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