2 approaches to historic bridge rehab - stenton ave

8/13/2019 2 Approaches to Historic Bridge Rehab - Stenton Ave

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/2-approaches-to-historic-bridge-rehab-stenton-ave 1/18

Stenton Avenue Masonry Arch Rehabilitation

Approaches to Historic Bridge Rehabilitation

Case Study #1

Michael J. Cuddy, P.E.Principal

Kara RussellCultural Resource Specialist – Central Office

Monica Harrower

Cultural Resource Specialist – District 6-01



Stenton Avenue Bridge (S.R. 3003)over Wissahickon Creek

Whitemarsh Township, Montgomery CountyBridge Description

Built in 1914Total length of 168 feet as measured from end to endof wingwalls2-Span Masonry Arch Bridge (clear spans of 30’ and26’) comprised of rubble -coursed field stone spandrelwalls and parapets with concrete capstones thatcontinue across the wingwalls. The voussoirs of thearch rings are partially parged. The intrados areparged, and concrete toe walls have been placed.

2

Case study #1



Aerial View Showing Project Setting• Erdenheim Farm• Washington Valley Park

• Wissahickon Trail

Case Study #

3



Stenton Avenue Masonry Arch RehabilitationCompletion Date: 2010Cost: $1,050,000Designer: TranSystemsOwner: PennDOT Dist. 6-0

Contractor: J.D. EckmanCompany

4

Case study #1



Significant Issues Associated With Project

Overwhelming inventory of structurally deficient bridges.Increasing number of structural failures to its masonryarch population.

Identified the need to develop a repair program thatprovided for expedited design process and cost effectiverepair methodology as well as one that preserved andrenewed the cultural legacy of masonry arch bridges.

5

Case study #1



Existing Structure Average daily traffic: 9,774 vehicles per day.Important transportation link.Critical Condition due to masonry superstructure condition withseveral Priority “0” and “1” recommendations requiring timely repairs.

Case Study #

6



Structure Was in Critical Condition

Case Study #

Sections of the masonry walls exhibited cracks, bulges and missingor displaced stones. The structure was classified as StructurallyDeficient.

Overall, the barrels were in good condition and suitable for reuse inthe rehabilitated structure.7



Substandard Bridge RailingsExisting roadway width (20’ -10”) was determined to be adequate for traffivolumes.Masonry barriers inadequate height and strength.Substandard guiderail connections.8



How Significant Issues were ResolvedReplace earth fill with lightweight concrete fill.Reconstruct stone masonry parapets with reinforced concretecores and full width moment slab.

Repoint masonry as needed.Scour repair and protection.9



Temporary Support of Arches Arch “centering”, constructed of a timber and pipe scaffolding system,installed to stabilize the arches during rehabilitation.The existing bituminous pavement, earth fill, masonry parapets anddeteriorated sections of the spandrel walls were removed.10



Replaced Earth Fill with Lightweight Concrete Fill

Case Study #

Since the utilities would ultimately be encased in the concrete fill, carrierpipes were installed that would permit the smaller diameter utility pipesto be installed after the bridge rehabilitation.

Concrete fill was placed over pier and abutments to stabilize thestructure during masonry reconstruction.11



Replaced Earth Fill With Lightweight Concrete FillDeteriorated sections of the spandrel walls were reconstructedand concrete fill was placed up to sub-grade level of the newreinforced concrete moment slab.

12



Finished Concrete Moment Slab

Case Study #

Full width reinforced concrete moment slab with integral concretebarriers was constructed on the concrete fill.The barriers were faced with stone and finished with an integralconcrete capstone for aesthetics.13



Concrete Core BarrierStone facing was also provided on the fascia.Repointing was performed in accordance with the PennDOT Stone ArchBridge Maintenance Manual and NPS Standards.

14



Finished Roadway Section

Case Study #

A bituminous wearing surface was added to the concrete moment slabto provide the appearance of the original structure.Note increased parapet height and improved guiderail attachments.

15



Finished Bridge

Case Study #

16



How was Section 106 handled

PennDOT District 6-0 Stone Arch BridgeManagement Plan Ranked #57 (Notrecommended for long term preservation).

Pro-active approach by PennDOT engineering andcultural resource staff to develop rehabilitationprocedures.Memo with project description prepared andforwarded to PHMC for review and approval.Finding of “No Adverse Effec t”.

All work performed within existing right-of-way.

17

Case study #1



Lessons Learned/ConclusionsThrough the development of a streamlined repairmethodology, PennDOT has been able to efficientlyand cost effectively rehabilitate its stone arch bridges.Over the past year, construction contracts for 20

masonry arches have been let employing theseprocedures.Close coordination with the PHMC has resulted infindings of “No Adverse Effect”.

Project has been awarded a 2010 Grand Jury Award by The Preservation Alliance for Greater

Philadelphia18

Case study #1

2 approaches to historic bridge rehab - stenton ave

Documents