A. Pomeroy Mason Bridge
A. Pomeroy Mason Bridge
A. Pomeroy Mason Bridge
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
OTEC 2009<br />
David Jeakle<br />
URS Corporation<br />
Tampa, Florida<br />
<strong>Pomeroy</strong>-<strong>Mason</strong> <strong>Pomeroy</strong> <strong>Mason</strong> <strong>Bridge</strong><br />
Steve Williams<br />
Project Manager<br />
ODOT District 10<br />
LESSONS LEARNED
Owner:<br />
Engineer:<br />
Contractor:<br />
OTEC 2009<br />
ODOT / WVDOH<br />
URS Corporation<br />
Construction Inspection:<br />
<strong>Pomeroy</strong>-<strong>Mason</strong> <strong>Pomeroy</strong> <strong>Mason</strong> <strong>Bridge</strong><br />
C.J. Mahan/National Joint Venture<br />
PT and Stay Cable Supplier: DSI<br />
Michael Baker Jr., Inc.
<strong>Pomeroy</strong> <strong>Mason</strong> <strong>Bridge</strong><br />
OTEC 2009<br />
•<br />
•<br />
•<br />
US 33 Over Ohio River<br />
<strong>Pomeroy</strong>, Ohio →<br />
Replaces Existing Steel Truss<br />
<strong>Pomeroy</strong>-<strong>Mason</strong> <strong>Pomeroy</strong> <strong>Mason</strong> <strong>Bridge</strong><br />
Project Description<br />
<strong>Mason</strong>, West Virginia
OTEC 2009<br />
<strong>Pomeroy</strong>, OH<br />
<strong>Mason</strong>, WV<br />
<strong>Pomeroy</strong>-<strong>Mason</strong> <strong>Pomeroy</strong> <strong>Mason</strong> <strong>Bridge</strong><br />
Project Location<br />
OH<br />
WV<br />
Ohio<br />
River
OTEC 2009<br />
WEST VIRGINIA<br />
<strong>Pomeroy</strong>-<strong>Mason</strong> <strong>Pomeroy</strong> <strong>Mason</strong> <strong>Bridge</strong><br />
Project Description<br />
1914’-6”<br />
Roadway Typical Section<br />
OHIO
Roadway Alignment<br />
OTEC 2009<br />
•<br />
•<br />
•<br />
Tangent Section<br />
“J-Hook” at Ohio End<br />
Linear Taper at Ohio End<br />
<strong>Pomeroy</strong>-<strong>Mason</strong> <strong>Pomeroy</strong> <strong>Mason</strong> <strong>Bridge</strong><br />
Project Description<br />
Navigational Channel Towards Ohio Bank
17’-10” Sidespan Segments<br />
OTEC 2009<br />
<strong>Pomeroy</strong>-<strong>Mason</strong> <strong>Pomeroy</strong> <strong>Mason</strong> <strong>Bridge</strong><br />
Final Structural System<br />
26’-6” Mainspan Segments<br />
26’-6” Mainspan Segments
Sidespan Transverse Floorbeams<br />
•<br />
•<br />
•<br />
OTEC 2009<br />
9’-0” Wide, Mild Reinforced<br />
Wt Balances Mainspan Segments<br />
Positive Bearing Reaction from:<br />
−<br />
−<br />
Solid Diaphragm Segment<br />
Secondary Ballast Pours<br />
Sidespan Section<br />
<strong>Pomeroy</strong>-<strong>Mason</strong> <strong>Pomeroy</strong> <strong>Mason</strong> <strong>Bridge</strong><br />
Superstructure<br />
Mainspan Section<br />
Mainspan Floorbeams<br />
•<br />
•<br />
1’-9” Wide<br />
Post-Tensioned<br />
(2-19 strand tendons)
Plan View : Ohio Sidespan<br />
OTEC 2009<br />
Centerline OH Tower<br />
<strong>Pomeroy</strong>-<strong>Mason</strong> <strong>Pomeroy</strong> <strong>Mason</strong> <strong>Bridge</strong><br />
Superstructure<br />
S I D E W A L K<br />
244’-0”<br />
Linear Roadway Taper<br />
Rest Pier 7<br />
Horizontal Curve
Delta Shaped Towers<br />
•<br />
•<br />
•<br />
•<br />
•<br />
OTEC 2009<br />
Both Towers Identical<br />
Dead End Anchorages in<br />
Towerhead<br />
Cross-Strut Below Deck Post-<br />
Tensioned<br />
Tower Legs Hollow Above Deck<br />
Tower Legs Solid Below Deck<br />
− 100 year Flood +38’ above<br />
Normal Pool<br />
− Loaded Barge at +30’ above<br />
Normal Pool<br />
− Empty Barge at +50’ above<br />
Normal Pool<br />
<strong>Pomeroy</strong>-<strong>Mason</strong> <strong>Pomeroy</strong> <strong>Mason</strong> <strong>Bridge</strong><br />
Substructure<br />
100 YR FLOOD<br />
NORMAL POOL
Waterline Footings<br />
Six 8’-0” Diameter Drilled Shafts<br />
OTEC 2009<br />
<strong>Pomeroy</strong>-<strong>Mason</strong> <strong>Pomeroy</strong> <strong>Mason</strong> <strong>Bridge</strong><br />
Foundations<br />
Loose Sand (30’)<br />
Shale (17’)<br />
“Snag-Free” Footing<br />
Soil Layering<br />
Mudstone (27’)<br />
Siltstone
OTEC 2009<br />
<strong>Pomeroy</strong>-<strong>Mason</strong> <strong>Pomeroy</strong> <strong>Mason</strong> <strong>Bridge</strong><br />
Completed <strong>Bridge</strong>
OTEC 2009<br />
<strong>Pomeroy</strong>-<strong>Mason</strong> <strong>Pomeroy</strong> <strong>Mason</strong> <strong>Bridge</strong><br />
Superstructure Geometry Control<br />
Mainspan Segments Cast With<br />
Form Traveler<br />
Geometry Control Issues<br />
•<br />
•<br />
•<br />
With Cantilevered Segments<br />
As-Built Deflections Poorly<br />
Correlated with Theoretical<br />
Challenges Started with 1st Cantilever Segment
OTEC 2009<br />
<strong>Pomeroy</strong>-<strong>Mason</strong> <strong>Pomeroy</strong> <strong>Mason</strong> <strong>Bridge</strong><br />
Superstructure Geometry Control<br />
Initial Observed Trend Concerning<br />
Difference Between As-Built & Theoretical Deflections<br />
Expanding
OTEC 2009<br />
<strong>Pomeroy</strong>-<strong>Mason</strong> <strong>Pomeroy</strong> <strong>Mason</strong> <strong>Bridge</strong><br />
Superstructure Geometry Control
OTEC 2009<br />
<strong>Pomeroy</strong>-<strong>Mason</strong> <strong>Pomeroy</strong> <strong>Mason</strong> <strong>Bridge</strong><br />
Superstructure Geometry Control<br />
Contractor’s Analysis Model<br />
•<br />
•<br />
Unable to Accurately Predict As-Built Behavior<br />
Thoroughly Reviewed and Adjusted Numerous Times<br />
Segment Erection Specifications<br />
•<br />
•<br />
•<br />
Required Profile Tolerance of 4” at End of Construction<br />
Rideability<br />
Requirements<br />
No Intermediate Geometry Control Provisions<br />
ODOT Briefly Halted Segment Casting
OTEC 2009<br />
<strong>Pomeroy</strong>-<strong>Mason</strong> <strong>Pomeroy</strong> <strong>Mason</strong> <strong>Bridge</strong><br />
Superstructure Geometry Control<br />
Evaluation of Contractor’s Analysis Model<br />
•<br />
•<br />
•<br />
•<br />
•<br />
•<br />
Studied Various Temperature Effects<br />
Revised Concrete Unit Weight (153 pcf)<br />
Revised Concrete Elastic Modulus (18% increase)<br />
Evaluated Effects of Superstructure Cracking<br />
Evaluated Sidespan Falsework Stiffness & Release<br />
Performed Cable Lift-Off Tests<br />
Incorporated Revisions Into Analysis Model<br />
•<br />
•<br />
•<br />
Resume Segment Casting<br />
Marginal Improvement in Predicting As-Built Deflections<br />
Began Setting Forms at Cantilever Tip Above Theoretical
OTEC 2009<br />
<strong>Pomeroy</strong>-<strong>Mason</strong> <strong>Pomeroy</strong> <strong>Mason</strong> <strong>Bridge</strong><br />
Superstructure Geometry Control<br />
Evaluation of Contractor’s Analysis Model<br />
•<br />
•<br />
•<br />
•<br />
•<br />
•<br />
Studied Various Temperature Effects<br />
Revised Concrete Unit Weight (153 pcf)<br />
Revised Concrete Elastic Modulus (18% increase)<br />
Evaluated Effects of Superstructure Cracking<br />
Evaluated Sidespan Falsework Stiffness & Release<br />
Performed Cable Lift-Off Tests<br />
Incorporated Revisions Into Analysis Model<br />
•<br />
•<br />
•<br />
Resume Segment Casting<br />
Marginal Improvement in Predicting As-Built Deflections<br />
Began Setting Forms at Cantilever Tip Above Theoretical
OTEC 2009<br />
<strong>Pomeroy</strong>-<strong>Mason</strong> <strong>Pomeroy</strong> <strong>Mason</strong> <strong>Bridge</strong><br />
Superstructure Geometry Control
OTEC 2009<br />
<strong>Pomeroy</strong>-<strong>Mason</strong> <strong>Pomeroy</strong> <strong>Mason</strong> <strong>Bridge</strong><br />
Superstructure Geometry Control<br />
On-Going Concerns<br />
•<br />
•<br />
•<br />
How to Achieve Rideability?<br />
How Accurate are Theoretical Cable Forces and Superstructure Moments?<br />
Implications of Excessive Overlay to Achieve Rideability?<br />
Evaluation of Structure for Excessive Overlay<br />
•<br />
•<br />
•<br />
•<br />
•<br />
Predicted Overlay Requirements<br />
Evaluated Stay Cables<br />
Performed Cable Lift-Offs<br />
Evaluated Transverse Floorbeams and Edge Girders<br />
Evaluated Uplift at Anchor Pier Bearings
OTEC 2009<br />
<strong>Pomeroy</strong>-<strong>Mason</strong> <strong>Pomeroy</strong> <strong>Mason</strong> <strong>Bridge</strong><br />
Superstructure Geometry Control<br />
Closed At Midspan<br />
•<br />
•<br />
Few Locations Below 4” Tolerance on Final Profile<br />
Several “Bumps” Along the Mainspan<br />
Performed Final Survey and Cable Re-stressings
OTEC 2009<br />
<strong>Pomeroy</strong>-<strong>Mason</strong> <strong>Pomeroy</strong> <strong>Mason</strong> <strong>Bridge</strong><br />
Superstructure Geometry Control
OTEC 2009<br />
<strong>Pomeroy</strong>-<strong>Mason</strong> <strong>Pomeroy</strong> <strong>Mason</strong> <strong>Bridge</strong><br />
Superstructure Geometry Control
OTEC 2009<br />
<strong>Pomeroy</strong>-<strong>Mason</strong> <strong>Pomeroy</strong> <strong>Mason</strong> <strong>Bridge</strong><br />
Superstructure Geometry Control<br />
Variable Depth Overlay to Achieve Rideability<br />
•<br />
•<br />
•<br />
Established Target Profile By Evaluating Angle Breaks<br />
Limited Angle Breaks to ±0.04 radians<br />
Minimum Overlay Thickness – 1.25”
OTEC 2009<br />
<strong>Pomeroy</strong>-<strong>Mason</strong> <strong>Pomeroy</strong> <strong>Mason</strong> <strong>Bridge</strong><br />
Superstructure Geometry Control
OTEC 2009<br />
<strong>Pomeroy</strong>-<strong>Mason</strong> <strong>Pomeroy</strong> <strong>Mason</strong> <strong>Bridge</strong><br />
Superstructure Geometry Control
OTEC 2009<br />
<strong>Pomeroy</strong>-<strong>Mason</strong> <strong>Pomeroy</strong> <strong>Mason</strong> <strong>Bridge</strong><br />
Superstructure Geometry Control<br />
Recommendations:<br />
•<br />
•<br />
•<br />
•<br />
•<br />
Require EOR to Validate Contractor’s Analysis Model With a Detailed<br />
Independent Analysis Model<br />
Require 1.25” Minimum Wearing Surface Thickness; Design for a 2.5”<br />
Average Wearing Surface Thickness<br />
Require Two Empty Holes in All Stay Cable Anchorages to Accommodate<br />
Provisional Strands if Necessary<br />
Allow for Additional Dead Load in Transverse Floorbeam Design<br />
Specifications to Clearly Allow ODOT to Halt Erection if As-Built Geometry is<br />
Not Within Tolerances on a Per Segment Basis
OTEC 2009<br />
<strong>Pomeroy</strong>-<strong>Mason</strong> <strong>Pomeroy</strong> <strong>Mason</strong> <strong>Bridge</strong><br />
Stay Cable Lift-offs and Restressing<br />
Contractor Used Mono-Strand Jack For:<br />
•<br />
•<br />
Cable Re-stressing Operations<br />
Cable Lift-off Evaluations<br />
Specifications Required Full-Cable Gradient Jack<br />
Numerous Meetings and Delays Pertaining to Mono-Strand<br />
Jack<br />
Concerned About new “Bite” Marks in Strands
OTEC 2009<br />
<strong>Pomeroy</strong>-<strong>Mason</strong> <strong>Pomeroy</strong> <strong>Mason</strong> <strong>Bridge</strong><br />
Stay Cable Lift-offs and Restressing<br />
Recommendations<br />
•<br />
•<br />
•<br />
Provide Stronger Wording in Specification Regarding Full-Cable Gradient<br />
Jacks for Lift-offs and De-stressing Operations<br />
Require Final Lift-off Evaluation of All Stay Cables<br />
CEI to Inquire About Gradient Jack Months Ahead of its Need
OTEC 2009<br />
<strong>Pomeroy</strong>-<strong>Mason</strong> <strong>Pomeroy</strong> <strong>Mason</strong> <strong>Bridge</strong><br />
Edge Girder Post-Tensioning<br />
Mild Reinforced Edge Girders;<br />
No PT<br />
Contractor’s Redesigned Form<br />
Traveler<br />
•<br />
•<br />
Twice The Weight of Original Traveler<br />
Added Reinforcement to Edge Girder<br />
for Traveler Loads<br />
Cracking Observed During<br />
Cantilevering<br />
•<br />
•<br />
Top Surface Flexural Cracks<br />
Small Width Consistently Spaced<br />
Cracks Mostly Closed After<br />
Cantilevering
Recommendations:<br />
•<br />
•<br />
•<br />
OTEC 2009<br />
<strong>Pomeroy</strong>-<strong>Mason</strong> <strong>Pomeroy</strong> <strong>Mason</strong> <strong>Bridge</strong><br />
Edge Girder Post-Tensioning<br />
Provide Longitudinal PT Bars Near Top of Section<br />
Reduces Rebar Congestion<br />
Controls Cracks During High Demand Cantilevering Operations
OTEC 2009<br />
Towerhead<br />
<strong>Pomeroy</strong>-<strong>Mason</strong> <strong>Pomeroy</strong> <strong>Mason</strong> <strong>Bridge</strong><br />
Cable Anchorages<br />
Full Concrete Towerhead<br />
Cables Anchored in Concrete Blisters<br />
PT Bars in Orthogonal Directions<br />
Geometry Control of Cable Guide Pipes Challenging<br />
PT Bars Created Additional Congestion
OTEC 2009<br />
Towerhead<br />
<strong>Pomeroy</strong>-<strong>Mason</strong> <strong>Pomeroy</strong> <strong>Mason</strong> <strong>Bridge</strong><br />
Cable Anchorages<br />
Contractor Had Minimal Guide Pipe Geometry Issues<br />
Recommendations:<br />
•<br />
•<br />
•<br />
•<br />
•<br />
•<br />
Consider Steel Anchor Boxes Within Towerhead<br />
Simplifies Guide Pipe Geometry Control<br />
Eliminates PT Bar Operations and Congestion<br />
Eliminates Internal Core Forms<br />
Field Section Length Based on Lifting Capacity of Tower Crane<br />
Evaluated Concrete Strains Closely Based on Compatibility of Strains with<br />
Steel Anchor Box
OTEC 2009<br />
Sidespans<br />
<strong>Pomeroy</strong>-<strong>Mason</strong> <strong>Pomeroy</strong> <strong>Mason</strong> <strong>Bridge</strong><br />
Cast-In-Place on Falsework<br />
Contract Plans Based on Balanced Cantilever<br />
•<br />
•<br />
•<br />
•<br />
Form Traveler For Mainspan and Sidespan Cantilevering<br />
OH Sidespan Mostly Over Land<br />
Very Heavy Sidespan Segments Due to Ballast Requirement<br />
Variable Width on OH Sidespan
OTEC 2009<br />
Sidespans<br />
Contractor Cast Sidespans<br />
on Falsework<br />
•<br />
•<br />
•<br />
•<br />
Reduced Travelers From 4 to 2<br />
Eliminated Need for Temporary<br />
Stability Tower in Sidespans<br />
Deliver Concrete Over<br />
Completed Approaches and<br />
Sidespans<br />
Sidespans Became Staging Area<br />
<strong>Pomeroy</strong>-<strong>Mason</strong> <strong>Pomeroy</strong> <strong>Mason</strong> <strong>Bridge</strong><br />
Cast-In-Place on Falsework
OTEC 2009<br />
Sidespans<br />
Designed For Balanced<br />
Cantilever<br />
•<br />
•<br />
•<br />
•<br />
•<br />
•<br />
Realized Potential For Casting<br />
Sidespans on Falsework<br />
Designing For Balanced<br />
Cantilever Maximized Demand<br />
on System<br />
Gave Contractor Flexibility to<br />
Build Either Method<br />
Without Increase in Quantities<br />
Contractor Needed to Evaluate<br />
Risks of Falsework in River<br />
Contractor to Obtain Coast<br />
Guard Permit<br />
<strong>Pomeroy</strong>-<strong>Mason</strong> <strong>Pomeroy</strong> <strong>Mason</strong> <strong>Bridge</strong><br />
Cast-In-Place on Falsework
OTEC 2009<br />
<strong>Pomeroy</strong>-<strong>Mason</strong> <strong>Pomeroy</strong> <strong>Mason</strong> <strong>Bridge</strong><br />
No Anchor Pier Uplift Restraint<br />
Short End Spans Due to J-Hook at Ohio Bank<br />
•<br />
•<br />
Sidespan to Mainspan Ratio = 0.36<br />
Creates Uplift at Anchor Piers<br />
WVDOH Mandated No Uplift Restraint at Anchor Piers<br />
•<br />
•<br />
•<br />
No Steel or Post-Tensioning Tie-Downs<br />
No Engaging Weight of Anchor Pier and Foundation<br />
No Engaging Weight of Approach Spans
Ballasted Sidespans<br />
•<br />
•<br />
•<br />
OTEC 2009<br />
<strong>Pomeroy</strong>-<strong>Mason</strong> <strong>Pomeroy</strong> <strong>Mason</strong> <strong>Bridge</strong><br />
No Anchor Pier Uplift Restraint<br />
Sidespan Floor Beams 9’-0” Wide<br />
Sidespans<br />
50% Solid<br />
Secondary Pour in Last Bay at Anchor Pier Segment<br />
Sidespan Section<br />
Mainspan Section
Implications<br />
•<br />
•<br />
•<br />
•<br />
•<br />
OTEC 2009<br />
<strong>Pomeroy</strong>-<strong>Mason</strong> <strong>Pomeroy</strong> <strong>Mason</strong> <strong>Bridge</strong><br />
No Anchor Pier Uplift Restraint<br />
Significant Ballast Concrete<br />
Volume<br />
Ballast Over Full Sidespan<br />
Length<br />
Ballast Weight Near Towers is<br />
Inefficient<br />
Increased Cable Quantities<br />
Increased Tower Axial Reactions
OTEC 2009<br />
<strong>Pomeroy</strong>-<strong>Mason</strong> <strong>Pomeroy</strong> <strong>Mason</strong> <strong>Bridge</strong><br />
Ice Guards at Top of Towers<br />
Top of Tower is Shallow<br />
Pyramid<br />
•<br />
•<br />
Sloped in All Four Directions<br />
Two Faces Slope Towards<br />
Roadway<br />
Concerned With Ice<br />
Slides off Pyramid Top<br />
•<br />
•<br />
Place Ice Guard Around<br />
Perimeter<br />
Break-up Ice As Sliding Off
OTEC 2009<br />
<strong>Pomeroy</strong>-<strong>Mason</strong> <strong>Pomeroy</strong> <strong>Mason</strong> <strong>Bridge</strong><br />
Waterline Tower Footings<br />
Developed a Waterline Footing<br />
•<br />
•<br />
•<br />
Supported on Six 8’-0” Diameter Drilled Shafts<br />
Minimize Required Depth of Dewatering<br />
Water Depth at Normal Pool = 35’
Large Water Level<br />
Fluctuation<br />
•<br />
•<br />
•<br />
•<br />
OTEC 2009<br />
<strong>Pomeroy</strong>-<strong>Mason</strong> <strong>Pomeroy</strong> <strong>Mason</strong> <strong>Bridge</strong><br />
Waterline Tower Footings<br />
100 Year Flood +38 feet<br />
Above Normal Pool<br />
Loaded Barge Impact +30 feet<br />
Above Normal Pool<br />
Empty Barge Impact +48 feet<br />
Above Normal Pool<br />
Footing Block Completely<br />
Submerged<br />
100 YR FLOOD<br />
NORMAL POOL
Snag-Free Shape<br />
•<br />
•<br />
OTEC 2009<br />
<strong>Pomeroy</strong>-<strong>Mason</strong> <strong>Pomeroy</strong> <strong>Mason</strong> <strong>Bridge</strong><br />
Waterline Tower Footings<br />
Submerged Footing Shaped to<br />
Not Snag Passing Vessels<br />
Slope of Navigation Channel<br />
Faces is 4:1
Pros<br />
•<br />
•<br />
•<br />
Cons<br />
•<br />
•<br />
•<br />
•<br />
OTEC 2009<br />
<strong>Pomeroy</strong>-<strong>Mason</strong> <strong>Pomeroy</strong> <strong>Mason</strong> <strong>Bridge</strong><br />
Delta Shaped Towers<br />
Improves Aerodynamic Performance<br />
Provides Torsional Rigidity for Edge<br />
Girder Superstructure<br />
No Upper Cross Strut Required<br />
Consolidation of Concrete in Sloped<br />
Legs Challenging<br />
Cable Geometry More Challenging<br />
Intermediate Temporary Bracing<br />
Required<br />
No Cable Installation Until Closed at<br />
Top
Change language