Bulb_T Beam As Alternate ABC to Side-By-Side Box- Beam

Print
General Information
Solicitation Number: 1264
Status: End Solicitation Phase
Date Posted: May 21, 2010
Last Updated: Nov 20, 2015
Solicitation Expires: May 21, 2011
Partners: IADOT, MI, MN, OR, WI
Lead Organization: Michigan Department of Transportation
Financial Summary
Commitment Start Year: 2011
Commitment End Year: 2015
100% SP&R Approval: Approved
Commitments Required: $360,000.00
Commitments Received: $415,500.00
Contact Information
Lead Study Contact(s): Andre' Clover
clovera@michigan.gov
FHWA Technical Liaison(s): Benjamin Graybeal
benjamin.graybeal@dot.gov
Phone: 202-493-3122
Organization Year Commitments Technical Contact Name Funding Contact Name Contact Number Email Address
Iowa Department of Transportation 2011 $15,000.00 Ahmad Abu-Hawash Cheryl Cowie 515-239-1447 Cheryl.Cowie@iowadot.us
Iowa Department of Transportation 2012 $15,000.00 Ahmad Abu-Hawash Cheryl Cowie 515-239-1447 Cheryl.Cowie@iowadot.us
Iowa Department of Transportation 2013 $15,000.00 Ahmad Abu-Hawash Cheryl Cowie 515-239-1447 Cheryl.Cowie@iowadot.us
Iowa Department of Transportation 2014 $17,500.00 Ahmad Abu-Hawash Cheryl Cowie 515-239-1447 Cheryl.Cowie@iowadot.us
Michigan Department of Transportation 2011 $70,000.00 David Juntunen Andre' Clover 517-749-9001 clovera@michigan.gov
Michigan Department of Transportation 2012 $76,000.00 David Juntunen Andre' Clover 517-749-9001 clovera@michigan.gov
Michigan Department of Transportation 2013 $0.00 David Juntunen Andre' Clover 517-749-9001 clovera@michigan.gov
Michigan Department of Transportation 2014 $27,000.00 David Juntunen Andre' Clover 517-749-9001 clovera@michigan.gov
Michigan Department of Transportation 2015 $0.00 David Juntunen Andre' Clover 517-749-9001 clovera@michigan.gov
Minnesota Department of Transportation 2011 $15,000.00 Dave Conkel Lisa Jansen 651-366-3779 lisa.jansen@state.mn.us
Minnesota Department of Transportation 2012 $15,000.00 Dave Conkel Lisa Jansen 651-366-3779 lisa.jansen@state.mn.us
Minnesota Department of Transportation 2013 $15,000.00 Dave Conkel Lisa Jansen 651-366-3779 lisa.jansen@state.mn.us
Minnesota Department of Transportation 2014 $15,000.00 Dave Conkel Lisa Jansen 651-366-3779 lisa.jansen@state.mn.us
Oregon Department of Transportation 2011 $20,000.00 Benjamin Tang Joe Li 503-986-4115 Xiugang.Li@odot.state.or.us
Oregon Department of Transportation 2012 $20,000.00 Benjamin Tang Joe Li 503-986-4115 Xiugang.Li@odot.state.or.us
Oregon Department of Transportation 2013 $20,000.00 Benjamin Tang Joe Li 503-986-4115 Xiugang.Li@odot.state.or.us
Oregon Department of Transportation 2014 $0.00 Benjamin Tang Joe Li 503-986-4115 Xiugang.Li@odot.state.or.us
Wisconsin Department of Transportation 2012 $20,000.00 Dave Kiekbusch Lori Richter 608-264-8435 lori.richter@dot.wi.gov
Wisconsin Department of Transportation 2013 $20,000.00 Dave Kiekbusch Lori Richter 608-264-8435 lori.richter@dot.wi.gov
Wisconsin Department of Transportation 2014 $20,000.00 Dave Kiekbusch Lori Richter 608-264-8435 lori.richter@dot.wi.gov

Background

Pre-stressed beams have been a popular beam of choice for building highway bridges in the Midwest since the early 1960s. Although these beam types are economical and are proven to carry traffic loads well, they are starting to show signs of distress, mostly from corrosion of the steel reinforcement that is caused by moisture contaminated with salt and chlorides. Salt used for deicing roadways causes chlorides to penetrate the beams and cause the steel reinforcement and pre-stressing strands to corrode. Some states use pre-stressed box beams because of their efficient cross-section and small beam depth to span ratio. Today, many of these structures are reaching the end of their service life, mainly because of corrosion of the steel reinforcement. In the harsh environment of the Midwest, where bridges are exposed to many freeze-thaw cycles and deicing salts it would be beneficial to have a bridge structure free from corrosion, easy to inspect, and a service life at least double that of current structures. Also; since mobility of the traveling public is a very important consideration when building or rehabilitating bridges, there is a need to develop a beam type that can be built using accelerated bridge construction techniques.

Objectives

To analyze and evaluate the decked bulb-T beam (or decked I- beam)as a viable replacement for the side-by-side box-beam bridge. The project's description uses the term bulb- T beam as a general description of an I- beam shape, with a wide top flange that can serve as a deck surface. For this type of beam to be a viable replacement to a box beam, it must have a very robust cross-section designed to have a shallow depth-to-span ratio; which makes it very different than the standard AASHTO section used by some states. The use of a bulb- T beam cross section would eliminate inherent problems associated with the ability to inspect and repair box-beam type structures. The Bulb-T beam cross-section will provide enough space at the section bottom for ease of periodical inspections and maintenance of critical elements; such as beam web and the suffit of the bridge deck slab.

Scope of Work

The purpose of this proposed study is to collaborate and share common interests with State DOT's in the Midwest area, and other research stakeholders, regarding alternative/innovative solution(s)to environmental and structural challenges in building and maintaining a sustainable transportation infrastructure. In correlation with analyzing the bulb- T beam this study includes comparing alternative non-corrosive materials, including, but not limited to carbon fiber, stainless steel and stainless clad reinforcement materials. The study's analysis and evaluation will include the evaluation of top flange connection details including the use of ultra high performance concrete (UHPC) to fill the joint between the adjacent decked bulb-t beams (as used in New York). The goal is to have a bridge structure with a service life exceeding 100 years, and have rapid construction applicability.

Comments

On May 31, 2011 the FHWA Michigan Division Office approved MDOT's request to amend the proposed study into the 2011 SPR- II Work Program. Our request has been forwarded to FHWA Headquarters for final approval and waiver of matching funds. Minimum contribution of $15,000 per year for each partner, for 4 years.

No document attached.

Bulb_T Beam As Alternate ABC to Side-By-Side Box- Beam

General Information
Solicitation Number: 1264
Status: End Solicitation Phase
Date Posted: May 21, 2010
Last Updated: Nov 20, 2015
Solicitation Expires: May 21, 2011
Partners: IADOT, MI, MN, OR, WI
Lead Organization: Michigan Department of Transportation
Financial Summary
Commitment Start Year: 2011
Commitment End Year: 2015
100% SP&R Approval: Approved
Commitments Required: $360,000.00
Commitments Received: $415,500.00
Contact Information
Lead Study Contact(s): Andre' Clover
clovera@michigan.gov
FHWA Technical Liaison(s): Benjamin Graybeal
benjamin.graybeal@dot.gov
Phone: 202-493-3122
Commitments by Organizations
Agency Year Commitments Technical Contact Name Funding Contact Name Contact Number Email Address
Iowa Department of Transportation 2011 $15,000.00 Ahmad Abu-Hawash Cheryl Cowie 515-239-1447 Cheryl.Cowie@iowadot.us
Iowa Department of Transportation 2012 $15,000.00 Ahmad Abu-Hawash Cheryl Cowie 515-239-1447 Cheryl.Cowie@iowadot.us
Iowa Department of Transportation 2013 $15,000.00 Ahmad Abu-Hawash Cheryl Cowie 515-239-1447 Cheryl.Cowie@iowadot.us
Iowa Department of Transportation 2014 $17,500.00 Ahmad Abu-Hawash Cheryl Cowie 515-239-1447 Cheryl.Cowie@iowadot.us
Michigan Department of Transportation 2011 $70,000.00 David Juntunen Andre' Clover 517-749-9001 clovera@michigan.gov
Michigan Department of Transportation 2012 $76,000.00 David Juntunen Andre' Clover 517-749-9001 clovera@michigan.gov
Michigan Department of Transportation 2013 $0.00 David Juntunen Andre' Clover 517-749-9001 clovera@michigan.gov
Michigan Department of Transportation 2014 $27,000.00 David Juntunen Andre' Clover 517-749-9001 clovera@michigan.gov
Michigan Department of Transportation 2015 $0.00 David Juntunen Andre' Clover 517-749-9001 clovera@michigan.gov
Minnesota Department of Transportation 2011 $15,000.00 Dave Conkel Lisa Jansen 651-366-3779 lisa.jansen@state.mn.us
Minnesota Department of Transportation 2012 $15,000.00 Dave Conkel Lisa Jansen 651-366-3779 lisa.jansen@state.mn.us
Minnesota Department of Transportation 2013 $15,000.00 Dave Conkel Lisa Jansen 651-366-3779 lisa.jansen@state.mn.us
Minnesota Department of Transportation 2014 $15,000.00 Dave Conkel Lisa Jansen 651-366-3779 lisa.jansen@state.mn.us
Oregon Department of Transportation 2011 $20,000.00 Benjamin Tang Joe Li 503-986-4115 Xiugang.Li@odot.state.or.us
Oregon Department of Transportation 2012 $20,000.00 Benjamin Tang Joe Li 503-986-4115 Xiugang.Li@odot.state.or.us
Oregon Department of Transportation 2013 $20,000.00 Benjamin Tang Joe Li 503-986-4115 Xiugang.Li@odot.state.or.us
Oregon Department of Transportation 2014 $0.00 Benjamin Tang Joe Li 503-986-4115 Xiugang.Li@odot.state.or.us
Wisconsin Department of Transportation 2012 $20,000.00 Dave Kiekbusch Lori Richter 608-264-8435 lori.richter@dot.wi.gov
Wisconsin Department of Transportation 2013 $20,000.00 Dave Kiekbusch Lori Richter 608-264-8435 lori.richter@dot.wi.gov
Wisconsin Department of Transportation 2014 $20,000.00 Dave Kiekbusch Lori Richter 608-264-8435 lori.richter@dot.wi.gov

Background

Pre-stressed beams have been a popular beam of choice for building highway bridges in the Midwest since the early 1960s. Although these beam types are economical and are proven to carry traffic loads well, they are starting to show signs of distress, mostly from corrosion of the steel reinforcement that is caused by moisture contaminated with salt and chlorides. Salt used for deicing roadways causes chlorides to penetrate the beams and cause the steel reinforcement and pre-stressing strands to corrode. Some states use pre-stressed box beams because of their efficient cross-section and small beam depth to span ratio. Today, many of these structures are reaching the end of their service life, mainly because of corrosion of the steel reinforcement. In the harsh environment of the Midwest, where bridges are exposed to many freeze-thaw cycles and deicing salts it would be beneficial to have a bridge structure free from corrosion, easy to inspect, and a service life at least double that of current structures. Also; since mobility of the traveling public is a very important consideration when building or rehabilitating bridges, there is a need to develop a beam type that can be built using accelerated bridge construction techniques.

Objectives

To analyze and evaluate the decked bulb-T beam (or decked I- beam)as a viable replacement for the side-by-side box-beam bridge. The project's description uses the term bulb- T beam as a general description of an I- beam shape, with a wide top flange that can serve as a deck surface. For this type of beam to be a viable replacement to a box beam, it must have a very robust cross-section designed to have a shallow depth-to-span ratio; which makes it very different than the standard AASHTO section used by some states. The use of a bulb- T beam cross section would eliminate inherent problems associated with the ability to inspect and repair box-beam type structures. The Bulb-T beam cross-section will provide enough space at the section bottom for ease of periodical inspections and maintenance of critical elements; such as beam web and the suffit of the bridge deck slab.

Scope of Work

The purpose of this proposed study is to collaborate and share common interests with State DOT's in the Midwest area, and other research stakeholders, regarding alternative/innovative solution(s)to environmental and structural challenges in building and maintaining a sustainable transportation infrastructure. In correlation with analyzing the bulb- T beam this study includes comparing alternative non-corrosive materials, including, but not limited to carbon fiber, stainless steel and stainless clad reinforcement materials. The study's analysis and evaluation will include the evaluation of top flange connection details including the use of ultra high performance concrete (UHPC) to fill the joint between the adjacent decked bulb-t beams (as used in New York). The goal is to have a bridge structure with a service life exceeding 100 years, and have rapid construction applicability.

Comments

On May 31, 2011 the FHWA Michigan Division Office approved MDOT's request to amend the proposed study into the 2011 SPR- II Work Program. Our request has been forwarded to FHWA Headquarters for final approval and waiver of matching funds. Minimum contribution of $15,000 per year for each partner, for 4 years.

No document attached.

Currently, Transportation Pooled Fund is not supported on mobile devices, please access this Web portal using a desktop or laptop computer.