Post on 20-May-2018
2/14/2012
1
Welcome to the EDC Exchange!Welcome to the EDC Exchange!Please take a moment to review the following information
Please mute your phone when not speaking.‐ Press *6 to mute and un‐mute your phone.‐ You are on an operator assisted call, so select *1 to ask a question.
Ask a question or make a comment by typing in the Chat Pod. Select the Send ‘speech bubble’ icon to the right of the text field to post your comment or question.
GeosyntheticGeosynthetic Reinforced SoilReinforced SoilIntegrated Bridge SystemIntegrated Bridge System
Dan AlzamoraGeotechnical EngineerGeotechnical Engineer
Federal Highway Administration
GRS IBSGRS IBS What is the problem?What is the problem?
2/14/2012
2
GRS IBS saves time and money!GRS IBS saves time and money! GRS IBS is catching on!GRS IBS is catching on!
Great Basin National Park
Sequoia National Park
Today’s Guest PresentersToday’s Guest Presenters
Warren Schlatter, P.E., P.S.
Defiance County Engineer
Defiance, Ohio
G. Randy Albert, P.E.Municipal Service
SupervisorPennsylvania Department of Transportation
Brian P. Keierleber P.E.Buchanan County
Engineer Buchanan County Iowa
Toby Bogart, P.E.Superintendent of
HighwaysSt. Lawrence County,
NY
GeosyntheticGeosynthetic Reinforced SoilReinforced SoilIntegrated Bridge System (GRSIntegrated Bridge System (GRS‐‐IBS)IBS)
Warren Schlatter, P.E., P.S.Defiance County EngineerDefiance County Engineer
Defiance, Ohio
2/14/2012
3
Defiance County’s Defiance County’s GRS ExperienceGRS Experience
Construction AdvantagesConstruction Advantages
Same excavation, less expensive materials, lighter weight components and less weather sensitive
construction
Trying it outTrying it out
2/14/2012
4
Attractive and FlexibleAttractive and Flexible
Can drive steel guardrail through itguardrail through it
5’
2/14/2012
6
Simple Tools & Materials
This is the same as 2 legally loaded semis STACKED. 160 kips
Open to Traffic ‐ 47 days
2/14/2012
7
Defiance County Mini Defiance County Mini Pier Pier Strength Strength of Material Test of Material Test
28’x20’‐$68,000 ‐ 2008
2/14/2012
8
28’ 20’ $88 000 200928’x20’‐$88,000 ‐ 2009
32’x1032’x10’‐$51,000 51,000 ‐‐ 20102010
28’x20’‐$70,000 ‐ 2010 28’x20’‐$65,000 ‐ 2010
2/14/2012
9
28’x32’‐$85,000 ‐ 2010 36’x20’‐$71,000 ‐ 2010
ConclusionsConclusions
• We keep a large quantity of fabric on hand, other materials are readily available on veryother materials are readily available on very short notice
• We replenish our fabric supply in truckload intervals and have a number of suppliers
• We are replacing bridges at around half our previous costs and in substantially less time
• Our crew can install without engineering in many non abutment applications
Construction MethodsConstruction Methods
• 15 built entirely by county crew• 7 structures with abutments built by county and superstructure by contractor
• 3 structures built entirely by contractor (3 different contractors so far)
• Contractors have liked method and would\have• Contractors have liked method and would\have bid again
2/14/2012
10
Efficiency GainsEfficiency Gains
• For both our crew and the 3 contractors, the i iti l j t i il i t tinitial projects were similar in cost to traditional deep foundation cost but much faster
• We are at least twice a fast now over initial with a corresponding savings in costp g g
• 3 days for standard abutment
Superstructure TypesSuperstructure Types
• Adjacent Prestressed Box Beams with waterproofing and overlaywaterproofing and overlay
• Adjacent and Spread Prestressed Box Beams with composite concrete deck
• Steel Beams with composite concrete deck
• Cast in place slab
• Fiberglass box beams
Financial ImpactFinancial Impact of GRSof GRSon Bridge Replacementon Bridge Replacement
3000010 to 20 ft with county funds
15000
20000
25000
re Foo
t of D
eck
> 20 ft with county funds> 20 ft with federal funds
55
9
16
0
5000
10000
Squa
r
Pre‐GRS: 2000‐2005 Post‐GRS 2006‐2011
5 217
Year Road Construction by ADT Width Opening Superstructure Cost2005 Bowman Rd Defiance Co\Zachrich 345 34 74 NAPBB $272,0002006 Glenberg Rd Defiance Co\Ft. Defiance 240 28 45 NAPBB $187,0002006 Fountain St Defiance Co\Ft. Defiance 320 28 30 NAPBB $122,0002006 Behnfeldt Rd Defiance Co\Ft. Defiance 125 28 47 NAPBB $141,0002006 Farmer Mark Rd Defiance Co 430 32 25 NARBB $95,0002006 Vine St Defiance Co 590 28 25 NARBB $102 0002006 Vine St Defiance Co 590 28 25 NARBB $102,0002007 Scott Rd Defiance Co 50 28 17 NARBB $75,0002007 Huber Rd Defiance Co\Ft. Defiance 100 28 23 NAPBB $156,0002007 Casebeer Miller Rd Zachrich Const 450 32 20 Fiberglass Beams $200,4842007 Beerbower Rd Defiance Co 100 28 17 NARBB $60,0002008 Williams Co Line Defiance Co 150 28 14 NARBB $74,0002008 Beerbower Rd Defiance Co 100 28 20 NARBB $74,0002008 Defiance Ayersville Defiance Co 2500 40 20 NARBB $105,0002008 Flory Stable Construction 130 28 20 NAPBB $180,0002009 Stever Rd Defiance Co\Zachrich 845 36 130 Steel Beams $616,0002009 Behnfeldt Rd Defiance Co 100 28 19 NARBB $88,0002010 Independence Defiance Co 150 32 10 NARBB $51,0002010 Openlander Rd Defiance Co 350 32 17 NARBB $70,0002010 Stever Rd Defiance Co 700 32 20 NARBB $71,0002010 Mulligans Bluff Defiance Co 150 28 20 NARBB $65,0002010 Behnfeldt Rd Defiance Co 90 28 31 SPBB $85,0002010 Paulding Co Line Nagel Constr 175 28 53 NAPBB $300,0002011 Flory Rd Defiance Co 600 28 11 Slab $45,0002011 Behnfeldt Rd Defiance Co\Zachrich 100 28 59 NAPBB $193,0002011 Rosedale Rd Defiance Co 75 28 32 SPBB $86,0002011 Bostater Rd Defiance Co 15 20 76Steel Beams In ProgressNAPBB‐Non composite adjacent prestressed box beamsNARBB‐Non composite adjacent reinforced box beams
2/14/2012
11
GeoSyntheticGeoSynthetic Reinforced SoilReinforced SoilIntegrated Bridge System (GRSIntegrated Bridge System (GRS‐‐IBS)IBS)
G. Randy Albert, P.E.Municipal Service SupervisorMunicipal Service SupervisorPennsylvania Department of
Transportation
Huston Township, Clearfield CountyMount Pleasant Road Bridge
2/14/2012
12
Municipal Services Unit Primary ResponsibilitiesMunicipal Services Unit Primary Responsibilities•Oversee allocation of Liquid Fuel funds given to municipalities.
Municipal Statistics•9 Counties•233 Municipalities4700 Miles of local roads
•Provide technical assistance for construction and maintenance on local roads and bridges.
4700 Miles of local roads.400 local bridges over 20 feet.120 local bridges between 8‐20 feet.
• The bridge was closed due to the deterioration!
ChallengesChallenges
• It is on a school bus route.
• The school district advised the municipality that it would not take the alternate route after October 31 due to the steepness of the road and the lack of guide rail as well as the extra distance.
• The Fish Commission mandated that no work in the stream be conducted after October 1 due to the trout spawning seasonconducted after October 1 due to the trout spawning season.
• Funding and time were at a premium!
2/14/2012
16
FHWA GRSFHWA GRS‐‐IBS ClaimsIBS Claims
“Cost 25 to 60 percent less than bridges built with t diti l th d ”traditional methods”
“GRS IBS uses common, readily available materials and equipment”
“Easier and faster to build:• “A bridge can be completed in weeks, not months”A bridge can be completed in weeks, not months
“Construction is much simpler with GRS IBS since it has fewer parts, involves basic earthwork methods and practice”
Huston Township Actual Project CostsHuston Township Actual Project Costs“Soup to Nuts”
Permitting: $5,273.75Excavation Contractor $12 364 00Excavation Contractor $12,364.00(removal, disposal, excavation, backfilling)Timber Superstructure $28,165.00Concrete Blocks (including delivery) $3,696.15Geotextile $2,850.00Aggregate (2RC and AASTO 8) $8,807.40Aggregate (Rip Rap) $4,509.00Miscellaneous $5,282.70(filter bags, filter sock, concrete, coffer dam, tool rental, rebar, lumber, ( g , , , , , , ,plastic, tools)Bituminous Paving $15,429.84Guide Rail (contracted out) $6,290.40Township Labor $ 9,225.67
Total Cost $101,893.91
2/14/2012
17
PENNDOT Box Culvert and Bridge Beam Projects $150,000District 2‐0 Maintenance Force Project2011 Costs vary from $95,000 to $265,000District 2‐0 is using $185,000 for 2012 estimates
Actual Cost: $133,000 (without paving costs)
Local Project Box Culvert (no paving costs) $194,000Locally bid and built with local forcesActual project in Genesee Township, Potter County
Contracted Design and Construction Box Culverts $500,000+
Vertical Height:
Less than
FHWA GRSFHWA GRS‐‐IBS Implementation IBS Implementation GuidelinesGuidelines
Less than 30 feet
Maximum Length:
140 feetBearing Stress:
4 000 lb/sf4,000 lb/sfmax.
Layer Spacing:
Less than 12”
Example of Potential SavingsExample of Potential SavingsComparison of Similar Sized StructuresComparison of Similar Sized Structures
Total Local Bridgesin District 2 0 Less that 50’
Rated less than 20 tons:
82
32 32 Potential Potential
candidates!candidates!
in District 2‐0(>20’ length)
399
All 32 are less than 400 ADT
with 28 less than 100 ADT!
Length
274
82
Rates less than 50 sufficiency:
59
100 ADT!
Substructure rating less than 5:
32
2/14/2012
18
Potential Saving to Local Projects Potential Saving to Local Projects by Utilizing GRSby Utilizing GRS‐‐IBSIBS
C d M i F P j• Compared to Maintenance Force Projects32 bridges @ $48,000.00 = $1,536,000
• Compared to Equivalent Municipal project32 bridges @ $92,000.00 = $2,944,000
• Compared to ECMS Type project32 bridges @ $398,000.00 = $12,736,000
• How many additional local bridge projects can we complete with these types of savings?
• How often do we seek funding that is not available?
Huston Township: 35 DaysActual abutment construction time: 6 days!
Total time of road closure: 112 days
Labor:The project was constructed completely with local forces with the exception of a
rented excavator and guide rail contractor. Paving was subcontracted to an adjacent
local municipality.Material:Common materials included geotextile,
concrete blocks, aggregate, t i i
Equipment:concrete, rip rap, paving
and guide rail.All equipment was either owned by the township or rented locally. Only the
excavator was subcontracted due to the reach requirements.
2/14/2012
19
FHWA GRSFHWA GRS‐‐IBS ClaimsIBS Claims “Cost 25 to 60 percent less than bridges built with
traditional methods”traditional methods”
“GRS IBS uses common, readily available materials and equipment”
“Easier and faster to build:• “A bridge can be completed in weeks, not months”
“Construction is much simpler with GRS IBS since it has fewer parts, involves basic earthwork methods and practice”
Future Challenges in PennsylvaniaFuture Challenges in PennsylvaniaSeeking approval by PENNDOT
• New Products for Low Volume Roads– Publication 447– Local Roads Only
• Approval for PENNDOT bridges
Perceived concerns still to be addressed for approvals.
• Scour Potential – Refer to HEC 18 & 23
• Facing Stability – Refer to “pull out tests” in FHWA Synthesis Report
• Depth of Reinforced Soil Foundation
Keep it Simple and Keep it Economical!
Huston Township pClearfield County
GRS‐IBSA Solution that works!
Local DiscussionLocal Discussion
2/14/2012
20
N ti l Q ti &N ti l Q ti &National Question & National Question & Answer PeriodAnswer Period
Please use your phone or chat pod to t tienter your questions.
GeosyntheticGeosynthetic Reinforced SoilReinforced SoilIntegrated Bridge System (GRSIntegrated Bridge System (GRS‐‐IBS)IBS)
Brian P. Keierleber P.E. Buchanan County EngineerBuchanan County Engineer Buchanan County, Iowa
. Many of Our Bridges Are OldMany of Our Bridges Are Old
2/14/2012
21
What We are Faced WithWhat We are Faced With Our System Cannot Meet Today’s DemandsOur System Cannot Meet Today’s Demands
Without Enforcement and Without Enforcement and Legislation Our Problems Will GrowLegislation Our Problems Will Grow
Avalanche Double‐Auger Grain Carts –Brent Grain HandlingProduct Specifications
April 4, 2011 Reports of 2‐770 gal
manure tanks crossing 22 ton bridge loaded
April 7, 2011 reports of a
Model 2094 1594 1394 1194
Capacity –bushels (mt)
2,000 (51) 1,500 (38) 1,300 (33) 1,100 (28)
Unloading Speed‐bu/mn
1,000 800 800 800
Appx. Empty Weight – lbs (kg)
32,700 (14,832)
25,200 (11,430)
18975 (8607)
15,950(7233)
Appx. Loaded Tongue Weight –lbs (kg)
6,000 (2722)
5,500(2495
5,375 (2438)
5,200 (2395)
Overall Width (m) 13’11 (4.24)
13’ (3.96) 12’ (3.66) 12’ (3.66)
Product Specifications
semi crossing a 3 ton bridge
( )
Overall Length(m)
37’10” (11.53)
43’2” (10.41)
30’10” (9.40)
30’10” (9.40)
Transport Height(m)
12’ (3.66) 12’9” (3.89)
12’8” (3.86)
12’2” (3.7)
Height Loading Side (m)
11’ (3.35) 11’5” (3.48)
11’4” (3.45)
10’10” (3.3)
Auger Height –Adj. (m)
10’9” –16’6” (3.28‐5.03)
10’5”‐15’11” (3.18‐4.85)
10’5”‐15’11” (3.18‐4.85)
10’5”‐15’11” (3.18‐4.85)
Vertical
We Have Not Kept Up with We Have Not Kept Up with Modern AgricultureModern Agriculture
Note: Loaded Semi
22 Ton Posting For a Semi
2/14/2012
22
Postings Do NOT WorkPostings Do NOT WorkA Different Approach To A Different Approach To
Constructing GRS AbutmentsConstructing GRS Abutments
Start At The BaseStart At The Base
Settlement Monitor Plate
Start With 2 Layers Start With 2 Layers 1 As A Curtain Wall1 As A Curtain Wall
2/14/2012
23
Compact 8” LiftsCompact 8” Lifts Level And Compact AgainLevel And Compact Again
Complete One SideComplete One Side Excavate for Curtain WallExcavate for Curtain Wall
2/14/2012
24
RipRapRipRap Tie Tie RipRapRipRap Under StructureUnder Structure
Place Curtain Wall Past AbutmentPlace Curtain Wall Past Abutment Set SuperstructureSet Superstructure
2/14/2012
25
Completed BridgeCompleted Bridge EVALUATE the PROCESSEVALUATE the PROCESS
Lets Learn MoreLets Learn More Various OptionsVarious OptionsDesign for the Location
Expansion Joint
Flexible Facing –Wrapped Geosynthetics, Concrete Blocks,
Gabions, or Timber, etc.
Rigid Facing –Sheet pile walls, Pre‐Cast or Cast‐In Place Concrete
Walls
73 ft long Rail Road Flat Car Bridge
Spread Footing Foundation
Rock Fill for Scour/ErosionProtection
Reinforcement Length
Flexible wrapped geosyntheticfacing
Expansion Joint
Hoods Bridge, Buchanan County Boone Bridge, Boone TR‐568, IHRB Project
2/14/2012
26
Subsurface ConditionsSubsurface Conditions
8 in
250th Street West
Previous RoadElevation
1.6
ft
Final Road Elevation
68.5 ft long Rail Road Flat Car
B-1(I li t
6.7 in thick Gravel
GravelBackfill11 ft
6.7 in
Steel BlocksNeoprene Pad
3.81
ft
3 ft
4.5
ft
28 in
7 4 ft
Lift 1
Lift 2
Lift 3
Lift 4
Lift 5
Lift 6
Semi-conductorEPC's
Vibrating wireEPC's
Semi-conductorEPC at center line
Vibrating wire EPC's at center, left, and rightunder the footing
ReinforcedConcrete Footing
Front-Face of theConcrete AbutmentWall
(Inclinometerbottom at 12.5 ft below
this surface)
Waterlevelmeasured duringSummer 2010
B-3(Piezometer)
10 in
6.8
ft
ST
ST
ST
PA
Dark Brownto Dark Gray Brown Sandy
Clay
Rock/Concrete?
2.4 ft
7.4 ft
Waterlevel measuredduring construction
ST
B
B
B
Concrete?
Brown ClayeySand
Brown GraySandy LeanClay (Glacial
Till)
ST - Shelby Tube SamplePA - Power AugerB - Bulk Sample
NE-SW Direction
Cumulative Deflection (in)
-0.4 -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.40
SE-NW Direction
Cumulative Deflection (in)
-0.4 -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.40
Boring 1
Y D
ata
2
4
6
8
2
4
6
8
After ExcavationAfter Sheet PilingAfter Fill Compaction
NESE
NWSW
Bottom of Excavation
8
10
12
14
8
10
12
14
SW NE NW SE
Towards Excavation
Away from Excavation
Towards Excavation
Away from Excavation
NE
Inclinometer about2 ft away from excavation
Lift 6
Lift 5Lift 4
Lift 3Lift 2
Lift 1
Light Weight Deflectometer (LWD) Tests on each lift to measure Modulus
2/14/2012
27
Completed AbutmentsCompleted Abutments My ReferenceMy Reference
Why Use GRS Abutments?Why Use GRS Abutments?
THEY SAVE MONEY AND TIMEHow?They may eliminate the need for a Crane on site for any extended timeframeAny Local Crews can build one with commonly
il bl i tavailable equipmentEliminates the need for H‐pile
2/14/2012
28
GRSGRS‐‐IBS Technology IBS Technology A User’s Perspective A User’s Perspective
Toby Bogart, P.E.Superintendent of HighwaysSuperintendent of HighwaysSt. Lawrence County, NY
Our SituationOur Situation
• Learned of Technology ‐ June 2009• Contacted FHWA ‐ July 2009• Used Defiance County, OH as model
Our SituationOur Situation
• Bridge Designed ‐ August 2009• Began Construction ‐ September 21, 2009• Construction Complete ‐ October 23, 2009
• Original jack arch construction built in 1932
Our First CandidateOur First Candidate
• Subsequent steel beams and concrete deck widening added over hand laid stone and gunnitewingwall extensions in 19791979
• There were two NYSDOT inspection flags on this bridge at the time, one being a Safety PIA Flag
2/14/2012
29
Beginning RSFBeginning RSF Beginning GRS WallBeginning GRS Wall
Precast Beams PlacedPrecast Beams Placed Approach CompleteApproach Complete
Poured Concrete in voids to tiePoured Concrete in voids to tie top courses together
2/14/2012
30
VersatileVersatile
Can drive steel guiderail posts through it
4’
g
Attractive Finished ProductAttractive Finished Product
We Tried It We Tried It –– We Liked It!We Liked It! County Route 12County Route 12
2/14/2012
31
County Route 12County Route 12 Lessons LearnedLessons Learned
Increase span to stay behind existing abutment
Minor increase in cost due to span length offset by savings from lack of cofferdam
Crews can usually install RSF in dryCrews can usually install RSF in dry conditions without constructing a cofferdam
Lessons LearnedLessons Learned
Environmental permitting shortened to 10 days for General Permit
Construction more expensive in water
Simple Sheet PlansSimple Sheet Plans
2/14/2012
32
Integrated Bridge SystemIntegrated Bridge System
How is it performing?How is it performing?
CR12 o. Malterna Creek – 40’‐6” Span
2009 Bridges2009 Bridges
2010 Bridges2010 BridgesCR24 o. Leonard Brook – 47’ SpanCR35 o. Trout Brook – 66’‐8” SpanCR31 B d B k 55’ 8” SCR31 o. Brandy Brook – 55’‐8” SpanCR38 o. Plum Brook – 63’‐6” Span
2011 Bridges2011 Bridges
CR60 o. Little River – 65’‐8” SpanC 2 G i 1’ 8” SCR27 o. N. Br. Grasse River – 71’‐8” Span
Fraser Road o. Oswegatchie River – 85’ SpanCR25 o. Little River – 87’‐8” Span
CR40 o. Hutchins Creek – 51’‐2” SpanCR3 o. Chippewa Creek – 95’ Span ‐
River Road o. Trout Brook – 89’ +/‐ Span
2/14/2012
33
CR47 o. Trout Brook (IBRD) – 110’‐0” Span
2012 Bridges2012 Bridges
CR20 o. Tanner Creek – 65’‐0” Span Proposed
Project Cost and Time ExamplesProject Cost and Time Examples
CR27 o. N. Br. Grasse River – 71’‐8” Span• Material Cost $238 256• Material Cost ‐ $238,256• Labor and Equip. Cost ‐ $82,508• Schedule – Closed May 16, 2011 – Open June 23, 2010
CR40 o. Hutchins Creek – 51’‐2” Span• Material Cost ‐ $197,156• Labor and Equip. Cost ‐ $55,206• Schedule – Closed June 6, 2011 – Open July 7, 2011
CR3 o. Chippewa Creek – 95’‐0” Span• Material Cost ‐ $275 319
Project Cost and Time ExamplesProject Cost and Time Examples
• Material Cost ‐ $275,319• Labor and Equip. Cost ‐ $97,791• Schedule – Closed August 8, 2011 – Open Sept. 20, 2010
CR24 o. Leonard Brook – 47’‐0” Span• Material Cost ‐ $158,470• Labor and Equip. Cost – $73,652• Schedule – Closed June 1, 2010 – Open June 24, 2010
ConclusionsConclusions
Adaptable, Fast, Less weather sensitive
Good fit for headwalls, roadside walls, and abutments
Good performance and lower cost
Very small real settlement
2/14/2012
34
System can be used to replace approx. 50%, or 100 f b id
ConclusionsConclusions
approx. 100, of our bridges
NO BRIDGE BUMP
12 out of 12 no crack at the approach
We have learned through our experience and g pestimate we are saving consistently 50%
Test data and field data on performance match well
ConclusionsConclusions
well
Consistent project duration, 5‐6 weeks close to open
GeosyntheticGeosynthetic Reinforced SoilReinforced SoilIntegrated Bridge SystemIntegrated Bridge System
Michael AdamsResearch Geotechnical EngineerResearch Geotechnical EngineerFederal Highway Administration
Looking Forward“Innovation isn’t what innovators do…“Innovation isn’t what innovators do…it’s what customers and clients adopt”it’s what customers and clients adopt”
‐Michael Schrage
2/14/2012
35
Evolution of Reinforced Soil Evolution of Reinforced Soil
Great Wall of China
Great Ziggurats 1000 BC
200 BC
1960
GRSUSFS Walls
Steel strips (MSE)
MSE Wall Specs
1980Generic Frictional Connection
Reinforced Soil Foundation
1970 Geosynthetics
1960
Abutments and Piers
Rock Fall Barriers
Arches
Integrated Bridge System
1990
2000
2010
Negative Batter Walls
SummarySummary
Defiance County, Ohio
Since October 2010, a total of 68 GRS‐IBS projects in 28 states at some stage of development
e a ce Cou ty, O o• Built 24 bridges with excellent performance• Building 2 bridges for the price of one
Huston Township, Pennsylvania• Great first experience • Seeking approval for the IBS from PennDOT
St. Lawrence County, New Yorky,• Built 12 bridges with excellent performance• Consistently saving ~50%
Buchanan County, Iowa• Tailored GRS technology for their use• Saving time and money
Common ElementsCommon Elements
Opportunity to innovate Fi ll ibl ith li it d b d t Fiscally responsible with a limited budget ProactiveGRS‐IBS has become the 1st choice for their bridge selection
• Save time• Save money • Build better bridges• Local labor forces used• Simple technology
Simplicity of GRSSimplicity of GRS
• Three main materials • Easy to constructEasy to construct• Good performance• High load capacity• Durable
2/14/2012
36
GRS Walls and TunnelsGRS Walls and Tunnels
55 ft
Negative Batter GRS WallsNegative Batter GRS Walls
GRS ArchesGRS Arches GRS GRS RockfallRockfall BarriersBarriers
2/14/2012
37
GRS in Urban EnvironmentGRS in Urban Environment Related Research Activities Related Research Activities
• Performance Tests • Testing AASHTO Aggregates• Testing AASHTO Aggregates • Scour Countermeasure Study• Instrumentation and Monitoring• Innovative Bridge Research Projects • Seismic Performance of GRS
Ab t t NCHRP 12 59 (1)Abutments – NCHRP 12‐59 (1)
Technical BarriersTechnical Barriers
• Confusion with MSESh ll f d ti• Shallow foundation
• Scour
Cultural BarriersCultural Barriers
Fear of failure Resistance to change Resistance to change
• Past experience and comfort level• Training required• Rules and regulations (i.e. AASHTO)
2/14/2012
38
You Are the PioneersYou Are the Pioneers
• Technology can be immediately used for your bridge systembridge system
• Lead the way!
More InformationMore Information
• Construction training videoM l• Manual
• NHI Real Solutions Seminars• LTAP Centers• Contact the speakers • Contact local FHWA Division Office
Links to these materials are provided on the EDC Exchange handout
Local DiscussionLocal DiscussionN ti l Q ti &N ti l Q ti &National Question & National Question &
Answer PeriodAnswer PeriodPlease use your phone or chat pod to
t tienter your questions.