Innovative Bridge Designs for Rapid Renewal (2014)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD WASHINGTON, D.C. 2014 www.TRB.org The Second S T R A T E G I C H I G H W A Y R E S E A R C H P R O G R A M RepoRt S2-R04-RR-1 Innovative Bridge Designs for Rapid Renewal HNTB CorporaTioN GeNesis sTruCTures, iNC. sTruCTural eNGiNeeriNG assoCiaTes iowa sTaTe uNiversiTy

Subscriber Categories Bridges and Other Structures Construction Design Highways

SHRP 2 Reports Available by subscription and through the TRB online bookstore: www.TRB.org/bookstore Contact the TRB Business Office: 202-334-3213 More information about SHRP 2: www.TRB.org/SHRP2 SHRP 2 Report S2-R04-RR-1 ISBN: 978-0-309-12966-4 Library of Congress Control Number: 2014933825 © 2014 National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Copyright Information Authors herein are responsible for the authenticity of their materials and for ob- taining written permissions from publishers or persons who own the copyright to any previously published or copyrighted material used herein. The second Strategic Highway Research Program grants permission to repro- duce material in this publication for classroom and not-for-profit purposes. Permission is given with the understanding that none of the material will be used to imply TRB, AASHTO, or FHWA endorsement of a particular prod- uct, method, or practice. It is expected that those reproducing material in this document for educational and not-for-profit purposes will give appropriate ac- knowledgment of the source of any reprinted or reproduced material. For other uses of the material, request permission from SHRP 2. Note: SHRP 2 report numbers convey the program, focus area, project number, and publication format. Report numbers ending in “w” are published as web documents only. Notice The project that is the subject of this report was a part of the second Strategic Highway Research Program, conducted by the Transportation Research Board with the approval of the Governing Board of the National Research Council. The members of the technical committee selected to monitor this project and to review this report were chosen for their special competencies and with regard for appropriate balance. The report was reviewed by the technical committee and accepted for publication according to procedures established and overseen by the Transportation Research Board and approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council. The opinions and conclusions expressed or implied in this report are those of the researchers who performed the research and are not necessarily those of the Transportation Research Board, the National Research Council, or the program sponsors. The Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, the National Research Council, and the sponsors of the second Strategic Highway Research Program do not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers’ names appear herein solely because they are considered essential to the object of the report. The Second Strategic Highway Research Program America’s highway system is critical to meeting the mobility and economic needs of local communities, regions, and the nation. Developments in research and technology—such as advanced materials, communications technology, new data collection tech- nologies, and human factors science—offer a new opportunity to improve the safety and reliability of this important national resource. Breakthrough resolution of significant transportation problems, however, requires concentrated resources over a short time frame. Reflecting this need, the second Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP 2) has an intense, large-scale focus, inte- grates multiple fields of research and technology, and is fundamen- tally different from the broad, mission-oriented, discipline-based research programs that have been the mainstay of the highway research industry for half a century. The need for SHRP 2 was identified in TRB Special Report 260: Strategic Highway Research: Saving Lives, Reducing Conges- tion, Improving Quality of Life, published in 2001 and based on a study sponsored by Congress through the Transporta- tion Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21). SHRP 2, mod- eled after the first Strategic Highway Research Program, is a focused, time-constrained, management-driven program designed to complement existing highway research programs. SHRP 2 focuses on applied research in four areas: Safety, to pre- vent or reduce the severity of highway crashes by understanding driver behavior; Renewal, to address the aging infrastructure through rapid design and construction methods that cause minimal disruptions and produce lasting facilities; Reliability, to reduce congestion through incident reduction, management, response, and mitigation; and Capacity, to integrate mobility, economic, environmental, and community needs in the plan- ning and designing of new transportation capacity. SHRP 2 was authorized in August 2005 as part of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU). The program is managed by the Transportation Research Board (TRB) on behalf of the National Research Council (NRC). SHRP 2 is conducted under a memorandum of understanding among the American Associa- tion of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), and the National Academy of Sciences, parent organization of TRB and NRC. The program provides for competitive, merit-based selection of research contractors; independent research project oversight; and dissemination of research results.

The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. On the authority of the charter granted to it by Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone is president of the National Academy of Sciences. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achieve- ments of engineers. Dr. C. D. (Dan) Mote, Jr., is president of the National Academy of Engineering. The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, on its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Victor J. Dzau is president of the Institute of Medicine. The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy’s purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone and Dr. C. D. (Dan) Mote, Jr., are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council. The Transportation Research Board is one of six major divisions of the National Research Council. The mission of the Transportation Research Board is to provide leadership in transportation innovation and progress through research and information exchange, conducted within a setting that is objective, interdisci- plinary, and multimodal. The Board’s varied activities annually engage about 7,000 engineers, scientists, and other transportation researchers and practitioners from the public and private sectors and academia, all of whom contribute their expertise in the public interest. The program is supported by state transportation departments, federal agencies including the component administrations of the U.S. Department of Transporta- tion, and other organizations and individuals interested in the development of transportation. www.TRB.org www.national-academies.org

SHRP 2 STAFF Ann M. Brach, Director Stephen J. Andrle, Deputy Director Neil J. Pedersen, Deputy Director, Implementation and Communications James Bryant, Senior Program Officer, Renewal Kenneth Campbell, Chief Program Officer, Safety JoAnn Coleman, Senior Program Assistant, Capacity and Reliability Eduardo Cusicanqui, Financial Officer Walter Diewald, Senior Program Officer, Safety Jerry DiMaggio, Implementation Coordinator Shantia Douglas, Senior Financial Assistant Charles Fay, Senior Program Officer, Safety Carol Ford, Senior Program Assistant, Renewal and Safety Elizabeth Forney, Assistant Editor Jo Allen Gause, Senior Program Officer, Capacity Rosalind Gomes, Accounting/Financial Assistant Abdelmename Hedhli, Visiting Professional James Hedlund, Special Consultant, Safety Coordination Alyssa Hernandez, Reports Coordinator Ralph Hessian, Special Consultant, Capacity and Reliability Andy Horosko, Special Consultant, Safety Field Data Collection William Hyman, Senior Program Officer, Reliability Michael Marazzi, Senior Editorial Assistant Linda Mason, Communications Officer Reena Mathews, Senior Program Officer, Capacity and Reliability Matthew Miller, Program Officer, Capacity and Reliability Michael Miller, Senior Program Assistant, Capacity and Reliability David Plazak, Senior Program Officer, Capacity Monica Starnes, Senior Program Officer, Renewal Charles Taylor, Special Consultant, Renewal Onno Tool, Visiting Professional Dean Trackman, Managing Editor Connie Woldu, Administrative Coordinator Patrick Zelinski, Communications/Media Associate ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This work was sponsored by the Federal Highway Administration in cooperation with the American Asso- ciation of State Highway and Transportation Officials. It was conducted in the second Strategic Highway Research Program, which is administered by the Transportation Research Board of the National Acad- emies. The project was managed by Monica Starnes, Senior Program Officer for SHRP 2 Renewal. The research reported on herein was performed by HNTB Corp. with Kenneth Price as Principal Investiga- tor and Bala Sivakumar as co-Principal Investigator. Also providing support were Genesis Structures (Kansas City, Missouri), Structural Engineering Associates (San Antonio, Texas), and Iowa State University (Ames, Iowa). The authors gratefully acknowledge those individuals from state departments of transportation, indus- try organizations, contractors, and academia who participated in the project survey and focus group meetings, and who provided important information and documentation for this project. Cynthia Allen, Editor Richa d Deering, Special Consultant, Safety Data Phase 1 Planning Shantia Dou las, Senior Financial Assistan C arles Fay, Senior Pr gram Officer, Safety aro Ford, Senior Program Assistant, Renewal and Safety Jo Al en Gaus , Senior Program Officer, Capacity James Hedlund, Special Consul ant, Safety Coordination Alyssa Hernandez, Repo ts Coordinator alph Hessian, Spe ial Consulta t, C pacity d Reliability n y Horosko, Special Consultant, Safety Field Data Collection William Hyman, Sen or Program Officer, Reliabil ty Linda Mason, Communications Officer eena Mathews, S nior Program Officer, Cap city and Reliability Matthew Miller, Program Officer, Capacity an Reli bility M ch el Miller, Senior Program Assistant, Capacity and Reliability David Plaz k, Senior Program Officer, C pacity and Reliability Rachel T ylor, Senior Editorial Assistant D a Trackman, Managing Editor Conni Woldu, Administrative Coordinator

As the nation’s bridge inventory continues aging and the need for its renewal increases, new approaches on how to design and build bridges are paramount. This need combined with increasing traffic congestion will require the implementation of faster and less disrup- tive construction methods. Accelerated Bridge Construction (ABC) techniques have proved their ability to fulfill these needs in some unique bridge projects and, most importantly, in a limited number of statewide bridge programs such as Utah’s. While the key for successful implementation of ABC on a large scale requires a range of technical and programmatic solutions, one mechanism that has proved successful in imple- menting past bridge innovations is the idea of standard concepts and, in some cases, stan- dard plans. This SHRP 2 project started its research with an ultimate goal of developing a set of such standard concepts. The project first focused on identifying and evaluating the historic barriers to preva- lent use of ABC. Based on the assessment, the research team led by HNTB developed a set of technical solutions to overcome those identified barriers. The solutions were directed toward modular (i.e., prefabricated) bridge substructure and superstructure systems that (1) can be installed with minimal traffic disruptions and (2) can be easily constructed by local contractors using conventional equipment. With those goals in mind, the research team set out to develop new structural concepts by incrementally improving on proven and accepted structural systems, components, and details. Structural evaluations, analyses, designs, and laboratory testing provided the tools to achieve the sought improvements. The ABC Toolkit was produced with bridge practitioners in mind. It provides a series of design and construction concepts for prefabricated elements and their connections. In response to the scope of work, the toolkit also provides proposed language for AASHTO design and construction specifications. This report, a companion to the toolkit, details research into ABC approaches and offers insight into various components that can be used in accelerated bridge construction. Since the initiation of this research in 2007, other ABC-related programs have either matured (e.g., Utah DOT’s ABC program) or been established (e.g., FHWA’s Every Day Counts, EDC) in parallel. While the SHRP 2 ABC Toolkit and R04 report provide concepts for designing and building complete bridges, these tools are not meant to be the complete collection of information on ABC or prefabricated bridge elements and systems (PBES), but rather an additional resource that complements the body of knowledge and other publica- tions on the subject. F O R EWO R D Monica A. Starnes, Senior Program Officer, Renewal

1 Executive Summary 4 Chapter 1 Background 4 Problem Statement and Research Objective 5 Scope of Study 6 Introduction to the Final Report 8 Chapter 2 Research Approach 8 Research Tasks 8 Phase I 10 Phase II 11 Phase III 13 Owner–Contractor Survey and Focus Groups 16 Tiered Approach to ABC 17 Development of ABC Design and Construction Concepts 18 Proposed Design and Construction Concepts 19 Description of Design and Construction Concepts 70 Chapter 3 Findings and Applications 70 Overview 71 Part 1: Evaluation of Precast Decks and Complete Superstructure Systems 109 Part 2: Evaluation of Precast Substructure Systems 127 Part 3: Evaluation of ABC Construction Technologies 150 Recommended Design and Construction Concepts 152 Lab Testing of UHPC Joints 161 Field Demonstration Project 165 Chapter 4 Conclusions and Suggested Research 165 Overview of ABC Toolkit 165 Design Considerations for ABC Standards for Modular Systems 170 ABC Standard Plans and Details 173 Standard Conceptual Details for ABC Construction Technologies 177 ABC Design Examples 180 Recommended ABC Design Specifications for LRFD 181 Recommended ABC Construction Specifications for LRFD 181 Innovative Project Delivery and Contracting Provisions for ABC 186 References 195 Appendix A ABC Case Studies 244 Appendix B Focus Group and Survey Results C O N T E N T S

269 Appendix C UHPC Lab Testing Report 340 Appendix D Field Demonstration Project Construction 357 Appendix E ABC Standard Plans 435 Appendix F ABC Sample Design Calculations 582 Appendix G Recommended ABC Design Specifications 588 Appendix H Recommended ABC Construction Specifications