Current Practices and Guidelines for the Reuse of Bridge Foundations (2017)

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.

NAT IONAL COOPERAT IVE H IGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM NCHRP SYNTHESIS 505 SubScriber categorieS Bridges and Other Structures • Construction • Highways • Geotechnology Current Practices and Guidelines for the Reuse of Bridge Foundations A Synthesis of Highway Practice conSultantS Andrew Z. Boeckmann and J. Erik Loehr University of Missouri–Columbia 2017 Research Sponsored by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials in Cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration

NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM Systematic, well-designed research is the most effective way to solve many problems facing highway administrators and engineers. Often, highway problems are of local interest and can best be stud- ied by highway departments individually or in cooperation with their state universities and others. However, the accelerating growth of highway transportation results in increasingly complex problems of wide interest to highway authorities. These problems are best studied through a coordinated program of cooperative research. Recognizing this need, the leadership of the American Associa- tion of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) in 1962 initiated an objective national highway research program using modern scientific techniques—the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP). NCHRP is supported on a continuing basis by funds from participating member states of AASHTO and receives the full cooperation and support of the Federal Highway Administration, United States Department of Transportation. The Transportation Research Board (TRB) of the National Acad- emies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine was requested by AASHTO to administer the research program because of TRB’s recognized objectivity and understanding of modern research practices. TRB is uniquely suited for this purpose for many rea- sons: TRB maintains an extensive committee structure from which authorities on any highway transportation subject may be drawn; TRB possesses avenues of communications and cooperation with federal, state, and local governmental agencies, universities, and industry; TRB’s relationship to the Academies is an insurance of objectivity; and TRB maintains a full-time staff of specialists in highway transportation matters to bring the findings of research directly to those in a position to use them. The program is developed on the basis of research needs identi- fied by chief administrators and other staff of the highway and trans- portation departments and by committees of AASHTO. Topics of the highest merit are selected by the AASHTO Standing Committee on Research (SCOR), and each year SCOR’s recommendations are proposed to the AASHTO Board of Directors and the Academies. Research projects to address these topics are defined by NCHRP, and qualified research agencies are selected from submitted propos- als. Administration and surveillance of research contracts are the responsibilities of the Academies and TRB. The needs for highway research are many, and NCHRP can make significant contributions to solving highway transportation prob- lems of mutual concern to many responsible groups. The program, however, is intended to complement, rather than to substitute for or duplicate, other highway research programs. Published reports of the NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM are available from Transportation Research Board Business Office 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 and can be ordered through the Internet by going to http://www.national-academies.org and then searching for TRB Printed in the United States of America NCHRP SYNTHESIS 505 Project 20-05, Topic 47-03 ISSN 0547-5570 ISBN 978-0-309-38992-1 Library of Congress Control No. 2016959810 © 2017 National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. COPYRIGHT INFORMATION Authors herein are responsible for the authenticity of their materials and for obtaining written permissions from publishers or persons who own the copyright to any previously published or copyrighted material used herein. Cooperative Research Programs (CRP) grants permission to reproduce 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, FAA, FHWA, FMCSA, FRA, FTA, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology, PHMSA, or TDC endorsement of a particular product, method, or practice. It is expected that those reproducing the material in this document for educational and not-for-profit uses will give appropriate acknowledgment of the source of any reprinted or reproduced material. For other uses of the material, request permission from CRP. NOTICE The report was reviewed by the technical panel and accepted for publication according to procedures established and overseen by the Transportation Research Board and approved by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. The opinions and conclusions expressed or implied in this report are those of the researchers who performed the research and are not necessari- ly those of the Transportation Research Board; the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; or the program sponsors. The Transportation Research Board; the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; and the sponsors of the National Cooperative Highway Research Program do not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers’ names appear herein solely because they are con- sidered essential to the object of the report.

The National Academy of Sciences was established in 1863 by an Act of Congress, signed by President Lincoln, as a private, non- governmental institution to advise the nation on issues related to science and technology. Members are elected by their peers for outstanding contributions to research. Dr. Marcia McNutt is president. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to bring the practices of engineering to advising the nation. Members are elected by their peers for extraordinary contributions to engineering. Dr. C. D. Mote, Jr., is president. The National Academy of Medicine (formerly the Institute of Medicine) was established in 1970 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to advise the nation on medical and health issues. Members are elected by their peers for distinguished contributions to medicine and health. Dr. Victor J. Dzau is president. The three Academies work together as the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to provide independent, objective analysis and advice to the nation and conduct other activities to solve complex problems and inform public policy decisions. The Academies also encourage education and research, recognize outstanding contributions to knowledge, and increase public understanding in matters of science, engineering, and medicine. Learn more about the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine at www.national-academies.org. The Transportation Research Board is one of seven major programs of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. The mission of the Transportation Research Board is to increase the benefits that transportation contributes to society by providing leadership in transportation innovation and progress through research and information exchange, conducted within a setting that is objective, interdisciplinary, and multimodal. The Board’s varied committees, task forces, and panels 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 Transportation, and other organizations and individuals interested in the development of transportation. Learn more about the Transportation Research Board at www.TRB.org.

TOPIC PANEL 47-03 JAMES BRENNAN, Kansas Department of Transportation, Kansas City PETER J. CONNORS, Massachusetts Department of Transportation, Boston KENNETH L. FISHMAN, McMahon & Mann Consulting Engineers, Buffalo, NY RODRIGO A. HERRERA, Florida Department of Transportation, Tallahassee G. P. JAYAPRAKASH, Transportation Research Board NORA KYO, California Department of Transportation Cabinet, Sacramento MOHAMMED A. MULLA, North Carolina Department of Transportation, Raleigh VERNON R. SCHAEFER, Iowa State University, Ames BART BERGENDAHL, Federal Highway Administration (Liaison) FRANK JALINOOS, Federal Highway Administration (Liaison) SYNTHESIS STudIES STAFF STEPHEN R. GODWIN, Director for Studies and Special Programs JON M. WILLIAMS, Program Director, IDEA and Synthesis Studies MARIELA GARCIA-COLBERG, Senior Program Officer JO ALLEN GAUSE, Senior Program Officer GAIL R. STABA, Senior Program Officer TANYA M. ZWAHLEN, Consultant DON TIPPMAN, Senior Editor CHERYL KEITH, Senior Program Assistant DEMISHA WILLIAMS, Senior Program Assistant DEBBIE IRVIN, Program Associate COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAMS STAFF CHRISTOPHER J. HEDGES, Director, Cooperative Research Programs LORI L. SUNDSTROM, Deputy Director, Cooperative Research Programs EILEEN P. DELANEY, Director of Publications NCHRP COMMITTEE FOR PROjECT 20-05 CHAIR BRIAN A. BLANCHARD, Florida Department of Transportation MEMbERS STUART D. ANDERSON, Texas A&M University SOCORRO “COCO” BRISENO, California Department of Transportation DAVID M. JARED, Georgia Department of Transportation CYNTHIA L. JONES, Ohio Department of Transportation MALCOLM T. KERLEY, NXL, Richmond, VA JOHN M. MASON, JR., Auburn University ROGER C. OLSON, Minnesota Department of Transportation (retired) BENJAMIN T. ORSBON, South Dakota Department of Transportation RANDALL R. “RANDY” PARK, Utah Department of Transportation ROBERT L. SACK, New York State Department of Transportation FRANCINE SHAW WHITSON, Federal Highway Administration JOYCE N. TAYLOR, Maine Department of Transportation FHWA LIAISON JACK JERNIGAN TRb LIAISON STEPHEN F. MAHER ACKNOWLEdGMENTS Benjamin Rivers, FHWA, was instrumental in assembling the survey contact list and personally requesting individual agency responses. The survey would not have achieved a high rate of response without his participation, which the authors greatly appreciate. The participation of Canadian transportation agencies resulted in valuable information and an important international perspective for this Synthesis. The authors are thankful for the time and input of the Canadian representatives, and for organizational assistance from the Transportation Association of Canada. Each of the case example agency representatives graciously donated considerable amounts of time and information during discussion, review, and retrieval of agency records: •   Laura Krusinski, Maine DOT •  William Kramer, Illinois DOT •   Peter Connors, Alex Bardow, and Hanan Fouad, Massachusetts DOT •   Greg Sanders, Scott Stotlemeyer, Bryan Hartnagel, Dean Franke,  and Bill Dunn, Missouri DOT •  Trever Wang, Colorado DOT •  John Schaefer, Ontario Ministry of Transportation Cover figure: A Maine DOT consultant, Olson Engineering, Inc., performing parallel seismic testing of steel H-piles supporting the existing U.S. Route 1 viaduct in Bath, Maine. Investigation of the existing piles was conducted as part of a bridge replacement project involving rebuilding the 20-span viaduct from the ground up, replacing all components of the bridge except the foundations. The project is detailed in chapter four of the Synthesis Report. Photo courtesy of Olson Engineering, Inc. (2014).

Highway administrators, engineers, and researchers often face problems for which infor- mation already exists, either in documented form or as undocumented experience and prac- tice. This information may be fragmented, scattered, and unevaluated. As a consequence, full knowledge of what has been learned about a problem may not be brought to bear on its solution. Costly research findings may go unused, valuable experience may be overlooked, and due consideration may not be given to recommended practices for solving or alleviat- ing the problem. There is information on nearly every subject of concern to highway administrators and engineers. Much of it derives from research or from the work of practitioners faced with problems in their day-to-day work. To provide a systematic means for assembling and evalu- ating such useful information and to make it available to the entire highway community, the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials—through the mecha- nism of the National Cooperative Highway Research Program—authorized the Transpor- tation Research Board to undertake a continuing study. This study, NCHRP Project 20-5, “Synthesis of Information Related to Highway Problems,” searches out and synthesizes useful knowledge from all available sources and prepares concise, documented reports on specific topics. Reports from this endeavor constitute an NCHRP report series, Synthesis of Highway Practice. This synthesis series reports on current knowledge and practice, in a compact format, without the detailed directions usually found in handbooks or design manuals. Each report in the series provides a compendium of the best knowledge available on those measures found to be the most successful in resolving specific problems. FOREWORd Managing aging bridges safely and cost-effectively is a central challenge for an aging infrastructure. One appealing, sustainable option for many bridge replacement and rehabili- tation efforts is reusing bridge foundations, which can result in time and cost savings as well as reduced mobility impacts and environmental benefits. However, foundation reuse presents significant challenges, including uncertainties in existing foundation condition, remaining service life, and capacity. This synthesis documents current practices and guidelines used by transportation agencies for the reuse of bridge foundations. Information used in this study was gathered through a literature review, a survey of state and provincial transportation agencies, and case examples from selected agencies with significant foundation reuse experience. Andrew Z. Boeckmann and J. Erik Loehr, University of Missouri, Columbia, collected and synthesized the information and wrote the report. The members of the topic panel are acknowledged on the preceding page. This synthesis is an immediately useful document that records the practices that were acceptable within the limitations of the knowledge available at the time of its preparation. As progress in research and practice continues, new knowledge will be added to that now at hand. PREFACE By Jo Allen Gause Senior Program Officer Transportation Research Board

CONTENTS 1 SUMMARY 5 CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION Objectives, 5 Methodology and Outline, 5 Literature Review, 5 Survey, 6 Case Examples, 6 Definitions, 6 7 CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW U.S. Bridges Near the End of Service Life: Overview and Agency Practices, 7 Bridge Inspection and Condition Ratings, 7 Bridge Management, 8 Brief History of Foundation Reuse, 8 International, 8 United States, 9 Challenges of Foundation Reuse, 9 Investigation and Condition Assessment of Existing Foundations, 10 Historical Records, 10 Excavation and Probing, 11 Concrete Core Drilling and Laboratory Testing, 11 Overview of Geophysical and Nondestructive Test Methods, 11 Pile Integrity Test Methods, 12 Surface Geophysical Methods, 13 Borehole Geophysical Methods, 15 Deterioration Mechanisms Affecting Bridge Foundations, 15 Deterioration of Steel, 16 Deterioration of Concrete, 17 Deterioration of Timber, 18 Scour, 18 Remaining Service Life, 18 Foundation Service Life, 18 Techniques to Improve Remaining Service Life, 20 Load Capacity, 21 Evaluating Load Capacity of Existing Foundations, 21 Improving Load Capacity of Foundation Systems for Reuse, 23 Decision Methods, 23 Notable Examples of Foundation Reuse, 25 Fast 14 (Massachusetts DOT), 26 Emergency Repair of North Carolina DOT Bridge 91, 26 Henley Street Bridge Widening (Tennessee Department of Transportation), 26 Summary of Significant Findings, 27

29 CHAPTER THREE SURVEY RESULTS General Information Regarding Foundation Reuse, 29 Agencies with Foundation Reuse Experience, 29 Motivations for and Reasons Against Foundation Reuse, 31 Policies Related to Foundation Reuse, 32 Types of Reused Foundations and Structures Supported by Reused Foundations, 32 Applications and Frequency of Foundation Reuse, 33 Methods of Investigating Foundations for Reuse, 34 Foundation Service Life, 37 Design of Reused Foundations, 37 Scour and Foundation Reuse, 37 Load Capacity of Foundations for Reuse, 39 Design Codes for Reused Foundations, 39 Construction Techniques and Performance Monitoring, 40 Summary of Significant Findings, 41 43 CHAPTER FOUR CASE ExAMPLES Maine Department of Transportation, 43 Foundation Reuse Guidance in MaineDOT’s Bridge Design Guide, 43 Scour and Foundation Reuse at MaineDOT, 44 Example Project: U.S. Route 1 Viaduct Reconstruction, 45 Example Project: Haynesville Bridge, 47 MaineDOT: Lessons Learned, 51 Illinois Department of Transportation, 51 IDOT Foundation Reuse Policy: Bridge Condition Report Procedures & Practices, 52 IDOT Foundation Reuse Policy: Capacity Determination, 52 Scour and Foundation Reuse at IDOT, 54 IDOT: Lessons Learned, 55 Massachusetts Department of Transportation, 55 Motivations and Common Applications for Foundation Reuse, 56 Evaluation of Foundations for Reuse, 56 Scour and Foundation Reuse at MassDOT, 57 Example PSR: Bowker Overpass over I-90, CSx Railroad and Ipswich Street, 57 Example PSR: Hunt Road over I-495, 59 Example PSR: Robertson Street over I-93, 59 MassDOT: Lessons Learned, 60 Missouri Department of Transportation, 60 Scour and Foundation Reuse at MoDOT, 60 Foundation Reuse for Small Bridges, 60 I-44 over Gasconade River: Bridge Slide over Unanticipated Karst, 61 Hurricane Deck Bridge: Investigating Old Pneumatic Caissons and Cost-Based Reuse Decisions, 61 MoDOT: Lessons Learned, 63 Colorado Department of Transportation, 63 Environmental Motivations for Foundation Reuse, 63 Scour and Foundation Reuse at CDOT, 64 CDOT: Lessons Learned, 64 Ontario Ministry of Transportation, 64 Foundation Reuse Procedures at MTO: Decisions, Investigations, and Remaining Service Life, 64 Examples of Foundation Reuse at MTO, 65 Scour and Foundation Reuse at MTO, 67 MTO: Lessons Learned, 68 Lessons Learned from All Case Examples, 68

Note: Photographs, figures, and tables in this report may have been converted from color to gray- scale for printing. The electronic version of the report (posted on the web at www.trb.org) retains the color versions. 70 CHAPTER FIVE CONCLUSIONS Summary of Major Findings, 70 Conclusions, 71 Suggestions for Future Research, 72 75 GLOSSARY 77 REFERENCES 81 APPENDIx A SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE (WEB-ONLY) 95 APPENDIx B SURVEY RESPONSES (WEB-ONLY) Appendix B1 Summary Table, 95 Appendix B2 Key for Summary Table with Response Counts, 95 Appendix B3 Responses to Short Answer Questions, 95