DocID_112 Attachment D: Bridge Elevation Summary Showing Existing Streambed, Foundation Depth(s) and Observed and/or Calculated Scour Depths The Following Materials Are Being Submitted With This Report: Attachment H: Plan View Showing Location of Scour Holes, Debris, etc, Attachment B: Map Showing Detour Route(s) Attachment E: Boring Logs and/or Other Subsurface Information Attachment F: Survey Cross Sections From Current and Previous Inspection Reports Attachment G: Supporting Documentation, Calculations, Estimates, and Conceptual Designs for Scour Countermeasures Attachment A: Photos Attachment C: Field Verification Card (FVC) Feature Crossed: Salmon Falls River Feature Carried: Gulf Road Owner: NHDOT New Hampshire Department of Transportation Scour Critical Bridge Plan of Action (POA) Report Final Recommended Action: Given the poor condition of the substructure, substantial scour potential, and unknown (likely low) remaining embedment, CHA recommends considering a complete bridge replacement. The New Hampshire owned 4 span section appears less vulnerable than the 23 span Maine owned section. Until the structure can be replaced, CHA recommends that the bridge be monitored during storm tide events using portable sonar and sounding rods, as appropriate, on a slack-tide rotation. The bridge should be closed if the water surface elevation exceeds 8 ft NAVD88 or 13 ft MLLW from NOAA gage 8423898, if more than 3.5 ft of scour is observed at any bent during monitoring , if conditions are too severe to allow monitoring or if foundation movement or other signs of structural distress are observed. The underwater inspections should continue on a 2 year frequency. Significant predicted scour and deteriorated timber pile bents (unknown length) support strong consideration to replace the Maine owned section of this bridge. Countermeasures appear to be less effective on a long term basis, cost prohibitive based on a conceptual review of scour susceptability, and the duel state ownership. Dover 182/123 POA Report Scour POA Priority: Attachment I: Post Flood Inspection Documentation Post Flood Inspection Tasks Flood Monitoring Program Conceptual Structural / Hydraulic Countermeasures Fixed Monitoring Devices Increased Inspection Frequency Priority Countermeasure Priority Monitoring Attachment J: Scour / H&H Backup Calculations Attachment K: NHDOT Underwater Inspection Report
45
Embed
Priority Scour Critical Bridge Countermeasure Plan of ...gis.dot.nh.gov/bridge_scour/Dover 182-123.pdf · underwater inspections should continue on a 2 year ... Post Flood Inspection
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
DocID_112
Attachment D: Bridge Elevation Summary Showing Existing Streambed, Foundation Depth(s) and Observed and/or Calculated Scour Depths
The Following Materials Are Being Submitted With This Report:
Attachment H: Plan View Showing Location of Scour Holes, Debris, etc,
Attachment B: Map Showing Detour Route(s)
Attachment E: Boring Logs and/or Other Subsurface Information
Attachment F: Survey Cross Sections From Current and Previous Inspection Reports
Attachment G: Supporting Documentation, Calculations, Estimates, and Conceptual Designs for Scour Countermeasures
Attachment A: Photos
Attachment C: Field Verification Card (FVC)
Feature Crossed: Salmon Falls River
Feature Carried: Gulf Road
Owner: NHDOT
New HampshireDepartment of Transportation
Scour Critical BridgePlan of Action (POA) Report
Final Recommended Action:Given the poor condition of the substructure, substantial scour potential, and unknown (likely low) remaining embedment, CHA recommends considering a complete bridge replacement. The New Hampshire owned 4 span section appears less vulnerable than the 23 span Maine owned section. Until the structure can be replaced, CHA recommends that the bridge be monitored during storm tide events using portable sonar and sounding rods, as appropriate, on a slack-tide rotation. The bridge should be closed if the water surface elevation exceeds 8 ft NAVD88 or 13 ft MLLW from NOAA gage 8423898, if more than 3.5 ft of scour is observed at any bent during monitoring , if conditions are too severe to allow monitoring or if foundation movement or other signs of structural distress are observed. The underwater inspections should continue on a 2 year frequency. Significant predicted scour and deteriorated timber pile bents (unknown length) support strong consideration to replace the Maine owned section of this bridge. Countermeasures appear to be less effective on a long term basis, cost prohibitive based on a conceptual review of scour susceptability, and the duel state ownership.
Dover 182/123
POA Report
Scour POA Priority:
Attachment I: Post Flood Inspection Documentation
Post Flood Inspection Tasks
Flood Monitoring Program
Conceptual Structural / Hydraulic Countermeasures
Fixed Monitoring Devices
Increased Inspection Frequency
Priority Countermeasure
PriorityMonitoring
Attachment J: Scour / H&H Backup Calculations
Attachment K: NHDOT Underwater Inspection Report
SCOUR CRITICAL BRIDGE − PLAN OF ACTIONDover 182/123
1. GENERAL INFORMATIONStructure:
Year Built:
182/123
1982
City, County, State:
Dover, Strafford, New Hampshire
State Highway or Facility Carried:
Gulf Road
Waterway Crossed:
Salmon Falls River
Owner:
NHDOT
Year Rebuilt:
NA
Planned Bridge Replacement (if scheduled):
Anticipated Opening Date:
The structure contains 27 spans, 23 of which are located in Maine. The spans in NH are comprised of a concrete deck supported by steel beams on concrete caps and concrete encased steel H-pile bents. The spans in Maine are comprised of a concrete slab spanning between timber pile bents and timber abutment. The bridge in its current configuration was built 1982 without further reconstruction – the timber substructure in Maine predates the 1982 major reconstruction.
Structure Size and Description:
Foundation Details:
KNOWN UNKNOWN
Subsurface SoilInformation:
Bridge ADT Info:
Does the Bridge Provide Service to Emergency Facilities and/or an Evacuation Route (Y/N)?:
This bridge is of critical use, it is one of the limited access bridges to Maine. The 4900 ADT is critical.If So, Describe:
WorstAbutment: Right
WorstPier: 25
(Looking Downstream L to R)
Channel Primary Bed Material:
Sand & Gravel
Channel Secondary Bed Material:
Sand
Embedment (feet): 56 Exposure: None
Embedment (feet): unknown Exposure: Piles Exposed
Scour Summary
Strafford County FIS provides riverine discharges at the Rollingsford/Somersworth boundary approximately 4.5 miles upstream of the site. According to the FIS, Bridge 182/123 has not experienced a significant flood event since it was rebuilt in 1982. However, the FEMA Independent Evaluation of Recent Flooding in New Hampshire (7-08), indicates that the Salmon Falls River flooded in 2006 and 2007, with a recurrence interval of 10-50 years.
Flood History:
Twenty-seven span bridge built in 1982 that has not been reconstructed. The bridge carries Gulf Road over Salmon River from New Hampshire to Maine, and is tidally influenced. The abutments are concrete and located at the banks of the channel. The right abutment (NH) is founded on timber piles and the left abutment (ME) is founded on concrete piles. Three (3) piers (owned by NH) support the bridge near the right abutment, and consist of concrete on concrete encased steel H-piles. Thirty timber bents (owned by ME) support the bridge, extending from the concrete piers to the left abutment. In 2009, CHA did not observe any evidence of scour at the right abutment. In addition, the structure was protected by rounded boulders (approximately 1 ft in diameter) in fair condition. Water depth prevented an inspection of piers during the 2009 site visit. The original embedment cannot be determined from the available plans. The latest NH Bridge Inspection Report (2008) noted that some of the timber bents, located in Maine, were broken, badly damaged and/or deteriorated. The latest NH underwater inspection report (2007) included inspection of only the three concrete piers in NH. It states that the concrete that encapsulates the steel piles has failed at several locations; exposing the steel H-piles with corrosion of the steel noted. Also, local scour was noted to have exposed the steel piles below the concrete encasement level.
Field Observation:
Two storm tides were considered for the bridge: Nor’easter storm of record (1978 Nor’easter) and a Category 1 hurricane landfall. The storm tides were developed using record data, the Portland, Maine gage records, and the 100-year and 500-year water surface elevation (WSE) data from the Portsmouth, New Hampshire Flood Insurance Study. An unsteady state HEC-RAS model was developed using elevation data generated from CHA hydrographic survey (2009) supplemented with bathymetric data from the Portland Tsunami digital elevation model (DEM). The model output was used along with boring log data and a field soil classification in order to develop pier and contraction scour estimates. The result of this computation indicates the potential for 21 ft of scour at the three (NH) concrete piers and 15 ft at the (ME) timber bents during the 100-year flood event.
Scour Calculations:
Current Item 113 Code: 3 Source of Scour Critical Code: Calculation
Borings:
Yes No
Bridge Maintenance Division6
20034900 Year:Total:
Text9:6/24/2010 Text9:Scour Critical Bridge - Plan of Action: Dover 182/123 Text9: Page 1 of 6
5. MONITORING PROGRAM RECOMMENDED5a. Regular Inspection Program
Riverbed Profile Readings
Items toWatch:
Monitor any changes in channel elevations and look for any bridge distress, foundation deterioration, evidence of lateral migration, abutment and/or pier scour.
Frequency of Data Download and Review: Daily Weekly Monthly Other:
Scour Critical Elevation(s) For Each Pier:
Criteria of Termination For Fixed Monitoring:
Standard 2 Year Interval
Underwater Inspection Required Items toWatch:
Lateral migration, changes in channel bed elevations, abutment scour, signs of pier scour, including scour and refill (probe for unconsolidated materials). Continue with underwater inspections every 2 years.
Standard 5 Year Interval
2 Year Interval
1 Year Interval
5c. Flood Monitoring Program
Type:
Discharge
Visual Inspection
Instrument (check all that apply)
Portable Geophysical SonarOther:
(check all that apply)
Flood Monitoring event defined by:
Stage (WSE)
Frequency of Flood Monitoring: 1 hr. 3 hrs. 6 hrs. Other:
Notified By Public
Flood Warning Issued by NWS
Notified by Fixed Monitoring Device
USGS Gage Station #
1 Year Interval
Criteria to End Flood MonitoringConditions Stable / Water Receding
Recommended Post Flood Inspection
Action(s) Required if Scour Critical Elevation Detected: (See Section 7 and Section 8)
Not Applicable:
During PrecipitationEvent, Look For:
Water surface elevation within 2 ft the low chord (Piers 24-26, NH Bridge).
Revisit Bridge
Close Bridge (See Section 7)
Placard Location: No placard necessary, use low chord for monitoring.
Scour Critical Riverbed Elevation(s) for Each Pier/Abutment: Unknown. Bridge is founded on piles of unknown embedment.
NOTE: Additional Details for Action(s) Required May Be Included in Sections 7 and 8.
Action(s) Required if Scour Critical Riverbed Elevation Detected:
Close Bridge. Institute detour.
Agency and Department Responsible for Monitoring:
NHDOT
Contact Person:
NHDOT Bridge Design Bureau (603) 271-2731
Riverbed Profile Readings (See Attachment I)
Items toWatch:
Evidence of scour and refill; greater than 5ft total scour with respect to 2009 channel invert at any point; lateral migration; abutment scour; pier scour, settlement, tilting, debris or distress.
5d. Post-Flood Inspection Tasks Required
Visual Inspection (See Attachment I)
Profile at Substructure (See Attachment I)
Undermining (See Attachment I)
Text9:6/24/2010 Text9:Scour Critical Bridge - Plan of Action: Dover 182/123 Text9: Page 3 of 6
6. COUNTERMEASURE RECOMMENDATIONS
Conceptual Structural / Hydraulic Countermeasures
Basis for the Selection of the Preferred Scour Countermeasure:
Include Information on Hydraulic, Structural or Monitoring Countermeasures.
(1)
Estimated Cost
$
(2) $
(3) $
Bridge replacement should be considered before conceptual countermeasures are designed. Owned by 2 states.
Countermeasure Implementation Project Type:
Proposed Construction
Other:
Bridge Maintenance
Programmed Construction - Project Lead Agency
Bridge Design
Highway Design
Recommended Countermeasures to be Performed by:
NHDOT. Maine DOT owns 23 of 27 spans.
Contact Person:
NHDOT Bridge Design Bureau (603) 271-2731
Post Flood Inspection Tasks Required
Flood Monitoring Program
Fixed Monitoring Devices
Regular Inspection Program
Lead Agency:
Conceptual Cost Estimate:
H & H Summary Information:
8.1
11.7
8.4
9.7
50 year
Flow (cfs) Elevation (ft)
100 year
500 year
Roadway
Low Chord
Flow Impacting Bridge Flow Overtopping Bridge
Yes
Yes
No
No
10 year
Text9:6/24/2010 Text9:Scour Critical Bridge - Plan of Action: Dover 182/123 Text9: Page 4 of 6
7. BRIDGE CLOSURE PLAN
Scour Measurement Results / Monitoring Device (See Section 5)
Criteria For Consideration of Bridge Closure:
Observed Structure Movement / Settlement
Water Surface Elevation Reaches Low Chord
Overtopping Road or Structure
Other: Debris Accumulation Movement of RipRap/Other Armor Protection Loss of Road Embankment
Agency and Department Responsible for Closure:
Contact Person(s):
NHDOT Bridge Design Bureau, Bridge Inspector
(See Attachment C)
Water Reaches Critical Elevation:
NHDOT Municipality:Transportation Management Center
11 King CourtKeene, NH 03431-4648Main: (603)-357-2445 New Hampshire Scour Investigation
Dover 182/123
Attachment B: Detour Route
Dover182/123
IF GOING WEST ON DOVER-ELIOT RD, REVERSE DIRECTIONS.
GOING EAST ON DOVER-ELIOT RD.
DETOUR MAP
Bridge: Dover 182/123
Detour (miles): Last ADT:
Foundation Details:
KNOWN
UNKNOWN Worst Abutment: Right
Worst Pier: 25(Looking Downstream L to R)
Embedment (feet): 56 Exposure: None
Embedment (feet): unknown Exposure: Piles Exposed
Diving Insp Reports: 10/2/2007 9/23/2005
FIELD VERIFICATION CARD (POA Attachment C)
Owner: NHDOT
Feature Carried: Gulf Road
Feature Crossed: Salmon Falls River
Town, County: Dover - Strafford
Contact Person: NHDOT Bridge Design Bureau (603) 271-2731
BRIDGE INFORMATION
Superstructure Type: Stringer/Multi-Beam or Girder
Superstructure Material: Concrete
Scour Critical Feature: R. Abutment, Bents 24-26; other bents should be probed for scour holes.
Placard Location: No placard necessary, use low chord for monitoring.
Red List: No
Number of Spans: 27
USGS Gage Station: USGS Station Prox To Bridge:
GENERAL INFORMATION
Scour Measurement Results / Monitoring Device
CRITERIA FOR CONSIDERATION OF BRIDGE CLOSURE
Observed Structure Movement / Settlement
Water Surface Elevation Reaches Low Chord
Overtopping Road or Structure
Date/TimeNotified:
Completed ProperNotification
Close BridgeRevisit BridgePost-Flood Inspection Recommendation
POST-MONITORING VERIFICATION
ACTION TAKEN
REFERENCE PHOTOS
Dates:
Water Reaches Critical Elevation:
Agency:
What To Look For: Scour at any location exceeding 3.5 ft. Lateral migration into Right abutment. Lateral migration into timber pile bent-supported segment of bridge. Check tidal gage at Ft. Point, NH.
(Left to Right Convention Looking Downstream)
CRITERIA FOR CONSIDERATION TO COMPLETE INTERIM BRIDGE REOPENING:
Agency and Person Responsible for Re-Opening Bridge After Inspection:
NHDOT Bridge Design Bureau (603) 271-2731
Critical Elevation Marker Is Visible
Reasons for Closure Have Abated
Water Surface Levels Dropping
Verify Riverbed Elevation
Above Critical Footing Elevation. (See Section 5d)
Traffic Control Equipment (detour signing and barriers) and storage location(s) (NHDOT/Town): NHDOT Bridge Maintenance Divisional Crew 6
HighwayMaintenance
District: 06
NHDOT Bureauof Traffic
Streambed Elevation Drops Less than
Streambed Elevation 1.0 Feet
3.5 Feet
Other: Debris Accumulation Movement of RipRap/Other Armor Protection Loss of Road Embankment Ice Jam
DischargeStage (WSE)USGS Gage Station #
Stage (WSE) 8 ft NAVD88 = (13 ft MLLW)NOAA Gage Station # 8423898
NOAA Gage Station: 8423898 NOAA Station Prox To Bridge: Fort Point, NH - Approximately 13 miles DS
8 20034900 Year:Total:
Text9:6/24/2010 Text9:Attachment C: Field Verification Card: Dover 182/123 Text9: Page 1 of 2
Upstream Elevation of Bridge at Low Water
DocID_11261.JPG
Downstream Elevation of Bridge at Low Water
DocID_11273.JPG
Scour Critical Feature at Low Water
DocID_11262.JPG
Text9:6/24/2010 Text9:Attachment C: Field Verification Card: Dover 182/123 Text9: Page 2 of 2
NHDOT POST FLOOD INSPECTION REPORT (POA Attachment I)
Bridge: Post Flood Inspection Date:Dover 182/123GENERAL INFORMATION
Town: Dover
Feature Carried: Gulf Road
Owner: NHDOT
Feature Crossed: Salmon Falls River
Major Basin (HU8):
Functional Class: 17 - Urban Collector
Detour Length: 8 (miles)
Year Built: 1982
Year ofReconstruction: NA
ADT: 4900 Year of ADT: 2003
Overall Fed Sufficiency Rating: 65.6
RedList: No
Item 60: 4 Item 61: 6 Item 71: 8 Item 113: 3
Current:
HYDRAULIC INFORMATION
FEMA Study:
Whitman & Howard Information
USGS Report:
Tidal Influence: Other Hydrologic & Hydraulic Data:Strafford County FIS provides riverine discharges at the Rollinsford/Somersworth boundary approximately 4.5 miles upstream. Moderate to small tidal prism with 8 to 10 ft tide range. Poor condition of substructure makes it more vulnerable to scour. FEMA report does not extend downstream to this location. Moderate to heavy woody debris and ice. Standard large "river" survey ( Max flow depth > 10 ft).
100-Yr Water Velocity (feet per sec): 6
Angle Of Attack 10
Watershed Area (sq. mi):
(Flood Flow)
BRIDGE INFORMATIONBridge Length (in feet): 489.00 Plans Available: Borings Available:
Strafford County FIS provides riverine discharges at the Rollingsford/Somersworth boundary approximately 4.5 miles upstream of the site. According to the FIS, Bridge 182/123 has not experienced a significant flood event since it was rebuilt in 1982. However, the FEMA Independent Evaluation of Recent Flooding in New Hampshire (7-08), indicates that the Salmon Falls River flooded in 2006 and 2007, with a recurrence interval of 10-50 years.
Date of Interim Bridge Reopening:Date of Bridge Closure:
Date of Post Flood Inspection: Post Flood Inspection Completed By:
NA NA
Foundation Details:
KNOWN
UNKNOWN Worst Abutment: Right
Worst Pier: 25(Looking Downstream L to R)
Embedment (feet): 56 Exposure: None
Embedment (feet): unknown Exposure: Piles Exposed
Diving Insp Reports: 10/2/2007 9/23/2005
Superstructure Type: Stringer/Multi-Beam or Girder
Superstructure Material: Concrete
Scour Critical Feature: R. Abutment, Bents 24-26; other bents should be probed for scour holes.
Placard Location: No placard necessary, use low chord for monitoring.
Red List: No
Number of Spans: 27
USGS Gage Station: USGS Station Prox To Bridge:
Dates:
What To Look For: Scour at any location exceeding 3.5 ft. Lateral migration into Right abutment. Lateral migration into timber pile bent-supported segment of bridge. Check tidal gage at Ft. Point, NH.
NOAA Gage Station: 8423898 NOAA Station Prox To Bridge: Fort Point, NH - Approximately 13 miles DS
Text9:6/24/2010 Text9:Attachment I: Post Flood Inspection Report: Dover 182/123 Text9: Page 1 of 1
CHA File No:18925.2003.1510
11 King CourtKeene, NH 03431-4648Main: (603)-357-2445 New Hampshire Scour Investigation
Dover 182/123Attachment J: Scour/H&H Backup
Calculations
Attachment J: Scour/H&H Backup Calculations
Hydraulic Data from <Dover_SalmonFalls.prj>100-hurricane-1 ApprXS 17330 500-hurricane1 Appr XS 17330Portsmouth Bridge ContXS 16131 BU Portsmouth bridge Cont XS 16131 BU
100-yr. Flood Data 500-yr. Flood Data
Hydraulic: Yo = 12.28 ft. adjacent Yo = 13.1 ft. adjacentLeft Y1 = ft. adjacent Left Y1 = ft. adjacent
Right Y1 = 0.72 ft. adjacent Right Y1 = 1.59 ft. adjacentQ1 = 20,564 cfs Q1 = 24,974 cfs
NOTES: These tables present potential scour depths for the associated hydraulic events. If a soil horizon exists beneath the bridge which isresistant to scour, the predicted scour depths could be reduced to reflect the competence of the material. This reduction would require examination and approval by a qualified geotechnical engineer with knowledge of the properties of the material.
SHEAR VELOCITY IN UPSTREAM SECTION (fps) = 0.23V*/ω = 2.49k1 HEC-18 = 0.69DISCHARGE IN UPSTREAM CHANNEL (cfs), Q1 = 20,564DISCHARGE IN CONTRACTED SECTION (cfs), Q2 = 19,215WIDTH OF UPSTREAM CHANNEL SECTION (ft), W 1 = 951.0WIDTH OF MAIN CHANNEL CONTRACTED SECTION (ft), W 2 = 345.7MEDIAN GRAIN SIZE (ft), D50 = 0.000656
COMPUTED WATER DEPTH OF CONTRACTED SECTION (ft), Y 2 = 22.05AVERAGE WATER DEPTH AT BRIDGE(ft), Y0 = 12.28AVERAGE SCOUR DEPTH AT CONTRACTED SECTION, YS = 9.8
SHEAR VELOCITY IN UPSTREAM SECTION (fps) = 0.22V*/ω = 2.43k1 SEE HEC-18 = 0.69DISCHARGE IN UPSTREAM CHANNEL (cfs), Q1 = 24,974DISCHARGE IN CONTRACTED SECTION (cfs), Q2 = 23,547WIDTH OF UPSTREAM CHANNEL SECTION (ft), W 1 = 1,566.2WIDTH OF MAIN CHANNEL CONTRACTED SECTION (ft), W 2 = 347.4MEDIAN GRAIN SIZE (ft), D50 = 0.000656
COMPUTED WATER DEPTH OF CONTRACTED SECTION (ft), Y 2 = 28.19AVERAGE WATER DEPTH AT BRIDGE(ft), Y0 = 13.10AVERAGE SCOUR DEPTH AT CONTRACTED SECTION, YS = 15.1