Loading...
Article Re: Rehab of Historic Holmes Street BridgeRehabilitation of Historic Holmes Street Bridge j Robert E. elfamega, P.E. Hurt,rieHolmes Street ridges across the country are deteriorating orfarcorrdj)_rg fu n d onally obsolete. Therefore, De tsof ns — ".on (DOTS) across the to haw ntify d his- mric bridges, rhereby s ins a sepia nt of non -historic bridges. inneso n Trnnsporr��u(n (MnDOT) identified olrnes S r Bd (Bridge Net 41 5T - commonly referred m as t __ o Truss BriW%ne of 24 bridges in Minnesom to pre`'e once funding available. For the Holmes Street Bridge, funding became available with passage of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009• The project team of HDR as the Bridge Engineer and Mead & Hunt as the Project Historian faced many challenges. The firstwas the need to complete not only the inspection, analysis and rehabilitation report in six months, but also receive approval on final rehabilitation plans and specifications from MnDOT, the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and the Federal HighwayAdminisrration (FHWA). A similar projcctwould normally take 12 in 18 months. The nexechallenge was to identifyengincering solutions that would meet safety and maintenance requirements, while preserving the historic features of the bridge. The inspection and analysis revealed the bridge to be in generally poor condition, with severe to critical deterioration in various steel and concrete members. Innovative design solutions that preserved the historical significance of the bridge included replacement of the existing ornamental railing in-kind with a safety modification, installation of replica lighting, tepLoement of some truss members and steel overhang brackets with shop fabricated members using rivets, and rehabilitation of concrete components using unique renovation mchniques. Bridge Description The Holmes Street Bridge, built as ahighway bridge in 1927, provided access across the Minnesota River for the city of Shakopee and points west co the Twin Cid es Memo Area. Listed in the National Register of Historic Places (National Rcgisres) as a rare example of deck -truss bridge in Minnesota, the Holmes Street Bridge is a 645 -foot long bridge with an ,oiut,,tcLwlu width of 42.4 fiat. The superstructure insists o.rQ-faot long cast -in-place reinforced conaere deck - PV1q girder s " proach spans, four 125-f6ot long riveted steel deck t}irss ivam spans, and two 30 -foot long cast-in-plare teinfourd oncrete deck girder north approach spans. The truss spans consist ' f three parallel riveted steel Warren trusses with verticals. The bridge deck consists of 30 -foot wide roadwayand two &foot wide raised cantilever sidewalks. The substructure consists ofa U-shaped reinforced concrete South Abutment, two reinforced concrete south approach piers with four arched openings, three reinforced concrete river piers with two recessed arches on each side, two reinforced concrete north approach piers with four arched openings, and a U-shaped reinforced concrete North Abutment that feamtes a stairway on the east side. In order for a property to be historic, it has to have character. defining features which am prominent or distinctive aspects, qualities, or characteristics that contribute significantly to its physical character. Features may include materials, engineering design, and structural and decorative details. The Shakopee Truss Bridge has two character -defining features which were defined as follows in the MnDOT Historic Bridge Management PLan for Bridge No. 4175 (June 2006): • Feature 1, Deck -thus design and construction. The Shakopee Truss Bridge is a rare example of deck truss bridge in Minnesota This feature includes the four main spans, each of which has three riveted, steel masses designed in a Warren - with -verticals configuration. • fcaame 2, Classical Revival architectural derails. Because of its urban location as a gateway to downtown Shakopee, the ShakopeeTmss Bridge was designed with Classical Revival stylistic elements. This feature includes recessed panels in the concrete river piers (Piers 3-5), open -arched concrete piers in the approach spans (Piers 1-2 and &7), recessed panels in the abutments, ornamental metal railings on the approach spans and main spam, concrete parapet railings on the abutments, and stairways adjacent to the north abutment. STRUCTURE magazine 0 February 2013 In -Depth Inspection and Analysis The project team performed an in-depth inspection of the bridge from within arm's length ofeach member. Access to inspect the bridge truss memberswasprovided from an Under Bridge Inspection Vehicle (UBIV) with a 60 -foot reach. The in-depth inspection revealed delaminating and spalling concrete members; severely corroded ornamental railing members, severely corroded sections of stringers, floor beams and overhang brackets; seserelycorroded coos members; gussetplate section loss; pxkrtrsr, and from bearings. Most of the denerioration of the steel members was located in areas that were exposed to moisture, namely the exterior trusses on eitber side of the bridge and areas adjacent to the open joint at the end of each truss span. LARSA and STAAD 2D truss models were created to determine the forces in the various truss members. Prior to the project, it was deter- mined that, following rehabilitation, the bridge would be reopened as a pedestrian and bicycle bridge with vehicles using a new bridge constructed downstream. 'Therefore, the bridge deck was analyrted using the controlling load case between an 85 psf pedestrian live load or an American Association of Stare Highway and Transportation OGials (AASHTO) standard H-10 DesignTt kwhichconsjstsof 4 kip front axles and 16 kip rear axles separated by 14 feet. The rail sidewalk was analyzed using only the 85 psf pedestrian live loa A special load case consisting of the UBIV was also co si , as would be the vehicle used to inspect the bridge. The ysr ollo the AASHTOManualfor& dgeE tlzur thcIv LRF BridgcDeignManual . M , The analysis models cot�led spread develo the whichiprdons of the bridge needed mchr gusset plana, floor beams, cam_ u m members; the raised concrete Iml; expansion joints; beating pins; the and concrete surfaces. was historic, the project moans had to ensure that the plans on this eight -span concrete girder and steel deck Structural Software Designed for Easy to Learn and Use Analyze "Just about Anything!" Design: Steel, Wood, Concrete, Aluminum, and Cold -Formed www.iesweb.com STRUCTURE magazine 0 February 2013 muss structure complied with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, and followed guidelines in the National Park Service preservation Brief 15, Piwr atien of Hutoric Ce ete. Additionally, the projectcould have no adverse effects on the historic resource as determined by MnDOT, SHPO and FHWA. To streamline the process of determining the appropriate treatment methods for the extensive concrete repairs, the project team developed a repair matrix that distinguished treatments based on location and public visibility. For example, the team determined that concrete areas not visible, such as river pier arras, could be repaired with standard MnDOT construction techniques. Areas dearly visible to the public, including abutments and parapets, required historic repair techniques to ensure conformance with historic surfires, and were included in the dcauled project specific specifications. The specifications included requirements that the repaired concrete match the adjacent existing concrete in terms of finish, texture, surface detail and color. The connector was required to provide a minimum of3 samples, at lost 12 inches by 12 inches in size, to demonstrate that they could match the adjacent existing concrete. The matrix clarified and expedited the appropriate treatments for both plan development and communica- tion with the contractor. - -- An additional repair matrix was developed to address the repiitind/ or replacement of deteriorated steel truss members. A 90 Rivets are a key feature of historic muss members, but few�_onrrac€ rs today are able to install rivers in the field. When Asir& overhang brackets and six bottom chord rs iJ_%�igi tub areaswtre severelydeteriorated and rgquire re�.ceme% th�rojecr tears specified that the new meeffiffs be sh ritate vets. Historic railing rypical4elestnts ign cha due to noncom. pliance with aurent standardshe or glr eras ornprsfi Ll railing was no exception. ly di a railing oprenia intirncc[ current MnDOT or AASH scan arts, but ti}u -pk sections exhibited critical dewriom ' e project team loo'at six differ- ent options ranging from reuse to replication to redesign, but based on issues of deterioration, cost and safety, the team chose to replicate Elie original railings with minor modifications, while refurbishing original casaron newel posts. AASHTO standards require that open- ings between members of pedestrian railing shall not allow a 6 -inch sphere to pass through the lower 27 inches ofthe railing and m 8 -inch sphere should not pass through openings above 27 inches. MnDOT standards, which are more saingent than AASHTO, require that open- ings between members shall not allow a 4 -inch sphere to pass through the lower 27 inches, and a 6 -inch sphere should not pass through any opening above 27 inches. The original railing allowed a 6 -inch sphere to pass through openings both below and above 27 inches. Therefore, MnDOT issued a design exception for the project, whereby the MaDOT requirements for the openings in a pedes - aim railingwere waived in favor oftheAASHTO requirements. The replica railing was able to meet AASHTO opening requirements by the addition of a M6 -inch steel stainless steel cable, which prevented a 6 -inch sphere from passing through the Iowa 27 inches of the railing. It was determined that the addition of the stainless steel cable was Less intrusive on the character -defining feature, than changing the dimensions of the railing to meet today's design standards. To reduce cost, the team recommended burton-head bolts with acorn -style nuts replicas the 1,200 -plus rivet connmdons of the original railing. Another innovation related to historic truss members was a solution to prevent future deterioration, most of which was due to drain- age mnoff from the deck drains and open joints at each truss end. Hydraulic analysis showed that the deck drains could be eliminated, and the open joints could be replaced with strip seal expansion joint•. This was a simple and ingenious so on to damaging deck drainage nmoffand the subscaue rt corrosAV of steel muss members. nd Lessons Learned CogsWKtiO&Dft&rehab s project was pa'fonncedbyEdward KrajPer and Xbris tri the prljiac contractor. For concrete repairs, the contractor uscdlotcte with subsequent surface treatment, employing color sin and r� blasting for surface mtnne and gra$id removaf highly visit-$istoric area. This was the first time the tWhniquc was u OT for this purpose orpermitted by the MIpo kAuis�pTk concrete repair. The contractor also successfully p hsf panels for on-siteproduct demonstrations for MnDOT and now these methods are approved and provide practi- solutions to historic concrete repair challenges for future projects. One of the lessons learned on the project was to pay close attention to member removal and the location of rivers with heads on only one side. Removal of bottom chord members was very challenging since the gusset plass at the boring points were remaining in-place; some of the rivers in the gusset plate at the bearing point only had a hod on one side and therefore could not be replaced. The contractor was able to remove the bottom chord member by removing rivets with hods on both sides, and prying the member out. The project benefited from having repairs priced per type, e.g. stringer repair or auss member repair. Given the old age of the bridge, additional areas requiring repair were identified when portions of the bridge were removed. Since repairs had been priced by type, which included mons and methods, the compensation ofadditional repair items was straight forward, without having to determine rhe additional cost of installing and carrying out the repair. Conclusion Rehabilitation of the historic Holmes Street Bridge preserved an elegant 84 -year old saucrure for future generations of pedestrians and bicyclists. Innovative, collaborative engineering design preserved or restored historic materials and features, including ornamental railing, riveted bridge components and concrete derailing. The Holmes Street Bridge rehabilitation, stands as acreative model for similar projects in communities throughout Minnesota and the United Scares.- Is STRUCTURE maga--it 0 February 2013 MINNESOTA HISTORIC PROPERTY RECORD PART I. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION AND GENERAL INFORMATION Common Name: Bridge Number: Identification Number: Location: Feature Carred: Feature Crossed: Descriptive Location: Town, Range, Section: Town or City: County: UTM: Zone: 15 Easting: 458215 Northing: 4960869 Quad: Shakopee 7.5 Minute Series 1927 Present Owner: State Present Use: Mainline Significance Statement: Holmes Street Bridge 4175 SC -SPC -068 Pedestrian Trail CR 101 & Minnesota River 0.1 Miles North of Jct. County 101 115N -23W-1 Shakopee Scott Bridge No. 4175 is eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places under Criterion C Engineering, as a rare example of a deck truss bridge in Minnesota. The four main spans are designed in a Warren truss configuration with verticals. The period of significance for Bridge No 4175 is its 1927 date of construction. The bridge was built by the Minnesota Department of Highways (MDH) to carry T. H, 5 over the Minnesota River and into Shakopee in Scott County. The property meets the eligibility requirements established in Frederic Quivik and Dale Martin, "Iron and Steel Bridges in Minnesota," (July 1988), in Jeffrey Hess, Final Report of the Minnesota Historic Bridge Survey Part 2 (August 1988). Bridge No. 4175 is a rare example of a deck truss bridge and was built by an important bridge fabricator, the Minneapolis Steel and Machinery Company. Historic Context Urban growth in Minnesota began in the 1840s with the establishment of settlements along the MHPR Identification Number: SC -SPC -068 Page 1 of 7 Mississippi and lower St. Croix Rivers. Until the extensive building of railroads in the late 1860s, settlement followed rivers—the Mississippi, Minnesota, and St. Croix—and the shore of Lake Superior. Even after construction of the railways enabled large numbers of settlers to create inland communities, this early pattern persisted. Of the ten largest cities in Minnesota at the tum of the century, six were located along the Mississippi, and one each on the Minnesota River, the St. Croix, and Lake Superior. Most bridges in cities and towns crossed natural barriers, primarily watercourses and ravines. Few, except in the Twin Cities, crossed man-made features, such as railroad tracks. Most communities along rivers were situated on only one shore. In these cases, bridges served to link them to the rural districts and smaller settlements on the other side. This removed natural obstacles for the rural residents and increased the area over which the merchants and bankers in the larger towns could extend their business. The City of Shakopee Shakopee is located on the site of a Dakota village and was settled by traders and missionaries as early as 1844. Towns began to develop in the Minnesota River Valley following the 1851 Treaty of Mendota, which opened up the area for Euro-Amencan settlement. Early settlers hailed primarily from New England and the mid-Atlantic States, but the later influx of German, Irish, Bohemian, and Scandinavian immigrants was critical to the settlement of the county. In 1854 the town of Shakopee was platted and named as the seat of Scott County, and on May 23, 1857, it was incorporated as a city. The original plat was aligned with the Minnesota River, so lots in the earliest part of town have a northwest -southeast orientation. Later additions were aligned on a north -south orientation. Within the next 20 years, Shakopee grew, as evidenced by the increasing number and diversity of types of buildings. The first public school and post office were constructed in 1854; the first railroad shops of the Minnesota Valley Company in 1867; and, in 1874, the Occidental Hotel was opened for business. By 1900 the population of Scott County had reached 15,000. The Holmes Street Bridge: Bridge No. 4175 Bridge No. 4175 replaced an 1880 bridge nearby. The 1880 Lewis Street Bridge was a 409 -foot - long metal, swing -span bridge, which allowed for Minnesota River navigation. According to Julius Coller, the community's proposal to build a bridge arose from desires to increase the Shakopee trading area. Faced with competition for the county seat from the village of Jordan, Shakopee established a Board of Trade in 1878. The board revived an 1876 proposal to build a bridge across the Minnesota River. The Lewis Street Bridge first opened in 1880. In 1926 a new highway bridge was authorized at Shakopee, to be located at the foot of Holmes Street, 300 feet west of Lewis Street. A petition letter dated April 12, 1926, indicates that local manufacturing companies did not consider a moveable bridge, like that at Lewis Street, to be necessary for the Shakopee channel of the Minnesota River. Citing ample railroad service, improved trunk highways, and the poor quality of the river for navigation and freight transport, the manufacturers petitioned for a fixed -span bridge to be built as part of a transportation link between southwestern Minnesota and the Twin Cities. Bridge No. 4175 was built in 1927 by the Minnesota Highway Department (MHD) as a fixed span. Its elevation on the upper river bluff allowed for a deck -truss configuration instead of a through - truss or moveable span. The use of shallow concrete girders in the shorter approach spans provided additional vertical clearance for the railroad line passing underneath, thus creating a MHPR Identification Number: SC -SPC -068 Page 2 of 7 grade separation. The bridge connected with Holmes Street on the south. The bridge was designed by MHD Bridge Engineer M.J. Hoffmann and built by the Widell Company of Mankato at a cost of approximately $146,000. The steel work was fabricated by the Minneapolis Steel and Machinery Company. Bridge No. 4175 continued to carry T.H. 169/101 (former T.H. 5) into Shakopee until 1990 when a new four -lane bridge was constructed at the foot of Lewis Street to carry T.H. 169/101 over the Minnesota River. According to the Susan Granger and Scott Kelly's Report on Bridge 4175, Bridge No. 4175 is to be rehabilitated for use as a pedestrian and bicycle trail bridge. The new bridge was built without pedestrian sidewalks or bike paths. For extensive background information on the general design, engineering, and construction of metal trusses in Minnesota, see Frederic Quivik and Dale Martin, "Iron and Steel Bridges in Minnesota," (July 1988), which is included in Jeffrey Hess, Final Report of the Minnesota Historic Bridge Survey: Part 2 (August 1988). This report also includes the following note on the Minneapolis Steel and Machinery Company: "The Minneapolis Steel and Machinery Company was founded in Minneapolis in 1902 by J.L. Record and Otis Briggs. By 1903, the company had a plant along Hiawatha Avenue between East 28th and Lake Streets, which covered about two and one-half blocks. A 1908 source states the company had 1,200 employees. Among the products it advertised in 1909 were steel structural buildings, storefronts, stairs, water tanks and towers, bridges, and steel grain elevators. The Minneapolis Steel and Machinery served a large regional market, preparing steel for bridges ranging in size from a 63 -foot, riveted Waren pony truss to a 622 -foot steel deck arch. The Minneapolis Steel and Machinery Company apparently also played an important role in establishing high standards for steel bridges built in Minnesota just prior to the establishment of the Minnesota State Highway Commission, which created its own standards. " Conclusion Bridge No. 4175, which features four main spans of riveted steel deck truss construction in a Warren configuration with verticals, is eligible under Criterion C: Engineering. The structure retains a high degree of integrity of location, design, setting, and material. Bridge No. 4175 meets Registration Requirement 9 established in Quivik and Martin, "Iron and Steel Bridges in Minnesota." Registration Requirement 9 states, "A Deck Truss Bridge. Such bridges are very rare and represent a design solution to an unusual site condition." Bridge No. 4175 also meets Registration Requirement 4 which states, "Built by an Important Bridge Fabricator," and identifies the Minneapolis Steel and Machinery Company as one of "three Minnesota firms [that] achieved statewide importance." MHPR Identification Number SC -SPC -068 Page 3 of 7 PART II. HISTORICAL INFORMATION Date of Construction: 1927 Contractor and/or Designer (if known): Contractor: Minneapolis Steel and Machinery Company, fabricator Widell Company, Mankato, builder Designer: M. J. Hoffmann Historic Context: Iron and Steel Bridges in Minnesota National Register Criterion: C MHPR Identification Number: SC -SPC -068 Page 4 of 7 PART III. DESCRIPTIVE INFORMATION Descriptive Information: Property and Setting Bridge No. 4175 is located at the foot of Holmes Street, on the northern edge of the city of Shakopee, Minnesota. It originally carried Trunk Highway (T.H.) 5 (now T.H. 169/101) into Shakopee and was locally known as the "Holmes Street Bridge." Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) documents list Bridge No. 4175 as officially closed to vehicular traffic as of 2005. The city of Shakopee is located on the south side of the Minnesota River. The south approaches to Bridge No. 4175 were originally built across a Chicago, Milwaukee and St. Paul Railway spur track, now the location of Levee Drive. Adjacent to Levee Drive is a bituminous bicycle and pedestrian trail that passes beneath the south approach. The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (Mn/DNR) has an easement with the city on portions of this trail and also owns and maintains Riverside Park, which is located immediately west of the north end of the bridge. On the north, the bridge connects with a pedestrian/bicycle trail. The north approach originally spanned Indian Road, an unpaved roadway that has been abandoned. Description Bridge No. 4175 was completed in 1927 and is aligned on a north -south axis. It has an overall length of 645 feet and an out -to -out width of 42.4 feet. The superstructure consists of four main river spans and four approach spans, two on the north and two on the south. The main spans provide 22 feet of vertical clearance at high water. Each main span is comprised of three riveted, steel deck Warren trusses, with a 125 -foot clear span, pier to pier. As originally built, the main spans accommodated a 28 -foot roadway and two 5 -foot sidewalks cantilevered on brackets from the outside trusses. The approach spans are 30 -foot -long, cast -in-place, reinforced -concrete, deck girder spans. The substructure is comprised of reinforced -concrete piers and abutments that display Classical Revival architectural elements. The river piers are solid with a pair of arched recesses on either side, suggesting a column supporting each of the three trusses. The approach piers have four arched openings with a column supporting each girder. The U-shaped abutments have pilasters with recessed panels. Atop the abutments are poured concrete parapet -railings with Classical Revival recessed panels. The railings on the main and approach spans consist of panels of curved and open -lattice metalwork with square metal posts in a Classical Revival design. The railings are 2 feet, 8 inches high. Poured concrete Jersey barriers were installed in 1972 between the pedestrian sidewalks and the roadway. Seven fluted cast-iron light standards with elongated glass lamps and finials were originally mounted along each railing. These were removed in 1969. A concrete pedestrian stairway with metal pipe railing is located on each side of the north abutment, leading down to the former Indian Road. The Classical Revival detailing of the underside of the abutment suggests the attention given to the pedestrian access to Riverside Park at the northwest end of the bridge. MHPR Identification Number: SC -SPC -068 Page 5 of 7 Integrity Bridge No. 4175 retains integrity of design, location, setting, and materials. The Warren deck trusses retain full integrity of design and materials. Alterations in 1969 and 1972 included removal of light standards, replacement of curbing, sidewalk, and deck; cleaning and repainting of metal railings; installation of new floor beams and stringers; and installation of new expansion joints and jersey barriers. Some original floor beams and stringers remain. The 1969 and 1972 alterations did not compromise the historical integrity of the superstructure and substructure. MHPR Identification Number: SC -SPC -068 Page 6 of 7 PART IV. SOURCES OF INFORMATION References: "Report on Bridge 4175, Shakopee, Minnesota S.P. 7009-52 (T.H. 169), prepared for Minnesota Department of Transportation by Gemini Research (Susan Granger and Scott Kelly), 1994: "Bridge No. 4175: Summary of Inspection and Recommendations for Reuse as a Pedestrian Bridge," prepared for Minnesota Department of Transportation by Parsons, Brinckerhoff, Quade and Douglas. Inc., 1997, Frederic Quivik and Dale Martin, "Iron and Steel Bridges in Minnesota," (July 1988), in Jeffrey Hess, "Final Report of the Minnesota Historic Bridge Survey: Part 2" (August 1988), National Register of Historic Places Registration Form (draft), "Holmes Street Bridge, Bridge 4175," prepared for Minnesota Department of Transportation by Mead and Hunt, 2005. Detailed lists of sources are included in the above documents. PART V. PROJECT INFORMATION Historians: Susan Granger Scott Kelly Christine Gesick Form Preparer: Mead 8 Hunt, 2006 MHPR NO. SC -SPC -068 MHPR Identification Number: SC -SPC -068 Page 7 of 7