Frank J. Wood Questions And Responses - Maine.gov
Brunswick-TopshamFrank J. Wood Bridge, 22603.006/7/17Frank J. Wood Questions and ResponsesFormal comments from the public, state and federal resource agencies, and the Section 106consulting parties on the Frank J. Wood bridge project were first received in 2016. The MaineDepartment of Transportation (MaineDOT) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) havecompiled and posted all comments that were received on the Frank J. Wood web page(http://www.maine.gov/mdot/env/frankjwood/), in order to provide the public with an opportunityto view all the comments and other project-related information. All comments have been reviewed byMaineDOT and FHWA and are currently being considered in the decision-making process. Thefollowing list of commonly asked questions and answers was compiled for the purposes of helping toanswer specific questions received and clarify information about the Frank J. Wood bridge project.1. Why hasn’t MaineDOT’s Preliminary Design Report (PDR) been released?The PDR is a MaineDOT document that is generated by the MaineDOT project team. The PDRdiscusses the alternatives considered from primarily a cost and engineering perspective. Thisdocument identifies a recommended alternative. The Frank J. Wood bridge project PDR will not befinalized until a preferred alternative is identified, and after considering the environmental,engineering and cost impacts. Supporting information that is typically included in the PDR (summaryof alternatives, matrix of alternatives, alternative alignments, preliminary costs estimates, service lifecosts, and cultural and natural environmental impacts) has been shared at Section 106 consultingparty meetings, the April 2017 public meeting and posted on the Frank J. Wood web page.2. Why are there different durations of construction for each alternative?Alternative 1 estimates the duration of construction to be approximately 3 ½ years, Alternative 2estimates the duration of construction to be approximately 2 ½ years, and Alternatives 3 & 4estimate the duration of construction to be approximately 3 years. The construction durations foreach alternative were estimated by breaking down the work into major construction activities byusing past history and experience with construction rates and duration. Additionally, seasonalconstraints were factored into the schedule. For example, bridge painting is only feasible in thewarmer months and in-water work is limited to specific time of year windows due to the presence ofendangered species. The construction (and removal) of a temporary bridge was estimated to take 1year. Alternatives 1, 3 and 4 include the construction of a temporary bridge.3. What is the justification for an on-site temporary bridge detour over closure with an off-sitetemporary detour (bypass) for Alternatives 1, 3, and 4?As outlined in the Maintenance of Traffic section of the Summary of Alternatives, the average delaysfor vehicles using an off-site temporary detour are between 3 and 4 minutes. Based on these delays,the added travel distance of 2.5 miles for thru traffic (and 3.7 miles end-to-end) and the averageannual daily traffic of 19,000 vehicles per day, the daily user cost for a full bridge closure (i.e., using anoff-site temporary detour) is approximately 22,000 per day, or over 13,000,000 for the estimated20 month closure required for Alternatives 1, 3 & 4.The daily user costs for implementing an off-site temporary detour include three components:1. The cost of extra distance incurred by travelers using a detour2. The cost of extra travel time incurred by travelers using a detour3. The cost of extra travel time incurred by travelers due to increased delay at intersections1
Brunswick-TopshamFrank J. Wood Bridge, 22603.006/7/17For this project, daily user costs 1 and 2 were determined with the aid of MaineDOT’s travel demandmodel, which can be used to test the impact of bridge closures on travel patterns on the highwaynetwork. With the expected changes in travel volumes at certain major intersections, user cost 3 canbe derived by modeling the intersections under peak-hour conditions with traffic simulation softwareand expanding the peak-hour results to a daily user cost. Added vehicle-miles and vehicle-hours areconverted to dollar values by using unit costs of distance and time, respectively. The table belowshows how the three components are combined.This table is strictly user costs and does not reflect impacts to businesses in Topsham or Brunswickthat may be affected by an off-site temporary detour, which is very difficult to quantify. Imposingthese additional impacts to the business districts of Brunswick and Topsham and the users of thiscrossing through an extended bridge closure was determined not acceptable. The cost of an on-sitetemporary bridge detour (or temporary bridge) was estimated at 4,000,000. The user costsestimated for an off-site temporary detour exceed this figure by approximately 9,000,000. The onsite temporary bridge detour is included in Alternatives 1, 3, and 4 because it is cost effective. This isalso the justification for not conducting a traffic study in conjunction with the 2017 Frank J. Woodrepair work.4. How were the construction costs estimated for each alternative?Construction costs are estimated using rates based on the bid histories of recently constructed similarprojects. Factors affecting bid prices for individual components of a project include location andconstructability and are adjusted based on professional engineering judgment. Appendix B includes aStructural Cost Estimate for each alternative. The preliminary construction cost estimates previouslyprovided were based off the Structural Cost Estimates. The first sheet of the Structural Cost Estimatefor each alternative is a summary sheet, and the remaining sheets break down the major items intoquantified sub-items. Each of the sub-items (including the miscellaneous value of 7% 1 million) wasestimated using historical data from MaineDOT. The miscellaneous value (7% 1 million work trestlepremium) is based on historical information when estimating the major items of a bridge project. The2
Brunswick-TopshamFrank J. Wood Bridge, 22603.006/7/17miscellaneous value was estimated for Alternatives 1 and 2 only, as these are the only alternativesthat would need a work trestle to facilitate the construction of a new bridge. Generally, the major biditems would include the cost of work platforms and trestles. However, this site is considered moredifficult due to its topography so an additional 1 million was added to account for this. This is alsobased on historical project data and bid items. See question 5 for contingency cost information.5. How were the contingency costs determined for Alternatives 3 & 4?Historically, rehabilitation projects have frequently cost more than their preliminary estimates. One ofthe main reasons for this is because of the unknowns and uncertainties associated with rehabilitationwork. It is difficult to know the precise condition of all the bridge elements until the work isunderway. As you start dismantling components of the bridge, you may find more section loss andmore deterioration than anticipated. Too many unknowns can cause prices to inflate. Replacement ofthe entire deck system would remove a good portion of the unknowns. However, there are additionalareas of concern that may have not been specifically identified, but may require additional repair,replacement, or strengthening. Repair needs become more evident when preparing the truss forpainting. The need to remove all deterioration, rust, and old paint will often uncover additional steelareas that need strengthening, repair, or replacement. Replacement or repair of deteriorated rivetsand strengthening or replacement of gusset plates are examples of these needs. To address some ofthe uncertainties, a 15% contingency was used for Alternatives 3 & 4. The cost of steel was initiallyestimated at 7.80/lb., however the price has gone up considerably since the original estimate; recentlow bids for steel repairs on steel girder and steel arch style bridges range from 11/lb. to 24.50/lb.,making the 15% for contingencies a conservative estimate. Contingencies are estimated based on pastproject history for similar type bridge rehabilitations. Due to the uncertainties associated withrehabilitating an existing deteriorated truss bridge, a higher amount of contingency costs are typicallycarried for rehab options.6. How were the annual inspection costs and annual routine maintenance costs estimated foreach alternative?Alternatives 1 and 2 (replacement) estimate an annual inspection cost and annual routinemaintenance cost. These costs are broken down into annual costs even though inspections would beconducted every two years. The biannual inspection of a new bridge typically requires an inspectionteam spending a couple of hours looking at major items that may have changed in the two year spanbetween inspections. The inspection would be followed by the preparation of a report detailing anyfindings. Routine maintenance for a new bridge would include annual washing of the drains, curblines, and joints as well as washing of any debris that might have built up on the structure.Alternatives 3 and 4 (rehabilitation) also estimate an annual inspection cost and annual routinemaintenance cost. The annual inspection of an older, fracture critical bridge requires an inspectionteam gaining hands-on inspection of all fracture critical members. This hands-on inspection can onlybe done with the use of expensive equipment (under bridge crane, bucket truck, etc.) and temporarytraffic control. This work would generally take one to two weeks of on-site work preceded withseveral days of preparation work and followed by one to two weeks of report preparation. Routinemaintenance for an older structure would include all the maintenance mentioned above for a newstructure and also repairs to failed steel members. This is difficult to quantify but very likely3
Brunswick-TopshamFrank J. Wood Bridge, 22603.006/7/17anticipated because of the age of the bridge. Even after rehabilitation, this bridge would remainfracture critical.7. Explain life cycle costs, service life costs, and construction costs.Life cycle costs, service life costs, and construction costs are all tools that are used to compare theestimated costs between the alternatives. They are each used to help make a more informeddecision. Simply put, life cycle costs are the costs of future investments in today’s dollars. Life cyclecosts include all the total estimated bridge costs throughout the life of the bridge and translate themto current dollar equivalents. Life cycle costs account for estimated construction costs on the currentproject and the translated present value of anticipated future inspection, maintenance, andrehabilitation. Service life costs are the estimated costs to maintain the bridge for its designed servicelife. Costs are broken down into required annual costs (such as inspections and anticipatedmaintenance) as well as required periodic items (such as bridge painting, deck replacement, structuralrehabilitation). These costs are generated on the historical maintenance needs of similar bridge typesand historical data on costs. Service life costs estimate the total cost of the bridge over itslife. Construction costs include the total estimated costs of building the bridge in today’s dollars.Construction unit prices are generated from recent bid history for all items. Unit price is multiplied bythe unit quantity required to estimate a total item cost. Life cycle costs, service life costs, andconstruction costs have been estimated for each alternative and are included in the documentsprovided on the Frank J Wood bridge project website.8. Has MaineDOT considered alternative methods to remove pack rust (i.e., crevice corrosion),such as pneumatic pack rust removal?Yes. MaineDOT and FHWA both reached out to other states to learn more about pneumatic pack rustremoval. Specifically, staff from FHWA’s Michigan Division, Michigan Department of Transportation,and a Michigan consultant were contacted and several published articles 1 were researched andreviewed. Additionally, MaineDOT’s consultant reached out to the TY LIN Virginia office andrequested an independent peer review. The scope of the independent peer review was to review thegeneral approach to the proposed rehabilitation work, look at the constructability, and analyze theproposed future maintenance requirements. The independent peer review found that the pneumaticpack rust removal technique has been used in Michigan and in various other places across thecountry. No testing has been done on the effects this technique may have on changing the propertiesof the steel; as steel is heated and beaten, it could “harden,” even if temperatures are being1*Maniar, D., Engelhardt, M., and Leary, D. “Evaluation and Rehabilitation of Historic Metal Truss Bridges: A CaseStudy of an Off-System Historic Metal Truss Bridge in Shackelford County, Texas.” Center for TransportationResearch, University of Texas at Austin, Report No. FHWA/TX-03/1741-3, March 2003. ;*National Park Service (NPS). “Preservation of Historic Iron and Steel in Bridges and Other Metal Structures.”National Center for Preservation Technology and Training. July 14, 2010. ;*Pfuntner, J. “Wider Load: Rehabilitation of the Checkered House Bridge (VT).” Modern Steel Construction,December 2012. ;*Virginia Transportation Research Council (VTRC). “Best Practices for the Rehabilitation and Moving of HistoricMetal Truss Bridges.” June 2006.4
Brunswick-TopshamFrank J. Wood Bridge, 22603.006/7/17monitored, and could result in making the members much more susceptible to fatigue cracking. Also,even if this technique were to remove most of the pack rust, an NACE 2 article suggests that if not allthe rust is removed, further acceleration of the corrosion process will occur. So, if corrosion depositsare not completely removed, even after re-sealing and an absence of further external contamination,corrosion can still occur. MaineDOT has determined that pneumatic pack rust removal will not beused for rehabilitation of the Frank J. Wood bridge.9. Do any of the rehabilitation alternatives include a lightweight deck option?Yes, Alternative 4 includes a lightweight, exodermic deck. The existing bridge deck is a lightweight,concrete-filled steel grid deck. To maintain the existing loading on the trusses while adding a newsecond sidewalk as proposed in Alternative 4, weight would need to be taken off the truss elsewhere,or additional structural members added to the existing bridge. Various lightweight concrete decksystems such as lightweight concrete, sandwich steel plate systems, and composite deck systemswere considered, but a new lightweight concrete-filled exodermic bridge deck is recommended. Anexodermic deck system can be as much as fifty percent lighter than a conventional concrete deck ofthe same span, is more durable than a lightweight concrete deck, and is more cost-effective thanother lightweight systems. An exodermic deck is estimated to last approximately 50 years.10. Why don’t the rehabilitation alternatives include a paved wearing surface?A paved (bituminous) wearing surface was not estimated or proposed for the rehabilitationalternatives (Alternatives 3 and 4) because it adds additional weight to the truss. The current loadrating of the critical truss members that would be remaining in a rehabilitated alternative are at orjust above legal loads and could not have the added weight of a paved surface.11. Explain why a 30-year rehabilitation alternative was initially presented and why consideration isnow being given to a 75-year rehabilitation alternative.A 30-year rehabilitation alternative was initially presented in April 2016 and was used to see if the lifecycle costs could be comparable to or compete with a replacement alternative. The 30 yearrehabilitation looked at the remaining service lives of the major bridge elements and then tried tocome up with a rehabilitation option that gained as much additional life from the bridge at a minimalcost. Accounting for future costs out to 30 years, this preliminary analysis would avoid painting thebridge in the future, a major component to the life cycle cost of the rehabilitation. The preliminaryanalysis of the 30-year rehabilitation included replacing the bridge deck, repairing the damaged anddeteriorated steel bridge members, and painting the entire truss but did not estimate a temporarybridge and was analyzed prior to the August 2016 bridge inspection. MaineDOT evaluated arehabilitation alternative with a 75-year life due to input at the first Section 106 consulting partymeeting on July 11, 2016. The rehabilitation alternative with a 75-year life was added and presentedto the Section 106 consulting parties at the August 18, 2016 meeting. This alternative does includetemporary bridge costs and service life costs such as painting, maintenance and inspections. The 75year rehabilitation alternative was also posted on the Frank J. Wood bridge project web page inNovember 2016 and presented at the April 5, 2017 public open house meeting.2National Association of Corrosion Engineers (NACE) International. “Corrosion Control Plan for Bridges.”November 2012.5
Brunswick-TopshamFrank J. Wood Bridge, 22603.006/7/1712. What is the process for moving Route 201 from its current location to instead joining Route 1following the Route 196 connector route?Route 201 is designated as a state highway in the project area. Information regarding changes torouted highways can be found at the following MaineDOTwebpage: . MaineDOT’s decision to keeptwo 11-foot travel lanes, instead of two 10-foot travel lanes, is predicated on the characteristics of thetraffic utilizing this section of public road. MaineDOT would not expect the traffic to change materiallyif the road no longer had the Route 201 designation.13. Where are we in the Section 106 process?In November 2015, letters were sent to the towns of Brunswick and Topsham and the federallyrecognized tribes in Maine requesting information on historic resources. Responses were received inNovember and December of 2015 from towns, the Passamaquoddy Tribe, and Penobscot Nation. Thehistoric architectural survey was started in January 2016 and approved as complete by the MaineHistoric Preservation Commission (Maine State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO)) in May 2016.Properties determined eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places were concurredwith by the SHPO in June 2016. In June 2016, Section 106 consulting parties with a demonstratedinterest in the undertaking were established. Section 106 consulting party meetings weresubsequently held on July 11, August 18 and October 27, 2016 to discuss and receive commentsregarding the Section 106 area of potential effect, eligible historic properties, and evaluate the effectson historic properties for each of the proposed alternatives. In February 2017, the draft Section 106determination of effect on historic properties for each alternative was developed and distributed tothe Section 106 consulting parties, the SHPO, and posted for public review and comment. Commentswere received and incorporated. In March 2017, the SHPO concurred on the determination of effecton historic properties for each alternative. A public meeting was held on April 5, 2017 utilizing anopen house format and comments were received at the meeting and up to April 19, 2017. Supportinginformation and documents related to the Section 106 process can be found on MaineDOT’s projectwebsite at http://www.maine.gov/mdot/env/frankjwood/. All the comments and informationregarding historic resources and potential effects are being considered as FHWA and MaineDOTidentify a preferred alternative.14. Where are we in the overall process and how/when will MaineDOT and FHWA make a decisionon a preferred alternative?At this point in project development, MaineDOT and FHWA are in the process of deciding on apreferred alternative to carry forward into further design. When looking at deciding on a preferredalternative, FHWA and MaineDOT consider the environmental, cultural, social, economic impacts, andtransportation needs (i.e., vehicular, bicycle and pedestrian), in addition to considering theengineering, cost, constructability, traffic, utilities, maintenance, and public input. MaineDOT andFHWA will select the alternative that best meets the purpose and need and best balances theconsiderations listed above. MaineDOT and FHWA anticipate having a preferred alternative that willbe announced publicly sometime in June of 2017. Once a preferred alternative is selected and furtherdesign is underway, MaineDOT and FHWA will continue to process the preferred alternative underthe National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the federal laws and executive orders that fallunder the NEPA umbrella. This includes, but is not limited to, compliance with Section 106 of the6
Brunswick-TopshamFrank J. Wood Bridge, 22603.006/7/17National Historic Preservation Act, Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, Magnuson-StevensFishery Conservation and Management Act, and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. At this point intime, it is anticipated that MaineDOT will complete NEPA in early 2018, finalize the design andadvertise the project for construction in the fall of 2018, with construction beginning in early 2019.These dates are anticipated and could change.7
Brunswick-TopshamFrank J. Wood Bridge, 22603.006/7/17Appendix A –Alternative Alignments Graphic8
Brunswick-Topsham, Frank J. Wood BridgeAlternative AlignmentsAlternate 2Alternates 1, 3, & 4Alternate 5BRUNSWICKMaineDOTTOPSHAMBRUNSWICK – TOPSHAMFRANK J. WOOD BRIDGECUMBERLAND AND SAGADAHOC COUNTYWIN 22603.00MARCH 20, 2017
Brunswick-TopshamFrank J. Wood Bridge, 22603.006/7/17Appendix B –Structural Cost Estimates for Alternatives 1, 2, 3 & 49
T. Y. Lin InternationalBrunswick-Topsham - F.J. Wood BridgeStructural Cost EstimateAlternate 1800 ft 5 Steel Girder 5 Span 137.5'-175'-175'-175'-137.5'ElementSteel Girder with CIP DeckSouth Abutment & WingwallsNorth Abutment & WingwallsSolid Shaft PiersCofferdam - PiersStructural Excavation & BorrowRiprapMiscellaneous Item Contingency @ 7% 1M work trestle premiumSTRUCTURE SUBTOTAL Cost 5,642,000 525,000 112,000 1,124,000 600,000 60,000 24,000 1,942,000 10,029,000ApproachesMiscellaneous Approach Item Contingency @ 10%APPROACH SUBTOTAL Temporary BridgeRemoval of Existing Bridge StructureMobilization/Demobilization @ 7%CONSTRUCTION TOTAL 4,000,000 1,000,000 798,000 15,952,000RIGHT OF WAY COST TOTAL COST 0 15,952,000SAY1 of 5113,00012,000125,000 16,000,000Prepared by: RMH 10/15Checked by: DSM 10/15
T. Y. Lin InternationalBrunswick-Topsham - F.J. Wood BridgeStructural Cost EstimateAlternate 1800 ft 5 Steel Girder 5 Span 137.5'-175'-175'-175'-137.5'Steel Girder with CIP DeckItemUnit Quantity Unit PriceHot Mix Asphalt, 9.5mm Nominal Maximum SizeTon470 200.00Structural Concrete Roadway Slab on Steel BridgesCY1450 1,230.00Reinforcing Steel, Fab & DelLBS325000 0.88Reinforcing Steel, PlacingLBS325000 0.78High Performance Waterproofing MembraneSY2860 23.00Structural Steel Fab. & Del., WeldedLBS 1374000 1.46Structural Steel ErectionLBS 1374000 0.36Shear ConnectorsEA8050 7.50Steel Bridge Railing, 4 BarLF1610 190.00Bridge Expansion Joint, Finger; including Fabric TroughLF91 1,560.00Permanent Concrete Transition BarrierEA4 3,400.00Pot or Disc Bearings, Expansion or Fixed (including Installation) EA30 4,300.004000000Superstructure Cost Subtotal #VALUE!Cost 94,000 1,783,500 286,000 253,500 65,780 2,006,040 494,640 60,375 305,900 141,960 13,600 129,000 5,634,295Round up 5,635,000Cost / sfDeck Area 803' x 45'4" 2 of 536403 155155 5,642,000Prepared by: RMH 10/15Checked by: DSM 10/15
T. Y. Lin InternationalBrunswick-Topsham - F.J. Wood BridgeStructural Cost EstimateAlternate 1South Abutment & WingwallsDescriptionStructural Concrete Abutment & Retaining WallStructural Concrete Abutment & Retaining Wall (UW)Structural Concrete Approach SlabReinforcing Steel, Fab & DelReinforcing Steel, PlacingUnit QuantityUnit PriceCY460 800.00CY135 210.00CY16 490.00LBS72000 0.88LBS72000 0.78South Abutment Cost Total SAY3 of 5 Cost368,00028,3507,84063,36056,160523,710 525,000Prepared by: RMH 10/15Checked by: DSM 10/15
T. Y. Lin InternationalBrunswick-Topsham - F.J. Wood BridgeStructural Cost EstimateAlternate 1North Abutment & WingwallsDescriptionStructural Concrete Abutment & Retaining WallStructural Concrete Abutment & Retaining Wall (UW)Structural Concrete Approach SlabReinforcing Steel, Fab & DelReinforcing Steel, PlacingUnit QuantityUnit PriceCY88 800.00CY28 210.00CY16 490.00LBS16000 0.88LBS16000 0.78North Abutment Cost Total SAY4 of 5 Cost70,4005,8807,84014,08012,480110,680 112,000Prepared by: RMH 10/15Checked by: DSM 10/15
T. Y. Lin InternationalBrunswick-Topsham - F.J. Wood BridgeStructural Cost EstimateAlternate 1800 ft 5 Steel Girder 5 Span 137.5'-175'-175'-175'-137.5'Solid Shaft Piers (4 Piers)DescriptionStructural Concrete, Piers (Shaft/Wall)Structural Concrete, Piers (placed under water)Reinforcing Steel, Fab & DelReinforcing Steel, PlacingUnit QuantityUnit PriceCY730 940.00CY1020 220.00LBS127500 0.88LBS127500 0.78Pier Cost Total 50 1,124,000Average Cost / Pier 281,000SAY5 of 5Prepared by: RMH 10/15Checked by: DSM 10/15
T. Y. Lin InternationalBrunswick-Topsham - F.J. Wood BridgeStructural Cost EstimateAlternate 2835 ft 5 Steel Girder 5 Span 80', 200'-205'-205'-145'ElementSteel Girder with CIP DeckSouth Abutment & WingwallsNorth Abutment & WingwallsSolid Shaft PiersCofferdam - PiersStructural Excavation & BorrowRiprapMiscellaneous Item Contingency @ 7% 1M work trestle premiumSTRUCTURE SUBTOTAL Cost 6,459,000 555,000 129,000 1,056,000 600,000 60,000 24,000 1,717,000 10,600,000ApproachesMiscellaneous Approach Item Contingency @ 10%APPROACH SUBTOTAL Removal of Existing Bridge StructureMobilization/Demobilization @ 7%CONSTRUCTION TOTAL 1,000,000 737,000 12,832,000RIGHT OF WAY COST TOTAL COST 50,000 12,882,000SAY1 of 5450,00045,000495,000 13,000,000Prepared by: RMH 10/15Checked by:DSM 10/15
T. Y. Lin InternationalBrunswick-Topsham - F.J. Wood BridgeStructural Cost EstimateAlternate 2835 ft 5 Steel Girder 5 Span 80', 200'-205'-205'-145'Steel Girder with CIP DeckItemUnit Quantity Unit PriceHot Mix Asphalt, 9.5mm Nominal Maximum SizeTon490 200.00Structural Concrete Roadway Slab on Steel BridgesCY1510 1,230.00Reinforcing Steel, Fab & DelLBS339000 0.88Reinforcing Steel, PlacingLBS339000 0.78High Performance Waterproofing MembraneSY2980 23.00Structural Steel Fab. & Del., WeldedLBS 1753000 1.46Structural Steel ErectionLBS 1753000 0.36Shear ConnectorsEA7200 7.50Steel Bridge Railing, 4 BarLF1680 190.00Bridge Expansion Joint, Finger; including Fabric TroughLF91 1,560.00Permanent Concrete Transition BarrierEA4 3,400.00Pot or Disc Bearings, Expansion or Fixed (including Installation) EA35 4,300.00Superstructure Cost Subtotal Cost 98,000 1,857,300 298,320 264,420 68,540 2,559,380 631,080 54,000 319,200 141,960 13,600 150,500 6,456,300Round up 6,457,000Cost / sfDeck Area 838' x 45'4" 2 of 537990 170170 6,459,000Prepared by: RMH 10/15Checked by: DSM 10/15
T. Y. Lin InternationalBrunswick-Topsham - F.J. Wood BridgeStructural Cost EstimateAlternate 2South Abutment & WingwallsDescriptionStructural Concrete Abutment & Retaining WallStructural Concrete Abutment & Retaining Wall (UW)Structural Concrete Approach SlabReinforcing Steel, Fab & DelReinforcing Steel, PlacingUnit QuantityUnit PriceCY460 800.00CY280 210.00CY16 490.00LBS72000 0.88LBS72000 0.78South Abutment Cost Total SAY3 of 5 Cost368,00058,8007,84063,36056,160554,160 555,000Prepared by: RMH 10/15Checked by: DSM 10/15
T. Y. Lin InternationalBrunswick-Topsham - F.J. Wood BridgeStructural Cost EstimateAlternate 2North Abutment & WingwallsDescriptionStructural Concrete Abutment & Retaining WallStructural Concrete Abutment & Retaining Wall (UW)Structural Concrete Approach SlabReinforcing Steel, Fab & DelReinforcing Steel, PlacingUnit QuantityUnit PriceCY88 800.00CY110 210.00CY16 490.00LBS16000 0.88LBS16000 0.78North Abutment Cost Total SAY4 of 5 Cost70,40023,1007,84014,08012,480127,900 129,000Prepared by: RMH 10/15Checked by: DSM 10/15
T. Y. Lin InternationalBrunswick-Topsham - F.J. Wood BridgeStructural Cost EstimateAlternate 2835 ft 5 Steel Girder 5 Span 80', 200'-205'-205'-145'Solid Shaft Piers (4 Piers)DescriptionStructural Concrete, Piers (Shaft/Wall)Structural Concrete, Piers (placed under water)Reinforcing Steel, Fab & DelReinforcing Steel, PlacingUnit QuantityUnit PriceCY720 940.00CY760 220.00LBS126000 0.88LBS126000 0.78Pier Cost Total 60 1,056,000Average Cost / Pier 264,000SAY5 of 5Prepared by: RMH 10/15Checked by: DSM 10/15
T. Y. Lin InternationalBrunswick-Topsham - F.J. Wood BridgeStructural Cost EstimateAlternate 3Rehabilitate Existing 800 ft 3 Span Steel TrussElementRehabilitate Existing 800 ft Steel TrussAbutment Backwall inc. RemovalPier 2 Span 3 Bearing Pedestal Replacement & Bearing RehabRehabilitation Contingencies @ 15%Miscellaneous @ 7%STRUCTURE SUBTOTAL 00ApproachesMiscellaneous Approach Item Contingency @ 10%APPROACH SUBTOTAL 50,0005,00055,000Temporary BridgeRemoval of Existing Slab Full Depth, Inc. Steel Floor FramingMobilization/Demobilization @ 10%CONSTRUCTION TOTAL 4,000,000 175,000 1,174,000 14,907,000RIGHT OF WAY COST TOTAL C
Life cycle costs include all the total estimated bridge costs throughout the life of the bridge and translate them to current dollar equivalents. Life cycle costs account for estimated construction costs on the current project and the translated present value of anticipated future inspection, maintenance, and rehabilitation. Service life costs
La paroi exerce alors une force ⃗ sur le fluide, telle que : ⃗ J⃗⃗ avec S la surface de la paroi et J⃗⃗ le vecteur unitaire orthogonal à la paroi et dirigé vers l’extérieur. Lorsque la
Anne Frank (1992) Le monde de Anne Frank (1990) Anne Frank, les sept derniers mois (1989) Journal (1986) Anne Frank in the world, 1929-1945 (1985) Anne Frank (1983) Vérité historique ou vérité politique ? (1980) Documents multimédia (3) Mallette Anne Frank (2010) Le journal d'Anne Franck (2000)
3 Key Advantages of Wood-based Fuels 1.1 Wood energy is widely used and renewable 1.2 Sustainable wood production safeguards forest functions 1.3 Wood energy is available locally 1.4 Wood energy provides employment and income 1.5 Wood energy supports domestic economies 1.6 Wood energy is modern and leads to innovation 1.7 Wood energy can make a country independent of energy imports
wood (see Section "Role of wood moisture content on corrosion"). 3. Wood preservatives Wood preservatives are chemicals that are injected into the wood to help the wood resist attack by decay fungi, mold, and/or termites. Waterborne wood preservatives are commonly used when the wood may be in contact with humans or will be painted.
wood trusses. The versatility of wood trusses makes it an excellent roof framing system in hybrid construction where wood trusses are commonly used with steel, concrete or masonry wall systems. Environmental: Wood, the only renewable building material, has numerous environ-mental advantages. Wood trusses enhance wood's environmental
Roto Frank AG Window and door technology Wilhelm-Frank-Platz 1 70771 Leinfelden-Echterdingen Germany Phone 49 711 7598 0 Fax 49 711 7598 253 info@roto-frank.com www.roto-frank.com Roto Frank AG Window and door technology Eintrachtstraße 95 42551 Velbert Germany Phone 49 2051 203 0
Wood Science and Technology. Wood Science .that body of knowledge applicable to . wood as a material, including its origin, properties, composition and characteristics. Wood Technology .the application of knowledge in the conversion, processing and the many uses of wood, including the design, manufacture and marketing of wood products.
Engineered floors are not laminates. Solid wood flors are made of real wood. They are made from 100% real wood and so they exude the natural beauty and warmth of which is expected of solid wood floors. Real wood Most solid wood floors are finished man-ually at site resulting non-precision result and this also makes the floors less du-
Consult JELD-WEN customer service. W-3500 WOOD CLAD-WOOD WINDOW DOUBLE-HUNG. 76" 36" 21 3/8" 41 3/8" Minimum Configuration Maximum Configuration MIN-MAX SIZING Architectural Design Manual November 2017 Product specifications may change without notice. Questions? Consult JELD-WEN customer service. W-3500 WOOD CLAD-WOOD WINDOW DOUBLE-HUNG
The Architecture of Frank Lloyd Wright: A Complete Catalog -W.A. Storrer Biography Many Masks: A Life Of Frank Lloyd Wright -Brendan Gill Works Prairie Style: Houses and Gardens by Frank Lloyd Wright and the Prairie School -Dixie Legler The Vision of Frank Lloyd Wright -Thomas A. Heinz
Find Frank's cell number. You can find Frank's prisoner number on the warden's desk. Frank is being moved tomorrow. Figure out Frank's current cell by working backward from where he is going to be moved. Working backward, move Frank across the block, down one floor, and over one cell from his new cell. Solution:
Frank Carter & The Rattlesnakes- End of Suffering 20.00 FRANK SINATRA & ANTONIO CARLOS JOBIM 20.00 Frank Sinatra- In The Wee Small Hours 14.00 Frank Sinatra- The Hits (20 Greatest Hits) (Deluxe Gatefold Edition) 21.00 Frank Zappa- Feeding the Monkies at Ma Maison 15.00
Frank Gehry was born Frank Owen Goldberg in Toronto, Canada on February 28, 1929. His father was Irving Goldberg and his mother was Thelma Goldberg. Many of his buildings became world-renowned attractions, including his own house. At a young age little Frank was very creative. He would build little cities out of scraps of wood with his .
An understanding of wood properties will help log home owners protect and enjoy their homes. This publication is designed to provide basic infor-mation about wood, wood protection and the use of large timbers to build log homes. Basics of Wood The role of wood in trees is to provide structural support and to conduct water up from the ground to
Wood Shutters are kiln-dried and molded at our SWF wood facility . The wood is dried slowly to strict wood shutter specifications because structural change can occur when moisture is removed . Molding and sanding operations provide the highest quality surface, free of defects . SWF Wood Fabrication and Finishing in Reynosa, Mexico
1. Wood costs less – In addition to lower material costs, wood building systems typically cost less to install than other materials. Wood construction is fast, and wood’s relative light weight reduces the need for foundation capacity and associated costs. 2. Wood structures meet code – The International Building
3.5 Feasibility of using the vehicle gasifier technology for stationary applications 3.6 Operating hazards Chapter 4 - A small wood gas power plant at a sawmill in Paraguay 4.1 Description of the wood gas power plant 4.1.1 Fuel supply 4.1.2 The wood gasifier 4.1.3 Wood gas cooling and washing installations 4.1.4 Wood gas filter
The process of wood carving starts with the selection of the wood as per the required size of the products to be made. There are two qualities of wood, softer and harder woods. Softer wood is chosen when intricate designs have to be carved. Harder wood is used for making furniture and other household items.
Jan 04, 2018 · firewood, bamboo, charcoal, palm kernel shell, etc.), used furniture, recycled paper products, recycled wood, and wood products made from recycled wood are not subject to the Clean Wood Act at this time. Figure 1 illustrates the supply chain of Japanese wood products. The eligible companies that can
wood fuel as a renewable energy source and the promotion of wood products as a substitute for more carbon intensive materials. In France, the government requires that new public buildings have at least 0.2 cubic meters of wood for every 1 square meter of floor area. 2In New Zealand, wood or wood-based products must be considered as the main
