BRIDGE REPAIR/REHABILITATION FEASIBILITY STUDY

More documents

Recommendations

Info

TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS............................................................................................................1 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................2 2.0 INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................5 3.0 BRIDGE DESCRIPTION................................................................................................6 4.0 ELEMENT CONDITION & REHABILITATION/REPAIR SCOPE .......................... 10 4.1 Overall Condition.......................................................................................................10 4.2 Deck ...........................................................................................................................13 4.3 Superstructure............................................................................................................. 22 4.4 Substructure................................................................................................................33 4.5 Channel & Channel Protection...................................................................................44 4.6 Traffic Safety..............................................................................................................46 5.0 OTHER CONSIDERATIONS.......................................................................................48 5.1 Navigation Opening ...................................................................................................48 5.2 Maintenance and Service Life....................................................................................49 5.3 Funding.......................................................................................................................52 6.0 SCOPE, COST AND SERVICE LIFE FOR REPAIR & REHABILITATION ........... 53 7.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................ 55 APPENDICES ..........................................................................................................................58 A. Existing Bridge Plans B. Structures Field Inspection Reports • 2004 Routine • 2006 Routine • 2008 Routine • 2010 Routine • 2010 Underwater • 2010 Powder Point Bridge (Duxbury) C. Load Rating Summary (1997) D. In-place Preservative Treatments E. Commercial Timbers of the Caribbean F. FRP Pile Jackets G. Cost Estimates H. Operating Equipment Evaluation I. Correspondence Repair/Rehab. Feasibility Study March 10, 2011 Bridge No. C-07-001 (437) 1 Final Report
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The existing Mitchell River Bridge (Bridge Number C-07-001 (437)) in Chatham, Massachusetts, which is owned and maintained by the Town of Chatham, was planned for replacement under the Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT) Accelerated Bridge Program. This project will be supported in part with Federal funding through the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and, therefore, is subject to review under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended [36 CFR 800]. As part of the Section 106 process, FHWA and MassDOT submitted documentation to the Keeper of the National Register of Historic Places in September 2010 requesting formal determination of the Mitchell River Bridge’s eligibility for listing in the National Register. The Keeper subsequently determined in October 2010 that the bridge is eligible for listing in the National Register. The Keeper found that the existing Mitchell River Bridge was a “rare example” and “of exceptional significance as the last remaining single-leaf wooden drawbridge in Massachusetts (and perhaps the entire United States)” and “an exceptionally important part of the community’s historic identity.” The Keeper’s finding overturned a series of earlier findings by the Massachusetts State Historic Preservation Officer in 1981, 1985, and more recently in January, February and July 2010 that the bridge was not eligible for listing in the National Register. This study develops and evaluates repair and rehabilitation alternatives for the undertaking that could avoid, minimize or mitigate adverse effects to the National Register eligible Mitchell River Bridge, as required under 36 CFR 800.6(a). The results of this evaluation are as follows. The bridge currently has a National Bridge Inventory (NBI) Sufficiency Rating of 45.9 out of 100 and the bridge is currently classified as “Structurally Deficient” primarily due to the poor condition of the substructure. The current condition of the timber throughout the bridge varies from “satisfactory” to “poor” and conditions are conducive to continuing deterioration. Doing nothing or performing only normal maintenance will not correct the conditions that cause the bridge to deteriorate. Furthermore, currently available maintenance and repair techniques will not extend the service life of the timber elements a reasonable duration in this environment. Although the bridge is currently considered safe, anticipated deterioration in the near future is expected to reduce the load carrying capacity to a threshold where load restrictions will be required. Two timber elements already have load carrying capacities less than the required load capacity and many other timber elements have load carrying capacities only slightly above the required capacity. Without corrective action, the condition of the timber is ultimately expected to reach a level where the bridge will be unsafe to carry traffic. Doing nothing or performing only normal maintenance will not correct the load carrying capacity concerns. In addition to the current deficiencies in the structural condition, there are functional and safety concerns that need to be addressed. The bridge would be classified as “Functionally Obsolete” due to the substandard roadway width, if it were not for the current “Structurally Deficient” classification. Other functional and safety concerns include substandard curbs and bridge railings, substandard guardrails and associated end treatments and transitions, substandard Repair/Rehab. Feasibility Study March 10, 2011 Bridge No. C-07-001 (437) 2 Final Report
Page 1: BRIDGE REPAIR/REHABILITATION FEASIB
Page 5 and 6: such there is a risk that the proje
Page 7 and 8: 3.0 BRIDGE DESCRIPTION Bridge Numbe
Page 9 and 10: Photo 2 - Present Mitchell River Br
Page 11 and 12: 4.0 ELEMENT CONDITION & REHABILITAT
Page 13 and 14: Based on the 1997 load rating analy
Page 15 and 16: promotes growth in the number and s
Page 17 and 18: 4.2.2 Deck NBIS Condition Rating: 5
Page 19 and 20: Rehabilitation Scope: In order to m
Page 21 and 22: 4.2.5 Railings NBIS Condition Ratin
Page 23 and 24: Functionality and Safety: Eliminati
Page 25 and 26: Although in-place preservative trea
Page 27 and 28: The bascule span timber stringers c
Page 29 and 30: Repair Scope: Although the timber m
Page 31 and 32: Use of an all steel counterweight w
Page 33 and 34: additional force effects, the speci
Page 35 and 36: typically loose. The steel guardrai
Page 37 and 38: Functionality and Safety: The cap b
Page 39 and 40: The surface decay and deterioration
Page 41 and 42: the interior of the piles where the
Page 43 and 44: Load Capacity: The current loss in
Page 45 and 46: Visual Impacts: Replacement of the
Page 47 and 48: Condition Description: There are cu
Page 49 and 50: 5.0 OTHER CONSIDERATIONS 5.1 Naviga
Page 51 and 52: SUMMARY OF TIMBER ELEMENT SERVICE L
Page 53 and 54:
5.3 Funding The project is currentl
Page 55 and 56:
navigation opening. The estimated c
Page 57 and 58:
• Continued replacement, repair a
Page 59 and 60:
APPENDICES A. Existing Bridge Plans
Page 74:
APPENDIX B Structures Field Inspect
Page 123 and 124:
PAGE 3 OF 22 CITY/TOWN B.I.N. BR. D
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
CITY/TOWN B.I.N. BR. DEPT. NO. 8.-S
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Page 144 and 145:
PAGE 2 OF 7 CITY/TOWN B.I.N. BR. DE
Page 146 and 147:
Page 148 and 149:
Page 211:
APPENDIX C Load Rating Summary (199
Page 237 and 238:
MAINTENANCE AND REHABILITATION OF T
Page 239 and 240:
Figure 14-1. - Many covered bridges
Page 241 and 242:
(discussed later in this chapter),
Page 243 and 244:
Figure 14-5. - Liquid wood preserva
Page 245 and 246:
wood, and other openings to the atm
Page 247 and 248:
Table 14-1. - Number and size of ho
Page 249 and 250:
member noting treatment information
Page 251 and 252:
Figure 14-11. - Splicing and scabbi
Page 253 and 254:
STRESS LAMINATING Stress laminating
Page 255 and 256:
ond between separated sections, inc
Page 257 and 258:
onding the old and new pile section
Page 259 and 260:
GENERAL PROCEDURES FOR EPOXY REPAIR
Page 261 and 262:
openings will allow epoxy to escape
Page 263 and 264:
Another quality control problem is
Page 265 and 266:
6. Avent, R.R. 1985. Factors affect
Page 267 and 268:
Integrated Remedial Protection of W
Page 269 and 270:
Figure l-Effect of fumigant applica
Page 271 and 272:
Table 1- Residual MITC content in D
Page 273 and 274:
of reinvasion (Forsyth and Morrell,
Page 275 and 276:
might represent the best option, wh
Page 277 and 278:
In: Ritter, M.A.; Duwadi, S.R.; Lee
Page 279 and 280:
Present and Potential Commercial Ti
Page 281 and 282:
2 U.S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE HANDBOO
Page 283 and 284:
Page 285 and 286:
Page 287 and 288:
Page 289 and 290:
10 U.S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE HANDBO
Page 291 and 292:
Page 293 and 294:
Page 295 and 296:
Page 297 and 298:
Page 299 and 300:
Page 301 and 302:
Page 303 and 304:
Page 305 and 306:
APPENDIX F FRP Pile Jackets
Page 307 and 308:
about its hazard to human health. T
Page 309 and 310:
Fig. 5. Cross section of wood pile
Page 311 and 312:
(Lopez-Anido et al. 2004c). For exa
Page 313 and 314:
Table 1. Cost Items for FRP Composi
Page 315 and 316:
Hardcore Composites. (2000). Hardsh
Page 317 and 318:
CALCULATION COVER SHEET Project Nam
Page 319 and 320:
URS Corp. 260 Franklin Street Bosto
Page 321 and 322:
Page 323 and 324:
Page 325 and 326:
Page 327 and 328:
Page 329 and 330:
Page 336:
APPENDIX I Correspondence
show all

BRIDGE REPAIR/REHABILITATION FEASIBILITY STUDY

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?