ODOT/ACEC Partnering AwardExcellence in Highway Design

2019 Nomination Template

Project Nomination Deadline: March 15, 2019District Capital Program Administrator Final Submission Deadline:

March 21, 2019

transportation.ohio.govwww.acecohio.org

Please direct any additional questions to: Mat Mauger | Office of Consultant Services | 614-644-0623 | M at . M a u g e r @ d o t.o h i o . g ov

The nomination process has two steps:1) Consultants and/or ODOT Employees complete a draft nomination using this Word template

o Draft nominations (in MS Word format) are to be emailed to the respective ODOT District Capital Program Administrator (see the map and table below) by Friday, March 15, 2019

Please save this file using unique name(s) for your nomination(s) to avoid confusion and overwriting issues. Completed document should be no more than 25 total pages, maximum (not including the embedded picture

pages). All requested images should be included using the Picture fields available with the specific questions. Do not submit hard copies of any nomination materials, attach additional documents and do not send CD-

ROMs. Many entry fields in this form accept ‘Rich Text’ formatted material, but reformatting directly in the fields is

limited/restricted due to the templated nature of this presentation. Copying and pasting of formatted text, including bulleted text, indents, font size, etc., from other unrestricted Word files or other documents is possible and acceptable.

2) District Capital Program Administrators use this portal link (ODOT Intranet Only) to submit pre-screened/completed nomination Word format document(s) by Thursday, March 21, 2019

o Please save file(s) using unique name(s) for each nomination to avoid confusion and overwriting issues.o Each district may submit a maximum of two (2) submissions per category for final review

Please direct any additional questions to: Mat Mauger | Office of Consultant Services | 614-644-0623 | M at . M a u g e r @ d o t.o h i o . g ov

ODOT DISTRICTCAPITAL PROGRAM ADMINISTRATORS

D-1: Chris Hughes(419) 999-6901

chris.hughes@dot.ohio.gov

D-2: Mike Gramza(419) 373-4466

mike.gramza@dot.ohio.govD-3: Bob Weaver

(419) 207-7158b o b . w e a v e r@ d o t . oh i o . g ov

D-4: Gery Noirot(330) 786-2270

gery.noirot@dot.ohio.govD-5: Julie Gwinn(740) 323-5240

julie.gwinn@dot.ohio.gov

D-6: Thom Slack(740) 833-8340

th o m .sla c k @ d o t . o h i o .g o v D-7: Matt Parrill(937) 497-6802

m a t t. par r i l l @ d o t . o h io. gov

D-8: Stefan Spinosa(513) 933-6639

st e f a n .s p i nos a @ d o t. o h i o .g o v D-9: Christopher

Pridemore(740) 774-9067

D-10: Eric Reed(740) 568-3951

eric.reed@dot.ohio.govD-11: Nick Susich

(330) 308-3996nick.susich@dot.ohio.gov

D-12: Dave Lastovka (216) 584-2115

Dave.Lastovka@dot.ohio.gov

Project Nomination Form

Project Name: MOT-75-1164E

Project PID: 93318

Consultant Agreement No.: 17358

County or Municipality: Montgomery County

ODOT District: ODOT District 7

Consultant Name: EMH&T

Category for which project is being nominated Category 1: Construction Value - $0 to $5,000,000

Construction Value $1.85 Million

Construction Project Number 16-0536

Dates of PS&E, Letting and Construction Completion

PS&E: 7/11/2016Letting: 10/6/2016Construction Completion: 7/14/2018

Name of Organization Submitting ODOT District 7

Contact person for award-related material/submittal (Name, email, phone,

mailing address)

Sandra Doyle-Ahern, HYPERLINK "mailto:Sdoyleahern@emht.com"Sdoyleahern@emht.com, 614-775-45005500 New Albany Road, Columbus, Ohio 43054

1

Region Contact Person and their role Ed Kagel, EMH&T Director of TransportationMatt Parrill, ODOT D7 CPA

Project Personnel and their roles, including significant players from bureaus

(e.g. Structures), agencies, consultants, etc.

Design Consultant: EMH&T (Craig Schrader, Tyler Adams)Contractor: Complete General Construction CompanyODOT Construction Engineer: Michelle PorrODOT Design Project Manager: Sherry Wampler-LeyODOT Bridge Design Review: Matthew Blythe

Award Ceremony Information:

Person(s) accepting award at ceremony (Name, Email, phone)

Craig Schrader, EMH&T, HYPERLINK "mailto:cschrader@emht.com"cschrader@emht.com, 614-775-4632Tyler Adams, EMH&T, tadams@emht.com, 614-775-4636

Names to show on certificate, up to 6 persons and their

companies or roles

EMH&T: Craig Schrader, Tyler AdamsODOT: Matt Blythe, Sherry Wampler-Ley, Michelle PorrComplete General: Tom Fogle

One JPG image to be used on certificate

2

Executive Summary:

Overall purpose, goals, and design methodology

The primary goal of the project was to replace the existing non-composite bridge deck due to its deteriorated condition, thus prolong the useful life of the bridge. The design was advanced with the understanding that numerous adjacent projects in the US-35 / IR-75 interchange were under construction, or would be under construction during the project timeline. Additionally, the limited roadway and deck widths necessitated a part-width construction procedure throughout the duration of the project as full-closure was undesirable.

Highlight any unique aspects of the project

The existing 6 span continuous steel beam bridge was constructed in 1968 and as part of the US-35 / IR-75 Interchange, just south of Downtown Dayton. The bridge geometry is “Y-shaped” and includes variable spaced and diverging girder lines, variable substructure span lengths and skews, and intermediate hinges (a common detail of the era). As part of EMH&T’s scope of services the deteriorated existing deck was to be replaced with a composite deck under a part-width construction phasing due to the sensitive nature site location within the existing interchange.

Due to limited deck widths, the deck construction joint location was adjacent to an existing drop beamline which resulted in excessive temporary deck overhangs in areas where the drop beam terminated. The drop beamline was extended to full-length by means of removal of the existing diaphragm with a bolted field splice connecting the existing beam end to the new beam extension. This beam extension eliminated the temporary deck overhand and allow for part-width construction without the need for complex cantilever supports.

An additional complexity of the project was due to the desire to increase the superelevation to meet current ODOT Design Standards for the roadway design speed. This superelection increase necessitated complex haunch depth analysis due to the complex and variable superstructure framing, which resulted in haunch depth that varied from 1.75” minimum to reinforced haunches over 9”.

3

The presence of intermediate hinges in the bridge superstructure and sensitive nature of these structural details during deck removals was extensively analyzed by the project team to ensure safety. As part of the analysis each unique beamline was analyzed for all phases of removals and proposed construction to confirm that an uplift condition was never achieved at any of the intermediate hinge locations. Construction loads were also approximated and added in areas where they would exacerbate the potential uplift effect.

Another unique aspect of the project was the significant coordination required throughout the design. EMH&T coordinated with the District to ensure the project construction and phasing fit with the multiple adjacent projects in the IR 75/US 35 Interchange. This was a major driver in the maintenance of traffic scheme for the project, necessitating the bridge be built in two phases and which phase be constructed first, as well as the overall timeline of the project construction. EMH&T also coordinated with the design consultant, Mead & Hunt, for the adjacent MOT-75-1174 bridge which is a continuation of the MOT-75-1164E bridge. The bridges superstructures are connected at an intermediate hinge on the westbound ramp. Coordination with Mead & Hunt included modifications to the super elevation rates, cross slopes of the deck, travel way location (delineated by modified pavement striping), and temporary conditions at the intermediate hinge between construction for the two bridges. All items were coordinated in design such that construction for both projects.

4

Judging Criteria:

A. Project Development Process

1 Project development schedule maintained

a. Consultant completion schedule, scoped vs. actual

Milestones Actual AgreementConsultant Authorized: 1/23/13Stage 3 Plan Submitted: 8/17/15 8/28/15Tracings Complete: 3/29/16 4/01/16PS&E: 7/11/16 8/07/17

2 Effective comment and conflict resolution process

Identification of conflicting issues and thorough communication to resolve the conflicts was present throughout the project.

3 Cooperative and effective project management

Project participants functioned as a team, coordinated with adjacent projects and ODOT D7, and provided solutions to complex design and construction components.

There were a lot of moving parts during design due to the location of this structure within the USR 35 / IR 75 interchange and its proximity to the large scale downtown Dayton Modernization projects, as well as other projects within the interchange ramps which were under design and / or construction at any given time.

EMH&T worked with the district’s bridge design engineer to flip the beam line late in design, which saved the department time and money in construction, but EMH&T did not ask for time in the schedule.

EMH&T provided quick turn around when changes were requested and the District was very appreciative of the quality of work, while providing a practical, economical solution. The effectiveness of EMH&T and ODOT’s project management, as well as the quality and timeliness of plans, was rewarded with a high CES score.

5

4 CES Score for project 88%

5 Consultant Contract Historya. Prime Agreement – Scope and Fee $198,139 for complete plans to replace the bridge deck on this six

span structure within the USR 35/IR 75 interchange, and combine with plans already under development with Mead & Hunt, to sell as one project.

b. Modifications – Scope and Fee 1. District added replacement of an sign truss, design exception and revised the M.O.T. scheme to construct in 2 phases (to coordinate with the adjacent MOT-75-11.74 under design by Mead & Hunt) - $35,377;

2. Evaluation of flipping construction phasing to coordinate with adjacent projects already under construction, revise M.O.T. plans, move sale date from 10/1/17 to 10/1/16 - $39,015;

3. Added ongoing services during construction - $15,000

B. Plan and Contract Quality

1 Project bid cost relative to budget estimates as a measure of fiscal planning

Engineering Estimate: $1,806,000Bid Award: $1,848,425.15

2 Quantity variationsa. Total number of bid items on

project(s)133

b. Number of items for which the final quantity was within 2% of the quantity as let

90

3 Contract Change Orders

6

a. Number and value of change orders. Explain why changes were needed

b. Number of design related changes. Explain why changes were needed

None

c. Dollar change from “as let” cost due to CCO's and quantity revisions

Final cost increased by only $5,469.15, less than 0.3% over “as let” cost, to $1,853,894.30 final construction cost.

d. Cost change as percentage of as let cost

0.3%

4 Addendaa. Number of addenda issued

prior to letting1

b. General nature and change in construction cost for each addenda

M.O.T. notes added for Albany Street, revised one quantity, revised coatings note to address a prebid question.

C. Alignment and Location Design

7

1 Alternativesa.

Number and general nature of alternative alignments including relationship to location of existing roadway

In order to utilize the existing beams, the proposed alignment matched existing.

2 Alignment fita.

Efforts to fit to topography thereby minimizing cuts and fills, allowing flatter backslopes, more gradual driveway slopes, etc.

In order to utilize the existing beams, the alignment matched existing. The cross slopes and profiles were adjusted to better meet current design standards wh\ith use of variable haunch depths on the existing beams.

3 Design practicesa.

Safety and maintenance-related considerations incorporated into design. (Improving vision, raising grade through marshes, etc.)

The superelevation rates on both the eastbound and westbound legs of the bridge were reduced to move closer to current day design standards. The traveled way on westbound ramp lane was also shifted 2.5’ towards the outside high side of the ramp, via pavement striping, to improved site distance on the ramp. Both the superelevation rate changes and the travel way shift on the westbound ramp were coordinated with the consulting firm, Mead & Hunt, that was concurrently in design on the rehabilitation of the adjacent MOT-75-1174 bridge.

D. Cost-Effective Design

1 Safety and maintenance-related considerations. Identify this impact in terms of ODOT construction cost, cost to traveling public, or cost to entire public

The changes to the superelevation rate and travel way limits on the bridge were completed while salvaging the exitsing beams on the bridge. Making these changes while salvaging the existing beams is a in cost savings to the project. These changes did require significant haunch variability across the bridge and from the existing haunches. The haunch depths and reinforcing were thoroughly vetted in the design and detailed in the plans. No issues were encontored during construction.

8

2 Project Maintainability Project Maintainability.

E. Complexity of Design

1 Unusual, non-standard, or innovative design features and practices

For the roadway design features described above the proposed bridge deck required variable haunch depths across the bridge. These hauch depths ranged from 1.75” to 9”. The haunches over 5” in depth were reinforced with epoxy coated reinforcing steel.

Another non-standard design associated with this bridge was the extension of an existing beam to facilitate the phase construction of the bridge. The existing bridge varies in width throughout the length of the deck with it’s narrowest section at the rear abutment. To facilitate this deck shape the bridge begins with 7 beam lines and add an 8th drop beam in the middle of the bridge at the quarter point in the second span. To facilitate the maintenance of traffic for the project the bridge was constructed in two phases. The location of the phase construction joint in the deck would create a challenging overhang at the drop beam location. To avoid complicated temporary shoring and formwork to support this large deck overhang a beam extension and splice were designed to extend the drop beam to the rear abutment. This facilitated minimal deck overhangs and simplified construction.

2 New technology and products used EMH&T completed a full 3D model in MicroStation of the existing bridge and roadway features, including removals, and final conditions to aid in design verification and quantity calculation accuracy. The model allowed the project team the opportunity to confirm complex and variable deck elevation and haunch depths which aided in quantity determination for the diverging deck geometry and variable depth haunches. This 3D effort helped to solidify plan quantities/details and avoid in-field changes and disputes.

3 Degree of coordination and timing Coordination between EMH&T, ODOT District 7, and design consultant for the adjacent MOT-75-1174 bridge, Mead & Hunt,

9

were extensive throughout the project. Coordination with the District was critical in determining the phasing of the deck replacement as well as timing between adjacent projects. Coordination with Mead & Hunt was required to ensure the changes to the superelevation of the bridge and the shift in the travel way were consistant between projects. Considerations were also included in the plans for the temporary condition between the two projects.

4 Number and type of controls governing Not applicable to this project

5 Number of traffic control stages Not applicable to this project

F. Community Sensitive Design

1 Mitigation of Adverse Impact on Public During Construction

To minimize impacts to the public during construction, the bridge was detailed to be construted in two phases. This allowed at least one direction of travel to be maintained on the bridge for the duration of the project.

2 Preservation of Natural Areas Not applicable to this project

3 Reestablishment of Natural Vegetation or Wetlands

Not applicable to this project

4 Preservation of Historical and Archeological Features

Not applicable to this project

5 Enhancement of Cultural Resources Not applicable to this project

6 Community Sensitive Design Not applicable to this project

7 Overall Aesthetic Appeal Not applicable to this project

10

Location Map(s)

At least one high-level location map. Please attach an IMAGE FILE of your map here (take and upload a snapshot or screen capture image if the original map is only available as a PDF or other non-compatible image file format)

11

Photographs

Use the Picture boxes below to add up to 10 digital photos (.JPG or other compatible format) suitable for large-screen display. Before-and-after photos are encouraged. Please use the caption field to provide details on each image.

Picture of Bridge Deck Prior to Beginning Constructions

(photo - 12)

(photo - 13)

Forward Abutment Before Construction

(photo - 14)

Existing Beams and Deck Prior to Construction Including the Drop Beam and Diaphragm Prior to Extension.

(photo - 15)

Rear Abutnemt and Beams During Phase 1 Construction. Beam Extension Shown (Fourth from the Left).

(photo - 16)

Picture Looking from the Rear Abutment Down at the Beam Extension Prior to Deck Placement.

(photo - 17)

Mid Construction Photo showing Multiple Itermediate Hinges and Diverging Superstucre Framing

(photo - 18)

Photo of Deck Formwork and Intermediate Hinge During Construction.

(photo - 19)

Mid Construction Photo.

(photo - 20)

Arial Photo of Completed Deck.

(photo - 21)

Arial Photo of Completed Deck.

(photo - 22)