PROJECT DEFINITION REPORT S65D SPILLWAY REFURBISHMENT · 2018. 3. 12. · PROJECT DEFINITION REPORT – S65D SPILLWAY REFURBISHMENT PAGE 7 OF 29 The required disciplines for this

PROJECT DEFINITION REPORT

S65D SPILLWAY REFURBISHMENT

PS ID 100914

DECEMBER 22, 2015

REVISION #0

PROJECT DEFINITION REPORT – S65D SPILLWAY REFURBISHMENT PAGE 2 OF 29

Table of ContentsApprovals ...................................................................................................................................................... 3

Project Location ............................................................................................................................................ 4

Project Description........................................................................................................................................ 5

Project Scope ................................................................................................................................................ 6

Background ................................................................................................................................................... 9

Permitting ...................................................................................................................................................10

Right of Way................................................................................................................................................11

Real Estate ..................................................................................................................................................12

Public Use/ Outreach ..................................................................................................................................12

Stakeholder Considerations........................................................................................................................12

Operations and Modeling ...........................................................................................................................12

Operations and Maintenance .....................................................................................................................14

SCADA, Instrumentation, Telemetry, Information Technology..................................................................14

Security and Safety .....................................................................................................................................14

Environmental.............................................................................................................................................14

Monitoring ..................................................................................................................................................15

Commissioning............................................................................................................................................15

Lessons Learned..........................................................................................................................................15

Conceptual Alternative Options..................................................................................................................16

Cost Estimates.............................................................................................................................................16

Recommendations ......................................................................................................................................16

Project Milestones ......................................................................................................................................16

Resource Requirements..............................................................................................................................17

Project Deliverables and Schedule..............................................................................................................17

Project Funding Sources .............................................................................................................................18

References ..................................................................................................................................................18

Photographs................................................................................................................................................19

Project Schematic Diagram.........................................................................................................................22

Appendix A - Cost Estimate.........................................................................................................................23


Project Location

Structure S65D is located on Canal 38 about 41 miles downstream from Lake Kissimmee and 4 miles below

the U.S. Highway 98 N (US-98 N) bridge over the Kissimmee River. The Structure can be accessed from

County Road 721, which is approximately 900 feet southwest from the bridge that crosses the Kissimmee

River on US-98N; then driving approximately 3.5 miles south along County Road 721, turning left onto

Underhill Rd, and finally turning left onto the dirt road at the South Florida Water Management District

(SFWMD) S65D access sign. The structure is located in Okeechobee County.

Figure 1 – S65D Location


Figure 2 – S65D Location Detail

Project Description

There are a series of projects in the C-38/Kissimmee River area known as the S65 Series Refurbishment

Projects (S65 Series.) These projects include the S65 & S65A Spillway Refurbishments (S65 & S65A), S65D

Spillway Refurbishment (S65D), and S65E Spillway & S65E Navigation Lock Refurbishments (S65E & S65E

NL). Among these projects the least challenging and therefore, the first to be executed is S65D; this

structure is not as challenging as the rest of the S65 series structure for the following reasons: (1) structure

S65DX2 Spillway will provide additional by pass capacity if needed, (2) the water elevations upstream and

downstream of the structure do not reach extreme conditions. This Project Definition Report (PDR)

describes only the S65D project. S65D will be a pilot project that will be used to gain experience and used

as a reference for the rest of the S65 Series projects.

The S65D structure is a reinforced concrete; gated spillway with discharge controlled by four (4) cable

operated vertical lift gates. The spillway gates are fully automated. This structure will be operated, subject

to hydraulic restraint, to maintain an optimum headwater elevation of 26.8 feet NGVD insofar as possible.


The S65D project involves full concrete refurbishment of the structure, replacement of all gates, and the

replacement and repair of miscellaneous components.

The proposed work shall meet the SFWMD design requirements and all applicable engineering standards,

without changing or modifying the structure’s flow capacity and drainage patterns. The proposed project

will extend the useful service life of S65D and is necessary to support the continued operation of the

Central and Southern Florida Project (C&SF Project).

Project Scope

The scope for S65D will include but is not limited to the following repairs and refurbishments:

1. Repair damaged concrete throughout the structure including apron and ogee weir, which has

deteriorated over the years due to acid attack. Damaged concrete should be removed and

disposed of properly; at a minimum, three (3) inches of concrete surface shall be removed. It is

recommended that the concrete repair include the installation of wire mesh and the application

of either Self-Consolidating-Concrete (SCC) or Shotcrete from the base of the structure up to

approximately two (2) feet above the high water mark elevation.

2. The design of a fully operational temporary dewatering system shall be considered as part of the

scope of work; most importantly, calculations and checks to verify the structure uplift conditions

should be performed. The dewatering process during construction shall be performed one bay at

a time.

3. Paint/apply a protective coating to the structure’s concrete from the high water line up to top of

the structure. This project component shall follow SFWMD standards for painting and/or coatings.

4. Replace all four (4) gates with stainless steel gates (including roller wheels, rails, fittings, and any

associated components). This project includes the full design and fabrication of the gates. Gate

replacement shall be planned and executed one bay at a time per dry season. Since the project

includes four (4) bays, the concrete repair process and the gates replacement could be performed

during four (4) consecutive dry seasons over four (4) fiscal years.

5. Replace machinery frames for gate hoists and overhaul gate hoist assemblies, if required by

increased weight of new gates.

6. Replace all four (4) corroded wingwall sheetpiles & wingwall sheetpile caps. The existing sheetpile

wingwalls will remain in place and a new wingwall sheetpile system will be installed in front of the

existing one.

7. Install a new cathodic protection system. The Designer should determine the type of cathodic

system (active, passive or both) and stablish the design criterion for the system operational

lifecycle.

8. Perform bathymetric study to determine potential rip-rap replacement/repairs.

9. Perform bathymetric analysis at the downstream end of the structure to assessment potential

scour deficiencies and associated repairs.

10. Replace stilling wells both upstream and downstream of the structure.

11. Install fall protection devices for the structure as needed.


The required disciplines for this project include but are not limited to: Survey, Geotechnical, Civil,

Structural, Hydraulic, Electrical, and Mechanical. The project will entail survey, geotechnical investigation,

design and preparation of the required bid documents to solicit bid proposals. A plan to mitigate any

change in the flood discharge characteristics must be established and the design and installation of a de-

watering system needs to be included as part of the preferred design alternative.

In addition, the following should be noted:

1. A detailed analysis may be required during the design phase of this project in order to determine

if the proposed gate replacements are feasible. Critical elements to consider during the design

phase shall include but are not limited to:

a. The existing gates shall be field inspected to verify actual dimensions and determine if

modifications have been made from the original design.

b. Alternative gate layouts or design options shall be analyzed in order to mitigate risk and

future operational issues.

c. Evaluate replacing gate’s hydraulic hoist lifting mechanism with cable drum. Designer

should coordinate with the Okeechobee Field Station (FS) on the preferred gate’s lifting

mechanism.

d. Constraints from the new gate and its operational system that would limit or impede the

use of the current structure layout or make the replacement unrealistic/not cost effective

(clearances, structure capacity to absorb new loads generated by new stainless steel gate,

additional power, etc.) shall be identified.

e. Additional studies, designs, tests, and other verifications that are required to validate the

use of new gates shall be determined.

f. SFWMD standards and design guidelines shall be utilized for the proposed new gates; if

they are determined not to be applicable or adequate, appropriate design/technical

parameters shall be identified to perform other repair alternatives.

g. If new stainless steel gates are not shown to be feasible, the designer shall consider the

use of the original gate design of galvanized steel gates. See the Conceptual Alternative

Options section of this report for additional details.

h. Stainless steel gates could be heavier than the existing gates to be replaced. The hydraulic

lifting mechanism will need to be evaluated and/or changed as necessary, since this

mechanism may not be able to operate with the additional weight of the stainless steel

gates. An option could be the replacement of the existing hydraulic lifting mechanism by

a cable drum system. This option should be considered during design with special

attention to lifting mechanism size, overall space availability, clearances, additional

power, etc.

i. The gate contractor/fabricator shall be notified of the possibility of gate warping during

fabrication (welding) and provide the necessary fabrication method, constraints, etc., to

minimize warping to meet design requirements.

j. All gates shall be inspected and approved by the SFWMD prior to delivery to verify that

the final product meets contract specifications and design document requirements.


2. Water Control Operations shall be consulted and involved during all phases of the project (design,

construction and commissioning) to verify allowable flows and approve any proposed dewatering

systems. During construction, Water Control Operations will dictate the preferred sequence for

the gate replacements.

3. Based on the selected dewatering system, the possibility of phasing the dewatering system during

construction/repairs shall be contemplated; the proposed dewatering system may require the use

of well points.

4. Coordination between the design, construction, and operational areas shall identify issues

pertaining to flood control, water supply, and any mission critical situations that the project may

cause and/or that the construction/repair activities may be subject to.

5. The use of the S65D Navigation Lock (S65D NL) as an alternative bypass during

construction/repairs should not be considered under normal conditions. Clear language regarding

this constraint should be included in the design, specifications and contract documents. It is

important to note that the extra gates that exist at S65DX2 Spillway offer additional capacity

beyond S65D.The SFWMD may choose to reserve the option of using the S65D NL as bypass only

under extraordinary circumstances, which may include heavy rain events during construction that

may compromise the safety of the public. In order to do so, the SFWMD should conduct

bathymetry (pre-event surveys) and Hydraulic & Hydrologic studies prior to exercising that option

to assess the conditions downstream of the S65D NL; determine if it is safe to use the S65D NL;

and establish the potential effects produced by an event on S65D NL. Based on the results, it

would be easier to implement erosion preventive measures if necessary. A pre-design meeting

between the Operations Section and the Design Section is required to discuss the findings and

implications of the bathymetry (pre-event surveys) and Hydraulic & Hydrologic studies. The

results of the meeting shall dictate the design approach and the course of action to be taken

should an extraordinary event take place during the project. The assigned Project Manager should

coordinate with Water Control Operations, Infrastructure and the Okeechobee FS during the

project execution.

6. Clear language shall be included in the design, specification, and contract documents to indicate,

the contractor’s and the SFWMD’s responsibilities during construction/repairs.

7. A new stilling well design by the Engineering and Construction Design Section is in progress. The

new design should be finished before this project is ready to start. The existing stilling well systems

and stilling well pipes should be replaced following the new design.

8. During the design phase of this project, two options should be considered based on the use of

Self-Consolidating-Concrete (SCC) and the use of Shotcrete. Both SCC and Shotcrete present

challenges. The following information should be taken into consideration:

• SCC:

o Significant and complex formwork may be required; this can have an impact on overall

cost. Formwork will require engineering calculations.

o A significant amount of drilling to secure formwork may be required; this could cause

additional damage to existing concrete. This situation may not always be the case

considering that “falseworks” could be installed to secure the formwork.


o Selection of a contractor who specializes in this type of concrete repair could be difficult.

A minimum of five (5) years of experience is required for contractors to perform SCC

repairs.

o Companies who specialize in SCC products and its installation should be contacted in

order to gather information on previous projects where SCC was used; especially for

projects in which SCC repair is subject to submerged conditions.

o To date, SCC has not been used for any of the SFWMD concrete repair projects. Quality

assurance and quality control of work could be challenging.

o Note that the project “Spillway Refurbishments S72/S75/S82S” (PS# 100831) is scheduled

for concrete repair using SCC. It is recommended to use this project as a reference for the

S65 Series projects.

o The Florida Department of Transportation has successfully used SCC and may provide

valuable insight regarding lessons learned.

• Shotcrete:

o Porosity deficiency due to improper application of Shotcrete is a main concern.

o Concrete surface preparation sometimes creates irregularities that facilitate the creation

of voids/honeycombs which may result in increased porosity when the Shotcrete is

applied.

o Improper application of Shotcrete could cause concrete repair failure in the short term.

o Mix preparation is critical. A homogeneous “Wet Mix” should be designed and properly

applied to the surfaces to be repaired.

o A proper curing process is necessary for a successful Shotcrete final product.

o It has been recommended that Structure S63A be dewatered and concrete samples be

taken from this structure and evaluated to verify porosity concerns. This structure was

repaired using Shotcrete.

9. For all construction activities associated with concrete repairs, it is necessary to include in the

contract and design documents a requirement for relevant experience language for the contractor

selection.

Notes:

• Before the commencement of this project, the Project Manager shall verify if the scope of work

is still valid. The Infrastructure Management Section (Infrastructure) shall be contacted to verify

the latest inspections findings included in the SFWMD Structure Inspection Program (SIP)

Reports; and in the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Routine and Periodic

Inspections Reports.

• A pre-design meeting between Infrastructure, Water Control Operations, and the DesignSection is required to discuss/verify proposed design.

Background

During inspections (underwater and above water) performed in February, 2007 by Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. as

part of the SIP, the S65D structure was designated an overall rating of C-3. The structure was re-inspected


in December 2009, for the underwater component only by Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. Infrastructure performed

additional field inspections/verification for this structure and produced an “Inspection Summary/Issue

Identification Report” (Issue ID) dated July, 2012, in which all the deficiencies requiring design,

construction, repair, and/or replacement were identified. The field inspections/verifications were

performed in close coordination with the Okeechobee FS. The proposed refurbishment work was

classified as a capital project by Infrastructure.

Subsequently, Infrastructure and the Project Development Sections (Project Development) met to discuss

the findings presented in the Issue ID and to verify the scope of work. During the meeting it was decided

to perform a final field visit with Infrastructure, Project Development, and Okeechobee FS staff to confirm

the project scope of work and include any other repairs that were determined to be significant. After the

field visit a “Field Visit Summary” dated August 2013, was produced by Project Development; this

document describes the capital project scope of work which is presented in this report.

Structure S65D was completed in 1966; aging structures require maintenance and repairs. At this point,

the proposed repairs are necessary to guarantee the proper operation of the structure and the C&SF

Project.

Permitting

It is anticipated that this project will require the review and approval of regulatory agencies at the federal,

state and local level. Note that each agency review depends on the final design, total amount of work

below ordinary high water, and existing site conditions. This project will not intended to alter or change

the C&SF Project. Coordination with the Permit Acquisition and Compliance Section shall take place at all

stages of the project. The proposed work does not change the existing drainage patterns. For the

execution of this project, the following represents the most likely level of review based on the currently

anticipated project scope:

From a state perspective, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) regulates work

within wetlands and other surface waters under 373.4131 F.S., Environmental Resource Permit (ERP)

program.

Rule 62-330.477 F.A.C. grants a General Permit to Water Management Districts to repair replace, or alter,

existing water control structures with structures of the same, or comparable, designs. Although no

changes in maximum discharge capacity or control elevation are allowed, minor deviations in the

structure’s design, including those due to changes in materials, construction techniques, or current

construction codes or safety standards are permissible. The General Permit also authorizes associated

construction activities including temporary fill plugs, cofferdams, upland bypass channels, channel

shaping, riprap within 200 feet of the structure, and canal bank (within 2,000 feet of the structure) and

bottom stabilization (within 500 feet of the structure), necessary to repair erosion damage and restore

previously existing canal configurations.

In order to conduct work under the aforementioned General Permit, the SFWMD must submit a “Notice

of Intent to Use an Environmental Resource General Permit” using form 62-330.402(1). The notice must

include the appropriate processing fee, which is currently $250 per general permit (i.e. per location).


Within thirty days of receiving the request, FDEP shall determine whether the activity qualifies for the

General Permit or must undergo a higher level of review.

From a Federal perspective, the USACE will need to issue approval under Section 404 of the Clean Water

Act which regulates the placement of fill into Waters of the United States and for any refurbishments

which may temporarily interfere with navigation (e.g. change lock operations), under the Rivers and

Harbors Act. From a Section 404 perspective, because the proposed refurbishments are not likely to alter

their current uses, it is likely that the proposed work will qualify under the USACE’s Nationwide Permit #3.

This particular Nationwide Permit authorizes the replacement of currently serviceable structures, subject

to conditions, including pre-discharge notification and USACE verification. Potential impacts to navigation

may need to be individually reviewed under Section 10 of the Rivers & Harbors Act, and coordination with

the United States Coast Guard (USCG) may also be required. Similar to the state reviews, this review will

be initiated by SFWMD’s Permit Acquisition & Compliance Staff, based on information (and drawings)

provided by the Project Manager.

The USACE will also need to conduct a Section 408 review to confirm that the proposed work will not alter

or change the C&SF Project. Because these authorizations have been known to take up to one (1) year, or

more, it is recommended that the 408 review be initiated as quickly as practicable. In contrast to the

aforementioned USACE Section 404 and Section 10 reviews, this review will be initiated by SFWMD’s

Project Development, based on information and drawings provided by the Project Manager assigned to

this project.

For activities that require removal of surface or ground water as part of construction (e.g. dewatering),

the contractor shall apply to SFWMD’s Water Use Bureau and obtain all required permits. Because of

FDEP’s oversight authority following receipt of the contractor’s application, the SFWMD shall submit

notification to FDEP, if required.

The contractor will also be required to obtain any required local County permits, and to submit a

completed Notice of Intent (NOI) to conduct work under the generic National Pollutant Discharge

Elimination System (NPDES) Permit for stormwater discharge from large and small construction sites. In

accordance with the requirements of that permit, the General Contractor must also develop, submit, and

implement a stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) in accordance with the requirements of Part

V of the generic permit.

Permits or possible exemptions will be subject to the final approved design. The magnitude and duration

of the construction work in the water will also determine the permit type(s). All the permits mentioned

above shall be verified before design and construction.

Right of Way

There is a right-of-way permit issued to Glades Electric for buried electrical service for the S65D andtelemetry tower replacement on Canal C-38. The permit number is 13833 and is dated March, 8 2011. Itis recommended that the Right-Of-Way Section verify the permit status, and if additional permitsassociated with Glades Electric future projects have been issued and/or will be issued in order to avoiddelays before and during the execution of the project.


Real Estate

The Real Estate Section has provided information that certifies that the SFWMD has title sufficient for the

S65D Refurbishment project in the C-38 Canal right-of-way in Sections 27 and 33, Township 36 South,

Range 33 East in Okeechobee County. There is no need for right-of-way drainage easements. Some power

utility modifications may be required if the new lifting mechanisms for the gates requires additional power

to handle the changing gate weights. Therefore, close coordination and verification with the SFWMD’s

Real Estate Section and FPL during the design phase is required.

Public Use/ Outreach

The project area is located within the SFWMD C-38 Canal right-of-way and the project area has not been

identified for any public use. The public is able to access the S65D surrounding areas and enjoy passive

recreational activities (fishing). Hence, proper notice to the public will be required prior to and during the

project. In addition, the design plans must delineate the extent of the construction area limits with

notation for installation of safety barricades and/or construction fences.

Since there is a possibility that the project construction/repair activities may have some interference with

the S65D NL normal operations, it is recommended that a public outreach program be put in place prior

to the execution of this project. The purpose is to inform the users of the navigation lock and other

stakeholders about the project and its potential impacts. The project may require informational meetings,

presentations, fact sheets, mailers or similar communications describing the duration and characteristics

of the activities to be performed during construction. The Okeechobee Intergovernmental and Outreach

Representative will support the outreach efforts in conjunction with the Okeechobee FS. Public Outreach

coordination efforts shall also include the stakeholders of this project.

Stakeholder Considerations

The project lies within the Okeechobee FS area of responsibility. Since Glades Electric has been granted a

right-of-way permit, it is important to include this organization in the list of stakeholders for verification

purposes. Other stakeholders include Okeechobee County, USACE, FDEP, USCG, and FDOT (project access

is from US-98 N).

Operations and Modeling

The ability to maintain the flow conditions specified by the Operations Support Section during the period

of construction will be required. Flood discharge characteristics must follow all the recommendations

provided by Operations Support Section. Original flow conditions must remain unchanged after the

project execution. No impacts to the basin are expected and no additional modifications will be needed

in the overall operation. The Operations Support Section has provided the following guidelines for the

execution of this project:


• The S65D is the least challenging of the projects to be executed for the S65 Series, and it will be the

first one to be executed. Refurbishment of S65D should be used as an opportunity to gain experience

in designing, constructing and dewatering this type of structure, and to gain a better idea of the

contractor’s performance for the execution of the rest of the S65 Series. It is recommended that the

project manager(s) assigned to the other S65 Series projects become familiar with the S65D project

and lessons learned in order to apply them to the fullest extent possible in the future.

• Enough checks and assurances need to be included in the design drawings, specifications, and/or

contract documents in order to guarantee proper coordination with Water Control Operations when

the repair/construction work takes place.

• For all repair/construction work, the contractor shall provide sufficient notice to Water Control

Operations. A clear schedule of proposed activities shall be submitted to Water Controls Operations

and the Okeechobee FS for review and coordination before repair/construction work commences; at

a minimum a 2-week notice shall be provided.

• Gate operations and repair sequencing shall be verified and approved by Water Control Operations.

• The Water Control Operations Bureau has full autonomy to require that any repairs and/or

construction activities cease should a heavy rain storm event be imminent, or emergency and

operational needs are identified.

• All work on project components that directly impact the structure operations shall be performed

during the dry season only, generally November to May timeframe.

• The main components of the project are concrete rehabilitation/resurfacing, gate replacement

including operating components, rip-rap repairs (based on bathymetric study), and wingwall sheetpile

repairs. The activities associated with these components shall be performed only during the dry

season.

• The use of the S65D NL as alternative bypass shall not be considered under normal conditions. No

pumps will be allowed to set up flow by-pass systems. The gates that are not being replaced should

have sufficient capacity to handle flows. Damages associated with uneven flows, scour holes, and

bank erosion shall be considered during design and construction. All such damage shall be repaired

as part of this project.

• Project component activities such as gate fabrication, can be performed during the wet season in

order to have these components ready for installation during the dry season.

• The S65D refurbishment shall be done only one (1) bay at a time during the dry season. The

contractor’s performance needs to be verified before the next gate replacement. If the contractor

does not perform well, the next gate replacement shall not start in order to avoid construction/repair

activities overlapping with the wet season.

• Based on previous experience the S65 Series structures may have significant scour deficiencies at the

downstream end. Therefore, it is necessary to perform a detailed bathymetric analysis to identify

scour deficiencies and determine the extent of the scour repairs if any.

• Liquidated damages language should be considered in developing contract documents to discourage

project delays.


Operations and Maintenance

This project lies within the Okeechobee FS area of responsibility and has been coordinated with the FS

personnel. The Okeechobee FS has the resources, manpower and equipment to provide operations and

maintenance once the project is online.

SCADA, Instrumentation, Telemetry, Information Technology

No SCADA, telemetry and information technology modifications are required for the project. However,

instrumentation and electric power modifications may be required for the project if the new stainless

steel gate weight can’t be handled by the existing hydraulic lifting mechanism. A new lifting system such

as cable drum may be required.

Security and Safety

The project site has been identified as Critical Infrastructure by the Department of Home Land Security,

with a Protection Level #3. This level of protection requires increased physical security measures and

electronic security measures. Increased physical security measures are identified as barbed wire fencing,

lighting, bollards, proprietary keys, safety zones, signage, etc. Electronic security measures are identified

as alarms, access control and closed circuit television (CCTV). Before the commencement of the project,

the project manager should contact the Facility Security Unit to confirm required security measures and

potential power and/or conduit requirements for the project security equipment. The cost estimate

contingency component should be sufficient to cover the cost associated with any security measure

updates.

Security and site safety shall be the responsibility of the contractor. The contractor shall coordinate with

the Okeechobee FS. The security required inside SFWMD property will be passive; barricades, temporary

fencing, warning signs, and similar elements shall be used to alert/prevent unauthorized personnel from

unrestricted access to the construction area. In addition, it is the contractor’s responsibility to provide any

necessary security systems to prevent public access into the project area. A comprehensive Maintenance

of Traffic (MOT) plan shall be implemented if construction is determined to have an impact on US-98 N.

Environmental

The project does not include or impact any existing wetlands or sensitive areas. This project is a

refurbishment of an existing structure that seeks to guarantee continuous and proper C&SF system

operation. No coordination with SHPPO or other archaeological agencies is anticipated for this project.

The project does not lie in Tribal Lands. Manatees, a threatened and endangered species, may be present

in the project area as per the C&SF Project Manatee Accessibility Map, dated September 2006. Monitoring

will be required per the following section. No avian protection plan is required. The FDEP Total Maximum

Daily Load (TMDL) program is not applicable for this project.


Monitoring

The C&SF Project Manatee Accessibility Map, September 2006, shows that the C-38 Canal and S65D is

manatee accessible; therefore, monitoring for manatees during project construction shall be required.

Implementation of Best Management Practices (turbidity screens) in the areas impacted by repairs and

construction to prevent turbidity plumes will be required. Silt screens to cordon off any spoil disposal area

along the canal bank to prevent sediment laden water runoff into the canal will be required.

Commissioning

The S65D Project will require commissioning and testing once the structure refurbishment has been

completed.

Lessons Learned

Based on previous projects and experiences, it is recommended that the use of cast-in-place concrete in

lieu of shotcrete be considered for the concrete repairs. The use of SCC eliminates the possibility of leaving

unfilled voids, created during hydroblasting, between the existing concrete substrate and the repaired

section. For more information on this recommendation refer to the “Concrete Deterioration and Repairs”

white paper, dated September 24, 2012, prepared by José D. Guardiario P.G., P.E., SFWMD Engineering &

Construction Bureau Design Section.

For additional information regarding stainless steel gates, refer to the report “Engineering and Economic

Evaluation of Stainless Steel Vertical Lift Gates for Water Control Structures”, prepared by Consultancy

Resources Corporation and dated May 20, 2005. The document provides engineering guidelines for the

design and fabrication of stainless steel gates and information regarding stainless steel as a cost-effective

alternative to carbon steel at SFWMD water control structures.

It is recommended that warranty language be included in the design and contract documents which

require the contractor to cover all costs, including dewatering, associated with defective work or required

repairs discovered after completion of the project.

Projects to be considered as examples of lessons learned for this project are:

• S123 Spillway Gate Replacement. This project was managed by Infrastructure. See the SIP Archival

Tool website to access the project’s information and details.

• PS# 100486 - S72 Concrete Repair. Lessons learned indicate the need of more time for design

investigations in order to determine the required depth of concrete removal.

• PS# 100487 - S59, S62 & S63 Concrete Repair. This project can be used as a reference for design

investigations and construction methodologies.

• PS# 100831 - Spillway Refurbishments S72/S75/S82. Concrete repairs will be performed using

SCC.


Conceptual Alternative Options

The project options have been determined based on the type of material to be used for the concrete

repairs. As described in the Project Scope Section, SCC or Shotcrete are the potential methods for concrete

repairs. It is up to the designer to select the preferred concrete repair method. SFWMD has established a

gate replacement program that only considers the replacement of the existing carbon steel gates with

stainless steel gates; this could include the lifting mechanism upgrades and all the gate elements

mentioned in the Project Scope section.

Option 1: Concrete repairs using SCC, all other elements of scope of work remain the same.

Option 2: Concrete repairs using Shotcrete, all other elements of scope of work remain the same.

Note: The possibility of extending the structure’s piers to the edge of the apron for future dewatering

purposes was discussed. However, this alternative is not being presented in this report; it would be up to

the assigned designer and project manager to propose and develop this initiative if applicable/approved.

Cost Estimates

The Option 1 (SCC) cost estimate is $5,957,181.

The Option 2 (Shotcrete) cost estimate is $5,592,390.

Note: The cost estimate does not include security measures updates. The cost estimate contingency

component should be sufficient to cover the costs associated with any security measures updates.

See Appendix A for detailed cost estimate information.

Recommendations

The selection of the concrete repair method will be determined by the designer. The two concrete repair

options have been conceptually analyzed but, additional analysis by the designer is required to select the

most suitable solution. SFWMD prefers stainless steel gates, since it is recognized that stainless steel is a

more durable material and is easier to maintain than carbon steel. Over time, carbon steel gates develop

corrosion and joint deterioration issues. Stainless steel does not corrode, adds value to the overall

structural integrity, and reduces maintenance costs and operational issues.

Project Milestones

• Since gate replacement shall be performed during the dry season one bay at a time, the construction

process could take up to four (4) fiscal years. S65D will be the first project for the S65 Series, with a

design timeframe of two (2) fiscal years. Note that S65D design should be used as a template for the

S65 & S65A, and S65E & S65E NL designs.


Once the S65D project is complete, construction at S65 & S65A and/or S65E &S65E NL may start. The

construction process for S65 & S65A and S65E & S65E NL could be performed during three (3)

consecutive fiscal years for each project, based on the dry season restrictions. The last project for the

S65 Series will be S65E and S65E NL.

o Start Design: First quarter of FY 1

o Complete Design: Third quarter of FY 2

o Construction Start: First quarter of FY 3

o Complete Construction: Third quarter of FY 6

• There are no legal or regulatory mandates driving the project completion to a certain date.

The project construction milestones presented above are based on a very conservative approach. The

project construction duration is subject to the contractor’s performance, weather conditions,

operational needs, and funding availability. It is anticipated that once the project starts, the project will

be completed within the proposed timeframe.

Resource Requirements

List FunctionsSkill of Functional

EmployeesIdentify Employees

Total FTEs/HoursRequired for

Complete Project

Engineering

Civil, Structural,Geotech,Mechanical,Electrical, CADD

TBD TBD

Permitting Scientist TBD TBD

Project/ConstructionManager

PM/CM, CI TBD TBD

Survey Surveyor TBD TBD

Total ResourceRequirements

TBD

Project Deliverables and Schedule

Fiscal Year* Deliverable Schedule

FY 1 Survey First Quarter of FY 1

FY 1 Geotech First Quarter of FY 1

FY 1 - FY 2 Design First Quarter of FY 1 to Third Quarter of FY 2

FY 1 to FY 6 R/W Coordination First Quarter of FY 1 to Third Quarter of FY 6

N/A Land Coordination

FY 1 – FY 6 Public Outreach First Quarter of FY 1 to Third Quarter of FY 6


FY 1 – FY 2 Permitting Concurrent with design

FY 3 Bid Process GB Month: First Quarter of FY 3

FY 3 Notice to Proceed First Quarter of FY 3

FY 3 Construction Start First Quarter of FY 3

FY 6 Construction End Third Quarter of FY 6

*Project design and construction fiscal years to be determined. Construction timeframes are based on

work to be performed only during the dry season considering operational needs and resource availability.

Refurbishment of one (1) bay per dry season drives the construction process to four (4) fiscal years. This

criterion also applies for other project components such as concrete and sheetpile repairs.

Project Funding Sources

It is anticipated that this project will be funded under Operations Maintenance and Construction Capital

Projects, project funding 402000 and Functional Area CA04. However, the assigned Project Manager for

this project shall verify with SFWMD Accounting if some of the components of this project should be

handled as expenses.

References

• SIP Report:

http://my.sfwmd.gov/siptool/viewevent.do?method=getEventDetails&eventID=2350&structureID=

297

• As-Built Drawings:

\\ad.sfwmd.gov\dfsroot\data\survey\share\Structures\AsBuilts\AsBuilts

• Issue ID:

https://webtop.cerpzone.org/webtop/drl/objectId/0b009f578303daf9

• ERED Position Papers and Programmatic Issues Memorandums: Engineering and Economical

Evaluation of Stainless Steel Gates, S65 and S65A (Navigation Locks) Concrete Repairs Cracks,

Concrete Repairs and Sampling Layout, S65A Sulfate Attack Concrete Repairs (NL)

https://webtop.cerpzone.org/webtop/drl/objectId/09009f578305924f

• Structure Information Site:

http://my.sfwmd.gov/portal/page/portal/pg_grp_sfwmd_sis/pg_sis_structure_screen_std

• Concrete Deterioration and Repairs:

https://webtop.cerpzone.org/webtop/drl/objectId/09009f5783099eff


Photographs

Photo 1 – Typical Concrete Deterioration in S65 Series Projects Condition Worsens Below Water –

Applicable to S65D (2011)

Photo 2 – Typical Concrete Deterioration in S65 Series Projects Condition Worsens Below Water –

Applicable to S65D (2011)


Photo 3 – S65D Overall View: Gates and Navigational Lock – Upstream (2013)

Photo 4 – S65D Overall View from Downstream During Discharge (2013)


Photo 8 – S65A Typical Gate Corrosion – Also Observed in S65D (2013)


Project Schematic Diagram

Figure 3 – S65D Refurbishment Components

(Note: Overhaul of gate hoists dependent on change in gate weight)


Appendix A - Cost Estimate


Option 1: Self-Consolidating Concrete




Option 2: Shotcrete



PROJECT DEFINITION REPORT S65D SPILLWAY REFURBISHMENT · 2018. 3. 12. · PROJECT DEFINITION REPORT – S65D SPILLWAY REFURBISHMENT PAGE 7 OF 29 The required disciplines for this

Documents