final memorandum 1 - oregon documents... · 2017. 8. 24. · final memorandum 1.12 i-5 medford...
Post on 12-Aug-2021
1 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Final Memorandum 1.12
I-5 Medford Viaduct Planning & Environmental Study Page 1 Final Memorandum 1.12 August 4, 2017
To: Lisa Cornutt & Anna Henson CC: Marc Butorac, PE, PTOE, PMP From: Bob Goodrich, PE & Michael McNulty, PE Date: August 4, 2017 Subject: Task 1.12 Seismic Retrofit Concepts
Introduction
Task 1.12 builds on the seismic baseline performance findings from Task 1.11. With a clearer understanding of the current seismic deficiencies of the bridge, a planning level seismic retrofit assessment of the existing structure has been completed. This memorandum outlines the extent of seismic retrofitting required, a planning level cost estimate, and advantages and disadvantages for the three conceptual retrofit design options identified in Technical Memorandum 1.12a. Those three design options are:
Existing (Non-Widening) Design Option – No Widening and Seismic Retrofit Design Option 1B – One-Sided 28-Foot Widening and Seismic Retrofit Design Option 1C – Two-Sided 14-Foot Widening and Seismic Retrofit
Readily available data, such as previous soil borings, as-constructed plans, and existing topography were used for this analysis. Sufficient data was available to develop reliable seismic retrofit strategies and verify the seismic performance of the three design options. Since updated, site-specific information, such as geotechnical or survey data, can have a significant effect on seismic modelling, analysis, and results, the next phase of work will need to collect new and updated data for several disciplines. It should be noted that the findings presented in this memorandum are to aid the Project Management Team (PMT) in considering design options for further study. The proposed seismic retrofit types, sizes, and locations may change and will require further analysis and engineering to finalize the design and refine the cost estimates.
Conceptual Bridge Retrofit Design Options Summary
Three conceptual bridge retrofit design options have been identified by the PMT. The goal of all three design options is to provide a retrofitted structure that meets current AASHTO Guide Specification for Load and Resistance Factor Design Seismic Bridge Design (Guide Spec) and ODOT Bridge Design and Drafting Manual (BDDM) seismic design criteria for both "Operational" and "Life Safety" seismic design events. A three-dimensional spline model (“seismic model”) was created to evaluate each of the three seismic retrofit design options.
The purpose of this memorandum and the other early anchoring activity memorandums
in Phase 1A of the project is to inform the Draft Problem Statement and guide further
development of the project.
Final Memorandum 1.12
I-5 Medford Viaduct Planning & Environmental Study Page 2 Final Memorandum 1.12 August 4, 2017
One strategy when preparing and configuring the seismic models was to use stiffer bridge widening foundation members to control total displacements. The goal was to limit the need to retrofit existing members, thereby lowering project costs. In the course of analyzing the seismic models, preliminary results showed only limited benefit to providing a stiffer bridge widening foundation. Most of the existing members still required significant column and footing retrofitting. To more fully realize the benefits of the widening, we determined that reducing the stiffness of the existing bridge was also necessary. Our recommended approach to reducing the stiffness is to create a pin support at each interior column-to-spread footing connection. According to ODOT's BDDM, pinned column connections as a permissible earthquake-resisting element (ERE) requires pre-approval by the State Bridge Engineer. Following a meeting with ODOT and FHWA on May 19, we submitted a preliminary approval request to ODOT on May 23, 2017. On June 2, the PMT received written approval to proceed with this ERE. The written approval listed several conditions and design considerations that must be addressed as the project moves forward:
Installing a few dowels (min. four) through existing columns into the existing footings @ approximately 30 degree angle from the face of the column. These dowels should penetrate the column-footing interface within the 1/6 of column diameter.
The parameters for the new reinforced concrete collar will be analyzed and designed to meet the force demand at each location (shear demand, vertical seismic displacement demand, etc.) and it will not be constructed based on experience with similar details or engineered judgment.
The effect of the (extensive) fill around existing columns will be analyzed and mitigation methods will be evaluated, if necessary, to “relieve” columns from such a confinement (i.e. corrugated metal pipe).
Further investigation on the possibility of transferring all seismic loads into a larger/stiffer new substructure, which would allow for providing a “roller” connection at the top of existing columns. Also, additional detailing may be needed to meet the required balanced stiffness for every individual bent.
Design Options 1B and 1C will utilize this ERE as a key component of the seismic retrofit strategy. While a conceptual pinned connection detail is present in the following figure, there is a substantial effort required in the next phase of work to further design and detail the connection in close coordination with ODOT Bridge Section.
Final Memorandum 1.12
I-5 Medford Viaduct Planning & Environmental Study Page 3 Final Memorandum 1.12 August 4, 2017
Each conceptual bridge design option, seismic performance, and seismic retrofit strategies is summarized in the following subsections. Existing (Non-Widening) Design Option – No Widening and Seismic Retrofit The Existing (Non-Widening) Design Option considers evaluating and developing seismic retrofits to the existing bridge elements. The goal is to improve seismic performance without increasing the bridge footprint to the extent practical. This design option will not increase the existing out-to-out structure width of 66 feet and will maintain the existing 62-foot-wide roadway section. Seismic retrofits were determined so the retrofitted bridge would provide ductile performance of the columns and elastic performance of the crossbeams and spread footings when subjected to design seismic loadings. Retrofitting measures included enlarging existing spread footings, Fiber Reinforced Polymer (FRP) wrapping of columns, and enlarging crossbeams. To meet current seismic performance standards, spread footings (92 each), columns (92 each), and crossbeams (45 each) will require retrofitting. Typical plan and elevation views of five selected bents have been developed to show limits and conceptual details of seismic retrofit measures (see Figures A1 through A5 for typical details). Design Option 1B – One-Sided 28-Foot Widening and Seismic Retrofit Design Option 1B considers evaluating and developing a one-sided bridge widening and seismic retrofits to the existing bridge elements. The goal is to improve seismic performance
Final Memorandum 1.12
I-5 Medford Viaduct Planning & Environmental Study Page 4 Final Memorandum 1.12 August 4, 2017
and increase the structure width to provide a four-lane freeway section with standard shoulders. This design option will widen the existing bridge 28 feet to the east, which will provide a 90-foot-wide roadway section and an out-to-out structure width of 94 feet. Widening to the east will require adding one new column and extending the crossbeam at each existing bent, placing new girders, and constructing additional concrete deck. Seismic retrofits were determined so the widened and retrofitted bridge would provide ductile performance of the columns and elastic performance of the crossbeams and spread footings when subjected to design seismic loadings. Existing columns were only retrofitted when seismic analysis indicated that forces within the column exceed the elastic range. Retrofitting measures included enlarging spread footings, pinning each interior column-to-spread footing connection, FRP wrapping of columns, and enlarging crossbeams. To meet current seismic performance standards, all exterior spread footings (46 each), exterior columns (46 each), and crossbeams (48 each) will require retrofitting. Crossbeam retrofitting is necessary to improve seismic performance, and to accommodate structural widening. Pinning the interior columns eliminates the need to retrofit any of the interior spread footings and limits FRP wrapping to the tops of only three of the 46 interior columns. Typical plan and elevation views of five selected bents have been developed to show limits and conceptual details of the structural widening and seismic retrofit measures (see Figures B1 through B5 for typical sections.) Design Option 1C – Two-Sided 14-Foot Widening and Seismic Retrofit Design Option 1C considers evaluating and developing a two-sided bridge widening and seismic retrofits to the existing bridge elements. The goal is to improve seismic performance and increase the structure width to provide a four-lane freeway section with standard shoulders. This design option will widen the existing bridge 14 feet on each side, which will provide a 90-foot-wide roadway section and an out-to-out structure width of 94 feet. Symmetrically widening the bridge will require adding two new columns and extending the crossbeam at each existing bent, placing new girders, and constructing additional concrete deck. Seismic retrofits were determined so the widened and retrofitted bridge would provide ductile performance of the columns and elastic performance of the crossbeams and spread footings when subjected to design seismic loadings. Existing columns were only retrofitted when seismic analysis indicated that forces within the column exceed the elastic range. Retrofitting measures included enlarging spread footings, pinning each interior column-to-spread footing connection, FRP wrapping of columns, and enlarging crossbeams. To meet current seismic performance standards, all crossbeams (48 each) will require retrofitting. Crossbeam retrofitting is necessary to improve seismic performance, and to accommodate structural widening. Pinning the interior columns eliminates the need to retrofit any of the interior spread footings and limits FRP wrapping to the tops of only 22 of the 92 interior columns. Bent 39 is a steel crossbeam supported by two columns. Due to the existing geometry, the steel crossbeam can be widened without new columns. This will require both columns (two each) and spread footings (two each) to be retrofitted. Typical plan and elevation
Final Memorandum 1.12
I-5 Medford Viaduct Planning & Environmental Study Page 5 Final Memorandum 1.12 August 4, 2017
views of five selected bents have been developed to show limits and conceptual details of the structural widening and seismic retrofit measures (see Figures C1 through C5 for typical sections.) Results showed that Design Option 1C displaced more than Design Option 1B, meaning that the one-sided widening configuration performed better than the symmetric widening configuration. This is because the west side widening columns for 1C are longer than all other columns. The added column length makes the symmetric widening configuration less stiff relative to the one-sided widening configuration, resulting in more displacement and higher forces under seismic loading. Both Design Options 1B & 1C displace less than the non-widening seismic retrofit structure.
Retrofitted Baseline Performance Tables (RBPT's)
For all design options, retrofit measures and the retrofitted structure were analyzed to verify that the retrofitted structure achieves the desired seismic performance. This included preliminary investigation of the following critical structural elements, as applicable, for the design options:
Drilled Shafts Spread Footings Columns Crossbeams
Overall retrofitted baseline performance of each design option is based on the allowable displacement capacity at the column tops achieved through retrofitting and/or structural widening and the associated displacement demand from the global seismic model. Allowable displacement capacities of the retrofitted structure were determined in accordance with Section 4.8.1 of the Guide Spec. Displacement demands at the column tops for both longitudinal and transverse seismic design loadings were combined in two load cases, according to Section 4.4 of the Guide Spec, to account for directional uncertainty of an earthquake event. Retrofitted Baseline Performance Tables (RBPT's) were then developed for all three design options. For each design option, RBPT's summarize the displacement capacity, displacement demand, and capacity versus demand displacement ratio for each bent at both the "Operational" and "Life Safety" seismic design criterion. The capacity versus demand displacement ratio shown is always the critical (smallest ratio that is greater than 1.0). Compiled RBPT's can be found in Appendix A.
Conceptual Bridge Design Options Comparison An aerial map identifying the project site; existing right-of-way; the east-west limits of each design option; and environmental, right-of-way, and constructability impacts is contained in Appendix B. A summary of the impacts and planning-level cost estimates for each design option are summarized below.
Final Memorandum 1.12
I-5 Medford Viaduct Planning & Environmental Study Page 6 Final Memorandum 1.12 August 4, 2017
Environmental Not all environmental impacts of each design options have been estimated at this time, i.e. noise, archeology, etc. Before discussing the general impacts associated with each design option, there are some environmental impacts common to all design options:
Construction activities to excavate and retrofit the westerly existing spread footing at Bents 11 through 17, and Bents 38 through 40, which are at or below ordinary high water (OHW), will impact Bear Creek. Construction may require stream isolation, fish salvage, shoring, containment, and/or dewatering.
Bents 18 through 24 may reside within Bear Creek and/or require temporary shoring to limit impacts to Bear Creek during construction.
A construction access road, required for the duration of construction and located along the east edge of the project site, will impact Hawthorne Park. Construction may limit public access to portions of Hawthorne Park for extended periods of time.
The construction access road will impact existing mobile homes at the southeast end of the project from Bents 44 to 46.
Construction access road and bridge construction activities, will impact portions of the Bear Creek Greenway Trail and multi-use path along Biddle Road, including both temporary and permanent impacts. Temporary impacts will requiring either closing the trail and/or path for extend periods of time or temporarily relocating the trail during construction.
Impacts specific to each design option are discussed below. Existing (Non-Widening) Design Option This design option does not have any unique environmental impacts. Design Option 1B – One-Sided Widening In addition to the common impacts, construction of the new drilled shaft foundations along the east edge of the project site will create additional impacts in Bear Creek and Hawthorne Park. While the majority of the new foundations are outside Beer Creek, Bents 40 through 42 (three bents in total) are likely below OHW. In addition to the permanent impacts, these bents will require a temporary access platform or embankment benching to construct the drilled shafts. This design option will widen the bridge by 28 feet to the east of the original structure, resulting in new drilled shafts that encroach into Hawthorne Park from Bents 4 through 13 (ten bents in total). Widening may require removal of existing trees.
Final Memorandum 1.12
I-5 Medford Viaduct Planning & Environmental Study Page 7 Final Memorandum 1.12 August 4, 2017
Design Option 1C – Two-Sided Widening In addition to the common impacts, construction of the new drilled shaft foundations on both sides of the existing bridge will create additional impacts to Bear Creek, Hawthorne Park, and existing mobile homes at the southwest end of the bridge. The majority of the new foundations on the west side, and a handful of the new foundations on the east side, will be constructed at or below the OHW of Bear Creek. Stream isolation, fish salvage, containment, and dewatering will be required at Bents 8 through 17, 22, 23, 34 through 38, and 40 (18 bents in total). While most of the drilled shafts will be constructed near the creek bank, the drilled shafts at Bents 11 through 17 (7 bents in total) will be closer to the middle of Beer Creek. In addition to the permanent impacts, a temporary access platform or embankment benching may be required to construct west drilled shafts at Bents 8 through 21 and 35 through 39, and east drilled shafts at Bents 40 through 42 (22 bents in total). This design option will widen the bridge by 14 feet on both sides of the original structure. Resulting in new drilled shafts that encroach into Hawthorne Park from Bents 4 through 13 (10 bents in total) and may require removal of existing trees. Additionally mobile homes located on the west side of original structure from Bents 43 through 46 (four bents in total) will need to be relocated to accommodate structural widening. Right-of-Way Right-of-way impacts specific to each design option are discussed below. Impacts are based on preliminary assessments at this early design level. Impacts could increase or decrease based on more detailed design of the preferred option. Existing (Non-Widening) Design Option No permanent right-of-way acquisitions are anticipated at this time. Temporary construction easements may be required between Bents 24 through 27 (four bents in total) to accommodate contractor access. Design Option 1B – One-Sided Widening Permanent right-of-way acquisitions will be required along the east side from Bents 4 through 11 and Bents 23 through 38 (24 bents in total). Temporary construction easements along the east side of the bridge will be required from Bents 4 through 46 (43 bents in total) to accommodate temporary construction access. Design Option 1C – Two-Sided Widening Permanent right-of-way acquisitions along the east side of the original structure will be required to construct this design option from Bents 23 through 31 (nine bents in total). Temporary construction easements along the east side of the bridge will be required from Bents 23 to 39 (17 bents in total).
Final Memorandum 1.12
I-5 Medford Viaduct Planning & Environmental Study Page 8 Final Memorandum 1.12 August 4, 2017
Constructability Before discussing the general impacts associated with each design option, there are some constructability impacts common to all design options:
A temporary construction access road along the east side of the original structure will be required.
Mobile homes along the east side of the original structure from Bents 43 to 46 will require relocation to accommodate construction access.
The structural excavation footprint will be substantial to expose existing spread footings. Shoring can be installed to reduce the excavation footprint. However, shoring may not be cost-effective or feasible due to built environment constraints at some bents.
The following construction impacts related to spread footing retrofitting have been identified:
o East Jackson Street and East 4th Street must be narrowed, either by reducing shoulders and lane widths or closing travel lanes.
o East approach and abutment of the Main Street Bear Creek crossing. o East approach and abutment of the East 8th Street Bear Creek crossing. o Pedestrian Bear Creek crossing at Bent 34. o East approach and abutment of the East 10th Street Bear Creek crossing.
Existing cast-in-place deck structural rehabilitation, identified in Memorandum 1.10, will require closing one or two travel lane at a time on I-5 to stage construct.
All three design options will have variable impacts to travel lane closures on I-5: o Existing (Non-Widening) Design Option will have the least amount of lane closure
impacts; o Design option 1B will have more lane closure impacts relative to the non-
widening option, due to the east side widening construction activities; o Design Option 1C will have the greatest lane closure impacts of all three options,
due to east and west side widening construction activities. Constructability considerations specific to each design option are discussed below. Existing (Non-Widening) Design Option In addition to the common impacts, preliminary investigation indicates that the reduced spread footing area during construction will not provide sufficient bearing capacity to maintain all four lanes of traffic under construction. This will require temporary falsework to be installed at each bent to maintain four lanes of traffic or reducing the lanes of traffic during construction. Temporary shoring will also be required to maintain and protect existing mobile homes along the west side of the original structure from Bents 43 to 46 during spread footing retrofit construction activities. Design Option 1B – One-Sided Widening In addition to the common impacts, Design Option 1B structural widening will have the following impacts:
Final Memorandum 1.12
I-5 Medford Viaduct Planning & Environmental Study Page 9 Final Memorandum 1.12 August 4, 2017
Temporary shoring will be required to maintain and protect existing mobile homes along the west side of the original structure from Bents 43 to 46 during spread footing retrofit construction activities.
Westerly existing spread footing retrofits may require temporary crossbeam shoring to maintain four lanes of traffic. Depending on construction staging, temporary shoring may be avoided if structural widening is completed prior to spread footing retrofitting.
Spans 39 through 42 widening girders will require closing one or two travel lanes on I-5 to install.
One or two I-5 travel lane closures will be required to construct widening cast-in-place deck.
Design Option 1C – Two-Sided Widening In addition to common impacts, Design Option 1C structural widening will have the following impacts:
Mobile homes along the west side of the original structure from Bents 43 to 46 will require relocation to accommodate structural widening.
Temporary work access and platforms will be required to construct drilled shaft foundations that are at or below OWH of Bear Creek.
Widening will need to be staged constructed to limit I-5 traffic restrictions. One to two I-5 travel lanes closures will be required to construct widening cast-in-place
deck. Bridge Planning Level Cost Estimates Planning level cost estimates found in Appendix C are for bridge construction activities only. Cost estimates do not include other construction items, such as temporary protection and direction of traffic, storm drainage, roadwork to surface streets, roadwork to I-5 north and south bridge approaches, retaining walls, or right-of-way and temporary easement acquisitions. A qualitative, construction cost comparison for each design option is presented in the table below. The table provides a means of comparing the other major construction elements costs required for each design option. For example, Design Option 1B versus 1C:
Overall bridge construction cost is less and ROW & Easements cost is greater. However, the remaining additional construction costs items are either equal or less than 1C. Therefore, even though the bridge construction cost has a cost difference of $10.4 million the overall construction cost of 1C is anticipated to be greater than 1B.
ADDITIONAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS
Design Option Bridge ROW &
EasementsTraffic Control
Storm & Drainage
I-5 Mainline Surface Streets
Retaining Walls
Existing (Non-Widening) $32.8M $ $ $ $ $ -
1B - One-Sided Widening $51.8M $$ $$ $$ $$ $$ $
1C - Two-Sided Widening $62.2M $ $$$ $$ $$$ $$ $$
Final Memorandum 1.12
I-5 Medford Viaduct Planning & Environmental Study Page 10 Final Memorandum 1.12 August 4, 2017
Bridge construction costs are grouped into three main categories: structural rehabilitation items identified in Memorandum 1.10, seismic retrofits, and structural widening. Bridge construction costs were developed using ODOT 2016 bridge cost data and engineering judgment. 2016 cost data was increased by 3% to account for inflation to develop cost estimates using 2017 dollars. Bridge construction planning level cost estimates include 35% contingency for bridge construction items. Existing (Non-Widening) Design Option This design option has the lowest planning level cost estimate at $32.8 million to construct bridge-related items. Design Option 1B – One-Sided Widening Design Option 1B proposes a 28-foot one-side widening and seismically retrofitted structure and is estimated to cost $51.8 million to construct bridge-related items. The planning level cost estimate is based on implementing pinned column-to-spread footing connections. Design Option 1B is estimated to cost an additional $4.9 million if this pinning detail is not used. Design Option 1C – Two-Sided Widening Design Option 1C proposes a 14-foot two-sided widening and seismically retrofitted structure and is estimated to cost $62.2 million to construct bridge-related items. The planning level cost estimate is based on implementing pinned column-to-spread footing connections. Design Option 1C is estimated to cost an additional $9.0 million if this pinning detail is not used.
pw:\\PWCS01E.obec.com:PWOBEC01\Documents\OBEC\Projects\0513\0513-0005.00\CAD\Structures\Plans\Medford Viaduct Alt A.dgn :: Border Bent 13 6/19/2017 2:22:42 PM HSkeen Full Size 1=1 Scale: Rotation: 0°pw:\\PWCS01E.obec.com:PWOBEC01\Documents\OBEC\Projects\0513\0513-0005.00\CAD\Structures\Plans\Medford Viaduct Alt A.dgn :: Border Bent 13 6/19/2017 2:22:42 PM HSkeen Full Size 1=1 Scale: Rotation: 0°
MEDFORD, OREGON
I-5 MEDFORD VIADUCT
CONSULTING
ENGINEERSwww.obec.com LAKE OSWEGO; SALEM; MEDFORD, OREGON; VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON
REGIONAL OFFICES:
920 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD, SUITE 100B , EUGENE, OREGON 97401-6089
CORPORATE OFFICE:
"L" Line
Bear
Cre
ek
OHW
OHW
Bike Path
Bike path
Finish ground
Existing scour repair
"L" Line
64'-0"
typ.
3'-
3"
Concrete footing strengthening, typ.
square
15'-6"
square
15'-0"
3'-
612"
min.
4'-
4"
max.
Concrete crossbeam
strengthening, typ. ea. side
Cut off sheet pile scour repair to
bottom of reconstructed footing
Column wrap FRP strengthening
top & btm. 13 of column, typ.
in plan view for clarity.
Superstructure not shown
Note:
Indicates retrofit limits
Bents 5-12, 14-20, & 25-37 Similar
*Bent 13 Shown,
FIGURE A1
NO WIDENING AND SEISMIC RETROFIT
EXISTING (NON-WIDENING) DESIGN OPTION -
Scale: 1" = 10'-0"
*PLAN - BENT 13
Scale: 1" = 10'-0"
*ELEVATION - BENT 13
pw:\\PWCS01E.obec.com:PWOBEC01\Documents\OBEC\Projects\0513\0513-0005.00\CAD\Structures\Plans\Medford Viaduct Alt A.dgn :: Border Bent 21 6/19/2017 2:22:44 PM HSkeen Full Size 1=1 Scale: Rotation: 0°pw:\\PWCS01E.obec.com:PWOBEC01\Documents\OBEC\Projects\0513\0513-0005.00\CAD\Structures\Plans\Medford Viaduct Alt A.dgn :: Border Bent 21 6/19/2017 2:22:44 PM HSkeen Full Size 1=1 Scale: Rotation: 0°
MEDFORD, OREGON
I-5 MEDFORD VIADUCT
CONSULTING
ENGINEERSwww.obec.com LAKE OSWEGO; SALEM; MEDFORD, OREGON; VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON
REGIONAL OFFICES:
920 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD, SUITE 100B , EUGENE, OREGON 97401-6089
CORPORATE OFFICE:
Bear Creek
"L" Line
E. Main St.
(under viaduct)
41.1
5'±
OHW
Bike path
"L" Line
Greenspace
Edge of deck,
E. Main St.
E. Main St. �
Finish ground
E. Main St. Bridge
Parking lotConcrete footing strengthening, typ.
typ.
3'-
6"
typ.
18'-6" square
typ.
17'-0" square
64'-0"
3'-
812"
min.
4'-
10"
max.
Concrete crossbeam
strengthening, typ. ea. side
Column wrap FRP strengthening
top & btm. 13 of column, typ.
� Bent 21
in plan view for clarity.
Superstructure not shown
Note:
Indicates retrofit limits
Bents 2-4, 46 & 47 Similar
*Bent 21 Shown,
FIGURE A2
NO WIDENING AND SEISMIC RETROFIT
EXISTING (NON-WIDENING) DESIGN OPTION -
Scale: 1" = 15'-0"
*PLAN - BENT 21
Scale: 1" = 15'-0"
*ELEVATION - BENT 21
pw:\\PWCS01E.obec.com:PWOBEC01\Documents\OBEC\Projects\0513\0513-0005.00\CAD\Structures\Plans\Medford Viaduct Alt A.dgn :: Border Bent 24 6/19/2017 2:22:47 PM HSkeen Full Size 1=1 Scale: Rotation: 0°pw:\\PWCS01E.obec.com:PWOBEC01\Documents\OBEC\Projects\0513\0513-0005.00\CAD\Structures\Plans\Medford Viaduct Alt A.dgn :: Border Bent 24 6/19/2017 2:22:47 PM HSkeen Full Size 1=1 Scale: Rotation: 0°
MEDFORD, OREGON
I-5 MEDFORD VIADUCT
CONSULTING
ENGINEERSwww.obec.com LAKE OSWEGO; SALEM; MEDFORD, OREGON; VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON
REGIONAL OFFICES:
920 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD, SUITE 100B , EUGENE, OREGON 97401-6089
CORPORATE OFFICE:
Bear Creek
"L" Line
Parking lot
E. 8th St.
(under via
duct)
E. 8th St. bridge
OHW
"L" Line
Sidewalk
Edge of deck,
E. 8th St.Edge of deck,
E. 8th St.
E. 8th St. �
Finish ground
Bike path
typ.
3'-
6"
Concrete footing strengthening, typ.
typ.
21'-0" square
64'-0"
3'-
10"
min.
5'-
4"
max.
Concrete crossbeam
strengthening, typ. ea. side
Column wrap FRP strengthening
top & btm. 13 of column, typ.
in plan view for clarity.
Superstructure not shown
Note:
Bents 22, 23, 38, & 40 Similar
*Bent 24 Shown,
Indicates retrofit limits
FIGURE A3
NO WIDENING AND SEISMIC RETROFIT
EXISTING (NON-WIDENING) DESIGN OPTION -
Scale: 1" = 15'-0"
*PLAN - BENT 24
Scale: 1" = 15'-0"
*ELEVATION - BENT 24
pw:\\PWCS01E.obec.com:PWOBEC01\Documents\OBEC\Projects\0513\0513-0005.00\CAD\Structures\Plans\Medford Viaduct Alt A.dgn :: Border Bent 39 6/19/2017 2:22:49 PM HSkeen Full Size 1=1 Scale: Rotation: 0°pw:\\PWCS01E.obec.com:PWOBEC01\Documents\OBEC\Projects\0513\0513-0005.00\CAD\Structures\Plans\Medford Viaduct Alt A.dgn :: Border Bent 39 6/19/2017 2:22:49 PM HSkeen Full Size 1=1 Scale: Rotation: 0°
MEDFORD, OREGON
I-5 MEDFORD VIADUCT
CONSULTING
ENGINEERSwww.obec.com LAKE OSWEGO; SALEM; MEDFORD, OREGON; VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON
REGIONAL OFFICES:
920 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD, SUITE 100B , EUGENE, OREGON 97401-6089
CORPORATE OFFICE:
Bear Creek
"L" Line
E. 10th St.(under viaduct)
OHWOHW
10th Street bridge
Bike path
"L" Line
E. 10th St. �
Edge of deck,
E. 10th St.
� Bent 39
47'-
6"±
30'-
0"±
Finish ground
Extg. 10th St. footing,
potential conflict with
preliminary spread
footing retrofit and
extg. 10th St. footing
Existing scour repair, typ.
Concrete footing strengthening, typ.ty
p.
4'-
0"
Cut off sheet pile scour repair to
bottom of reconstructed footing, typ.
Column wrap FRP strengthening
top & btm. 13 of column, typ.
18'-0" square, typ.
in plan view for clarity.
Superstructure not shown
Note:
Indicates retrofit limits
FIGURE A4
NO WIDENING AND SEISMIC RETROFIT
EXISTING (NON-WIDENING) DESIGN OPTION -
Scale: 1" = 15'-0"
*PLAN - BENT 39
Scale: 1" = 15'-0"
*ELEVATION - BENT 39
pw:\\PWCS01E.obec.com:PWOBEC01\Documents\OBEC\Projects\0513\0513-0005.00\CAD\Structures\Plans\Medford Viaduct Alt A.dgn :: Border Bent 44 6/19/2017 2:22:52 PM HSkeen Full Size 1=1 Scale: Rotation: 0°pw:\\PWCS01E.obec.com:PWOBEC01\Documents\OBEC\Projects\0513\0513-0005.00\CAD\Structures\Plans\Medford Viaduct Alt A.dgn :: Border Bent 44 6/19/2017 2:22:52 PM HSkeen Full Size 1=1 Scale: Rotation: 0°
MEDFORD, OREGON
I-5 MEDFORD VIADUCT
CONSULTING
ENGINEERSwww.obec.com LAKE OSWEGO; SALEM; MEDFORD, OREGON; VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON
REGIONAL OFFICES:
920 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD, SUITE 100B , EUGENE, OREGON 97401-6089
CORPORATE OFFICE:
Mobile homeMobile home
"L" Line
"L" Line
50'-0"±50'-0"±
Finish ground
64'-0"
typ.
17'-6" square
typ.
3'-
3"
Concrete footing
strengthening, typ.
3'-
612"
min.
4'-
4"
max.
Concrete crossbeam
strengthening, typ.
ea. side
Column wrap FRP
strengthening top &
btm. 13 of column, typ.
in plan view for clarity.
Superstructure not shown
Note:
Indicates retrofit limits
Bents 41-43 & 45 Similar
*Bent 44 Shown,
FIGURE A5
NO WIDENING AND SEISMIC RETROFIT
EXISTING (NON-WIDENING) DESIGN OPTION -
Scale: 1" = 15'-0"
*PLAN - BENT 44
Scale: 1" = 15'-0"
*ELEVATION - BENT 44
pw:\\PWCS01E.obec.com:PWOBEC01\Documents\OBEC\Projects\0513\0513-0005.00\CAD\Structures\Plans\Medford Viaduct Alt B.dgn :: Border Bent 13 6/19/2017 2:25:32 PM HSkeen Full Size 1=1 Scale: Rotation: 0°pw:\\PWCS01E.obec.com:PWOBEC01\Documents\OBEC\Projects\0513\0513-0005.00\CAD\Structures\Plans\Medford Viaduct Alt B.dgn :: Border Bent 13 6/19/2017 2:25:32 PM HSkeen Full Size 1=1 Scale: Rotation: 0°
MEDFORD, OREGON
I-5 MEDFORD VIADUCT
CONSULTING
ENGINEERSwww.obec.com LAKE OSWEGO; SALEM; MEDFORD, OREGON; VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON
REGIONAL OFFICES:
920 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD, SUITE 100B , EUGENE, OREGON 97401-6089
CORPORATE OFFICE:
OHW
OHW
Bike Path
Bike path
Finish ground
Existing scour repair
5'-
0"
max.
3'-
612"
min.
90'-4"
"L" Line
Bear
Cre
ek
90'-0" roadway
Modified concrete
median barrier
Superstructure widening
elements to be in-kind
as original structure, typ.
Column wrap FRP strengthening
top & btm. 13 of column
Concrete footing strengthening
Cut off sheet pile scour repair to
bottom of reconstructed footing
3'-
3"
Concrete bridge
rail Type F
square
15'-0"
New concrete
deck overlay
Oversize 8'-0" dia.
concrete drilled shaft
"L" Line
Original
"L" Line"L" Line
Original
Relocate bike path
"2113'-9
Concrete crossbeam
strengthening and widening
Column wrap FRP strengthening
top 13 of left interior column at
Bents 13 & 17
4'-0" dia. concrete column.
New column to match extg.
diameter columns, but shall
have highter post cracking
stiffness than extg. columns, typ.
9" thick concrete socket.
Sawcut column at top of
spread footing to create
"pinned" connection
typ.
1'-0"
FIGURE B1
AND SEISMIC RETROFIT
DESIGN OPTION 1B - ONE SIDED 28-FOOT WIDENINGBents 5-12, 14-20, & 25-37 Similar
*Bent 13 Shown,
in plan view for clarity.
Superstructure not shown
Note:
and widening limits
Indicates retrofit limits
Scale: 1" = 10'-0"
*PLAN - BENT 13
Scale: 1" = 10'-0"
*ELEVATION - BENT 13
pw:\\PWCS01E.obec.com:PWOBEC01\Documents\OBEC\Projects\0513\0513-0005.00\CAD\Structures\Plans\Medford Viaduct Alt B.dgn :: Border Bent 21 6/19/2017 2:25:34 PM HSkeen Full Size 1=1 Scale: Rotation: 0°pw:\\PWCS01E.obec.com:PWOBEC01\Documents\OBEC\Projects\0513\0513-0005.00\CAD\Structures\Plans\Medford Viaduct Alt B.dgn :: Border Bent 21 6/19/2017 2:25:34 PM HSkeen Full Size 1=1 Scale: Rotation: 0°
MEDFORD, OREGON
I-5 MEDFORD VIADUCT
CONSULTING
ENGINEERSwww.obec.com LAKE OSWEGO; SALEM; MEDFORD, OREGON; VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON
REGIONAL OFFICES:
920 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD, SUITE 100B , EUGENE, OREGON 97401-6089
CORPORATE OFFICE:
Bear Creek
"L" Line
E. Main St.
(under viaduct)
41.1
5'±
OHW
Bike path
Greenspace
Edge of deck,
E. Main St.
E. Main St. �
Finish ground
Parking lot
5'-
6"
max.
90'-4"
90'-0" roadway
� Bent 21
3'-
6"
Concrete bridge
rail Type F
Superstructure widening
elements to be in-kind
as original structure
Oversize 8'-0" dia.
concrete drilled shaft
Column wrap FRP strengthening
top & btm. 13 of column
square
17'-0"
Modified concrete
median barrier
New concrete
deck overlay
"L" Line "L" Line
Original
"L" Line"L" Line
Original
"2113'-9
3'-
812"
min.
Concrete crossbeam
strengthening and widening
9" thick concrete socket.
Sawcut column at top of
spread footing to create
"pinned" connection
typ.
1'-0"
4'-6" dia. concrete column.
New column to match extg.
diameter columns, but shall
have highter post cracking
stiffness than extg. columns, typ. E. Main St. Bridge
Concrete footing
strengtheningFIGURE B2
AND SEISMIC RETROFIT
DESIGN OPTION 1B - ONE SIDED 28-FOOT WIDENINGBents 2-4, 46 & 47 Similar
*Bent 21 Shown,
and widening limits
Indicates retrofit limits
in plan view for clarity.
Superstructure not shown
Note:
Scale: 1" = 15'-0"
*PLAN - BENT 21
Scale: 1" = 15'-0"
*ELEVATION - BENT 21
pw:\\PWCS01E.obec.com:PWOBEC01\Documents\OBEC\Projects\0513\0513-0005.00\CAD\Structures\Plans\Medford Viaduct Alt B.dgn :: Border Bent 24 6/19/2017 2:25:37 PM HSkeen Full Size 1=1 Scale: Rotation: 0°pw:\\PWCS01E.obec.com:PWOBEC01\Documents\OBEC\Projects\0513\0513-0005.00\CAD\Structures\Plans\Medford Viaduct Alt B.dgn :: Border Bent 24 6/19/2017 2:25:37 PM HSkeen Full Size 1=1 Scale: Rotation: 0°
MEDFORD, OREGON
I-5 MEDFORD VIADUCT
CONSULTING
ENGINEERSwww.obec.com LAKE OSWEGO; SALEM; MEDFORD, OREGON; VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON
REGIONAL OFFICES:
920 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD, SUITE 100B , EUGENE, OREGON 97401-6089
CORPORATE OFFICE:
Bear Creek
"L" Line
Parking lot
E. 8th St.
(under via
duct)
E. 8th St. bridge
OHW
Sidewalk
Edge of deck,
E. 8th St.Edge of deck,
E. 8th St.
E. 8th St. �
Finish ground
Bike path
Concrete
median
barrier
90'-4"
6'-
0"
max.
3'-
10"
min.
90'-0" roadway
Concrete bridge
rail Type F
Superstructure widening
elements to be in-kind
as original structure
Oversize 8'-0" dia.
concrete drilled shaft
Column wrap FRP strengthening
top & btm. 13 of column
Concrete footing strengthening
3'-
6"
square
21'-0"
"L" Line "L" Line
Original
"2113'-9
"L" Line "L" Line
Original
5'-0" dia. concrete column.
New column to match extg.
diameter columns, but shall
have highter post cracking
stiffness than extg. columns, typ.
9" thick concrete socket.
Sawcut column at top of
spread footing to create
"pinned" connection
Concrete crossbeam
strengthening and wideningColumn wrap FRP strengthening
top 13 of left interior column
at Bent 40
typ.
1'-0"
FIGURE B3
AND SEISMIC RETROFIT
DESIGN OPTION 1B - ONE SIDED 28-FOOT WIDENINGBents 22, 23, 38, & 40 Similar
*Bent 24 Shown,
in plan view for clarity.
Superstructure not shown
Note:
and widening limits
Indicates retrofit limits
Scale: 1" = 15'-0"
*PLAN - BENT 24
Scale: 1" = 15'-0"
*ELEVATION - BENT 24
pw:\\PWCS01E.obec.com:PWOBEC01\Documents\OBEC\Projects\0513\0513-0005.00\CAD\Structures\Plans\Medford Viaduct Alt B.dgn :: Border Bent 39 6/19/2017 2:25:39 PM HSkeen Full Size 1=1 Scale: Rotation: 0°pw:\\PWCS01E.obec.com:PWOBEC01\Documents\OBEC\Projects\0513\0513-0005.00\CAD\Structures\Plans\Medford Viaduct Alt B.dgn :: Border Bent 39 6/19/2017 2:25:39 PM HSkeen Full Size 1=1 Scale: Rotation: 0°
MEDFORD, OREGON
I-5 MEDFORD VIADUCT
CONSULTING
ENGINEERSwww.obec.com LAKE OSWEGO; SALEM; MEDFORD, OREGON; VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON
REGIONAL OFFICES:
920 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD, SUITE 100B , EUGENE, OREGON 97401-6089
CORPORATE OFFICE:
� Bent 39
Bear Creek
"L" Line
E. 10th St.(under viaduct)
OHWOHW
Bike path
"L" Line
E. 10th St. �
Edge of deck,
E. 10th St.
47'-
6"±
30'-
0"±
Finish ground
Extg. 10th St. footing,
potential conflict with
preliminary spread
footing retrofit and
extg. 10th St. footing
Existing scour repair, typ.
Concrete
median
barrier
89'-1"
90'-0" roadway
2'-
2"
Oversize 8'-0" dia.
concrete drilled shaft
Concrete bridge
rail Type F
typ.
4'-
0"
Concrete footing
strengthening
Cut off sheet pile scour repair
to bottom of reconstructed
footing, typ.
"L" Line "L" Line
Original
"2113'-9
"L" Line
Original"L" Line
Column wrap FRP strengthening
top & btm. 13 of column
Crossbeam and superstructure
widening elements to be in-kind
as original structure
5'-0" dia. concrete
column. New column
to match extg. diameter
columns, but shall have
highter post cracking
stiffness than extg.
columns, typ.
10th Street bridge
9" thick concrete socket.
Sawcut column at top of
spread footing to create
"pinned" connection
typ.
1'-0"
square
18'-0"
FIGURE B4
AND SEISMIC RETROFIT
DESIGN OPTION 1B - ONE SIDED 28-FOOT WIDENING
in plan view for clarity.
Superstructure not shown
Note:
and widening limits
Indicates retrofit limits
Scale: 1" = 15'-0"
*PLAN - BENT 39
Scale: 1" = 15'-0"
*ELEVATION - BENT 39
pw:\\PWCS01E.obec.com:PWOBEC01\Documents\OBEC\Projects\0513\0513-0005.00\CAD\Structures\Plans\Medford Viaduct Alt B.dgn :: Border Bent 44 6/19/2017 2:25:42 PM HSkeen Full Size 1=1 Scale: Rotation: 0°pw:\\PWCS01E.obec.com:PWOBEC01\Documents\OBEC\Projects\0513\0513-0005.00\CAD\Structures\Plans\Medford Viaduct Alt B.dgn :: Border Bent 44 6/19/2017 2:25:42 PM HSkeen Full Size 1=1 Scale: Rotation: 0°
MEDFORD, OREGON
I-5 MEDFORD VIADUCT
CONSULTING
ENGINEERSwww.obec.com LAKE OSWEGO; SALEM; MEDFORD, OREGON; VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON
REGIONAL OFFICES:
920 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD, SUITE 100B , EUGENE, OREGON 97401-6089
CORPORATE OFFICE:
Mobile homeMobile home
50'-0"±50'-0"±
Finish ground
90'-0" roadway
5'-
0"
max.
90'-4"
3'-
3"
Concrete footing
strengthening
Concrete bridge
rail Type F
Superstructure widening
elements to be in-kind
as original structure
Oversize 8'-0" dia.
concrete drilled shaft
Column wrap FRP
strengthening top &
btm. 13 of column
Concrete median barrier
"L" Line
"2113'-9
"L" Line
Original
"L" Line
Original
"L" Line
9" thick concrete socket.
Sawcut column at top of
spread footing to create
"pinned" connectiontyp.
1'-0"
4'-0" dia. concrete column.
New column to match extg.
diameter columns, but shall
have highter post cracking
stiffness than extg. columns, typ.
Concrete crossbeam
strengthening and
widening
3'-
612"
min.
square
17'-6"
FIGURE B5
AND SEISMIC RETROFIT
DESIGN OPTION 1B - ONE SIDED 28-FOOT WIDENINGBents 41-43 & 45 Similar
*Bent 44 Shown,
in plan view for clarity.
Superstructure not shown
Note:
and widening limits
Indicates retrofit limits
Scale: 1" = 15'-0"
*PLAN - BENT 44
Scale: 1" = 15'-0"
*ELEVATION - BENT 44
pw:\\PWCS01E.obec.com:PWOBEC01\Documents\OBEC\Projects\0513\0513-0005.00\CAD\Structures\Plans\Medford Viaduct Alt C.dgn :: Border Bent 13 6/19/2017 2:27:11 PM HSkeen Full Size 1=1 Scale: Rotation: 0°pw:\\PWCS01E.obec.com:PWOBEC01\Documents\OBEC\Projects\0513\0513-0005.00\CAD\Structures\Plans\Medford Viaduct Alt C.dgn :: Border Bent 13 6/19/2017 2:27:11 PM HSkeen Full Size 1=1 Scale: Rotation: 0°
MEDFORD, OREGON
I-5 MEDFORD VIADUCT
CONSULTING
ENGINEERSwww.obec.com LAKE OSWEGO; SALEM; MEDFORD, OREGON; VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON
REGIONAL OFFICES:
920 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD, SUITE 100B , EUGENE, OREGON 97401-6089
CORPORATE OFFICE:
OHW
OHW
Bike Path
Bike path
Finish ground
Existing scour repair
Bear
Cre
ek
"L" Line
"L" Line
95'-0"
90'-0" roadway
5'-
0"
max.
" min.
21
3'-
6
4'-0" dia. concrete column, typ.
New columns to match extg.
diameter columns, but shall
have higher post cracking
stiffness than extg. columns, typ.
Oversize 8'-0" dia.
concrete drilled
shaft, typ.
Concrete bridge rail Type F, typ.
Superstructure widening
elements to be in-kind
as original structure, typ.
9" thick concrete socket, typ.
Sawcut column at top of
spread footing to create
"pinned" connection
typ.
1'-0"
Column wrap FRP strengthening
top 13 of left interior column at
Bents 13, 17-20, 28, & 31-37
Concrete crossbeam
strengthening and
widening
Column wrap FRP
strengthening top13 of right interior
column Bent 35 only
in plan view for clarity.
Superstructure not shown
Note:
and widening limits
Indicates retrofit limits
Bents 5-12, 14-20, & 25-37 Similar
*Bent 13 Shown,
FIGURE C1
AND SEISMIC RETROFIT
DESIGN OPTION 1C - TWO-SIDED 14-FOOT WIDENING
Scale: 1" = 10'-0"
*PLAN - BENT 13
Scale: 1" = 10'-0"
*ELEVATION - BENT 13
pw:\\PWCS01E.obec.com:PWOBEC01\Documents\OBEC\Projects\0513\0513-0005.00\CAD\Structures\Plans\Medford Viaduct Alt C.dgn :: Border Bent 21 6/19/2017 2:27:14 PM HSkeen Full Size 1=1 Scale: Rotation: 0°pw:\\PWCS01E.obec.com:PWOBEC01\Documents\OBEC\Projects\0513\0513-0005.00\CAD\Structures\Plans\Medford Viaduct Alt C.dgn :: Border Bent 21 6/19/2017 2:27:14 PM HSkeen Full Size 1=1 Scale: Rotation: 0°
MEDFORD, OREGON
I-5 MEDFORD VIADUCT
CONSULTING
ENGINEERSwww.obec.com LAKE OSWEGO; SALEM; MEDFORD, OREGON; VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON
REGIONAL OFFICES:
920 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD, SUITE 100B , EUGENE, OREGON 97401-6089
CORPORATE OFFICE:
Bear Creek
E. Main St.
(under viaduct)
41.1
5'±
OHW
Bike path
"L" Line
Greenspace
Edge of deck,
E. Main St.
E. Main St. �
Finish ground
E. Main St. Bridge
Parking lot
95'-0"
90'-0" roadway
"L" Line
3'-
812"
min.
5'-
6"
max.
� Bent 21
4'-6" dia. concrete column, typ.
New columns to match extg.
diameter columns, but shall
have higher post cracking
stiffness than extg. columns, typ.
Oversize 8'-0" dia.
concrete drilled
shaft, typ.
Concrete bridge rail Type F, typ.
Superstructure widening
elements to be in-kind
as original structure, typ.
9" thick concrete socket, typ.
Sawcut column at top of
spread footing to create
"pinned" connection
typ.
1'-0"
Concrete crossbeam
strengthening and widening
Column wrap FRP strengthening
top 13 of left column at Bents
4 and 21
in plan view for clarity.
Superstructure not shown
Note:
and widening limits
Indicates retrofit limits
Bents 2-4, 46 & 47 Similar
*Bent 21 Shown,
AND SEISMIC RETROFIT
DESIGN OPTION 1C - TWO-SIDED 14-FOOT WIDENING
FIGURE C2
Scale: 1" = 15'-0"
*PLAN - BENT 21
Scale: 1" = 15'-0"
*ELEVATION - BENT 21
pw:\\PWCS01E.obec.com:PWOBEC01\Documents\OBEC\Projects\0513\0513-0005.00\CAD\Structures\Plans\Medford Viaduct Alt C.dgn :: Border Bent 24 6/19/2017 2:27:16 PM HSkeen Full Size 1=1 Scale: Rotation: 0°pw:\\PWCS01E.obec.com:PWOBEC01\Documents\OBEC\Projects\0513\0513-0005.00\CAD\Structures\Plans\Medford Viaduct Alt C.dgn :: Border Bent 24 6/19/2017 2:27:16 PM HSkeen Full Size 1=1 Scale: Rotation: 0°
MEDFORD, OREGON
I-5 MEDFORD VIADUCT
CONSULTING
ENGINEERSwww.obec.com LAKE OSWEGO; SALEM; MEDFORD, OREGON; VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON
REGIONAL OFFICES:
920 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD, SUITE 100B , EUGENE, OREGON 97401-6089
CORPORATE OFFICE:
Bear Creek
"L" Line
Parking lot
E. 8th St.
(under via
duct)
E. 8th St. bridge
OHW
"L" Line
Sidewalk
Edge of deck,
E. 8th St.Edge of deck,
E. 8th St.
E. 8th St. �
Finish ground
Bike path
"L" Line
95'-0"
90'-0" roadway
3'-
10"
min.
6'-
0"
max.
5'-0" dia. concrete column, typ.
New columns to match extg.
diameter columns, but shall
have higher post cracking
stiffness than extg. columns, typ.
Oversize 8'-0" dia.
concrete drilled
shaft, typ.
Concrete bridge rail Type F, typ.
Superstructure widening
elements to be in-kind
as original structure, typ.
9" thick concrete socket, typ.
Sawcut column at top of
spread footing to create
"pinned" connection
typ.
1'-0"
Column wrap FRP strengthening
top 13 of right interior column
at Bents 23 & 40
Concrete crossbeam
strengthening and widening
Column wrap FRP strengthening
top 13 of left interior column at
Bents 23, 34, 38 & 40
in plan view for clarity.
Superstructure not shown
Note:
and widening limits
Indicates retrofit limits
Bents 22, 23, 38, & 40 Similar
*Bent 24 Shown,
AND SEISMIC RETROFIT
DESIGN OPTION 1C - TWO-SIDED 14-FOOT WIDENING
FIGURE C3
Scale: 1" = 15'-0"
*PLAN - BENT 24
Scale: 1" = 15'-0"
*ELEVATION - BENT 24
pw:\\PWCS01E.obec.com:PWOBEC01\Documents\OBEC\Projects\0513\0513-0005.00\CAD\Structures\Plans\Medford Viaduct Alt C.dgn :: Border Bent 39 6/19/2017 2:27:18 PM HSkeen Full Size 1=1 Scale: Rotation: 0°pw:\\PWCS01E.obec.com:PWOBEC01\Documents\OBEC\Projects\0513\0513-0005.00\CAD\Structures\Plans\Medford Viaduct Alt C.dgn :: Border Bent 39 6/19/2017 2:27:18 PM HSkeen Full Size 1=1 Scale: Rotation: 0°
MEDFORD, OREGON
I-5 MEDFORD VIADUCT
CONSULTING
ENGINEERSwww.obec.com LAKE OSWEGO; SALEM; MEDFORD, OREGON; VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON
REGIONAL OFFICES:
920 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD, SUITE 100B , EUGENE, OREGON 97401-6089
CORPORATE OFFICE:
Bear Creek
"L" Line
E. 10th St.(under viaduct)
OHWOHW
10th Street bridge
Bike path
"L" Line
E. 10th St. �
Edge of deck,
E. 10th St.
47'-
6"±
30'-
0"±
Finish ground
Extg. 10th St. footing,
potential conflict with
preliminary spread
footing retrofit and
extg. 10th St. footing
Existing scour repair, typ.
90'-0" roadway
� Bent 39
Concrete bridge rail Type F, typ.
90'-6"
Concrete footing strengthening, typ.ty
p.
4'-
0"
Cut off sheet pile scour repair to
bottom of reconstructed footing, typ.
Crossbeam and superstructure
widening elements to be in-kind
as original structure, typ.
typ.
18'-0" square
typ.
2'-
2"
Column wrap FRP strengthening
top and btm. 13 of column, typ.
in plan view for clarity.
Superstructure not shown
Note:
and widening limits
Indicates retrofit limits
AND SEISMIC RETROFIT
DESIGN OPTION 1C - TWO-SIDED 14-FOOT WIDENING
FIGURE C4
Scale: 1" = 15'-0"
*PLAN - BENT 39
Scale: 1" = 15'-0"
*ELEVATION - BENT 39
pw:\\PWCS01E.obec.com:PWOBEC01\Documents\OBEC\Projects\0513\0513-0005.00\CAD\Structures\Plans\Medford Viaduct Alt C.dgn :: Border Bent 44 6/19/2017 2:27:20 PM HSkeen Full Size 1=1 Scale: Rotation: 0°pw:\\PWCS01E.obec.com:PWOBEC01\Documents\OBEC\Projects\0513\0513-0005.00\CAD\Structures\Plans\Medford Viaduct Alt C.dgn :: Border Bent 44 6/19/2017 2:27:20 PM HSkeen Full Size 1=1 Scale: Rotation: 0°
MEDFORD, OREGON
I-5 MEDFORD VIADUCT
CONSULTING
ENGINEERSwww.obec.com LAKE OSWEGO; SALEM; MEDFORD, OREGON; VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON
REGIONAL OFFICES:
920 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD, SUITE 100B , EUGENE, OREGON 97401-6089
CORPORATE OFFICE:
Mobile homeMobile home
"L" Line
"L" Line
50'-0"±50'-0"±
Finish ground
95'-0"
90'-0" roadway
"L" Line
5'-
0"
max.
3'-
612"
min.
Oversize 8'-0" dia.
concrete drilled
shaft, typ.4'-0" dia. concrete column, typ.
New columns to match extg.
diameter columns, but shall
have higher post cracking
stiffness than extg. columns, typ.
Concrete bridge rail Type F, typ.
Superstructure widening
elements to be in-kind
as original structure, typ.
9" thick concrete socket, typ.
Sawcut column at top of
spread footing to create
"pinned" connection
typ.
1'-0"
Concrete crossbeam
strengthening and
widening
in plan view for clarity.
Superstructure not shown
Note:
and widening limits
Indicates retrofit limits
Bents 41-43 & 45 Similar
*Bent 44 Shown,
FIGURE C5
AND SEISMIC RETROFIT
DESIGN OPTION 1C - TWO-SIDED 14-FOOT WIDENING
Scale: 1" = 15'-0"
*PLAN - BENT 44
Scale: 1" = 15'-0"
*ELEVATION - BENT 44
BentDisplacement
Capacity (in)
Displacement
Demand (in)
C/D
Ratio
Displacement
Capacity (in)
Displacement
Demand (in)
C/D
Ratio
2 2.37 0.19 12.15 2.37 0.33 7.20
3 2.62 0.41 6.36 2.62 0.74 3.53
4 2.92 0.60 4.91 2.92 1.12 2.61
5 3.04 0.53 5.79 3.04 1.00 3.06
6 2.78 0.49 5.73 2.78 0.92 3.01
7 2.89 0.49 5.91 2.89 0.92 3.13
8 3.61 0.61 5.95 3.61 1.12 3.21
9 4.76 0.75 6.37 4.76 1.34 3.55
10 6.89 1.51 4.55 4.02 1.46 2.75
11 6.37 1.10 5.77 6.37 1.79 3.56
12 6.97 1.35 5.16 6.97 2.12 3.28
13 4.44 1.51 2.94 4.44 2.34 1.90
14 7.32 1.79 4.08 7.32 2.78 2.64
15 7.75 1.94 4.00 7.75 3.01 2.57
16 7.49 2.01 3.73 7.49 3.13 2.39
17 5.88 1.94 3.04 5.88 3.03 1.94
18 5.85 1.68 3.47 5.85 2.62 2.23
19 9.79 2.55 3.85 9.79 3.61 2.71
20 7.50 2.22 3.38 7.50 3.15 2.38
21 4.96 1.00 4.97 4.96 1.68 2.96
22 6.84 1.57 4.35 6.84 2.23 3.06
23 7.53 1.64 4.58 7.53 2.34 3.22
24 7.03 1.81 3.89 7.03 2.56 2.75
25 8.09 2.16 3.74 8.09 3.06 2.65
26 9.05 2.29 3.95 9.05 3.24 2.80
27 9.50 2.35 4.04 5.98 2.12 2.82
28 5.97 1.44 4.14 5.97 2.33 2.56
29 5.91 1.58 3.73 5.91 2.54 2.32
30 6.02 1.71 3.51 6.02 2.74 2.19
31 5.10 1.67 3.06 5.10 2.67 1.91
32 4.78 1.70 2.81 4.78 2.70 1.77
33 5.15 1.65 3.13 5.15 2.61 1.97
34 5.77 1.67 3.45 5.77 2.64 2.19
35 5.01 1.55 3.23 5.01 2.45 2.04
36 5.40 1.68 3.21 5.40 2.60 2.08
37 5.21 1.76 2.96 5.21 2.59 2.01
Operational Seismic Design Criteria Life Safety Seismic Design Criteria
Appendix ARetrofitted Baseline Performance Tables
Existing (Non-Widening) Design Option - No Widening and Seismic Retrofit
Existing (Non-Widening) Design Option
1 of 2 6/20/2017
BentDisplacement
Capacity (in)
Displacement
Demand (in)
C/D
Ratio
Displacement
Capacity (in)
Displacement
Demand (in)
C/D
Ratio
Operational Seismic Design Criteria Life Safety Seismic Design Criteria
Appendix ARetrofitted Baseline Performance Tables
Existing (Non-Widening) Design Option - No Widening and Seismic Retrofit
38 5.57 1.61 3.46 5.57 2.39 2.33
39 5.98 1.91 3.14 5.98 2.84 2.10
40 5.08 2.12 2.40 5.08 3.16 1.61
41 7.34 1.84 3.98 7.34 2.89 2.54
42 6.75 1.70 3.98 6.75 2.52 2.68
43 5.59 1.10 5.10 5.59 1.74 3.22
44 2.76 0.83 3.34 2.76 1.28 2.15
45 2.45 0.75 3.28 2.45 1.15 2.13
46 1.89 0.26 7.28 1.89 0.44 4.25
47 2.16 0.29 7.40 2.16 0.52 4.18
Existing (Non-Widening) Design Option
2 of 2 6/20/2017
BentDisplacement
Capacity (in)
Displacement
Demand (in)
C/D
Ratio
Displacement
Capacity (in)
Displacement
Demand (in)
C/D
Ratio
2 3.95 0.42 9.49 3.95 0.68 5.79
3 4.90 0.80 6.13 4.90 1.31 3.73
4 5.62 0.98 5.73 5.62 1.61 3.50
5 4.49 0.61 7.36 2.52 0.56 4.47
6 4.15 0.59 7.01 4.15 0.95 4.37
7 5.63 0.85 6.66 5.63 1.36 4.15
8 3.70 0.57 6.48 2.25 0.58 3.89
9 2.31 0.36 6.50 2.31 0.65 3.57
10 3.63 0.72 5.07 3.63 1.11 3.29
11 5.63 0.81 7.00 5.63 1.24 4.54
12 4.58 0.79 5.84 2.55 0.85 3.01
13 2.53 0.58 4.35 2.53 1.14 2.23
14 6.34 1.27 4.98 3.62 1.11 3.25
15 6.15 1.26 4.88 3.47 1.13 3.08
16 2.64 0.65 4.09 2.64 1.20 2.20
17 3.38 0.82 4.12 3.38 1.52 2.22
18 6.81 1.64 4.16 6.81 2.44 2.79
19 6.33 1.59 3.97 6.33 2.38 2.67
20 7.81 2.18 3.59 7.81 3.24 2.41
21 8.65 1.55 5.58 8.65 2.29 3.77
22 7.13 1.58 4.51 7.13 2.34 3.04
23 8.04 1.65 4.88 8.04 2.45 3.29
24 7.32 1.62 4.52 7.32 2.41 3.04
25 5.69 1.00 5.67 3.14 0.84 3.75
26 4.77 0.94 5.10 2.61 0.84 3.11
27 4.34 0.91 4.79 2.47 0.91 2.72
28 2.54 0.55 4.66 2.54 1.06 2.40
29 2.59 0.56 4.64 2.59 1.06 2.44
30 2.50 0.53 4.72 2.50 0.99 2.52
31 2.53 0.52 4.85 2.53 0.98 2.58
32 2.65 0.61 4.36 2.65 1.12 2.37
33 3.97 0.71 5.57 3.97 1.31 3.03
34 3.85 0.72 5.34 3.85 1.32 2.91
35 2.61 0.59 4.43 2.61 1.10 2.37
36 2.58 0.59 4.34 2.58 1.07 2.40
37 2.21 0.56 3.97 2.21 0.91 2.43
Operational Seismic Design Criteria Life Safety Seismic Design Criteria
Appendix ARetrofitted Baseline Performance Tables
Design Option 1B - One-Sided 28-Foot Widening and Seismic Retrofit
Existing (Non-Widening) Design Option
1 of 2 6/20/2017
BentDisplacement
Capacity (in)
Displacement
Demand (in)
C/D
Ratio
Displacement
Capacity (in)
Displacement
Demand (in)
C/D
Ratio
Operational Seismic Design Criteria Life Safety Seismic Design Criteria
Appendix ARetrofitted Baseline Performance Tables
Design Option 1B - One-Sided 28-Foot Widening and Seismic Retrofit
38 3.57 0.91 3.92 3.57 1.40 2.56
39 6.21 2.40 2.59 3.25 1.90 1.71
40 5.03 1.71 2.94 5.03 2.55 1.98
41 8.28 1.87 4.42 8.28 2.79 2.96
42 7.01 1.76 3.98 7.01 2.62 2.67
43 3.89 0.90 4.30 3.89 1.40 2.78
44 2.18 0.61 3.56 2.18 0.93 2.34
45 2.13 0.62 3.42 2.13 0.93 2.29
46 2.63 0.35 7.42 2.63 0.61 4.28
47 2.86 0.43 6.71 2.86 0.83 3.45
Existing (Non-Widening) Design Option
2 of 2 6/20/2017
BentDisplacement
Capacity (in)
Displacement
Demand (in)
C/D
Ratio
Displacement
Capacity (in)
Displacement
Demand (in)
C/D
Ratio
2 3.95 0.46 8.53 3.95 0.79 5.01
3 4.68 0.71 6.57 4.68 1.19 3.95
4 5.62 0.82 6.82 5.62 1.34 4.18
5 5.85 0.98 5.96 5.85 1.49 3.92
6 4.21 0.76 5.55 4.21 1.15 3.64
7 5.63 1.01 5.60 5.63 1.53 3.68
8 3.75 0.73 5.11 2.27 0.70 3.26
9 2.33 0.46 5.07 2.33 0.89 2.62
10 3.69 0.92 4.00 3.69 1.35 2.73
11 5.69 1.04 5.48 3.14 0.85 3.69
12 4.64 1.01 4.57 2.57 0.99 2.58
13 2.55 0.71 3.61 2.55 1.32 1.94
14 6.40 1.57 4.08 3.66 1.31 2.80
15 6.21 1.55 4.00 3.52 1.28 2.76
16 4.93 1.43 3.44 2.66 1.29 2.06
17 3.42 0.92 3.71 3.42 1.60 2.14
18 6.87 2.05 3.35 6.87 2.89 2.38
19 6.39 2.00 3.20 6.39 2.82 2.27
20 7.81 2.64 2.96 7.81 3.71 2.10
21 8.65 2.19 3.95 8.65 3.06 2.83
22 7.13 2.22 3.21 7.13 3.10 2.30
23 7.82 2.47 3.17 7.82 3.44 2.27
24 7.32 2.07 3.53 7.32 2.88 2.54
25 5.87 1.60 3.66 5.87 2.23 2.63
26 4.95 1.49 3.33 4.95 2.07 2.39
27 4.52 1.42 3.18 4.52 1.98 2.28
28 2.59 0.66 3.91 2.59 1.19 2.18
29 4.88 1.54 3.16 2.64 1.22 2.17
30 4.60 1.50 3.06 4.60 2.10 2.19
31 2.59 0.76 3.40 2.59 1.29 2.00
32 5.08 1.84 2.76 2.71 1.58 1.71
33 8.72 2.72 3.21 4.11 1.88 2.18
34 3.99 1.21 3.28 3.99 1.92 2.07
35 2.67 0.95 2.80 2.67 1.59 1.68
36 2.63 1.15 2.30 2.63 1.66 1.58
37 2.27 1.04 2.17 2.27 1.49 1.52
Appendix ARetrofitted Baseline Performance Tables
Design Option 1C - Two-Sided 14-Foot Widening and Seismic Retrofit
Operational Seismic Design Criteria Life Safety Seismic Design Criteria
Existing (Non-Widening) Design Option
1 of 2 6/20/2017
BentDisplacement
Capacity (in)
Displacement
Demand (in)
C/D
Ratio
Displacement
Capacity (in)
Displacement
Demand (in)
C/D
Ratio
Appendix ARetrofitted Baseline Performance Tables
Design Option 1C - Two-Sided 14-Foot Widening and Seismic Retrofit
Operational Seismic Design Criteria Life Safety Seismic Design Criteria
38 3.70 1.04 3.57 3.70 1.49 2.48
39 6.21 2.13 2.92 6.21 3.05 2.04
40 3.14 1.24 2.54 3.14 1.78 1.76
41 4.79 1.66 2.88 4.79 2.45 1.96
42 6.43 1.73 3.71 6.43 2.55 2.52
43 4.02 1.09 3.70 4.02 1.74 2.31
44 2.23 0.72 3.07 2.23 1.06 2.11
45 2.17 0.73 2.98 2.17 1.04 2.08
46 2.63 0.42 6.30 2.63 0.71 3.68
47 2.86 0.47 6.08 2.86 0.90 3.19
Existing (Non-Widening) Design Option
2 of 2 6/20/2017
Map 2
Map 3
Map 4
Map 5
Map 1
Map 6
N Bartlett StEvergreen St
S Fir St
S Holly St
Cotta
ge S
tTripp
St
E 3rd St
W 12th St
E 12th St
E 6th St
Middleford Aly
E 11th St
Franquette St
Taylor St
Stark
St
E 9th St
E 10th St
S Bartlett St
Bennett Ave
Earhart St
W 10th St
E 13th St
S Grape St
Saling Ave
E Jackson St
N Front St
Corni
ng C
t
W 9th St
Reddy Ave
Theater Aly
Pine St
Sherman St
E 8th St
Gene
ssee
St
Hawt
horne
St
Gene
va S
t
Apple St
S Front St
Howa
rd St
Myrtle
St
Minnesota Ave
Siskiyou Blvd
Medfo
rd Ce
nter
Portla
nd Av
e
Almon
d St
W 8th St
E 8th St
E 4th St
S Central Ave
E Main St
S Riverside Ave
Crate
r Lak
e Ave
E Jackson St
N Riverside Ave
Medford Viaduct Widening ScenariosMap Set
0 200 400 Feet ¯
AppendixB
Biddle Rd
Biddle Rd
§̈¦5
Map1Medford Viaduct Widening Scenarios
Northern Terminus
¯0 50 100 Feet
Approx. 400 feet of retaining walladjacent to Bear Creek Greenway Pathwith Design Option 1C.
Design Option 1CTwo-Sided 14-Foot Wideningand Seismic RetrofitExisting ROW
Existing (Non-Widening)Design OptionNo Widening andSeismic RetrofitDesign Option 1BOne-Sided 28-Foot Wideningand Seismic Retrofit
HawthornePark
Bent 1
Bent 2
Bent 3
Bent 4
Bent 9
Bent 13
E Jackson StBiddle Rd
E 4th St
§̈¦5
Map2Medford Viaduct Widening Scenarios
Hawthorne Park North
¯0 50 100 Feet
Potential toimpact trees.Not yet knownif these areheritage trees.
Some property acquiredfrom Hawthorne Parkwith Design Option 1B.No property acquiredfrom Hawthorne Parkwith Design Option 1C.
Potential need to reconfigureroadways and paths withDesign Options 1B and 1C.
Design Option 1CTwo-Sided 14-Foot Wideningand Seismic RetrofitExisting ROW
Existing (Non-Widening)Design OptionNo Widening andSeismic RetrofitDesign Option 1BOne-Sided 28-Foot Wideningand Seismic Retrofit
Design Option 1B - Temporary constructioneasement needed fromBents 4 to 46.
Design Option 1B - ROW needed fromBents 4 to 11.
Design Option 1C - Temporary constuctioneasement needed fromBents 4 to 9.
Design Option 1C - Bents 8 through 17, 22, 23, 34 through 38, and 40 drilled shafts will be constructed withinlimits of Bear Creek.
All design options - Bents 11 through 14, Right spread footingswithin limits of Bear Creek.
Bent 13
Bent 17
Bent 21
Bent 22
Bent 23
Bent 24
E 8th StS Riverside Ave
E Main St
§̈¦5
Map3Medford Viaduct Widening Scenarios
Hawthorne Park South
¯0 50 100 Feet
Potential toimpact trees.Not yet knownif these areheritage trees.
Need to reconfigure8th Street with Design Options 1B and 1C.
Design Option 1CTwo-Sided 14-Foot Wideningand Seismic RetrofitExisting ROW
Existing (Non-Widening)Design OptionNo Widening andSeismic RetrofitDesign Option 1BOne-Sided 28-Foot Wideningand Seismic Retrofit
All design options - Bents 12 through 17,Right spread footings within limits of Bear Creek
Design Option 1C - Temporary construction easement needed fromBents 23 to 39.
Design Option 1C - ROW needed fromBents 23 to 31.
Design Option 1B - ROW needed fromBents 23 to 38.
Bent 24
Bent 28
Bent 31
Bent 35
Bent 38
Bent 39E 10th St
E 8th St
E 9th St
Almon
d St
E 8thSt
S Riverside Ave§̈¦5
Map4Medford Viaduct Widening Scenarios
E 8th Street to E 10th Street
¯0 50 100 Feet
Need to reconfigure8th Street with Design Options 1B and 1C.
Need to reconfigure10th Street with Design Options 1B and 1C.
Design Option 1CTwo-Sided 14-Foot Wideningand Seismic RetrofitExisting ROW
Existing (Non-Widening)Design OptionNo Widening andSeismic RetrofitDesign Option 1BOne-Sided 28-Foot Wideningand Seismic Retrofit
Existing (Non-Widening)Design Option - Temporary construction easement may be required from Bents 24 through 27.
All design options - Bents 38 through 40spread footings residewithin Bear Creek.
Bent 39
Bent 40
Bent 43
Bent 46
Bent 47
Bent 48
Franquette St
Cott a
geSt
Tripp
St
E 10th St
E 12th St
Mayette St
Spencer St
E 9th St
Bear Creek Ln
S Riverside Ave
§̈¦5
Map5Medford Viaduct Widening Scenarios
E 10th Street to E 12th Street
¯0 50 100 Feet
Mobile home parkon both sides of I-5currently encroachingon right-of-way.
Some space availableto relocate homes onthe east side.
Need to reconfigure10th Street with Design Options 1B and 1C.
Design Option 1CTwo-Sided 14-Foot Wideningand Seismic RetrofitExisting ROW
Existing (Non-Widening)Design OptionNo Widening andSeismic RetrofitDesign Option 1BOne-Sided 28-Foot Wideningand Seismic Retrofit
All design options - Bents 38 through 40spread footings residewithin Bear Creek.
Design Option 1B - Bents 40 through 42,potentially withinordinary high waterlimits of Bear Creek.
Mayette St
Earhart St
Siskiyou Blvd
Eads St
Spencer St
Franquette St
§̈¦5
Map6Medford Viaduct Widening Scenarios
Southern Terminus
¯0 50 100 Feet
Design Option 1CTwo-Sided 14-Foot Wideningand Seismic RetrofitExisting ROW
Existing (Non-Widening)Design OptionNo Widening andSeismic RetrofitDesign Option 1BOne-Sided 28-Foot Wideningand Seismic Retrofit
Date 8/4/2017
Existing (Non‐Widening) Design Option ‐ No Widening and Seismic Retrofit
Item
Estimating
Quantity Unit Cost Unit Price
Construction
Quantity
Total Price in
2017 Dollars
Mobilization (LS) 2,208,700$ 1 2,209,000$
Bridges ‐ Structural Rehabilitation
Silica Fume Concrete Overlay (SY) 166$ 22400 3,708,000$
Joint Repair (FT) 155$ 3000 464,000$
Painting Steel Girders (SF) 31$ 138228 4,271,000$
Steel Girder Stiffener Repair (LS) 587,100$ 1 587,000$
Bridge Rail (ft) 103$ 9,668 996,000$
Bridges ‐ Seismic Retrofits
Temporary Access Road (FT) 30$ 6822 204,000$
Shoring, Cribbing, and Cofferdams (EA) 16,178$ 65 1,052,000$
Spread Footing Strengthening (EA) 68,980$ 92 6,346,000$
Structural Excavation (cy) 488 26$ 12,566$
Concrete Removal (ea) 1 10,996$ 10,996$
Foundation Concrete Class 3300 (cy) 32 705$ 22,557$
Reinforcement (lbs) 6243 2$ 12,861$
Temporary Bent Support (ea) 1 10,000$ 10,000$
Column Strengthening (EA) 32,433$ 92 2,984,000$
FRP Wrapping (ea) 1 32,433$ 32,433$
Crossbeam Strengthening (EA) 32,777$ 45 1,475,000$
Concrete Removal (cy) 1.5 878$ 1,326$
Structural Concrete Class 4000 (cy) 23 1,030$ 23,690$
Reinforcement (lbs) 6028 1$ 7,761$
Bridge ‐ Construction Subtotal
Bridge Construction Subtotal 24,296,000$
35% Contingency 8,504,000$
Bridge Construction Total 32,800,000$
Assumptions:
‐Construction cost total is for bridge construction items only and does not include all construction costs item, such as
TP&DT, Storm Drainage, Roadwork, ROW, or Temp Construction Easement acquisition
‐Cost estimate does not include PE, CE, and administration costs
‐Cost were estimated using 2016 ODOT Bridge Cost Data as a baseline
‐The cost is being estimated in 2017 dollars and must be adjusted for inflation to actual construction year.
Appendix CPlanning Level Bridge Cost Estimates
Existing (Non‐Widening) Design Option
1 of 1
Date 8/4/2017
Item
Estimating
Quantity Unit Cost Unit Price
Construction
Quantity
Total Price in
2017 Dollars
Mobilization (LS) 3,489,900$ 1 3,490,000$
Bridges ‐ Structural Rehabilitation
Silica Fume Concrete Overlay (SY) 166$ 22,400 3,708,000$
Joint Repair (FT) 155$ 3,000 464,000$
Painting Steel Girders (SF) 31$ 138,228 4,271,000$
Steel Girder Stiffener Repair (LS) 587,100$ 1 587,000$
Bridges ‐ Seismic Retrofits
Temporary Access Road (FT) 30$ 8,022 240,000$
Shoring, Cribbing, and Cofferdams (EA) 16,180$ 65 1,052,000$
Spread Footing Strengthening (EA) 68,576$ 46 3,154,000$
Structural Excavation (cy) 488 26$ 12,566$
Concrete Removal (ea) 1 10,966$ 10,966$
Foundation Concrete Class 3300 (cy) 32 705$ 22,557$
Reinforcement (lbs) 6,243 2$ 12,486$
Temporary Bent Support (ea) 1 10,000$ 10,000$
Column Pinning (EA) 29,992$ 46 1,380,000$
Structural Excavation (cy) 488 26$ 12,566$
Concrete Saw Cutting (lf) 13 206$ 2,715$
Foundation Concrete Class 3300 (cy) 3 705$ 2,183$
Reinforcement (lbs) 410 1$ 528$
Dowels (each) 4 3,000$ 12,000$
Column Strengthening (EA) 31,440$ 49 1,541,000$
FRP Wrapping (ea) 1 31,440$ 31,440$
Conc. Crossbeam Strengthening and Widening (EA) 69,992$ 47 3,290,000$
Concrete Removal (cy) 1.5 878$ 1,316$
Structural Concrete Class 4000 (cy) 56.5 876$ 49,438$
Reinforcement (lbs) 14,942 1$ 19,238$
Steel Crossbeam Strengthening and Widening (EA) 35,136$ 1 35,000$
Structural Steel (lbs) 19,493 2$ 35,136$
Bridges ‐ Widening
Temporary Work Platforms (EA) 20,342$ 7 142,000$
Shoring, Cribbing, and Cofferdams (EA) 10,694$ 3 32,000$
Deck Removal (SF) $23 13,024 295,000$
Drilled Shafts (EA) 155,288$ 46 7,143,000$
Furnish Drilling Equipment (ea) 1 3,918$ 3,918$
Drilled Shaft Excavation, 96 Inch Diameter (ft) 55 1,261$ 69,374$
Drilled Shaft Concrete (cy) 102 343$ 35,113$
Drilled Shaft Reinforcement (lbs) 37,930 1$ 46,882$
Driven Piles (EA) 9,671$ 6 58,000$
Furnish Pile Driving Equipment (ea) 1 4,770$ 4,770$
Furnish HP 12x53 Steel Piles (ft) 55 80$ 4,412$
Drive HP 12x53 Steel Piles (ea) 1 489$ 489$
Concrete Columns (EA) 12,460$ 46 573,000$
Structural Concrete Class 5000 (cy) 12 670$ 8,233$
Reinforcement (lbs) 3,283 1$ 4,227$
RCDG Superstructure (per Span) 101,265$ 2 203,000$
Structural Concrete Class 4000 (cy) 96 627$ 59,976$
Deck Concrete, Class HPC 4000 (cy) 32 908$ 28,930$
Design Option 1B ‐ One‐Sided 28‐Foot Widening and Seismic Retrofit
Appendix CPlanning Level Bridge Cost Estimates
Design Option 1B
1 of 2
Date 8/4/2017
Item
Estimating
Quantity Unit Cost Unit Price
Construction
Quantity
Total Price in
2017 Dollars
Design Option 1B ‐ One‐Sided 28‐Foot Widening and Seismic Retrofit
Appendix CPlanning Level Bridge Cost Estimates
Bridge Rail (ft) 120 103$ 12,360$
Steel Girder Superstructure (per Span) 316,758$ 8 2,534,000$
Steel Plate Girder (lbs) 125,041 2$ 203,491$
Deck Concrete, Class HPC 4000 (cy) 87 908$ 79,360$
Bridge Rail (ft) 329 103$ 33,906$
PS Concrete Girder Superstructure (per Span) 113,432$ 37 4,197,000$
Prestressed Girders (ft) 61 820$ 50,231$
Deck Concrete, Class HPC 4000 (cy) 49 908$ 44,282$
Bridge Rail (ft) 184 103$ 18,919$
Bridge ‐ Construction Subtotal
Bridge Construction Subtotal 38,389,000$
35% Contingency 13,436,000$
Bridge Construction Total 51,800,000$
Assumptions:
‐Construction cost total is for bridge construction items only and does not include all construction costs item, such as
TP&DT, Storm Drainage, Roadwork, ROW, or Temp Construction Easement acquisition
‐Cost estimate does not include PE, CE, and administration costs
‐Cost were estimated using 2016 ODOT Bridge Cost Data as a baseline
‐The cost is being estimated in 2017 dollars and must be adjusted for inflation to actual construction year.
Design Option 1B
2 of 2
Date 8/4/2017
Item
Estimating
Quantity Unit Cost Unit Price
Construction
Quantity
Total Price in
2017 Dollars
Mobilization (LS) 4,185,800$ 1 4,186,000$
Bridges ‐ Structural Rehabilitation
Silica Fume Concrete Overlay (SY) 166$ 22,400 3,708,000$
Joint Repair (FT) 155$ 3,000 464,000$
Painting Steel Girders (SF) 31$ 138,228 4,271,000$
Steel Girder Stiffener Repair (LS) 587,100$ 1 587,000$
Bridges ‐ Seismic Retrofits
Temporary Access Road (FT) 30$ 8,022 240,000$
Shoring, Cribbing, and Cofferdams (EA) 16,180$ 65 1,052,000$
Spread Footing Strengthening (EA) 68,576$ 2 137,000$
Structural Excavation (cy) 488 26$ 12,566$
Concrete Removal (ea) 1 10,966$ 10,966$
Foundation Concrete Class 3300 (cy) 32 705$ 22,557$
Reinforcement (lbs) 6,243 2$ 12,486$
Temporary Bent Support (ea) 1 10,000$ 10,000$
Column Pinning (EA) 29,872$ 90 2,688,000$
Structural Excavation (cy) 488 26$ 12,566$
Concrete Saw Cutting (lf) 13 206$ 2,704$
Foundation Concrete Class 3300 (cy) 3 705$ 2,096$
Reinforcement (lbs) 393 1$ 506$
Dowels (each) 4 3,000$ 12,000$
Column Strengthening (EA) 17,568$ 24 422,000$
FRP Wrapping (ea) 1 17,568$ 17,568$
Conc. Crossbeam Strengthening and Widening (EA) 76,243$ 47 3,583,000$
Concrete Removal (cy) 1.5 878$ 1,316$
Structural Concrete Class 4000 (cy) 61.6 876$ 53,938$
Reinforcement (lbs) 16,302 1$ 20,989$
Steel Crossbeam Strengthening and Widening (EA) 37,202$ 1 37,000$
Structural Steel (lbs) 20,639 2$ 37,202$
Bridges ‐ Widening
Temporary Work Platforms (EA) 14,291$ 22 314,000$
Shoring, Cribbing, and Cofferdams (EA) 10,694$ 18 192,000$
Deck Removal (SF) $23 26,049 590,000$
Drilled Shafts (EA) 153,329$ 90 13,800,000$
Furnish Drilling Equipment (ea) 1 1,959$ 1,959$
Drilled Shaft Excavation, 96 Inch Diameter (ft) 55 1,261$ 69,374$
Drilled Shaft Concrete (cy) 102 343$ 35,113$
Drilled Shaft Reinforcement (lbs) 37,930 1$ 46,882$
Driven Piles (EA) 8,479$ 8 68,000$
Furnish Pile Driving Equipment (ea) 1 3,578$ 3,578$
Furnish HP 12x53 Steel Piles (ft) 55 80$ 4,412$
Drive HP 12x53 Steel Piles (ea) 1 489$ 489$
Concrete Columns (EA) 14,894$ 90 1,340,000$
Structural Concrete Class 5000 (cy) 15 670$ 9,834$
Reinforcement (lbs) 3,929 1$ 5,059$
RCDG Superstructure (per Span) 131,266$ 2 263,000$
Structural Concrete Class 4000 (cy) 139 627$ 87,317$
Design Option 1C ‐ Two‐Sided 14‐Foot Widening and Seismic Retrofit
Appendix CPlanning Level Bridge Cost Estimates
Design Option 1C
1 of 2
Date 8/4/2017
Item
Estimating
Quantity Unit Cost Unit Price
Construction
Quantity
Total Price in
2017 Dollars
Design Option 1C ‐ Two‐Sided 14‐Foot Widening and Seismic Retrofit
Appendix CPlanning Level Bridge Cost Estimates
Deck Concrete, Class HPC 4000 (cy) 35 908$ 31,588$
Bridge Rail (ft) 120 103$ 12,360$
Steel Girder Superstructure (per Span) 391,882$ 8 3,135,000$
Steel Plate Girder (lbs) 166,721 2$ 271,322$
Deck Concrete, Class HPC 4000 (cy) 95 908$ 86,654$
Bridge Rail (ft) 329 103$ 33,906$
PS Concrete Girder Superstructure (per Span) 134,245$ 37 4,967,000$
Prestressed Girders (ft) 61 1,094$ 66,974$
Deck Concrete, Class HPC 4000 (cy) 53 908$ 48,352$
Bridge Rail (ft) 184 103$ 18,919$
Bridge ‐ Construction Subtotal
Bridge Construction Subtotal 46,044,000$
35% Contingency 16,115,000$
Bridge Construction Total 62,200,000$
Assumptions:
‐Construction cost total is for bridge construction items only and does not include all construction costs item, such as
TP&DT, Storm Drainage, Roadwork, ROW, or Temp Construction Easement acquisition
‐Cost estimate does not include PE, CE, and administration costs
‐Cost were estimated using 2016 ODOT Bridge Cost Data as a baseline
‐ The cost is being estimated in 2017 dollars and must be adjusted for inflation to actual construction year.
Design Option 1C
2 of 2
top related