upper ouachita national wildlife refuge grs abutments for replacement bridges michael adams- fhwa...
TRANSCRIPT
Upper Ouachita National Wildlife RefugeUpper Ouachita National Wildlife RefugeGRS Abutments for Replacement Bridges GRS Abutments for Replacement Bridges
Michael Adams- FHWA
Scott A. Saunders – FHWA/ EFLHD
Ouachita Bridge ReplacementOuachita Bridge ReplacementGRS AbutmentsGRS Abutments
Introduction BOF Program Design and GRS Technology Construction Instrumentation Performance/Conclusion
Ouachita Bridge ReplacementOuachita Bridge Replacement
Introduction
Replace 3 bridges in National Wildlife Refuge
Alternative foundation and abutment design Evaluate cost, constructability and
performance
Bridge of the FutureBridge of the Future
Develop new technologies to build better, more efficient bridge systems.
Cost-effective designs and efficient construction techniques for 70-90 foot bridge systems.
Improved durability, maintenance, inspection accessibility and long-term performance.
Meet the growing demand for bridge replacement projects.
Upper Ouachita Upper Ouachita National Wildlife Refuge National Wildlife Refuge
Bridge SitesBridge Sites
Old Rail Car BridgesOld Rail Car Bridges
Site Conditions Site Conditions Bottomland BayousBottomland Bayous
Cecil Creek Subsurface ProfileCecil Creek Subsurface Profile
GRS TechnologyGRS Technology
What is it? (MSE vs. GRS)
Design FHWA GRS Research An alternative to driven pile foundations
GRS TechnologyGRS Technology
GRS Walls and Abutments
Built with readily available materials
Common construction equipment
Without highly skilled labor
GRS TechnologyGRS Technology
Current GRS Projects
2 Factors for Internal Stability2 Factors for Internal Stability
Good compaction with quality fill Close reinforcement spacing
Bulging wall face indicates that the two factors were not practiced; It is not an excuse to use mechanical connection between blocks
GRS DesignGRS Design
Bearing Capacity (check) Direct Sliding/Global Stability (check) Eccentricity Strength (check) Connection Pullout
Thrust on Facing ElementsThrust on Facing ElementsAssuming a “yielding” facingAssuming a “yielding” facing
h
h
7/10 S
3/10 SS
Reinforcement
Granular Backfill (= 34°) (lbs/ft2
h = S Ka = S tan2 (45°- 34°/2) = 125 S (0.283) = 35.4 S
F = h (7/10 S) + h (3/10 S) = 43/60h S = 25.4 S2 lbs/ft
Wu, McMullen, and Ruckman
Reinforcement Spacing Reinforcement Spacing Controls Performance Controls Performance
Bridge Plan & ElevationBridge Plan & Elevation
GRS AbutmentGRS Abutment
GRS Wrap DetailGRS Wrap Detail
GRS Abutment MaterialsGRS Abutment Materials GeotextileWoven Polypropylene
Type VIIA Contech C400
Type VIIB Contech C300
Wide Width Tensile Strength 4800 lb/ft & 2100 lb/ft
Aggregate BackfillArkansas DOT - Aggregate Base Course
Class 7: 1½ Maximum grain size
Abutment ConstructionAbutment Construction
Abutment ConstructionAbutment Construction
Abutment ConstructionAbutment Construction
Spread Footing on GRS Abutment Spread Footing on GRS Abutment Cut Off CreekCut Off Creek
Bridge ConstructionBridge Construction
Bridge ConstructionBridge Construction
Elastomeric Bearing Pad Elastomeric Bearing Pad
Cutoff Creek BridgeCutoff Creek Bridge
Cecil Creek BridgeCecil Creek Bridge
Big Lake No. 2 BridgeBig Lake No. 2 Bridge
Borehole InstrumentationBorehole Instrumentation
Instrumentation/MonitoringInstrumentation/Monitoring
Magnetic Extensometers Inclinometer Survey
InstrumentationInstrumentation
1C 2C
Magnetic ExtensometerMagnetic Extensometer
InstrumentationInstrumentation
1A 2A
2B1B
InclinometerInclinometer
InclinometerInclinometer
South AbutmentSouth Abutment
InclinometerInclinometer
North AbutmentNorth Abutment
Settlement DataSettlement Data
settlement angular distortion
average differential (differential/L)
Bridge L= 67 ft
Cecil Creek 0.78 0.27 0.00031.05
Big Lake 0.69 0.033 0.000410.36
Cutoff Creek 0.060.03 0.03 0.00004
AASHTO Criteria = 0.005AASHTO Criteria = 0.005
Lab Testing
Comparison w/ field instrumentation results Consolidation tests on Cecil Creek samples South Abutment – Running Sands
ConclusionsConclusions
GRS vs. Pile Foundations
Cost: 40 % less than pile foundations (w/o footings) Savings using shorter beams Easy to deliver site materials Less equipment required Simplified QA/QC program Less time to construct
PerformancePerformance
Total settlement < 1.5 inches Differential Settlement: 0.5 inches No “bump” at the bridge/road interface Continued Performance Monitoring