has been at least one previous structure at this location,

increasing the likelihood of encountering old pilings/foundations.

The project team requested the AGC to comment on the following;

1. Would it be better for constructability to offset the new and existing pier locations?

There is likely plenty of old timber false work piles, cut off below mud line, beneath the

existing bridge. Lots of discussion on this. Will be difficult (or impossible) to avoid

old piles in the riverbed, regardless of new pier location. Contractors felt that there

could be advantages in offsetting the existing and new pier locations, so that some of

the demo and new construction activities could be done concurrently.

2. Would the same work bridge be used for demolition and construction? Allowable

window for in-water work is June 15 to Aug 31, with a possible one-month extension into

September. Two work bridges? Upstream and downstream? Need to get an idea for

permit requests. Probably just one big work bridge would be used, with finger piers

at foundation locations, to provide good access. Contractors recommended to

assume some battered piles, to assume about 20’ spans, to assume that pipe piles will

be used, and to ask for “as many piles as possible”. Also, if drift (and ice) in the

river is minimal, the Contractors would like to have the option to keep the work

bridge in the river over the winter months.

3. Is it likely that barges would be used, or would all the work be done from work bridges?

Need for permit requests. No barges will be used; the river is too shallow.

4. How would existing piers be demolished down to mudline? Cofferdam? Cofferdam and

seal? Sediment curtain with underwater hoe-ram work? Need for permit requests. The

Contractors asked several times if half the river width could be sheet-piled off and

de-watered. This would allow demo and substructure work to be done mostly in the

dry, with no water quality or noise impacts to the river. If this is not allowed, the

demo could be done inside a silt curtain, using underwater hoe-ram work, or a cable

saw. Concrete rubble would then be removed from the river bottom.

5. Is a March Ad Date early enough to get the work bridge designed, approved, constructed,

demo completed, new substructure constructed, and remove work bridge, all within the

first Fish Window (see above)? There was a lot of concern about the very short work

window. There was some open discussion on whether or not the trestle could remain

in the river outside the fish window. The same question was posed for cofferdams.

Debris flow and constriction of the river in the winter months is a concern and

would most likely prohibit or restrict this option. The mid-March Ad date is late

and will limit what can be accomplished during the first fish window. A winter Ad

date would be much better.


6. How much staging area will be needed? There is WSDOT-owned land immediately to

the SW of the bridge, but it is within the 100-year flood zone. This land would be useful

but removal and replanting the area would be needed. There would be additional space

available as the road would be fully closed for a couple of blocks. The consensus of the

team is there is adequate space if the closed road can be fully used.


6. Constructability Review – SR 532 Church Creek

The project team (Matt Rilling and John Chi) provided an overview of the upcoming SR 532

Church Creek culvert replacement project. The culvert span is 30 feet and excavation depths

are in excess of 50’ at the deepest. The project will be advertised late this year and traffic

impacts during construction will be significant (17,000 ADT).

Due to the large traffic impact, the project team is proposing to perform this work within a 2-

week full closure. The entire roadway prism will need to be reconstructed which will require

approximately 30,000 CY of excavation and embankment. Other project constraints include;

Existing asbestos water line removal

Active water system in the vicinity

Adjacent wetlands

Due to the size and unique geometry of the new culvert – special construction sequencing

will be required

After describing the unique constraints and challenges of the project to the AGC Team,

Matt/John solicited feedback on challenges with the proposed work.

The team asked some clarifying questions with regards to grade of the new culvert vs.

existing culvert. The stream bypass was also discussed. The bypass would need to be in place

prior to the 2-week closure. There was some open discussion on access and what other work

could be done prior to implementing the 2-week closure. It is possible both ends of the

culvert could be done ahead of time depending on access.

There was discussion on the size of the culvert pieces (70 kips) and the size of the crane that

would be needed to reach and lift the load and where it would sit. There was also concern

expressed by the Contractors on getting this work done within 2 weeks. Mark G. suggested

this project may be a good candidate for A + B bidding.

Lou Tran discussed the specifics of the current box culvert design. It is a unique box design

with curved ends that will be partially filled with stream bed gravel and then the top pieces

will be installed. Sections will be snugged up by pulling male end into female end. The AGC

recommended that the construction sequence not specify what direction the culvert be

installed from (outflow to inlet) as there will need to be some flexibility to insure the road is

opened within the desired 2 weeks.

Getting the bypass in prior to closure is critical. Being able to use off road vehicles to haul a

lot of material quickly would also be helpful. It would be helpful if the bypass could be

installed out of the way so not to impact the demo of the existing culvert. Sealing the gaps


between sections of culvert with rubber would be problematic. Using grout and wet set joints

may be better but cure time would then become a consideration. There was discussion on

modifying the box details to make it simpler. The current pre-fit requirement at the

fabricator’s yard was widely supported by the Contractors.


7. Constructability Review – WSF Mukilteo Terminal replacement

The project team (Charlie Torres, Scott Watson, Bryant Bullamore) provided an overview of

the upcoming Mukilteo Ferry Terminal replacement project. This project constructs an

entirely new Ferry Terminal facility to the North of the existing Ferry Terminal. Charlie

discussed the scope of the project and described the proposed sequencing of work. The

schedule for completing the project is aggressive and there are risks/challenges associated

with archeological resources and maintaining environmental compliance. The project team

was interested in obtaining feedback for the team on how to best package the project to

minimize risk and maintain the aggressive schedule. The goal is to open the new terminal

facility in December of 2019.

WSF is currently proposing to phase the project by;

Early procurement package for piling

Execute a small utility contract to mitigate risk of archeological findings

Execute trestle contract to take advantage of 2017 fish window

Have a primary contract to complete the terminal

The project team then posed the following questions to the AGC team;

Does the proposed phasing to mitigate risk make sense?

Are there any concerns with multiple Contractors being on site concurrently?

Are there other options for mitigating risk/schedule that the AGC can think of?

The Contractors asked clarifying question about the packaging. There are environmental

restrictions that will restrict pile driving to between one hour after sunrise to one hour before

sunset. It was recommended that as much in water piling be installed in the first contract to

reduce mobilization costs. It was also suggested that shoring casing could be driven in the

trestle contract to allow drilled shaft work later outside the fish window (as part of the

primary contract). Perhaps consider installing the drilled shaft as part of the trestle contract?

Driving h-piles for ground improvement is not a problem. Having concurrent contracts

(trestle contract and small utility contract) should not be a problem as there is ample room at

the project site to eliminate/reduce interference between the two projects.

Marco noted that even if all marine foundation work was done in the first contract, a barge

and crane would still be needed to set pre-fabricated OHL and VTS structures.

There was discussion on the practicality of barging in fill materials. Collectively, the Team

felt this would be a more expensive option as the material would require double handling.


It should be feasible to get the facility open by the end of 2019. None of the Contractors

identified fatal flaws with the plan.


8. AWV Demo Brian Nielsen and Ali Amiri from the Alaska Way Viaduct replacement program provided an

overview of the upcoming viaduct demo project. Brian was seeking opinions from the AGC

on type of contract that may be best suited for the project – DB or DBB?

Ali described the scope of work and the general concept of how the demo work would be

accomplished. Maintaining access to businesses and at least one lane of travel in Alaska way

is an important project goal. The proximity of old building and residents and the need to

protect existing utilities are a couple of the project constraints.

A question was asked about the presence of contaminated materials in this area?

Contaminated material is a risk; most excavated material will probably have some level of

contamination. Excavation of the foundations will be minimized on this contract with most

contaminated material being handled on a future project.

It was also noted that the BNSF railroad tracks are also in close proximity to the project.

The AGC team suggested executing a contract six months in advance of the work is more

than adequate to prepare for the work. There was discussion on the type of shielding that

would be required to protect buildings and utilities. Weight restrictions over utilities was also

discussed.

The Contractors in attendance supported DB or DBB contracting for this project. Because of

the specialized demolition work, it’s likely that joint ventures will pursue this project.


Next meeting dates: November 18th & December 16th.

Washington State

Department of Transportation

AGC/WSDOT Structures Team November 18th, 2016 Meeting Minutes


Ayers, Scott1 Graham Constr. 206-631-2358 [email protected] Bingle, Jed WSDOT 360-705-7224 [email protected]

X Binnig, Bill Kiewit Pacific 253-255-2376 [email protected] Bowles, Eric Conc. Tech. 253-383-3545 [email protected]

X DeGasparis, Charlie Atkinson Constr. 425-255-7551 [email protected] X Fell, Susan WSDOT-SWR 360-905-1548 [email protected] X Foster, Marco WSDOT-HQ 360-705-7824 [email protected] X Firth, Jeff Hamilton Const. 541-953-9755 [email protected] X Gaines, Mark1 WSDOT-HQ 360-705-7827 [email protected] X Griffith, Kelly Max J. Kuney 509-535-0651 [email protected] Haas, Carl PCL 425-495-2086 [email protected] Hilmes, Bob WSDOT-ER 509-324-6232 [email protected] Lehman, Debbie FHWA 360-753-9482 [email protected]

X Madden, Tom WSDOT-UCO 206-805-5352 [email protected] X Olk, John WSDOT 360-705-7395 [email protected] Olson, Ryan PCL 425-577-4217 [email protected]

Owen, Geoff Kiewit 360-609-6548 [email protected] Quigg, John Quigg Bros. 360-533-1530 [email protected] Reller, Robert Manson Constr. 206-762-0950 [email protected]

X Smith, Will WSDOT 509-577-1844 [email protected] X Tornberg, Ben Manson Constr. 206-496.9407 [email protected]

om X Watt, Doug CJA 425-988-2150 [email protected] X Welch, Pete Granite Constr. 425-551-3100 [email protected] Zeigler, Dave WSDOT 360-357-2745 [email protected]

1 Team co-chair Guests

Attendee Company Phone E-mail Nathan Lightner Granite 425-320-9966 [email protected]


Topics – Update on HQ Construction Office Org; Update on Partnering Training; SS 2-09.3(3) B Excavation; Temporary Footing and Mudsills; Grade 80 reinforcing steel; Contract time for shaft obstruction removal; concrete deck temp requirements; Robotic bridge deck removal; Shotcrete research update; dewatering foundations/use of seals.

























AGC/WSDOT Structures Team Meeting Minutes November 18th , 2016

Mark welcomed the group and reviewed the agenda. The Mukilteo team has decided to move their project forward as a Design-Build project so they cancelled out on their requested constructability review today. There were a couple of relatively new members so introductions were made. Action Item: No action required.

2. Review of September 23rd Meeting minutes

Bob Hilmes provided a comment last week with regard to tolerance on precast drainage elements. After some clarifying discussion with the team– it was determined that tolerances for fit up should be increased – however the requirement for pre-fit-up at the fabricators shop be maintained. Bob’s concern (shared and agreed by the team) is that a flat surface at the fabricators yard does not replicate the inconsistencies you will experience in the field on less than perfect subgrade. Perhaps pre-fit up should be done on sand or gravel bed to better replicate the conditions that will be experienced in the field? Tom noted a couple of typos at the end of the minutes that should be corrected. Action Item: Mark will make corrections to the meeting minutes and post them the web. He will also review the specification and look to see if changes are needed to the pre-fit-up requirements.

3. Changes to the HQ Construction Office Organization

Mark provided an updated table of organization to the team. Neal Uhlmeyer will be Joining the team and will provide support for SW Region. Neal will also be supporting the development of electronic documentation. Neal has many years of field experience managing a project office for the Olympic Region. Jerry Moore will be assuming the rotational position that was formally filled by Colin Newell. Jerry will support a portion of NW Region and also NC Region. The need for additional staff is driven by increasing workload associated with the Connecting Washington funding package and the likelihood of more project delivery using design-build. Brian Aldrich will be joining the HQ Construction office to support bridge construction issues. Mark anticipates Brian will chair the ADSC and AGC structure teams in the future. Mark would continue to participate as time allowed.


4. WSDOT’s Partnering Training update Marco provided an update on efforts to develop and provide Partnering Training. In conjunction with Connecting Washington Funding package – the Legislature earmarked $50k for the development of Partnering Training. WSDOT currently posts a Partnering field book to the HQ Construction office web site but very few people are aware of its existence. There was some open discussion amongst team members on their past experience with Partnering principles and general agreement that


younger staff in both WSDOT and with the Contractors may not have been through a Partnering workshop. Marco has determined that Utah DOT is a leader in utilizing Partnering and has a robust Partnering Training program. The consultant that has helped Utah develop and provide this training has indicated she would be willing to assist WSDOT with the effort. The tentative plan is that joint training will be provided next March. The training would be described as Partnering 101 and it would be a one-day class – possibly offered more than once (once east of the Cascades and twice west of the Cascades). Allowing local agency staff was also discussed. Mark G then expanded the conversation to discuss our current Prime Contractor Performance Report (PCPR) process and that the current form is being updated for DB projects. The current PCPR is not well suited for Design Build contracting. Mark also noted that we should update how Contractors provide feedback to the PE offices. For the review process to truly be constructive the process needs to result in 2-way dialogue. There were some open discussion and specific examples discussed. Action Item: Marco and Mark to provide Partnering and PCPR updates at the next meeting.

5. Action Items a.) Standard Specification 2-09.3(3)B Excavation Mark reminded folks on the history of this topic. Basically, current standard specification refers to the Geotechnical Design Manual (GDM) and the GDM requires that any excavation over 4 feet needs to be reviewed and approved by an Engineer. Charlie proposed that the Contractor submit a Type 1 drawing for shallow excavations and a Type 2E drawing for deep excavations. Mark Frye has expressed concern in the past and commented that this approach does not address situations where excavations are close to structures. Mark G. suggested a modification to the proposed changes that would allow this approach provided the excavation is not next to sign structures or retaining walls. Mark will work with Mark Frye to try and come up with the list of acceptable and unacceptable situations. There was some open discussion with regards to other options and scenarios.

Action Item: Mark will send a draft to the team before next meeting.

b.) Temporary Footings and Mudsills. Mudsills. The plate test has been eliminated because it did not take into consideration global stability. California requires the Contractor to provide a test to demonstrate adequate capacity. Charlie advocated allowing the Contractor to develop their own test and calculations in lieu of referencing the GDM with would end up requiring a Geotechnical Engineer.


There was some open discussion. The team was unanimous that the responsibility for the design of the mudsill should be given to the Contractor. It was also generally agreed to allow the Contractor the flexibility to determine what test should be used to validate design assumptions. Mark stated that he would try to get Mark Frye to attend an upcoming meeting for further discussion. Action Item: Mark will look at potential revisions and will work to bring Mark Frye to a future meeting.

6. Grade 80 reinforcing steel in drilled shafts Mark discussed WSDOT plans to detail both 60ksi and 80ksi rebar details for shaft cages. Providing both sets of details will allow WSDOT to evaluate which option is most economical and preferred by industry. The Contractors did not express any concerns over the proposal. Action Item: No action needed.

7. Contract time for shaft obstruction removal Mark discussed our plans to revise the standard specifications to allow unworkable days for critical path impacts when dealing with obstructions for drilled shaft work. Currently – contract time is not extended for obstruction removal until 100% of the FA bid item is used. On a large project, this could result in a significant amount of time and impact. There was open discussion with regards to FA and extended overhead. The Contractors suggested that the proposed spec change is better than what we are currently working with – however – the FA would not compensate them for extended overhead. It was decided that the bigger FA and extended OH topic should be passed on to the WSDOT/AGC Admin team. Action Item: Mark will add the unworkable day change into the January amendment.

8. Concrete deck temperature requirements. This topic was raised by Scott. Contractors are struggling to meet the 75-degree temperature requirements for bridge deck concrete. Mark spent some time explaining why the temperature requirements are included in our specification and the research that supports this requirement. On a recent project – one of the team members suggested it cost approximately $30/CY to add ice to cool the concrete and meet specification. Another Contractor suggested this may not be adequate to meet the requirement. The team requested this issue be taken back to WACA so that the Concrete suppliers are very clear about the temperature requirement. It was also noted that the concrete pump is also increasing the temperature of the concrete by as much as five degrees.


The option of using a night pour in lieu of holding the 75-degree requirement was discussed. The Construction manual would need to be updated to insure this gets discussed at pre-deck pour meetings. Action Item: Mark will invite WACA to our next AGC meeting to discuss further.

9. “Robotic” bridge deck demolition There is new equipment/technology available to that can assist in controlling deck removal. Our current specification limits hammer weight to 30 lbs. The robotic equipment could be used for demolition work, however the hammer used by the robotic equipment exceeds 30 lbs. In order to allow the robotic equipment, changes to our specifications would be needed to allow larger hammers. Mark had some video of the operation that he shared with the team. The Contractors did not feel the current 30lb restriction was working as well as WSDOT hoped. Laborers get tired because using the smaller hammers takes longer. Charlie asked if the length of the bar to be spliced could be reduced by using UHPC at the splice location? Action Item: Mark will review this topic further and get back to the team.

10. Update on Shotcrete Research

Mark provided an update of the research WSU has done on shotcrete to date. Then went on to describe the work that will be part of the proposed Phase II research. The following issues are anticipated to be investigated in-depth in Phase II:

Cracking in shotcrete (causes and mitigating strategies, including curing practices and mixture designs with shrinkage reducing admixture, silica fume, fibers, etc.)

Best curing practices (wet curing, curing compounds, lab vs. field comparisons, etc.)

Short and long term performance (field test methods, effect of air contents of different construction stages)

Cost/schedule benefits of using shotcrete (vs. CIP concrete) Potential for other shotcrete applications such as fish passage work.

It was noted that the Bridge Office has included permanent shotcrete on at least 2 more projects. Action Item: Mark to provide an update at the next meeting.

11. Dewatering foundations/use of foundation seals

Kelly asked to discuss Standard Specification Section 6-02.3(6) that states the following:

When a foundation excavation contains water, the Contractor shall pump it dry

before placing concrete. If this is impossible, an underwater concrete seal shall


be placed that complies with Section 6-02.3(6)B. This seal shall be thick enough to resist any uplift.

His concern is that this potentially requires significant work to achieve, however there is no mechanism for payment if a seal is ultimately required. He also noted that it isn’t clear whose responsibility it is to determine if pumping to dry out the excavation is “impossible”. Is this a call that the Contractor makes, or is it the responsibility of the Engineer? If a seal is required, is the Contractor supposed to absorb this added cost? He discussed a specific example where he was trying to keep the excavation dry with several very large pumps but could not maintain a dry excavation. How does the Contractor bid this? Mark agreed to review this specification to see if improvements can be made. Action Item: Mark will work on reviewing this specification and will provide an update at the next meeting.

12. WSDOT/AGC Lead team meeting

Mark closed the meeting by providing an update from the AGC lead team. Items discussed included; - Changes at the executive level - Report out from each team - DBE update (mentor/protégé) Charlie said that LS contracts are very challenging

to obtain the DBE participation. The industry is saturated. WSDOT needs to consider GFE more.

- Certified Inspector program - WSDOT succession planning - Legislation - eConstruction - Annual AGC meeting is at Alamore Golf course January 5th

Mark also provided information to direct Contractors on where they can go to review upcoming project list and what type of delivery is proposed to deliver the work. Susan Fell is currently developing a DB contract for the SW Region. FHWA is requesting comments on proposed Buy America changes. Mark requested the team to please review the language and provide comment as it appears some of the proposed changes would be onerous. Next meeting dates: January 27th, March 10th, April 21st, June 2nd .

AGC / WSDOT Structures Team Meeting Minutes 2016 · AGC/WSDOT Structures Team Meeting Minutes March...

Documents

Transcript of AGC / WSDOT Structures Team Meeting Minutes 2016 · AGC/WSDOT Structures Team Meeting Minutes March...