Minutes. 4. Informational: Opportunities & Status for Economic Stimulus; Current Situation for each DOT

Transcription

1 Georgia/Carolinas Prestressed Concrete Economical Fabrication (PCEF) Committee NCDOT Structure Design, Conference Room C, 1000 Birch Ridge Drive, Raleigh, NC February 17, 2011 Minutes 1. Introductions Committee Co-Chairs Lou Triandafilou and Reid Castrodale opened the meeting at 10:00 AM. Lou made introductory comments and welcomed attendees. Several participants joined the meeting via web link (GoToMeeting) and telephone link, including GDOT and SCDOT staff. Each attendee introduced himself, and a sign in sheet was circulated. (The Attendee list is attached.) Ben Rabun was introduced as the new State Bridge Engineer for GDOT. Lou announced that he had taken a new position within FHWA as Team Leader for Bridges & Foundations at Turner Fairbank Highway Research Center and will be transitioning out of the role of co-chair of the committee. 2. Review & Approval of Minutes - August 10, 2010 Meeting It was noted that a correction was needed on Item 6c. A motion was made by Paul Liles and seconded by Ken Johnson to approve the minutes as corrected. Passed. 3. Review of Agenda The agenda for the meeting was reviewed. No changes or additions were made. The meeting agenda, minutes and presentations will be posted on the G/C PCI website, 4. Informational: Opportunities & Status for Economic Stimulus; Current Situation for each DOT Each state gave a brief update: NCDOT Alan Raynor reported that they are in the slowest year of their 5-year plan. The next 4 years should see more projects, with pick up in years 3-5. The 12-month letting list is fairly accurate. He also mentioned low impact bridge replacement projects that are being handled by the divisions. Greg Perfetti mentioned the Department is using a mix and match of design and delivery methods design/build, designbid-build, DOT design, consultant design, etc. SCDOT David Rister reported that their tentative letting list is on their website. The have one large coastal project and a handful of medium to smaller size projects. GDOT Ben Rabun reported that they are looking at NCDOT s low impact bridge program. GDOT management is interested in accelerated delivery. They are updating their standards, and looking at precast elements for their off-system bridges. It was noted that all structures, including maintenance, are now under the Structures Office. 5. Materials, Fabrication and Construction 5.a Accelerated Construction...Informational Item Lead: Bener Amado... William Nickas, Reid Castrodale Lou Triandafilou gave a report on the FHWA Every Day Counts initiative. One of the thrusts of the program is the promotion of accelerated construction using prefabricated bridge elements and systems (PBES). 10 Regional Summits for upper management, local agencies and FHWA regional resource centers were held in late A webinar is now being developed which will be presented to DOTs, Minutes of G/C PCEF Meeting February 17, 2011 Page 1 of 8

2 consultants and industry in early spring, to include a decision-making framework for PBES; cost comparisons to conventional methods; implementation details; and heavy-mover contractor presentations. After the webinar series has been presented, FHWA may entertain on-site seminars or project workshops for accelerated bridge construction and PBES (per suggestion/question from G/C PCI). Goals for the program have not yet been finalized. Information on PBES is currently available on the FHWA website. Lou stated that the goals of the program are that by December 2012, 100 cumulative bridges have been designed and/or constructed rapidly using PBES, and that by December 2012, 25 percent of single- or multi-span replacement bridges authorized using Federal-aid have at least one major prefabricated bridge element that shortens onsite construction time relative to conventional construction. FHWA has done a survey of states, and currently about a dozen states have no PBES projects. Barry Bowers (SCDOT) asked if cored slabs would meet PBES requirements. Lou responded that yes, per the definitions under FHWA Everyday Counts website cored slab superstructure (adjacent slabs, eliminating deck forming), adjacent box beams, etc. would meet the requirements. Based on an AASHTO (May 2010) survey: GA has 1-5 PBES in bridge category; NC has 6-10 projects; SC has greater than 20 projects. The EDC website has been populated with projects, and new projects are being added. The FHWA charge is for states to develop action plans to be submitted to FHWA by the end of the year. David Rister reported that SCDOT has a research project looking at precast alternatives for flat slab bridges. The researchers (Clemson) have asked for additional funds for testing connections between adjacent units and behavior of the top flange. Greg Perfetti stated they have formed a working group with FHWA-NC, working on cataloging projects and creating a transparent process within the Department to help accelerate projects concentrating on systems, including precast cap and cored slab standards. He stated that accelerated techniques can be useful in some situations, but are not a benefit in others where onsite detours can be made. Initial bridge cost must still be an important consideration. Brian Hanks reported that NCDOT is looking at pretensioned precast pile caps as an alternate to conventionally reinforced caps. Prestressing allows the pretensioned cap to be smaller than conventionally reinforced caps, an advantage for handling, shipping and erection. The very successful Ocracoke Island project used grout pockets for the connection between piles and the precast cap. That project, and the very similar Pamlico Sound project, also used precast end bents and wing walls. It was mentioned that Paul Ziehl (USC) has been researching precast caps for SCDOT. Ken Johnson agreed to check on the status of the report and suggested a presentation at our next meeting. An advantage of accelerated construction is the reduction of the construction footprint by eliminating onsite detours and keeping the construction within the existing right-of way. GDOT indicated they are also looking at not having so many on-site detours. They used to include alternate designs in their plans, including precast Type 1 modified beams for short span bridges that contractors could bid as an alternate design. Reid Castrodale mentioned he could share some precast cap details from the railroad industry. It was suggested that pretensioned precast caps could be cast in large piling forms which are drafted (tapered) across the depth of the cap. This would make the fabrication more economical since the side forms are fixed. It would also be useful to standardize the size of the caps, perhaps limiting to 1 or 2 cross sections, so that they could be poured in an existing box girder bed. Lou was asked the status of IBRD. Results from last year s submittals have not yet been released. Post presentation Accelerated Bridge Construction using Prefabricated Bridge Elements by Mike Culmo on - (2/18/10 meeting) Minutes of G/C PCEF Meeting February 17, 2011 Page 2 of 8

3 Post Lou Triandafilou s presentation on Every Day Counts on - (8/10/10 meeting) SCDOT give an update on USC precast cap research at next meeting. 5.b Self-Consolidating Concrete (SCC)...Informational Item Lead: Jeff Carroll... Aly Hussein, David Greene, Gary Shrieves Paul Ziehl Jeff Carroll distributed a summary of SCC specifications for all 3 states, having added the new special provisions from SCDOT. Peter Finsen agreed to send the special provisions to the full committee. The comparison of specifications indicated that they are very similar. It appeared that there was potential conflict between requirements for air entrainment. However, it was found later that SCDOT does not require entrained air for prestressed concrete, and that the comparison table had incorrect limits on air entrainment for prestressed girders for NCDOT. The NCDOT limit should have been 5 ± 2% rather than the 6 ± 1½% shown. Therefore, it appears that it could be possible for a single concrete mixture to satisfy the requirements for each state. Each state gave a brief update of their status regarding SCC: GDOT has still had no requests from producers to use SCC. SCDOT has not seen any interest from producers in using SCC. NCDOT has seen SCC used by one producer for 2 different large bridge projects. Otherwise, they have not seen any interest from bridge producers. They have had interest from suppliers of precast drainage products. It was noted that there are some differences in requirements related to creep and shrinkage and possibly test methods. SCDOT currently requires both creep and shrinkage testing of mixtures. Aly Hussein agreed to work further with Jeff Carroll to make sure that the SCDOT specifications coordinate well with the specs from the other two states. It was agreed that this item should remain on the agenda for the next meeting. Action item(s) completed: Distribute SCDOT special provisions to committee for review when completed. Other item(s) completed: Distribution of comparison of special provisions from the 3 states. Aly Hussein Jeff Carroll Distribute to the committee the special provisions for each state and the updated comparison of the special provisions Jeff Carroll & Peter Finsen SCDOT to consider further coordination of their special provisions with the other states Aly Hussein 5.c Region-Specific PCI Plant Certification... Future Item Lead: Peter Finsen...William Nickas Peter Finsen sent summary information on this to members of the committee. It was agreed that G/C PCI will discuss issues with the states individually initially to collect items that could be added to the plant inspection list. Jeff White suggested that the state-specific items be stated separately rather than being added to the QSM for each plant, which he thought would be cumbersome. (Note: The Illinois DOT prototype lists state-specific requirements in an addendum to each plant QSM.) Producers were encouraged to send a catalog of the bridge products that they produce to the bridge office of each state with which they do business. Minutes of G/C PCEF Meeting February 17, 2011 Page 3 of 8

4 NCDOT allows plant certification by PCI or NPCA or ACPA for precast concrete elements, but only recognizes certification by PCI for prestressed concrete elements. Action item(s) completed: Obtain PCI MNL-116 and QSM template from Dean Frank at PCI and distribute to each DOT by . Peter Finsen Each producer is encouraged to individually provide a catalog of bridge products produced at their plant(s) to the bridge office for each state with which the plant does business. G/C PCI members 5.d Reciprocity for Certifications and Other Issues...Active Item Lead: Chip Harris...David Greene, Jeff Carroll, Aly Hussein, JR Parimuha Chip Harris suggested that states consider approving concrete mix designs that have already been approved in another state without a separate review. It was also suggested that it would be helpful if states would recognize steel certifications and batch plant personnel certifications from other states. It was agreed to form a new task group to explore whether states could consider accepting certifications from other states. The first item considered will be plant certifications. Differences between requirements in the states will be identified first. GDOT indicated that acceptance of the certification of a plant by another state may have potential; however, specific requirements in each state for certification of technicians may make acceptance of these certifications from another state less likely. Define objectives of task group. Identify differences in plant certification requirements between states. 6. Parameters and Standardization 6.a Precast Pavements [approach slabs]... Informational Item Lead: Tom Koch & Brian Hanks No information or action. 6.b Full-Depth Bridge Slabs...Informational Item Lead: Brian Hanks... Barry Bowers, Paul Liles No information or action. 6.c Deck Bulb Tees... Active Item Lead: Richard Potts... Reid Castrodale, JR Parimuha, Tom Koch, Bener Amado Task Group Task Group Richard Potts distributed handouts showing dimensions and comparing section properties for deck girder sections based on three types of standard girders. Bener Amado was out of the country at the time of the meeting. It was suggested that when he returns he be contacted to see if there is a new project in SC for which deck girders could be a solution. Interest was expressed in obtaining the inspection reports on the NCDOT deck girder demonstration project. NCDOT will look into providing a link to the report. Greg Perfetti did not think that NCDOT would be interested in using UHPC for the closure joints between deck girders. Minutes of G/C PCEF Meeting February 17, 2011 Page 4 of 8

5 Action item(s) completed: Prepare a cross-section comparison, including design and construction issues and contractor concerns, for circulation to the States for review prior to the next meeting. Richard Potts Post handout information on section dimensions from Richard Potts on website. NCDOT will provide the committee with the most recent inspection report for their IBRD decked girder bridge prior to the next meeting. Brian Hanks 6.d Process Standardization...Various Lead: Jeff White The following issues were discussed. 6.d.1 Contractor proposed alternate designs... Informational Item No discussion. None 6.d.2 Electronic submittal of shop drawings... Informational Item... Paul Liles, Bill DuVall, Dave Rister, Tim Sherrill Jeff White indicated that he had a written outline of his discussion of this topic that he will send to the committee. Paul Lambert from NCDOT joined the discussion to give his perspective on the system used by NCDOT since He said that their electronic process had worked very well, with some drawings being processed twice in the same day after comments on the first submittal. Paul Lambert also indicated that on NC Turnpike projects, all submittals, including project plans, have been electronic since This was included in the agreement with the prime contractor. All contract drawings, including shop drawings, are being handled electronically. Comments are placed directly on the drawings. The software being used is Constructware. Bravia 6.1 is also being used to comment on the drawings electronically. He felt that this system provided the Department savings in time and money as well as giving access to all submittals. NCDOT developed a white paper in 2006 on the electronic submittal system that he can send to committee. Paul will also make available his notes for distribution to the committee. Action item(s) completed: Prepare an outline of NCDOT s electronic submittal process, including how hard copies are provided to the plant inspectors for the 2/2011 meeting. Jeff White Distribute to Committee outline prepared by Jeff White. Jeff White Distribute to Committee Paul Lambert s notes on NCDOT experience with electronic submittal of shop drawings. Jeff White Distribute to Committee NCDOT white paper on their system for electronic submittal of shop drawings. Jeff White 6.d.3 Fabricating girders from contract drawings... Informational Item Jeff White had distributed examples of girder drawings and shop drawing submittals for the three states to GDOT and SCDOT for consideration. It was agreed that this issue would be discussed at the G/C PCI meetings with each state. Minutes of G/C PCEF Meeting February 17, 2011 Page 5 of 8

6 None. 6.d.4 Two top strands in product... Active Item...Richard Potts Jeff White had distributed sample details from each state. He pointed out that 2 strands are needed at the top in the draped column for tying stirrups. NCDOT indicated that their current note has worked well. They mandate 2 top strands for AASHTO girders and 4 top strands for bulb tee girders. Producers agreed to review details and NCDOT practice and will develop a proposed standard for consideration at the next meeting. Each DOT to send standard details and notes related to strands at top of girder sections to Jeff White by Nov. 15, Barry Bowers, Bill DuVall and Brian Hanks Industry will review the details and NCDOT practice, and develop a proposed standard for distribution prior to the next meeting. G/C PCI members 6.e Bearing Plate and Reinforcement Details...Active Item Lead: Paul Liles...Richard Potts Richard Potts will collect and compare bearing plate details from the three states. Industry agreed to develop a proposed standard for consideration at the next meeting. Send links to standard continuity reinforcement details to Richard Potts and Reid Castrodale (completed quite some time ago, but not noted). SCDOT & NCDOT New Action item(s): Develop a proposed standard prior to next meeting. G/C PCI members 6.f Pile Standards...Active Item Lead: Paul Liles...Richard Potts Richard Potts had recently sent pile standards from several states to Paul Liles for review. GDOT is preparing to update their pile standards, including a conversion of the design to the LRFD Specifications. They plan to complete updating their culvert standards before the piling standards, so it will be a while before the work begins on piling. Piles are not designed for seismic loads in GA. NCDOT has already updated their pile standards to the LRFD Specifications. Brian Hanks agreed to forward their new standards and interaction diagrams to Paul and Richard. They now specify a minimum concrete compressive strength of 7,500 psi for all piles, which helps their axial capacity. They offer designs for both 0.5 and 0.6 diameter strands. The increased concrete compressive strength being used for the NCDOT standards may affect their use for the other states because GDOT and SCDOT still specify 5,000 psi. None. Minutes of G/C PCEF Meeting February 17, 2011 Page 6 of 8

7 NCDOT to forward their new LRFD pile standards and interaction diagrams to Paul Liles and Richard Potts. Brian Hanks 6.g Evaluation of Girder Shapes... Active Lead: Reid Castrodale... Gary Shrieves It was agreed that Reid Castrodale would prepare a catalog of shapes for the next meeting. The issue of using a 6 in. web for bulb-tee girders for GDOT will be discussed in their meeting with G/C PCI. None 7. New Business / Informational Items William Nickas was not available to give the update on PCI s activities in Florida related to Precast and High Speed Rail. However, the high speed rail project in Florida has now been terminated. Peter Finsen showed a video of entries in the ARC Competition for a wildlife crossing bridge in Colorado. The video can be viewed at the following web link: 8. Develop / Review List of Action Items The chairs committed to developing and distributing the action item list soon. 9. Evaluation of Committee Progress/Process SCDOT felt that committee progress was slow, but that progress was being made. GDOT agreed that good progress was being made. NCDOT observed that there were not many items being discussed that the states were interested in taking action on. Greg Perfetti also observed that G/C PCI needed to address some of the issues in the meetings with the individual states. If industry puts works into addressing the issues in this way, he felt that there would be more buy in by the states in this joint meeting. However, Greg did indicate that he had gotten some benefit from the meeting. He suggested that, if necessary, the next G/C PCEF meeting could be postponed if more progress was needed with the individual states. 10. Next meeting date It was agreed that the next meeting would be August 11, 2011 from 10 AM to 4 PM. It was agreed that the next meeting would be held at SCDOT in Columbia, SC. Adjourn The meeting was adjourned at 3:40 PM. Minutes of G/C PCEF Meeting February 17, 2011 Page 7 of 8

8 ATTENDEES: G/C PCEF Committee Meeting 2/17/11 * - indicates attendees participating via web conferencing (GoToMeeting) Name Company Phone FHWA Louis Triandafilou * FHWA - TFHRC (202) Lou.Triandafilou@fhwa.dot.gov Ken Johnson * FHWA SC Division (803) jken.johnson@fhwa.dot.gov Leon Kim * FHWA GA Division (404) leon.kim@fhwa.dot.gov GDOT Ben Rabun * GDOT - Bridge Design (404) brabun@dot.ga.gov Paul Liles * GDOT Engineering/Structures (404) pliles@dot.ga.gov Bill DuVall * GDOT - Bridge Design (404) bduvall@dot.ga.gov Melissa Harper * GDOT - Bridge Construction (404) mharper@dot.ga.gov Jeff Carroll * GDOT - Materials & Research (404) jcarroll@dot.ga.gov NCDOT Greg Perfetti NCDOT - Structure Design (919) gperfetti@ncdot.gov Tom Koch NCDOT - Structure Design (919) tkoch@ncdot.gov Allen Raynor NCDOT - Structure Design (919) araynor@ncdot.gov Brian Hanks NCDOT - Structure Design (919) bhanks@ncdot.gov Tim Sherrill NCDOT - Structure Design (919) tmsherrill@ncdot.gov Paul Lambert NCDOT - Structure Design (919) plambert@ncdot.gov David Greene NCDOT - Materials & Tests (919) dgreene@ncdot.gov SCDOT David Rister * SCDOT - Bridge Construction (803) ristergd@scdot.org Aly Hussein * SCDOT - Research & Materials (803) husseinaa@scdot.org G/C PCI Peter Finsen G/C PCI (678) peter.finsen@gcpci.org Reid Castrodale Carolina Stalite Company (800) rcastrodale@stalite.com Gary Shrieves Bayshore Concrete Products (757) Gary.Shrieves@skanska.com Jeff White Prestress of the Carolinas (704) jeff.white@prestressotc.com Richard Potts Standard Concrete Products (912) ext 105 rpotts@standardconcrete.org JR Parimuha Florence Concrete Products (803) ext 116 jrparimuha@fcpsumter.com Mike Means * S & G Prestress Company (910) mikem@flarock.com Chip Harris Utility Precast (704) utilityprecast@hotmail.com