Bridge Preservation –Bridge Preservation –Lake Mills Road over Catskill Creek

ddPresented By:Presented By:

Jeremy M. Bourdeau, P.E. Jeremy M. Bourdeau, P.E. Barton & Loguidice D PCBarton & Loguidice D PCBarton & Loguidice, D.P.C.Barton & Loguidice, D.P.C.

Matthew T. Matthew T. SmullenSmullen, P.E. , P.E. Clark Patterson LeeClark Patterson Lee

Agendag

• Project Overview• Bridge Deck Evaluation• Bridge Deck Evaluation• Bridge Inspection/Load Rating• Bridge Rehabilitation Design/Details• ConstructionConstruction

Project Overviewj

• Project location:– Lake Mills Road (CR 41) over Catskill Creek( )

– Town of Cairo, Greene County, NY

• Existing bridge description:– Four span: 90’-120’-120’-90’p

– Continuous steel girders with concrete deck

– Concrete substructures– Concrete substructures

– Founded on rock

Bridge Deck Evaluationg

• Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR)– Confirmed construction characteristics ofConfirmed construction characteristics of

deck:

• Asphalt overlay thickness – 2 5” – 3”Asphalt overlay thickness 2.5 3• Deck thickness – 8“ – 10” (7.5” record

plans)plans)• Rebar spacing

Bridge Deck Evaluationg

• Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR)– Confirmed construction characteristics of

d kdeck– Deck condition/deterioration• Cracks/delamination near re bar• Cracks/delamination near re-bar

locations• Abnormalities - chloride penetrationp• Most deterioration near scuppers and

bridge jointsR d d d k i• Recommended deck coring

GPR Results Summary – Span 4

Possible Cracks/Delamination near Reinforcement locations

Possible Chloride Penetration Near North Bridge Joint

Bridge Deck Evaluationg

• Deck concrete coring– Confirmed construction characteristics ofConfirmed construction characteristics of

deck:

• Asphalt overlay thickness – 2 5” – 3”Asphalt overlay thickness 2.5 3• Deck thickness – 7.5” (7.5” record

plans)plans)• Rebar noted

Bridge Deck Evaluationg

• Deck concrete coring– Confirmed construction characteristics ofConfirmed construction characteristics of

deck

– Deck condition/deteriorationDeck condition/deterioration

• Visual inspection of deck cores• Concrete compressive strength• Concrete compressive strength• Chloride penetration

F th /d bilit• Freeze-thaw/durability

Bridge Deck Evaluationg

• Deck coring results – Compressive strength > 5000 psip g p– Chloride penetration – 1.8 lbs/cy• NYSDOT bridge deck evaluation manualNYSDOT bridge deck evaluation manual• > 1.3 lbs/cy - possible accelerated steel

deterioration– Freeze-thaw – 0.055% loss• NYSDOT bridge deck evaluation manual• < 1% indicates good concrete durability

Bridge Deck Evaluationg

• Bridge deck evaluation summary– GPR - minor deterioration overall moreGPR minor deterioration overall, more

significant near scuppers and near joints

– Deck cores indicated good concreteDeck cores indicated good concretecondition with moderate chloride penetration

– NYSDOT bridge deck evaluation manual would indicate waterproofing and asphaltp g poverlay replacement

Bridge Inspectiong p

• NYSDOT biennial bridge inspection– Structural element ratings

J i t t d ‘2’• Joints – rated ‘2’• Bearings – rated ‘4’• Paint – rated ‘2’• Primary members – rated ‘4’• Structural deck – rated ‘5’• Substructures – rated ‘5’ or ‘6’Substructures rated 5 or 6

• B&L in-depth inspection– Confirm bridge geometrics and condition– Develop rehabilitation strategy

Level 1 Load Ratingg

• Load factor method• Girder dimensions:– Interior girder flanges – ¼” to ½” thicker

than exteriorS ti l• Section losses– Interior girder – no section loss

E t i i d– Exterior girders:• Top flange – no section loss• Bottom flange 10 20%• Bottom flange – 10-20%• Web – 10-15%

Level 1 Load Ratingg

• Load rating results – HS-20– Positive moment• Interior girder – RF: 1.17 INV, 1.95 OPR• Exterior girder – RF: 0.67 INV, 1.12 OPR

N i– Negative moment• Interior girder – RF: 1.22 INV, 2.03 OPR• Exterior girder RF: 0 80 INV 1 34 OPR• Exterior girder - RF: 0.80 INV, 1.34 OPR

– Shear• Interior girder – RF: 2 01 INV 3 35 OPR• Interior girder – RF: 2.01 INV, 3.35 OPR• Exterior girder – RF: 2.22 INV, 3.71 OPR

Bridge Rehabilitationg

• Bridge rehabilitation items– Substructures – modify as necessary

B i d l– Bearings – remove and replace– Interior girders – retain, localized re-painting– Fascia girders – remove and replaceFascia girders remove and replace– Structural deck – remove and replace fascia

portions of deck– Asphalt overlay – remove and replace, apply

waterproofing membrane– Deck joints – remove and replace with armorless– Deck joints – remove and replace with armorless– Bridge railing – remove and replace

Bridge Rehabilitationg

Rehabilitation Details

• Partial deck replacement– Full depth sawcut to facilitate fascia girderFull depth sawcut to facilitate fascia girder

removal

– Partial depth sawcut at removal limitPartial depth sawcut at removal limit

– Retain existing transverse deck reinforcementreinforcement

Partial Depth Sawcut

Full Depth Sawcut

Rehabilitation Details

• Partial deck replacement• Deck/girder geometry• Deck/girder geometry– 45 degree skew

– Superelevation transition

– Varying overlay thickness

Rehabilitation Details

• Partial deck replacement• Deck/girder geometryDeck/girder geometry• Connection/stiffener plates on

interior girdersinterior girders

Grating Support Diaphragm Conn

PL

Intermediate Stiffener PL

Diaphragm Connection PL

• Conn PL to remain• Install bolts in holes • Touch up paint

Remove ExistinggGrating Support

Diaphragm

• Intermediate Stiffener PL to remain

• Touch up paint

• Replace Conn PL • Field Weld • Touch up paint

R /R lRemove/ReplaceExisting Diaphragm

Learning Assessment g

What types of deterioration were noted by the GPR of the bridge deck?y g

1 D l i ti / k b l ti1. Delamination/cracks near re-bar locations

2. Chloride penetration near bridge joints d d i tand drainage grates

Learning Assessment g

What are the four methods of evaluating concrete deck cores?

1 Visual inspection1. Visual inspection

2. Compressive strength test

3. Chloride penetration test

4. Freeze-thaw durability test

Learning Assessment g

Why did the GPR indicate that the concrete deck thickness was 8-10” as compared to pthe actual thickness of 7.5”?

– The corrugations in the deck pans were filled with concrete

Bridge Preservation –Bridge Preservation –Lake Mills Road over Catskill Creek

QUESTIONS?QUESTIONS?