National Academies Press: OpenBook

Bridge Demolition Practices (2019)

Chapter: Appendix C - Summary of Survey Results

« Previous: Appendix B - Survey Questionnaire
Page 64
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Summary of Survey Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Bridge Demolition Practices. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25478.
×
Page 64
Page 65
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Summary of Survey Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Bridge Demolition Practices. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25478.
×
Page 65
Page 66
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Summary of Survey Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Bridge Demolition Practices. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25478.
×
Page 66
Page 67
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Summary of Survey Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Bridge Demolition Practices. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25478.
×
Page 67
Page 68
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Summary of Survey Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Bridge Demolition Practices. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25478.
×
Page 68
Page 69
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Summary of Survey Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Bridge Demolition Practices. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25478.
×
Page 69
Page 70
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Summary of Survey Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Bridge Demolition Practices. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25478.
×
Page 70
Page 71
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Summary of Survey Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Bridge Demolition Practices. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25478.
×
Page 71
Page 72
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Summary of Survey Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Bridge Demolition Practices. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25478.
×
Page 72
Page 73
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Summary of Survey Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Bridge Demolition Practices. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25478.
×
Page 73
Page 74
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Summary of Survey Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Bridge Demolition Practices. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25478.
×
Page 74
Page 75
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Summary of Survey Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Bridge Demolition Practices. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25478.
×
Page 75
Page 76
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Summary of Survey Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Bridge Demolition Practices. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25478.
×
Page 76
Page 77
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Summary of Survey Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Bridge Demolition Practices. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25478.
×
Page 77
Page 78
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Summary of Survey Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Bridge Demolition Practices. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25478.
×
Page 78
Page 79
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Summary of Survey Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Bridge Demolition Practices. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25478.
×
Page 79
Page 80
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Summary of Survey Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Bridge Demolition Practices. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25478.
×
Page 80
Page 81
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Summary of Survey Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Bridge Demolition Practices. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25478.
×
Page 81

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.

64 A P P E N D I X C Summary of Survey Results State Yes/No State Yes/No Alabama Yes Nevada No Alaska Yes New Hampshire Yes Arizona Yes New Jersey Yes Arkansas Yes New York Yes California Yes North Carolina Yes Colorado Yes North Dakota Yes Delaware Yes Ohio Yes Florida Yes Oklahoma Yes Illinois Yes Oregon Yes Indiana No Pennsylvania Yes Iowa Yes Rhode Island Yes Kansas Yes South Carolina Yes Kentucky Yes South Dakota No Louisiana Yes Tennessee Yes Maryland Yes Texas Yes Massachusetts Yes Utah Yes Michigan Yes Vermont No Minnesota Yes Virginia Yes Mississippi No Washington Yes Missouri Yes Wisconsin Yes Montana Yes Wyoming Yes Table C1. Responses to Survey Question 2: Does your agency have specification provisions or other guidance documents addressing bridge demolition?

Summary of Survey Results 65 State Agency Design Plans and Standard Specifications Existing Bridge Plans Special Provisions for Demolition Bridge Condition Report(s) Load Rating Calculations Alabama X X X Alaska X X X X Arizona X X X Arkansas X X X California X X Colorado X X X X X Delaware X X X Florida X Illinois X X X Indiana X Iowa X X X Kansas X X X X X Kentucky X Louisiana X X X Maryland X X Massachusetts X X X Michigan X X X Minnesota X X X X X Mississippi X X Missouri X X Montana X X X Nevada X X X New Hampshire X New Jersey X X X New York X North Carolina X X North Dakota X X Ohio X X Oklahoma X X X Oregon X X X Pennsylvania X X Rhode Island X X X X X South Carolina X X X South Dakota X X Tennessee X X X Texas X X Utah X X Vermont X X Virginia X X X Washington X X X Wisconsin Wyoming X X Table C2. Responses to Survey Question 3: For projects that include bridge demolition what information is provided in the bid documents?

66 Bridge Demolition Practices State Yes/No State Yes/No Alabama Yes Nevada Yes Alaska Yes New Hampshire Yes Arizona Yes New Jersey Yes Arkansas Yes New York Yes California Yes North Carolina Yes Colorado Yes North Dakota No Delaware Yes Ohio Yes Florida Yes Oklahoma Yes Illinois Yes Oregon Yes Indiana No Pennsylvania Yes Iowa Yes Rhode Island Yes Kansas Yes South Carolina Yes Kentucky No South Dakota No Louisiana Yes Tennessee Yes Maryland Yes Texas Yes Massachusetts Yes Utah Yes Michigan Yes Vermont Yes Minnesota No Virginia No Mississippi Yes Washington Yes Missouri Yes Wisconsin No Montana Yes Wyoming Yes Table C3. Responses to Survey Question 4: Does your agency require submittal of a demolition plan for bridge projects?

Summary of Survey Results 67 State Yes/No State Yes/No Alabama No Nevada No Alaska No New Hampshire No Arizona No New Jersey No Arkansas No New York No California No North Carolina No Colorado No Ohio No Delaware1 Yes Oklahoma6 Yes Florida No Oregon No Illinois No Pennsylvania No Iowa No Rhode Island No Kansas No South Carolina No Louisiana2 Yes Tennessee No Maryland No Texas7 Yes Massachusetts No Utah No Michigan3 Yes Vermont8 Yes Mississippi No Washington9 Yes Missouri4 Yes Wyoming10 Montana5 Yes 1They vary per bridge type but not necessarily per project delivery method. 2Depends on bridge type (high level or movable). 3Complex structures require a PE stamped plan. Other structures require the contractor to develop a plan and discuss it with our construction inspection staff at the pre-construction meeting. 4Design-build jobs may negotiate a different process for removal but it will require a plan and approval of the plan. 5Simple ones – No PE stamp just a description. Complex – demo plan and narrative stamped by PE. Sometimes calculations are also required. 6Depends on the location of the bridge, type of structure, salvage of existing components, etc. 7Generally the State Standard Specifications have a role in all types of delivery methods though related to public safety, which [is] key for bridge demolition. 8Generally the agency’s design-build projects are larger scale, more complex structures, therefore, demolition submittal requirements may be more extensive than design-build projects. 9We have basic requirements in our standard specifications that cover simple projects. More complex demolition work would require a more detailed submittal. 10No response. Table C4. Responses to Survey Question 5: Do demolition submittal requirements vary with project delivery methods? (Question only available for response if answer to Question 4 was “yes”)

68 Bridge Demolition Practices State Total Bridge Demolition Partial Demolition Phased Demolition Other Alabama X X X Alaska X X Arizona X X Arkansas X X X California X X X Colorado X X X Delaware X X X Florida X Illinois X X X Iowa Note 1 Kansas X X X Louisiana X Note 2 Maryland X X X Massachusetts X X X Michigan Note 3 Mississippi X X X Missouri X X X Montana X X X Nevada X X X New Hampshire X X X New Jersey X X X New York X X X North Carolina X Note 4 Ohio X X X Oklahoma X X X Oregon X X X Note 5 Pennsylvania X X X Note 6 Rhode Island X X X South Carolina X X X Tennessee X X X Texas X X Utah X X X Vermont X X X Washington X X Wyoming X X Note 1: Unique structures only. Note 2: In some cases, deep foundations on navigational crossings below a certain elevation may be left in place with Coast Guard permission. Note 3: All above apply if the structure meets the definition of a complex structure. Note 4: Demolition over bodies of water. Note 5: Removal by blasting. Note 6: Also refer to Publication 408, Section 1018. Table C5. Responses to Survey Question 6: For what type of bridge demolition does your agency require a demolition submittal? (Question only available for response if answer to Question 4 was “yes”)

Summary of Survey Results 69 State D em ol iti on D ra w in gs Su pp or ti ng En gi ne er in g Ca lc ul ati on s Se qu en ce o f W or k N ar ra ti ve Eq ui pm en t D at a, Li ft in g Ca pa ci ty Te m po ra ry Su pp or t, B ra ci ng D ra w in gs Tr affi c Co nt ro l Co nd iti on A ss es sm en t o f Ex is ti ng S tr uc tu re D em ol iti on Co nt ra ct or 's F ie ld Su pe ri nt en de nt Re su m e Other Alabama Note 1 Alaska X X X X X Arizona X X X X X Arkansas X X California X X X X X Colorado X X X X X X X Delaware X X X X X X Florida Note 2 Illinois X X X X X X X Iowa X X Indiana X X X X Note 3 Kansas X X X X X X Kentucky Louisiana X X X X X X Maryland X X X X X Massachusetts X X X X X Michigan X X X X X X X Note 4 Minnesota X X X X X Mississippi X X X X X X Missouri X Montana X X Nevada X X X X X New Hampshire X X X New Jersey X X X X X X New York X X X North Carolina Note 5 North Dakota Ohio X X X X Oklahoma X X X X X X Oregon X X X X X X X Pennsylvania X X X X X X Note 6 Rhode Island X X X X X X South Carolina X X X X X X X South Dakota Tennessee X X X X X X Texas X X X X X X Utah X X X Vermont X X X X X Virginia Washington X X X X X X Wisconsin Wyoming X X X X X Note 1: Submittal of a removal plan per Standard Specifications. Note 2: A demolition plan is required for the selected method of removal; for hydro-blasting, the method for control of water or slurry runoff and measures for sale containment of concrete fragments must be shown. Note 3: Vibration monitoring plan, debris containment methods, [and] utility protection methods. Note 4: Protective measures for traffic, material stockpile locations. Note 5: No standard requirements. Note 6: Also refer to Publication 408, Section 101. Table C6. Responses to Survey Question 7: What elements are required as part of the demolition submittal? (Question only available for response if answer to Question 4 was “yes”)

70 Bridge Demolition Practices State Yes/No State Yes/No Alabama No Nevada No Alaska Yes New Hampshire Yes Arizona No New Jersey No Arkansas Yes New York No California Yes North Carolina No Colorado* Ohio No Delaware Yes Oklahoma Yes Florida Yes Oregon Yes Illinois No Pennsylvania No Iowa No Rhode Island Yes Kansas Yes South Carolina Yes Louisiana No Tennessee No Maryland Yes Texas No Massachusetts Yes Utah No Michigan No Vermont No Mississippi* Washington Yes Missouri Yes Wyoming No Montana No *No response. Table C7. Responses to Survey Question 8: Does your agency require design calculations supporting demolition activities to be performed in accordance with AASHTO LRFD bridge design specifications? (Question only available for response if answer to Question 4 was “yes”) State AISC, Specification for Structural Steel Buildings ACI318, Building Code and Commentary AASHTO 17th Ed. Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges Other Alabama Note 1 Arizona X X Colorado Note 2 Illinois X Iowa Louisiana X X Michigan Note 3 Mississippi X X Montana Note 4 Nevada New Jersey X X X New York X North Carolina Note 5 Ohio X X Pennsylvania X Tennessee X X Texas X Utah Vermont Wyoming X AASHTO Bridge Construction Specifications Note 1: Not specified. Note 2: Guide Specs. Note 3: AASHTO Guide Design Specifications for Bridge Temporary Works. Note 4: Complex demo usually requires PE stamped demo plans and calculations. The code is not specified. Note 5: Section 402 of the Standard Specifications. Table C8. Responses to Survey Question 8a: What specifications/codes are specified, allowed? (Question only available for response if answer to Question 4 was “yes” and Question 8 was “no”)

Summary of Survey Results 71 State Response Alabama Demolition contractor Alaska Demolition contractor Arizona Demolition contractor Arkansas Demolition contractor California Demolition contractor Colorado Demolition contractor Delaware Demolition contractor Florida Demolition contractor Illinois Demolition contractor Iowa Demolition contractor Kansas Demolition contractor Louisiana Demolition contractor Maryland Demolition contractor Massachusetts Demolition contractor Michigan Demolition contractor Mississippi Demolition contractor Missouri Demolition contractor Montana Demolition contractor Nevada Demolition contractor New Hampshire Demolition contractor New Jersey Demolition contractor New York Demolition contractor North Carolina Demolition contractor Ohio Demolition contractor Oklahoma Demolition contractor Oregon Demolition contractor Pennsylvania Demolition contractor Rhode Island Demolition contractor South Carolina Demolition contractor Tennessee Demolition contractor Texas Demolition contractor Utah Demolition contractor Vermont Demolition contractor Washington Demolition contractor Wyoming Demolition contractor Table C9. Responses to Survey Question 9: When required, who prepares demolition plan submittals? (Question only available for response if answer to Question 4 was “yes”)

72 Bridge Demolition Practices State Response State Response Alabama1 No Nevada8 Sometimes - Please elaborate Alaska Sometimes - Please elaborate New Hampshire Yes Arizona Yes New Jersey Yes Arkansas2 Sometimes - Please elaborate New York9 Sometimes - Please elaborate California Yes North Carolina No Colorado Yes Ohio Yes Delaware Yes Oklahoma10 Sometimes - Please elaborate Florida3 Sometimes - Please elaborate Oregon Yes Illinois Yes Pennsylvania11 Sometimes - Please elaborate Iowa Yes Rhode Island Yes Kansas Yes South Carolina Yes Louisiana4 Sometimes - Please elaborate Tennessee12 Sometimes - Please elaborate Maryland Yes Texas13 Sometimes - Please elaborate Massachusetts Yes Utah Yes Michigan5 Sometimes - Please elaborate Vermont Yes Mississippi Yes Washington Yes Missouri6 Sometimes - Please elaborate Wyoming Yes Montana7 Sometimes - Please elaborate 1For complex bridges (e.g., large truss bridges), the contractor is required to hire a qualified demolition engineer and submit the plan to the departments for review and approval. For complex bridges, the department retains the services of a separate qualified demolition expert to review the plan and provide comments and recommendations for rejection or acceptance. 2Arkansas DOT reviews contractor’s demo plans. 3If it is work affecting public safety, yes. 4Depends based on the project and its complexity. 5For complex structure demos, yes, but all other demos do not. 6It depends on the complexity and risk of the job. We generally err on the side of caution and require a sealed plan when in doubt. 7For complicated ones. 8If demo occurs in UPRR right-of-way. 9New York State DOT Bridge Manual, 2017, see pages 447/595. 10Dependent on location, structure type, sequencing, traffic constraints, etc. 11Over a roadway, span length exceeds 80 feet, existing structures without plans with span length over 50 feet, arches or rigid frame structures with span length over 50 feet, fracture critical structures, structures on, under, or adjacent to a railroad, specifically called for in contract. 12Depends on the complexity and extent of demolition to be completed. Also, a risk assessment is used to evaluate the level of plans required. 13Typically not. There are times when the bridge design engineer assesses the situation to be more critical related to potential unexpected failure, which could damage existing or newly built adjacent structures, and a PE is required. Table C10. Responses to Survey Question 10: Does your agency require a licensed design professional to sign and seal demolition submittals? (Question only available for response if answer to Question 4 was “yes”)

Summary of Survey Results 73 State Response State Response Alabama Agency construction staff Nevada Agency (or consultant) bridge designer Alaska Agency (or consultant) bridge designer New Hampshire Agency (or consultant) bridge designer Arizona Agency construction staff New Jersey Agency (or consultant) bridge designer Arkansas Agency construction staff New York Agency (or consultant) bridge designer California Agency construction staff North Carolina Agency construction staff Colorado Agency (or consultant) bridge designer Ohio Other (provide text field) Delaware Agency (or consultant) bridge designer Oklahoma Agency construction staff Florida Agency (or consultant) bridge designer Oregon Agency (or consultant) bridge designer Illinois Agency (or consultant) bridge designer Pennsylvania Agency construction staff Iowa Agency (or consultant) bridge designer Rhode Island Agency (or consultant) bridge designer Kansas Agency (or consultant) bridge designer South Carolina Agency construction staff Louisiana Agency construction staff Tennessee Agency construction staff Maryland Agency (or consultant) bridge designer Texas Agency construction staff Massachusetts Agency (or consultant) bridge designer Utah Agency (or consultant) bridge designer Michigan Agency (or consultant) bridge designer Vermont Agency (or consultant) bridge designer Mississippi Agency (or consultant) bridge designer Washington Agency (or consultant) bridge designer Missouri Agency (or consultant) bridge designer Wyoming Agency (or consultant) bridge designer Montana Agency construction staff Table C11. Responses to Survey Question 11: Who provides review of demolition submittals? (Question only available for response if answer to Question 4 was “yes”) State Yes/No State Yes/No Alabama No Nevada No Alaska Yes New Hampshire No Arizona No New Jersey No Arkansas No New York Yes California No North Carolina No Colorado Yes Ohio* Delaware No Oklahoma No Florida No Oregon No Illinois Yes Pennsylvania Yes Iowa No Rhode Island No Kansas No South Carolina No Louisiana No Tennessee Yes Maryland No Texas No Massachusetts No Utah No Michigan No Vermont Yes Mississippi No Washington Yes Missouri No Wyoming No Montana No *No response. Table C12. Responses to Survey Question 12: Are those charged with reviewing demolition submittals required to have specific training or experience in demolition activities? (Question only available for response if answer to Question 4 was “yes”)

74 Bridge Demolition Practices State Formal Training Program On-the-Job Experience in Design On-the-Job Experience in Field Alaska X X Colorado X X Illinois X New York X Pennsylvania X Tennessee X X Vermont X Washington X Table C13. Responses to Survey Question 12a: How is the training/Experience obtained? (Question only available for response if answer[s] to Question 4 and Question 12 were “yes”) State Yes/No State Yes/No Alabama Yes Nevada Yes Alaska Yes New Hampshire No Arizona Yes New Jersey Yes Arkansas Yes New York Yes California Yes North Carolina No Colorado Yes Ohio No Delaware Yes Oklahoma Yes Florida Yes Oregon Yes Illinois Yes Pennsylvania Yes Iowa Yes Rhode Island Yes Kansas Yes South Carolina Yes Louisiana Yes Tennessee Yes Maryland Yes Texas Yes Massachusetts Yes Utah Yes Michigan Yes Vermont Yes Mississippi Yes Washington Yes Missouri Yes Wyoming Yes Montana Yes Table C14. Responses to Survey Question 13: Are written demolition submittal review comments provided to the demolition contractor? (Question only available for response if answer to Question 4 was “yes”)

Summary of Survey Results 75 State Yes/No State Yes/No Alabama Yes Missouri Yes Alaska Yes Montana Yes Arizona Yes Nevada Yes Arkansas Yes New Jersey Yes California Yes New York Yes Colorado Yes Oklahoma Yes Delaware Yes Oregon Yes Florida Yes Pennsylvania Yes Illinois Yes Rhode Island Yes Iowa Yes South Carolina Yes Kansas Yes Tennessee Yes Louisiana Yes Texas Yes Maryland Yes Utah Yes Massachusetts Yes Vermont Yes Michigan Yes Washington Yes Mississippi Yes Wyoming Yes Table C15. Responses to Survey Question 13a: Must comments be resolved with concurrence by contractor prior to starting demolition? (Question only available for response if answer[s] to Question 4 and Question 13 were “yes”) State Yes/No State Yes/No Alabama Yes Nevada Yes Alaska Yes New Hampshire Yes Arizona Yes New Jersey Yes Arkansas Yes New York Yes California Yes North Carolina Yes Colorado Yes North Dakota Yes Delaware Yes Ohio Yes Florida Yes Oklahoma Yes Illinois Yes Oregon Yes Indiana Yes Pennsylvania Yes Iowa Yes Rhode Island Yes Kansas Yes South Carolina Yes Kentucky Yes South Dakota Yes Louisiana Yes Tennessee Yes Maryland Yes Texas Yes Massachusetts Yes Utah Yes Michigan Yes Vermont Yes Minnesota Yes Virginia Yes Mississippi Yes Washington Yes Missouri Yes Wisconsin No Montana Yes Wyoming Yes Table C16. Responses to Survey Question 14: Does your agency provide field oversight of demolition activities?

76 Bridge Demolition Practices State Response State Response Alabama Full time Montana Full time Alaska Full time New Hampshire Full time Arizona Full time New Jersey Full time Arkansas 75%-100% New York Full time California Full time Nevada Full time Colorado 50%-75% North Carolina Full time Delaware Full time North Dakota 75%-100% Florida 0-25% Ohio 75%-100% Illinois 75%-100% Oklahoma 50%-75% Indiana 0-25% Oregon 50%-75% Iowa Full time Pennsylvania Full time Kansas Full time Rhode Island 75%-100% Kentucky 75%-100% South Carolina Full time Louisiana 25%-50% South Dakota 0-25% Maryland Full time Tennessee Full time Massachusetts Full time Texas 25%-50% Michigan Full time Utah Full time Minnesota 50%-75% Vermont Full time Mississippi Full time Virginia Full time Missouri 25%-50% Washington 75%-100% Montana Full time Wyoming 25%-50% Table C17. Responses to Survey Question 14a: Over what percentage of the demolition activity is oversight provided? (Question only available for response if answer to Question 14 was “yes”) State Response State Response Alabama Agency Staff Nevada Combination Alaska Combination New Hampshire Agency Staff Arizona Agency Staff New Jersey Combination Arkansas Combination New York Combination California Combination North Carolina Agency Staff Colorado Combination North Dakota Combination Delaware Combination Ohio Combination Florida Consultant Oklahoma Combination Illinois Combination Oregon Combination Indiana Combination Pennsylvania Agency Staff Iowa Agency Staff Rhode Island Agency Staff Kansas Combination South Carolina Combination Kentucky Combination South Dakota Agency Staff Louisiana Combination Tennessee Combination Maryland Combination Texas Combination Massachusetts Agency Staff Utah Combination Michigan Agency Staff Vermont Combination Minnesota Combination Virginia Combination Mississippi Agency Staff Washington Agency Staff Missouri Combination Wyoming Agency Staff Montana Agency Staff Table C18. Responses to Survey Question 14b: Is oversight provided by? (Question only available for response if answer to Question 14 was “yes”)

Summary of Survey Results 77 State Yes - Experience Yes - Training No Alabama X Alaska X Arizona X Arkansas X California X Colorado X Delaware X Florida X Illinois X Indiana X Iowa X Kansas X Kentucky X Louisiana X Maryland X Massachusetts X Michigan X Minnesota X X Mississippi X Missouri X Montana X Nevada X New Hampshire X New Jersey X New York X North Carolina X North Dakota X Ohio X Oklahoma X Oregon X Pennsylvania X Rhode Island X South Carolina X South Dakota X Tennessee X Texas X Utah X Vermont X Virginia X Washington X Wyoming X Table C19. Responses to Survey Question 14c: Do field oversight staff have special training or experience in demolition activities? (Question only available for response if answer to Question 14 was “yes”)

78 Bridge Demolition Practices State Yes/No State Yes/No Alabama Yes Nevada Yes Alaska Yes New Hampshire No Arizona No New Jersey Yes Arkansas Yes New York Yes California Yes North Carolina No Colorado Yes North Dakota Yes Delaware No Ohio Yes Florida No Oklahoma Yes Illinois Yes Oregon No Indiana No Pennsylvania Yes Iowa No Rhode Island Yes Kansas Yes South Carolina No Kentucky No South Dakota No Louisiana Yes Tennessee Yes Maryland No Texas Yes Massachusetts Yes Utah No Michigan Yes Vermont No Minnesota No Virginia Yes Mississippi Yes Washington No Missouri No Wisconsin No Montana No Wyoming No Table C20. Responses to Survey Question 15: Is an on-site pre-demolition meeting required prior to starting demolition? State Yes/No State Yes/No Alabama No Nevada No Alaska No New Jersey Yes Arkansas No New York No California No North Dakota No Colorado Yes Ohio No Illinois No Oklahoma No Kansas No Pennsylvania No Louisiana No Rhode Island No Massachusetts No Tennessee No Michigan No Texas No Mississippi No Virginia No Table C21. Responses to Survey Question 15a: Is there a standard agenda? (Question only available for response if answer to Question 15 was “yes”)

Summary of Survey Results 79 State Yes/No State Yes/No Alabama No Nevada No Alaska No New Hampshire No Arizona No New Jersey Yes Arkansas No New York4 Yes California No North Carolina No Colorado1 Yes North Dakota No Delaware No Ohio No Florida No Oklahoma5 Yes Illinois2 Yes Oregon No Indiana No Pennsylvania No Iowa No Rhode Island6 Yes Kansas Yes South Carolina No Kentucky No South Dakota No Louisiana Yes Tennessee No Maryland No Texas7 Yes Massachusetts No Utah No Michigan No Vermont No Minnesota No Virginia No Mississippi No Washington No Missouri3 Yes Wisconsin No Montana No Wyoming No 1In case of catastrophe have emergency plan in place. 2Specific contingency plans may/may not be required, but overall, our specs require the contractor to mobilize any equipment/plans that may be necessary to complete the work or to establish safe and stable conditions for public and worker safety prior to leaving the worksite for the day. 3Only if we are working near critical things like traffic, railroads, and existing structures. 4Main office staff or consultants will provide support. 5Primarily in urban areas where traffic management would be of utmost concern. 6It depends on the number and vicinity of active utilities with the project. We would ask utilities to shut power or flow off during construction or request advance utilities bypass. 7That would vary significantly. Traffic control would be the main issue discussed. Table C22. Responses to Survey Question 16: Does your agency require a contingency plan identifying specific responses to unanticipated occurrences, including those leading to stoppage of work?

State Yes/No State Yes/No Alabama No Nevada No Alaska No New Hampshire No Arizona1 Yes New Jersey14 Yes Arkansas2 Yes New York No California3 Yes North Carolina15 Yes Colorado4 Yes North Dakota No Delaware5 Yes Ohio16 Yes Florida6 Yes Oklahoma17 Yes Illinois7 Yes Oregon No Indiana No Pennsylvania No Iowa8 Yes Rhode Island18 Yes Kansas Yes South Carolina No Kentucky9 Yes South Dakota19 Yes Louisiana10 Yes Tennessee20 Yes Maryland11 Yes Texas No Massachusetts No Utah21 Yes Michigan No Vermont No Minnesota12 Yes Virginia22 Yes Mississippi No Washington23 Yes Missouri No Wisconsin No Montana13 Yes Wyoming24 Yes 1On partial demolition, methods that might damage bridge sections to remain are prohibited. 2Yes, if such methods violate noise requirements, pollution, navigation, wildlife issues, or other restrictions. 3Explosives—undesirable results from past usage. Current projects have managed to include though. Tools with a manufactured rating strength energy of more than 1,200 ft-lb per blow. Undesired cracking in elements that may remain during partial removal. Freely falling mass—experience. Falling mass attached to a cable, rope, chain—undesirable result. 4Explosives. 5Explosives are prohibited. 6Explosives. 7For partial structure removals, or phase removals, where portions of the existing structure are to remain in service or are adjacent/over traffic, some limitations on methods or equipment impact energies are applicable, per Std. Spec. 501.05, and DOT review requirements. 8Typically explosives are prohibited. Some special case explosives are allowed. Chemical demolition is typically prohibited. Chemical demolition of some substructure elements has been allowed in special cases. 9All of the risk is on the contractor, but his plan must be approved for significant structures. 10Depends on the bridge type and the areas surrounding the bridge and environmental commitments. 11Explosives. 12Depends on job: explosives generally prohibited, sometimes sawcutting and slabbing out required in contract, limits on impact equipment ratings over all flanges. 13In some cases, blasting is prohibited for environmental or vibration risk reasons. 14Blast may be prohibited if demolition is close to properties or structures to remain in service. 15For bridges over water non-shattering methods are required. Explosives are not allowed for decks where the girders remain the property of the Department or for partial demolition. Wrecking balls and hammers are not permitted on structures to be widened. 16If existing beams are being salvaged we would limit size of jack hammers, not allow hoe rams or headache balls. The restrictions are based on what we are salvaging from the existing bridge so as not to damage what is being salvaged. 17Most projects have environmental constraints with regards to means and methods. Blasting is prohibited in almost all cases. 18Blasting is not permitted in developed areas for obvious reasons. 19On occasion, explosives are prohibited. 20Depending on the limits of demolition, certain large pieces of equipment are prohibited on adjacent structural components that are to remain in service. 21Concrete removal over girder flanges limited to jackhammers—to limit damage to steel girders to remain; 2. Machine mounted hydraulic or pneumatic equipment not allowed over or within 1 ft. of girders and diaphragms—to limit damage to girders. 22[Quoted from Standard Specifications: “Removing Portion of Existing Structures”]. 23We prohibit the use of explosives (Standard Specifications Section 2-02.2(2)A3.) Our environmental/fisheries/water quality standards make this untenable for our agency. 24Burning timber structures. Table C23. Responses to Survey Question 17: Does your agency prohibit the use of any types of demolition methods?

Summary of Survey Results 81 State Inspector Daily Report/Diary Photo Logs Video Logs Time Lapse Photography Drawing Mark-Up Other Alabama X Alaska X X X Arizona X X Arkansas X California X Colorado X X X X X Delaware X X Florida Illinois X X Indiana X Iowa X Kansas X X X X Kentucky Note 1 Louisiana X X X X Maryland X Massachusetts X Michigan X Minnesota X X X Mississippi X X X Missouri X X Montana X X Nevada X New Hampshire X New Jersey X X New York X X North Carolina X Note 2 North Dakota X X X X X Ohio X Oklahoma X X X X X Oregon X X X Pennsylvania X X Rhode Island X X South Carolina X X South Dakota X Tennessee X X Texas X X Utah X X X Vermont X X Virginia X Washington X X Wisconsin Wyoming X Note 1: Varies from none to all depending on the project size. Note 2: Photos or videos are sometimes attached to inspector daily diaries. Table C24. Responses to Survey Question 18: What methods are used to document the progress of demolition activities?

Next: Appendix D - Construction Contractor Questionnaire »
Bridge Demolition Practices Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

TRB's National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Synthesis 536: Bridge Demolition Practices documents practices used by bridge owners to manage and administer bridge demolition in construction projects.

Each year hundreds of bridges are rebuilt or are entirely replaced as part of highway construction projects. Bridge reconstruction or replacement work often entails demolition of part or all of the bridge structure.

Unintended events resulting in injury, project delays, and traffic disruptions can occur and have occurred during bridge demolition activities. The intention of this synthesis report is to assist in better understanding how to reduce risk associated with bridge demolition.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!