header_main_sponsor_logo
header_main_sponsor_logo
P1-Eagle Canyon_1.jpg
P2-EagleCanyon-PB120216.JPG
P3-EagleCanyon-C 495 2 ELEV 10-24-11 (10).JPG
PA1-Eagle Canyon_4.JPG
PA2-PB120253.JPG
PA3-EagleCanyon-C495 2 ELEV 10-07-09 (1).JPG
PA4-Eagle Canyon_2011 036_1.jpg
P1-Eagle Canyon_1.jpg
P2-EagleCanyon-PB120216.JPG
P3-EagleCanyon-C 495 2 ELEV 10-24-11 (10).JPG
PA1-Eagle Canyon_4.JPG
PA2-PB120253.JPG
PA3-EagleCanyon-C495 2 ELEV 10-07-09 (1).JPG
PA4-Eagle Canyon_2011 036_1.jpg

2010 - I-70 Bridge over Eagle Canyon (Eastbound)

  • Year ABC Built: 2010
  • State: Utah
  • Owner: State
  • Location: Rural
  • Spans: > Three-span
  • Beam Material: Steel
  • Max Span Length (ft.): 375.00
  • Total Bridge Length (ft.): 491.00
  • Construction Equipment: Other ABC Method
  • State ID #: F-170-3(50)112
  • NBI #: 2C 495
  • Coordinates:     Latitude: 38.8600922, Longitude: -110.8645706
  • Bridge Description

  • Project Summary:
  • Project Location: Mile Post 118 between Salina and Green River in southern Utah
  • Mobility Impact Time: ABC: 40 days for deck replacement & traffic impact; 5 months total construction time including arch retrofit; Conventional: 12 months
  • Impact Category: Tier 5 (within 3 months)
  • Primary Drivers:

    Reduced traffic impacts – cast-in-place deck curing times of 14 to 28 days would have extended onsite construction time excessively; Improved site constructability – the bridge location was remote and near sensitive cultural and scenic sites that made concrete batch-plant operations impractical; Lower life-cycle cost –duration of traffic delays has a measurable cost to road users because of increased time spent in traffic during conventional construction; Improved work-zone safety – fewer accidents related to construction occur when project duration is reduced; Improved material quality and product durability – construction in a controlled offsite environment away from traffic allows better workmanship

  • Dimensions: 491-ft long, 34-ft wide deck truss bridge with 375-ft main span
  • Average Daily Traffic (at time of construction): 3300
  • Traffic Management: Traffic management alternative, if constructed conventionally: Due to the location of the project there was not another traffic management alternative. However, the duration of the detour was less than conventional construction.
  • Existing Bridge Description: The 289-ft-high two-lane bridge crosses a 480-ft-wide canyon and is located in Emery County approximately 200 miles from Salt Lake City. Built in 1966, the deck on the eastbound structure was deteriorated and required replacement.
  • Replacement or New Bridge:
  • Construction Method: A design investigation showed that removing the entire deck at one time could potentially lead to instability of the arches. Therefore, the deck was removed and replaced in sections. Construction began in September 2009 when the bridge was closed and traffic routed to the nearby westbound structure. Construction was completed in February 2010.A 600-ton crane with 335-ft reach and 500-ton counterweight allowed the crane to be stationed on either end of the bridge. After a week of assembly, the crane began removing sections of the existing deck and erecting the panels. Lightweight concrete was used in the full-width deck panels to reduce the crane load. The full-depth, full-width panels were nine inches thick, 26.5 ft wide, 13 to 14 ft long, and weighed 33 tons. Panels included a ¼-inch concrete grinding allowance for correcting uneven roadway surfaces at transverse joints between panels and at ends of deck. The contractor installed, longitudinally post-tensioned, and grouted five panels at a time until reaching mid-span. The process was then repeated from the other end of the bridge. A total of 16,318 sq ft of deck panels were erected. TL-4 concrete parapets were cast in place, and a thin-bonded epoxy overlay was applied.
  • Stakeholder Feedback:

    The use of the CMGC process allowed additional scope to be added to the project as well as implement structure modifications without changing the schedule. The added elements included repainting the existing structure and adding column modifications to strengthen existing columns. Additionally, the team found a solution to allow the contractor to use an existing precast facility to save time and cost.

  • High Performance Material: Lightweight concrete deck
  • Project Planning

  • Decision Making Tools: State process
  • Site Procurement: (none)
  • Project Delivery: CMGC
  • Contracting: Full lane closure
  • Geotechnical Solutions

  • Foundations & Walls: (none)
  • Rapid Embankment: (none)
  • Structural Solutions

  • Prefabricated Bridge Elements: Full-depth precast deck panel w/PT
  • Prefabricated Bridge Systems: (none)
  • Miscellaneous Prefabricated: Grouted key closure joint; PT ducts/bonded; Thin-bonded epoxy overlay; LWC deck
  • ABC Construction Equipment: High-capacity crane(s)
  • Cost & Funding

  • Costs: The $5.29 million project consisted of deck replacement on the eastbound bridge, approach slab work, stiffening the existing structure, abutment repairs, and repainting the exterior and the interior of the arch ribs. The use of precast deck panels eliminated the need for forming and curing cast-in-place concrete in multiple phases. The phasing of deck removal and deck placement required to maintain stresses in bridge elements required phasing and increased cost above precast elements.
  • Funding Source: Federal and State
  • Incentive Program: (none)
  • Additional Information

Downloadable Resources

Contract Plans:
Specifications:
Bid Tabs:
Other Related Information:
http://www.aspirebridge.org/pdfs/magazine/issue_16/State_Fall10.pdf
http://www.udot.utah.gov

Photo Credits: Granite Construction Company

 

Contacts

Owner: Carmen Swanwick, P.E.
Chief Structural Engineer
Utah Department of Transportation
cswanwick@utah.gov
801-965-4981

Bridge Description Summary Sheet: