final memorandum 1 - oregon documents... · 2017. 8. 24. · final memorandum 1.12 i-5 medford...

Final Memorandum 1.12

I-5 Medford Viaduct Planning & Environmental Study 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.



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.



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



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



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.



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.



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).



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:



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 $ $$$ $$ $$$ $$ $$



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


MEDFORD, OREGON

I-5 MEDFORD VIADUCT

CONSULTING


REGIONAL OFFICES:


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




� Bent 21



Note:


Bents 2-4, 46 & 47 Similar

*Bent 21 Shown,

FIGURE A2



Scale: 1" = 15'-0"

*PLAN - BENT 21

Scale: 1" = 15'-0"



MEDFORD, OREGON

I-5 MEDFORD VIADUCT

CONSULTING


REGIONAL OFFICES:


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






Note:

Bents 22, 23, 38, & 40 Similar

*Bent 24 Shown,


FIGURE A3



Scale: 1" = 15'-0"

*PLAN - BENT 24

Scale: 1" = 15'-0"



MEDFORD, OREGON

I-5 MEDFORD VIADUCT

CONSULTING


REGIONAL OFFICES:


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"


bottom of reconstructed footing, typ.



18'-0" square, typ.



Note:


FIGURE A4



Scale: 1" = 15'-0"

*PLAN - BENT 39

Scale: 1" = 15'-0"



MEDFORD, OREGON

I-5 MEDFORD VIADUCT

CONSULTING


REGIONAL OFFICES:


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.



Note:


Bents 41-43 & 45 Similar

*Bent 44 Shown,

FIGURE A5



Scale: 1" = 15'-0"

*PLAN - BENT 44

Scale: 1" = 15'-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°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


REGIONAL OFFICES:


CORPORATE OFFICE:

OHW

OHW

Bike Path

Bike path

Finish ground


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.


top & btm. 13 of column

Concrete footing strengthening


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


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,



Note:

and widening limits


Scale: 1" = 10'-0"

*PLAN - BENT 13

Scale: 1" = 10'-0"



MEDFORD, OREGON

I-5 MEDFORD VIADUCT

CONSULTING


REGIONAL OFFICES:


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



as original structure

Oversize 8'-0" dia.




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





"pinned" connection

typ.

1'-0"





stiffness than extg. columns, typ. E. Main St. Bridge

Concrete footing

strengtheningFIGURE B2


DESIGN OPTION 1B - ONE SIDED 28-FOOT WIDENINGBents 2-4, 46 & 47 Similar

*Bent 21 Shown,

and widening limits




Note:

Scale: 1" = 15'-0"

*PLAN - BENT 21

Scale: 1" = 15'-0"



MEDFORD, OREGON

I-5 MEDFORD VIADUCT

CONSULTING


REGIONAL OFFICES:


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.

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




Oversize 8'-0" dia.




Concrete footing strengthening

3'-

6"

square

21'-0"

"L" Line "L" Line

Original

"2113'-9

"L" Line "L" Line

Original









"pinned" connection

Concrete crossbeam

strengthening and wideningColumn wrap FRP strengthening

top 13 of left interior column

at Bent 40

typ.

1'-0"

FIGURE B3


DESIGN OPTION 1B - ONE SIDED 28-FOOT WIDENINGBents 22, 23, 38, & 40 Similar

*Bent 24 Shown,



Note:

and widening limits


Scale: 1" = 15'-0"

*PLAN - BENT 24

Scale: 1" = 15'-0"



MEDFORD, OREGON

I-5 MEDFORD VIADUCT

CONSULTING


REGIONAL OFFICES:


CORPORATE OFFICE:

� Bent 39

Bear Creek

"L" Line


OHWOHW

Bike path

"L" Line

E. 10th St. �

Edge of deck,

E. 10th St.

47'-

6"±

30'-

0"±

Finish ground



preliminary spread




Concrete

median

barrier

89'-1"

90'-0" roadway

2'-

2"

Oversize 8'-0" dia.


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



Crossbeam and superstructure

widening elements to be in-kind


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




"pinned" connection

typ.

1'-0"

square

18'-0"

FIGURE B4


DESIGN OPTION 1B - ONE SIDED 28-FOOT WIDENING



Note:

and widening limits


Scale: 1" = 15'-0"

*PLAN - BENT 39

Scale: 1" = 15'-0"



MEDFORD, OREGON

I-5 MEDFORD VIADUCT

CONSULTING


REGIONAL OFFICES:


CORPORATE OFFICE:


50'-0"±50'-0"±

Finish ground

90'-0" roadway

5'-

0"

max.

90'-4"

3'-

3"

Concrete footing

strengthening

Concrete bridge

rail Type F




Oversize 8'-0" dia.


Column wrap FRP

strengthening top &

btm. 13 of column

Concrete median barrier

"L" Line

"2113'-9

"L" Line

Original

"L" Line

Original

"L" Line




"pinned" connectiontyp.

1'-0"






Concrete crossbeam

strengthening and

widening

3'-

612"

min.

square

17'-6"

FIGURE B5


DESIGN OPTION 1B - ONE SIDED 28-FOOT WIDENINGBents 41-43 & 45 Similar

*Bent 44 Shown,



Note:

and widening limits


Scale: 1" = 15'-0"

*PLAN - BENT 44

Scale: 1" = 15'-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°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


REGIONAL OFFICES:


CORPORATE OFFICE:

OHW

OHW

Bike Path

Bike path

Finish ground


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.


have higher post cracking


Oversize 8'-0" dia.

concrete drilled

shaft, typ.

Concrete bridge rail Type F, typ.




9" thick concrete socket, typ.



"pinned" connection

typ.

1'-0"



Bents 13, 17-20, 28, & 31-37

Concrete crossbeam

strengthening and

widening

Column wrap FRP

strengthening top13 of right interior

column Bent 35 only



Note:

and widening limits


Bents 5-12, 14-20, & 25-37 Similar

*Bent 13 Shown,

FIGURE C1


DESIGN OPTION 1C - TWO-SIDED 14-FOOT WIDENING

Scale: 1" = 10'-0"

*PLAN - BENT 13

Scale: 1" = 10'-0"



MEDFORD, OREGON

I-5 MEDFORD VIADUCT

CONSULTING


REGIONAL OFFICES:


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






Oversize 8'-0" dia.

concrete drilled

shaft, typ.








"pinned" connection

typ.

1'-0"

Concrete crossbeam



top 13 of left column at Bents

4 and 21



Note:

and widening limits


Bents 2-4, 46 & 47 Similar

*Bent 21 Shown,



FIGURE C2

Scale: 1" = 15'-0"

*PLAN - BENT 21

Scale: 1" = 15'-0"



MEDFORD, OREGON

I-5 MEDFORD VIADUCT

CONSULTING


REGIONAL OFFICES:


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.

E. 8th St. �

Finish ground

Bike path

"L" Line

95'-0"

90'-0" roadway

3'-

10"

min.

6'-

0"

max.






Oversize 8'-0" dia.

concrete drilled

shaft, typ.








"pinned" connection

typ.

1'-0"


top 13 of right interior column

at Bents 23 & 40

Concrete crossbeam




Bents 23, 34, 38 & 40



Note:

and widening limits


Bents 22, 23, 38, & 40 Similar

*Bent 24 Shown,



FIGURE C3

Scale: 1" = 15'-0"

*PLAN - BENT 24

Scale: 1" = 15'-0"



MEDFORD, OREGON

I-5 MEDFORD VIADUCT

CONSULTING


REGIONAL OFFICES:


CORPORATE OFFICE:

Bear Creek

"L" Line


OHWOHW

10th Street bridge

Bike path

"L" Line

E. 10th St. �

Edge of deck,

E. 10th St.

47'-

6"±

30'-

0"±

Finish ground



preliminary spread




90'-0" roadway

� Bent 39


90'-6"

Concrete footing strengthening, typ.ty

p.

4'-

0"


bottom of reconstructed footing, typ.

Crossbeam and superstructure

widening elements to be in-kind


typ.

18'-0" square

typ.

2'-

2"


top and btm. 13 of column, typ.



Note:

and widening limits




FIGURE C4

Scale: 1" = 15'-0"

*PLAN - BENT 39

Scale: 1" = 15'-0"



MEDFORD, OREGON

I-5 MEDFORD VIADUCT

CONSULTING


REGIONAL OFFICES:


CORPORATE OFFICE:


"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.












"pinned" connection

typ.

1'-0"

Concrete crossbeam

strengthening and

widening



Note:

and widening limits


Bents 41-43 & 45 Similar

*Bent 44 Shown,

FIGURE C5



Scale: 1" = 15'-0"

*PLAN - BENT 44

Scale: 1" = 15'-0"


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



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


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



Design Option 1B - One-Sided 28-Foot Widening and Seismic Retrofit


1 of 2 6/20/2017

BentDisplacement

Capacity (in)

Displacement

Demand (in)

C/D

Ratio

Displacement

Capacity (in)

Displacement

Demand (in)

C/D

Ratio



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


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


Design Option 1C - Two-Sided 14-Foot Widening and Seismic Retrofit



1 of 2 6/20/2017

BentDisplacement

Capacity (in)

Displacement

Demand (in)

C/D

Ratio

Displacement

Capacity (in)

Displacement

Demand (in)

C/D

Ratio


Design Option 1C - Two-Sided 14-Foot Widening and Seismic Retrofit


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


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


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 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


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.



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


E 8th Street to E 10th Street

¯0 50 100 Feet





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


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.




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


Southern Terminus

¯0 50 100 Feet



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


Construction

Quantity

Total Price in

2017 Dollars

Mobilization (LS) 3,489,900$ 1 3,490,000$


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$



Temporary Access Road (FT) 30$ 8,022 240,000$


Spread Footing Strengthening (EA) 68,576$ 46 3,154,000$




Reinforcement (lbs) 6,243 2$ 12,486$


Column Pinning (EA) 29,992$ 46 1,380,000$


Concrete Saw Cutting (lf) 13 206$ 2,715$


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$


Structural Concrete Class 4000 (cy) 56.5 876$ 49,438$


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$


RCDG Superstructure (per Span) 101,265$ 2 203,000$


Deck Concrete, Class HPC 4000 (cy) 32 908$ 28,930$

Design Option 1B ‐ One‐Sided 28‐Foot Widening and Seismic Retrofit


Design Option 1B

1 of 2

Date 8/4/2017

Item

Estimating


Construction

Quantity

Total Price in

2017 Dollars

Design Option 1B ‐ One‐Sided 28‐Foot Widening and Seismic Retrofit


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$


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$


Bridge Rail (ft) 184 103$ 18,919$





Assumptions:





‐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


Construction

Quantity

Total Price in

2017 Dollars

Mobilization (LS) 4,185,800$ 1 4,186,000$


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$



Temporary Access Road (FT) 30$ 8,022 240,000$


Spread Footing Strengthening (EA) 68,576$ 2 137,000$






Column Pinning (EA) 29,872$ 90 2,688,000$


Concrete Saw Cutting (lf) 13 206$ 2,704$


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$


Structural Concrete Class 4000 (cy) 61.6 876$ 53,938$


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$



RCDG Superstructure (per Span) 131,266$ 2 263,000$


Design Option 1C ‐ Two‐Sided 14‐Foot Widening and Seismic Retrofit


Design Option 1C

1 of 2

Date 8/4/2017

Item

Estimating


Construction

Quantity

Total Price in

2017 Dollars

Design Option 1C ‐ Two‐Sided 14‐Foot Widening and Seismic Retrofit



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$


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$


Bridge Rail (ft) 184 103$ 18,919$





Assumptions:





‐ The cost is being estimated in 2017 dollars and must be adjusted for inflation to actual construction year.

Design Option 1C

2 of 2