Transcript Case Study
Approaches to Historic Bridge Rehabilitation Case Study #2 Holmes Street Bridge, No. 4175 (Deck Truss) Shakopee, Minnesota Bob Frame Mead & Hunt, Inc. 1 Case study #2 Holmes Street Bridge No. 4175 Shakopee, Minnesota Built to carry MN trunk highway over the Minnesota River, tributary to Mississippi Pedestrian use since 2005 Deck truss Built 1927 Structure length: 645 feet 4 main river spans: Warren truss, with 3 truss lines 4 approach spans (2 north, 2 south): cast-in-place concrete beams 2 Case study #2 Bridge 4175 Rehab Project: to restore and convert to pedestrian use Rehab in process 2010-2011 Client/Owner: Mn/DOT Engineer: HDR, Inc. Contractor: Kramer Bros. Section 106 rehab guidance: Mead & Hunt, Inc. 2005 - Before rehab 3 2010 - During rehab Issue 1 - Repair gusset-plate connections & replace lower chord members Left: Typical gusset plate in good condition, upper and center of trusses. 4 Case study #2 Right: Typical gusset plate in poor condition, located below drains. Lower chord members & gusset plates in Case study #2 serious-to-critical condition Gusset plate with retrofit; up to 100% section loss in some plates. 5 Buckled gusset plate between diagonal & vertical members Case study #2 How Significant Issue Was Resolved First, strong-back system used to relieve stress on truss connections 6 Case study #2 Rivets were removed. 7 • Rivets replaced with bolts • Old bearing pins replaced • Lower chord members replaced. Case study #2 Issue 2 – Repair historic concrete On concrete approach spans & abutments Delamination, spalling, graffiti Beams to be repaired 8 Sidewalk brackets to be replaced Case study #2 How Significant Issue Was Resolved Shotcrete used for repair patches and to replicate missing features Test repairs to check replication of architectural shapes Test panels to compare color & surface texture treatment 9 Case study #2 How Significant Issue Was Resolved Sculpting architectural details 10 Applying shotcrete to repair area Replicating concrete sidewalk brackets Case study #2 After initial concrete demolition Building formwork 11 Removing forms Contractor demonstrating graffiti & paint removal Left: • 12 Using water – less effective Case study #2 Right: • Using micro-abrasive blast – more effective • Black Diamond product used Case study #2 How was Section 106 handled Issue: all rehab to be compliant with Secretary of the Interior’s Standards Steel repairs were considered compliant Concrete repairs considered compliant Shotcrete use approved by SHPO Micro-abrasive blast approved by SHPO 13 Case study #2 How was Section 4(f) handled No 4(f) issues 14 Lessons Learned/Conclusions Lifting truss allows repair/replacement of gusset plate connections & lower chord members Shotcrete to repair & match adjacent historic concrete Sculpted to replicate details Concrete stain for color Micro-abrasive blast for texture 15