 Case Study #6 will investigate construction of a new viaduct located in

the median of an existing busy roadway.

 The material presented herein will be a continuation of the Case Study
Series entitled “Consideration for Prefabricated ABC Approach”, Case
Study #7. Prior to viewing this presentation, the audience is urged to
view Case Study #7, as it details the basis for this case study.

1
 The proposed viaduct will be built in the median of an existing multi-lane,
at-grade roadway.
 The bottom rendering shows the configuration of the new viaduct. It is
approximately ¾ of a mile in length, and consists of 26 spans supported
by 25 hammerhead piers.
 Due to the narrow existing median width, the new construction will
significantly overhang the existing roadway.
 With the existing roadway operating at capacity during peak hours, and
the limited right-of-way for traffic diversions, one of the largest challenges
of the project will be managing traffic during construction.

2
 This slide shows the relationship of existing traffic with regard to the new
viaduct. Since proposed construction overhangs the existing lanes, the
difficulties of traffic phasing can be envisioned.
 The table shown here indicates allowable traffic reductions versus time of
day.
 During peak hours, all lanes must be open to traffic, therefore a
limited amount of construction activities can be accomplished.
 During off-peak daytime hours, two lanes in each direction must
be maintained
 And during nighttime hours, one lane must remain open in each
direction
 Therefore the following assumptions will be made:
 Fo
Foundations
ndations and columns
col mns will
ill be constructed
constr cted during
d ring daytime
da time or
nighttime hours, with limited activities occurring during peak
hours.
 Pier cap construction, girder erection, and deck placement must
be conducted during nighttime hours, while lanes are shifted
outside of the construction limits.

3
 This slide will outline a conventional construction alternative which
adheres to the project constraints.
 The entire substructure will be assumed to consist of cast-in-place
construction. Therefore under this option, the only prefabricated
elements will be the prestressed girders.
 The table shown here outlines the major elements of construction, and
reflects the traffic restrictions listed in the prior slide.
 Noteworthy items which can only be constructed during nighttime
procedures are the pier caps and girder erection. This places severe
limitations to the substructure construction schedule, and will require
numerous nighttime traffic restrictions to just one lane in each direction.
 Conventional pier cap construction requires temporary supports for the
cap
p overhangs g to allow traffic beneath. This necessitates taller ppier
columns to provide minimum clearances, resulting in an overall increased
vertical profile for the viaduct.

4
 This slide outlines an option to use non-standard prefabricated elements
t construct
to t t a pieri segmentally.
t ll This
Thi will
ill achieve
hi a shorter
h t construction
t ti
schedule while significantly reducing impacts to traffic.
 Traffic restrictions will remain identical to the conventional construction
alternative, however a method of precasting the pier cap cantilevers and
joining them to the cast-in-place column via match cast joints will be
used. This method was described in the case study referenced at the
beginning of this presentation, and will not be repeated here in its
entirety.
 However as a brief recap, this is accomplished by using post-tensioning
bars embedded into the cast-in-place column cap as well as the precast
components. The precast pier cap segment on one side of the column is
then erected and coupled with post-tensioning bars. This operation
moves quickly, and several segments on the same side of the road can
be erected for several piers during a single nighttime closure.
 Following this procedure, the opposite side of the pier cap is erected in
the same manner. Once both sides of the cap are in place, permanent
post-tensioning tendons are stressed to finish the process.
 Building the pier cap cantilever pieces is the most restrictive process of
construction. Given the speed at which the precast members can be
erected, multiplied by the number of piers on the job, this process will
significantly benefit the construction schedule and traffic impacts.

5
 Direct cost for each alternative has been calculated by a construction
estimator. The rightmost columns indicate cost deltas between alternatives,
and list the prevailing reason for each difference.
 The largest cost difference can be seen in the top row of the table. This
represents the contractor’s general conditions, and reflects labor associated
for permanent employees such as the project manager, the superintendent,
and field engineers. It also accounts for field offices and other overhead
it
items i
incurred
d by
b the
th contractor.
t t Thi item
This it i heavily
is h il in
i favor
f off the
th
prefabricated alternate, and is a direct result of a reduced construction
schedule.
 The conventional and prefabricated alternative schedules are 36 months
and 30 months, respectively. Therefore, reducing the schedule by 6 months
indicates a $1.2 million dollar cost savings in the contractor’s general
conditions and is primarily composed of labor savings.
conditions, savings
 The third row represents cost associated with pier construction.
Surprisingly, cost associated with the prefabricated option is actually less
than the conventional option. This is also a result of reduced labor, and will
be explained in further detail on the following slide.
 Total price of bridge construction is approximately 4% less for the
prefabricated alternative,
alternative or $1.7
$1 7 million dollars.
dollars This is an interesting
conclusion, as prefabricated methods are often perceived as more costly.

6
 This slide indicates how the cost of the pier columns and piers caps were
determined. Cost has been divided into labor, material, and equipment
costs. To gain a better comparison, all foundation costs are excluded from
these numbers.
 Labor costs associated with the conventional alternative are approximately
$1.5 million dollars higher than the prefabricated alternative. The largest
factor is due to labor required for setting up and dismantling the complex
f l
falseworkk system
t t supportt the
to th cast-in-place
ti l pier
i caps. The
Th second d factor
f t
is associated with more labor required for a greater cast-in-place concrete
quantity versus the prefabricated alternate.
 Not surprisingly, material costs are approximately $1.1 million dollars
higher for the prefabricated alternative. This is due to the higher cost of
precast concrete, as well as the addition of post-tensioning versus the
conventional alternate.
alternate
 Equipment costs are similar for both options.
 Total cost is given in the last column of the table, and indicates an almost
½ million dollar decrease in substructure cost for the prefabricated alternate.

7
 This slide outlines the overall indirect cost associated with construction.
The number and type of lane closures have been divided into three
categories, and are as follows:
 off-peak daytime single lane closures for both directions of traffic
 nighttime double lane closures for a single direction of traffic
 and nighttime double lane closures for both directions of traffic
 As expected,
expected the prefabricated alternative will require fewer lane closures.
closures
This is due to the ability to erect multiple pier cap segments within a single
closure, as well as the lack of falsework assembly and dismantling.
 Overall, the prefabricated alternate saves approximately $8.9 million
dollars of indirect cost.

8
 In summary, the total direct and indirect costs are shown here for each
scenario.
 The prefabricated alternative indicates a cost advantage in both
categories. Direct cost savings are primarily due to a shortened construction
schedule and elimination of the complex pier falsework system required for
the conventional option. Indirect cost savings were realized due to fewer
required lane closures.
 Therefore the prefabricated alternative produces an overall savings of
$10.6 million dollars.

9
 This slide presents three scenarios of how the direct cost is influenced by
changes in the bridge length and width.
 If one were to assume a very long viaduct, say 10 miles in length:
 There would be 350 piers resulting in 1400 precast segments.
 This larger amount of segments allow more efficient precast pier
production rates and a greater direct cost savings can be achieved.
 This is approximated as an 8% savings in direct cost using prefabricated
construction or about double that of the ¾ mile long viaduct.
 In contrast, if one assumed bridge construction shortened to only three spans:
 There would be only 2 piers resulting in 8 precast segments.
 With only 8 segments, the upfront cost of the precast pier operation and
inefficiencies of working through a learning curve significantly increases the
total direct cost per square foot of the prefabricated alternative.
 Lastly, if we assume the bridge width decreases, the pier cap cantilevers shorten
resulting in a reduction in cost of the falsework for the cast-in-place pier cap.
Therefore, a more narrow bridge benefits the conventional alternative.

10