Draft Phase 1 Structural Report

Initial Structural Screening -
DRAFT
Seattle Streetcar Central City Connector (C3)
For SDOT
Seattle, WA
September 25, 2018
Initial Structural Screening - DRAFT
Contents
1 Introduction
............................................................................................................................................................1
1.1 Introduction ...............................................................................................................................1
2 Description of Bridges
............................................................................................................................................................1
2.1 Second Avenue South Extension..............................................................................................2
2.2 Fourth Avenue South Viaduct ...................................................................................................2
2.3 S. Jackson Fourth to Fifth Viaduct – West ................................................................................3
2.4 S. Jackson Fourth to Fifth Viaduct – East .................................................................................3
3 Vehicle Information
............................................................................................................................................................3
3.1 FHS Vehicle ..............................................................................................................................3
3.2 CAF Vehicle ..............................................................................................................................4
4 Existing Documentation
............................................................................................................................................................4
5 Screening and Analysis Approach
............................................................................................................................................................5
5.1 Scaling of Available Load Rating Factors .................................................................................5
5.2 Determine Other Members Affected by Streetcar Loading .......................................................8
5.3 Screen for Members Requiring Strengthening..........................................................................8
5.4 Determine General Type of Strengthening ...............................................................................8
5.5 Determine Rough Order-of-Magnitude (ROM) Quantities and Costs .......................................9
6 Results
............................................................................................................................................................9
6.1 Scaled Rating Factor Results....................................................................................................9
6.2 Screening for Members Not Load Rated.................................................................................24
6.3 Members Requiring Strengthening .........................................................................................25
6.4 Strengthening Types and ROM Costs ....................................................................................30
6.4.1 2nd Ave. S. Extension – Bridge 007 ............................................................................30
6.4.2 4th Ave. S. – Bridge 031W ..........................................................................................31
6.4.3 4th Ave. S. – Bridge 031E ...........................................................................................31
6.4.4 S. Jackson Fourth to Fifth Viaduct – West – Bridge 033W ........................................31
6.4.5 S. Jackson Fourth to Fifth Viaduct – West .................................................................32
6.5 Total ROM Costs.....................................................................................................................32
7 Discussion and Additional Caveats
..........................................................................................................................................................33
7.1 Inventory vs. Operating Load Ratings.....................................................................................33
7.2 Load Testing and Rating vs. Analytical-Only Load Rating ......................................................33
7.3 Additional Caveats and Assumptions......................................................................................33
September 25, 2018 | i

8 Next Steps
..........................................................................................................................................................34
9 References
..........................................................................................................................................................35
Tables
Table 6-1. Second Avenue South Extension (Bridge 007) Scaled Inventory Rating Factors
.........................................................................................................................................................9
Table 6-2. Second Avenue South Extension (Bridge 007) Scaled Operating Rating Factors
.......................................................................................................................................................11
Table 6-3. Fourth Avenue South (Bridge 031W) Scaled Inventory Rating Factors
.......................................................................................................................................................12
Table 6-4. Fourth Avenue South (Bridge 031W) Scaled Operating Rating Factors
.......................................................................................................................................................13
Table 6-5. Fourth Avenue South (Bridge 031E) Scaled Inventory Rating Factors
.......................................................................................................................................................14
Table 6-6. Fourth Avenue South (Bridge 031E) Scaled Operating Rating Factors
.......................................................................................................................................................16
Table 6-7. S. Jackson Fourth to Fifth Viaduct – West (Bridge 033W) Scaled Inventory Rating
Factors ...........................................................................................................................................18
Table 6-8. S. Jackson Fourth to Fifth Viaduct – West (Bridge 033W) Scaled Operating Rating
Factors ...........................................................................................................................................19
Table 6-9. S. Jackson Fourth to Fifth Viaduct – West (Bridge 033W) Scaled Inventory Rating
Factors ...........................................................................................................................................20
Table 6-10. S. Jackson Fourth to Fifth Viaduct – West (Bridge 033W) Scaled Operating Rating
Factors ...........................................................................................................................................21
Table 6-11. S. Jackson Fourth to Fifth Viaduct – East (Bridge 033E) Scaled Inventory Rating
Factors ...........................................................................................................................................23
Table 6-12. Fourth to Fifth Viaduct – East (Bridge 033E) Scaled Operating Rating Factors
.......................................................................................................................................................23
Table 6-13. Elements Not Rated, Affected by Streetcar Loading
.......................................................................................................................................................24
Table 6-14. Members Requiring Strengthening and Quantities of Work
.......................................................................................................................................................26
Table 6-15. Rough Order-Of-Magnitude (ROM) Cost Estimate
.......................................................................................................................................................32
Figures
Figure 2-1 Bridges Along S. Jackson St.
.........................................................................................................................................................2
Figure 3-1 FHS Vehicle Analysis Axle Configuration
.........................................................................................................................................................3
Figure 3-2 CAF Vehicle Axle Configuration
.........................................................................................................................................................4
Figure 6-1 Strengthening For 2nd Ave. S. Extension (Bridge 007)
.......................................................................................................................................................28
ii | September 25, 2018

Figure 6-2 Strengthening for 4th Ave S. Bridge (Bridges 031E and 031W)
.......................................................................................................................................................29
Figure 6-3 Strengthening for S. Jackson St. Bridge – 4th to 5th (Bridges 033W and 033E)
.......................................................................................................................................................30
Figure A-1 2nd Ave S. Extension Bridge
.......................................................................................................................................................37
Figure A-2 4th Ave South Bridge
.......................................................................................................................................................38
Figure A-3 S. Jackson St. Bridge 4th to 5th
.......................................................................................................................................................39
Figure C-1 2nd Ave S. Extension Bridge Members Not Rated
.......................................................................................................................................................42
Figure C-2 4th Ave South Bridge Members Not Rated
.......................................................................................................................................................43
Figure C-2 S. Jackson St. Bridge 4th to 5th Members Not Rated
.......................................................................................................................................................44
Appendices
Appendix A. Bridge Bent Map Drawings
..........................................................................................................................................................36
Appendix B. Scaled Rating Factor Calculations
..........................................................................................................................................................40
Appendix C. Structural Members Affected but Not Load Rated
..........................................................................................................................................................41
Appendix D. ROM Cost Estimate Details
..........................................................................................................................................................45
September 25, 2018 | iii

This page is intentionally left blank.
iv | September 25, 2018

1 Introduction
1.1 Introduction
The purpose of this initial screening is to help assess possible impacts to five bridges
with the introduction of the new streetcar manufactured by CAF. CAF is a Spanish
railcar manufacturer that has contracted with the Seattle Department of Transportation
(SDOT) for procurement of new streetcar vehicles to expand their street car system as
part of the Center City Connector (C3) project.
These five bridges were previously analyzed and evaluated by the First Hill Streetcar
(FHS) design team for streetcar loading and some of them required strengthening to
carry the FHS streetcar loads. The required strengthening was designed as part of the
FHS project and appears to have been constructed via construction change orders to the
King St. Station Bridges Seismic Retrofit Project, which had a contractor on-site working
on unrelated improvements to these bridges. The FHS uses vehicles manufactured by
Inekon. The new streetcar manufactured by CAF has several significant differences from
the in-use Inekon system. Notably the CAF vehicles are longer, with different bogie
spacing and are heavier than the Inekon vehicles. Therefore, an analysis of these
bridges is required to determine if each bridge is capable of carrying the CAF vehicles
as-is, or if bridge modifications are required.
The previously completed analysis documentation (including structural calculations and
results) has not been made available by the SDOT consultant that performed the FHS
analysis. As such, the results of this screening are based on the limited data contained in
a draft final report, in addition to a load testing and load rating report performed by a
separate firm for one of the five bridges. Therefore, all comparisons to the FHS analysis
results are approximate at best. Additionally, there are new highway design vehicles
which have been introduced since the FHS project. These new highway vehicles should
be evaluated in concurrence with the CAF vehicles if this project is carried forward.
2 Description of Bridges
There are five bridges that carry streetcar vehicles along S. Jackson St. (see Figure 2-1.)
These bridges are owned by the City of Seattle and are maintained by SDOT. The
bridges are described below in more detail.
September 25, 2018 | 1

Figure 2-1 Bridges Along S. Jackson St.
Source: SDOT
2.1 Second Avenue South Extension

- See Figure A-1 in Appendix A
- Year Built: 1928
- Superstructure Type: Longitudinal concrete slab on transverse steel beams
- Affected Bridge Length: ~ 181 feet (measured east-west along S. Jackson St.)
- SDOT Bridge Number: 007
- SDOT Structure ID: 08505100
2.2 Fourth Avenue South Viaduct

- Year Built: 1910
- Superstructure Type: Concrete slab on concrete beams west of viaduct centerline.
Concrete T-beams east of viaduct centerline
- Affected Bridge Length: ~ 69 feet (east-west along S. Jackson St.)
- SDOT Bridge Number: 031E (east) and 031W (west)
- SDOT Structure ID: XG050618 (east) and 08505000 (west)
2 | September 25, 2018

2.3 S. Jackson Fourth to Fifth Viaduct – West

- Year Built: 1910
- Superstructure Type: Longitudinal concrete T-beams supported on concrete cross
beams
- Affected Bridge Length: ~ 142 feet
- SDOT Bridge Number: 033W
2.4 S. Jackson Fourth to Fifth Viaduct – East

- Year Built: 1987
- Superstructure Type: A combination of longitudinal prestressed/precast concrete
girders on concrete transverse beams and longitudinal concrete beams on
transverse concrete beams
- Affected Bridge Length: ~ 140 feet
- SDOT Bridge Number: 033E
3 Vehicle Information
The new CAF vehicle is still being manufactured, therefore the final loading configuration
is unknown. This section includes information on the previously analyzed FHS Vehicle
(by others), the CAF configuration (as of January 2018) and a discussion of the
alternative CAF loads evaluated.
3.1 FHS Vehicle

The FHS Vehicle that was used in the previous analysis weighed 94,000 lbs (94 kips)
and had the following axle configuration shown in Figure 3-1. This may not represent the
actual in-service Inekon vehicle.
Figure 3-1 FHS Vehicle Analysis Axle Configuration
Source: KPFF, 2011

3.2 CAF Vehicle

The final CAF vehicle weight is unknown as it is still in the process of being designed and
manufactured. Additionally, transit vehicles have varying in-service design weights due
to the variability of passenger loading. SDOT has chosen to analyze loads using an
AW3 loading configuration and therefore, all CAF vehicle loads shown in this document
are for an AW3 load. The maximum weight allowed by contract is 120,474 lbs (120.474
kips). In addition, SDOT has received documentation (in draft form) from CAF of
108,771 lbs (108.771 kips). One intermediate weight was also reviewed using 115,000
lbs (115.0 kips) which accounts for 8% additional self-weight of the vehicle.
The axle configuration is shown in Figure 3-2.
Figure 3-2 CAF Vehicle Axle Configuration
Source: CAF, 2018
4 Existing Documentation
During scoping it was assumed that HDR would have access to the analysis previously
performed another SDOT consultant that evaluated these five bridges for the FHS
project. However, the detailed documentation for the previously-performed analysis has
not been located in SDOT’s records or in communications with the other consultant..
Therefore, only the results reported in the draft final load rating report (KPFF, 2011) are
available to indicate the findings of the prior analysis.
Bridge Diagnostics, Inc. (BDI) provided load testing for four longitudinal concrete beams
(stringers) on Bridge 033W and used the results to perform a load rating analysis for a
portion of this bridge that was deemed to be affected by streetcar loading. This report
(BDI, 2012) has been provided to Parsons/HDR by SDOT. The BDI report was stamped
and does appear to be a final report (although BDI has not been contacted about their
findings). It should be noted; however, that their results are based on proprietary
software that correlates their structural analysis to their load testing results and, as such,
are difficult to independently confirm.
SDOT has provided their bridge files for each bridge, which include the original bridge
plans (if available), along with plans from various bridge modifications that have been
made over the years. The files include the most recent bridge inspection reports, live
load testing reports for highway loadings, previous highway load rating reports and
calculations where available.

Along with the bridge files SDOT provided change orders from the King Street Station
seismic retrofit project. A contractor already working on-site for another project
performed the strengthening work for the FHS via change orders in 2013. Documents
within the change orders included photos, inspector daily logs, cost information, and
relevant emails. Notably missing are the record plans from the bridge strengthening
done for the FHS project. HDR did receive what KPFF believes to be the final set of
design plans for these modifications, but the record plans that could confirm the final as-
installed strengthening measures have not been located.
No load rating appears to have been completed for the strengthened elements of these
bridges in their post-strengthened condition. Therefore, there is no existing analysis to
draw upon for evaluating capacity of the strengthened elements.
5 Screening and Analysis Approach

Below is HDR’s approach to determine a rough order-of-magnitude (ROM) cost estimate
for the implications of running the CAF vehicle along the existing streetcar tracks on the
five bridges given the limited time available.
- Scale available load rating factors from the KPFF/BDI load rating reports
determined for the FHS to approximate load rating factors for the CAF vehicle.
- Determine if other members appear to be affected by the CAF streetcar loading
but that are not clearly identified as having been previously evaluated by the
KPFF/BDI load ratings.
- Perform a preliminarily screening to determine which members require
strengthening or replacement based on steps 1 and 2 above.
- Determine general type of strengthening or replacement for each deficiency.
- Determine ROM quantities of each type of strengthening or replacement.
- Determine ROM cost for required strengthening of elements and/or
replacements.
5.1 Scaling of Available Load Rating Factors

The original load rating factors for FHS were extracted from the following two documents
provided by SDOT:
- Jackson Street Viaduct Structural Evaluation for Streetcar Loading, July 18,
2011, Draft Revised Report (this report supersedes the report submitted on May
20, 2011), KPFF.
- Field Testing and Load Rating Report: Jackson St. / 4th Ave. to 5th Ave. Bridge –
Seattle, WA BRG 33W, June 2012. Bridge Diagnostics, Inc.
The scaling process is as follows:
1. Scale inventory rating factors in the KPFF report dated July 18, 2011
a. Compute a vehicle weight scaling factor as the ratio of the vehicle weight
used by KPFF to the CAF vehicle weight.

b. Scale the inventory rating factors given in KPFF tables 4-1 through 4-4
for elements on all 5 bridges not strengthened for the FHS by the vehicle
weight scaling factor.
c. For elements strengthened by FHS, assume the inventory rating factor is
equal to 0.81(1), and scale that factor by the vehicle weight scaling factor.
d. For elements strengthened by FHS, also scale the inventory rating
factors for the unstrengthened condition (in case strengthening measures
were not installed, or in case the strengthening measures are in place but
need to be removed in the future and a new higher-capacity
strengthening is required for the CAF vehicle)
2. Scale inventory rating factors in the BDI report dated June 2012 (For Bridge
033W only)
a. Compute the vehicle weight scaling factor as the ratio of the vehicle
weight used by BDI to the CAF vehicle weight.
b. Scale the inventory rating factors given in tables 4.9 through 4.16 by the
vehicle weight scaling factor.
3. Scale operating rating factors in the KPFF report dated July 18, 2011
i. For elements in Table 4-1 (2nd Ave Extension Bridge), where operating
rating factors are not given, scale the inventory rating factors by the ratio
of the inventory/operating live load factors: 2.17/1.3 = 1.67. Then scale
this operating factor by the vehicle weight scaling factor.
ii. Scale the operating rating factors given in tables 4-2 through 4-4 for
elements on the other 4 bridges that were not strengthened for the FHS
by the vehicle weight scaling factor.
iii. For elements strengthened for the FHS, assume the inventory rating
factor is equal to 0.81(1), and scale this by the ratio of the
inventory/operating live load factors: 2.17/1.3 = 1.67 to get an operating
rating factor. Then scale that operating rating factor by the vehicle weight
scaling factor.
iv. For elements strengthened by FHS, also scale the inventory rating
factors for the unstrengthened condition (in case strengthening measures
were not installed, or in case the strengthening is in place but needs to
be removed in the future with a new higher-capacity strengthening
designed and installed for the CAF vehicle)
4. Scale operating rating factors in the BDI report dated June 2012 (For Bridge
033W only)
a. Scale the operating rating factors given in tables 4.9 through 4.16 by the
vehicle weight scaling factor.
(1)Actual capacities of strengthened elements are not known due to lack of structural
calculations. Also, the rating factors were not computed for these strengthened members
in their post-strengthened condition. The KPFF analysis reportedly utilized the Load
Factor Method (LFR) for its load rating calculations which includes a 2.17 live load factor

(for legal trucks). However, it’s possible that a 1.75 live load factor was used for design
of the strengthening measures. Therefore, given the approximate nature of this approach
and the uncertainty of the strengthening, the inventory rating factors are assumed to be
1.75/2.17 = 0.81 for these elements.
Other notes:
 The rating factors reported herein all assume a linear scaling using the ratio of
vehicle weights described above. This is very approximate.
 The distribution of the load along the vehicle (i.e. axle spacing) can be as important
as the magnitude of the load and these both vary between the streetcar vehicles.
 This linear scaling approach does not account for the fact that the rating factors are
driven by both the streetcar weight and the weight of trucks in the adjacent lanes.
The weight of the trucks in adjacent lanes will not change, therefore scaling only
based on the CAF streetcar loads is likely a conservative approach. However, KPFF
& BDI did not include all vehicles that are currently used by SDOT for their load
ratings (for example, they did not include the NRL loading and EV loadings, and it
appears the HS-20 lane loading was not considered either). Therefore, it is still
possible that these other configurations may control the load rating.
 As discussed in Section 3.2, to account for the uncertainty in the final CAF vehicle
weight, this approach evaluated ratings at 3 different CAF vehicle weights: 109k,
115k, and 121k.
 This approach does not currently address a recovery train scenario, where one
streetcar is pushing or pulling a disabled streetcar. This scenario could result in the
lowest rating factors for the bridges, depending on the exact CAF vehicle loading
conditions and what loading is allowed to be in adjacent lanes on the bridges
(streetcar in opposite direction and what trucks would be allowed in adjacent lanes
during the recovery operation, if any).
 Consistent with the FHS approach, the analysis evaluated the reported
superstructure elements only and does not address substructure capacity below the
crossbeams (columns, walls, and foundations) nor bearings.
 Load rating reports typically include both inventory and operating factors. However,
the Second Avenue South Extension (Bridge 7) did not include operating rating
factors in the KPFF summary, so the inventory ratings were scaled to operating
levels as noted above.
 KPFF’s report indicates that AASHTO vehicles were not analyzed. Instead it
appears they only analyzed the bridges for HS-20, Overload 1, Overload 2 and a
Metro Bus vehicle to be concurrent with the Inekon vehicle.
 BDI’s report indicates that AASHTO vehicles were not analyzed. Instead it appears
these bridges were only analyzed for HS-20, Overload 1, and Overload 2 vehicles
concurrent with the Inekon vehicle.

5.2 Determine Other Members Affected by Streetcar

Loading
The approach to this step was to make a listing of other members that appear to be
affected by CAF streetcar loads but whose rating factors do not appear in either report.
This list was then qualitatively evaluated to estimate which of these members may have
an operating rating less than 1.0 based on the scaled rating factors computed above.
5.3 Screen for Members Requiring Strengthening

SDOT has provided direction that they will not require inventory rating factors for these
bridges to be greater than 1.0 for the CAF streetcar loading, and instead will require
operating rating factors to be greater than 1.0. However, the previous analyses that
serve as the basis for this screening do not include NRL, EV2, and EV3 vehicles. The
NRL vehicle is a legal vehicle and could quite possibly control the legal load rating
factors. The EV2 and EV3 vehicles are newer load configurations intended for
emergency routes. SDOT has indicated that they would like this route to include
emergency vehicles. Therefore, with the high level of uncertainty in this scaling exercise,
a member showing a greater than 1.0 operating rating factor at this stage could quite
possibly show a lower than 1.0 operating rating factor and require strengthening upon
further, more detailed analysis.
Given this, as well as the other uncertainties and assumptions at this stage, a 1.3
operating rating factor has been chosen as the threshold to assume new strengthening is
required for the CAF vehicle (i.e. members whose scaled operating rating factors are
less than 1.3 would be categorized as requiring strengthening). Other members that
appeared to be affected by CAF streetcar loads as determined in the previous step, and
using engineering judgment appeared to be similar to members with scaled operating
rating factors less than 1.3 were also categorized as requiring strengthening.
5.4 Determine General Type of Strengthening

The approach for this step was to assume similar types of strengthening to those used
for the FHS project (if applicable). If members strengthened for FHS require additional
strengthening for the CAF vehicle, it is assumed that the previous modifications will need
to be removed and replaced with new modifications.
Where strengthening does not appear to be feasible, it was assumed that some partial
replacement of bridge elements was required. Regardless, it was assumed bridge self-
weight was not significantly affected by this work and no other rehabilitation (e.g. seismic
retrofit) was required in addition to the work needed for the CAF streetcar loading.
Columns, walls/abutments, and foundations were not evaluated and assumed to not
require modifications for CAF streetcar loading.

5.5 Determine Rough Order-of-Magnitude (ROM)

Quantities and Costs
The bridge plans were used to compile approximate quantities. When a structural
member required strengthening, it was assumed the modification was full length of the
member between supports unless noted otherwise.
Cost data was taken from FHS strengthening work (change orders to King St. Station
Bridges Seismic Retrofit project) where applicable. Other historical cost data was used
where FHS costs are not applicable. Historic costs were escalated to approximate costs
in 2018 dollars.
Only construction costs (construction bid price) and a construction contingency were
accounted for in this estimate. So-called soft costs or below-the-line costs (engineering
design, SDOT project management and construction management, construction
contingency, etc.) should be added to the estimated construction bid price to arrive at an
estimated project cost.
6 Results
6.1 Scaled Rating Factor Results
This section includes the results of scaling the original rating factors computed by others
and presented in the previously mentioned reports. Although operating ratings are the
rating factors being used to evaluate the need for strengthening, scaled inventory rating
factors are reported for information as well.
In the tables of inventory ratings below, values shown in red are those with scaled values
below an inventory rating of 1.0 (the threshold used in the FHS project).
In the tables of operating ratings below, values shown in red are those scaled values
below an operating rating factor of 1.3.
Table 6-1. Second Avenue South Extension (Bridge 007) Scaled Inventory Rating
Factors
Structure Structure
Scaled Inventory Scaled Inventory Scaled Inventory
Element Element KPFF Inventory
Rating Factors Rating Factors Rating Factors
KPFF SDOT Rating Factors
(CAF 108.8K) (CAF 115K) (CAF 121K)
Description Designation
Shear Flexure Shear Flexure Shear Flexure Shear Flexure
Concrete
Concrete
Slab – West
Slab – West 1.27 1.81 1.10 1.56 1.04 1.48 0.99 1.41
of Bent X-3
of Bent X-3
(Note 2)

Table 6-1. Second Avenue South Extension (Bridge 007) Scaled Inventory Rating
Factors
Structure Structure
Element Element KPFF Inventory
KPFF SDOT Rating Factors
(CAF 108.8K) (CAF 115K) (CAF 121K)
Description Designation
Concrete
Concrete
Slab – East of
Slab – East of 1.51 1.00 1.30 0.86 1.23 0.82 1.18 0.78
Bent X-3
Bent X-3
(Note 2)
Steel Cross
Beams West Cross beam
1.12 1.15 0.97 0.99 0.92 0.94 0.87 0.90
of Bent X-3 Bent 6
(Grid 2NA)
Steel Cross
2.71 10.31 2.34 8.91 2.22 8.43 2.11 8.04
of Bent X-3 Bent 5
(Grid 2NB)
Grid 2NB
Bracing Bent 5
Connection - Bracing 0.81 - 0.70 - 0.66 - 0.63 -
FHS Connection
Retrofitted
Steel Cross
Cross Beam
Beam – Bent 3.63 1.44 3.13 1.24 2.96 1.18 2.83 1.12
– Bent X-3
X-3 (Note 1)
Steel Cross
Beam –
Bents 1 & 2 -
FHS Cross Beam
0.81 2.12 0.70 1.83 0.66 1.73 0.63 1.65
Strengthened – Bents 1 & 2
for bear
shear &
connection
Steel Cross
Cross Beam
Beam – Bent 1.53 0.97 1.32 0.84 1.25 0.79 1.19 0.76
– Bent 3
3
Note 1: KPFF did not rate this element. Rating factor scaled based on BDI 2003 testing and load rating analysis
for highway vehicles.
Note 2: Slab rating based on concrete cores taken from bridge slab. KPFF reported this strength as 8442 psi.
10 | September 25, 2018

Table 6-2. Second Avenue South Extension (Bridge 007) Scaled Operating Rating
Factors
Structure Structure Scaled Scaled Scaled

Element Element KPFF Operating Operating Operating Operating
KPFF SDOT Rating Factors Rating Factors Rating Factors Rating Factors
Description Designation (CAF 108.8K) (CAF 115K) (CAF 121K)
Concrete
Concrete
Slab – West
Slab – West 2.12 3.02 1.83 2.61 1.73 2.47 1.65 2.36
of Bent X-3
of Bent X-3
(Note 2)
Concrete
Concrete
Slab – East of
Slab – East of 2.52 1.67 2.18 1.44 2.06 1.36 1.97 1.30
Bent X-3
Bent X-3
(Note 2)
Steel Cross
1.87 1.92 1.62 1.66 1.53 1.57 1.46 1.50
of Bent X-3 Bent 6
(Grid 2NA)
Steel Cross
4.52 17.21 3.91 14.87 3.70 14.07 3.53 13.43
of Bent X-3 Bent 5
(Grid 2NB)
Grid 2NB
Bracing Bent 5
Connection - Bracing 1.35 - 1.16 - 1.10 - 1.05 -
FHS Connection
Strengthened
Steel Cross
Cross Beam
Beam – Bent 6.05 2.40 5.23 2.08 4.95 1.96 4.72 1.88
– Bent X-3
X-3 (Note 1)
Steel Cross
Beam –
Bents 1 & 2 -
FHS Cross Beam
1.35 3.54 1.16 3.06 1.10 2.89 1.05 2.76
Strengthened – Bents 1 & 2
for bear
shear &
connection
Steel Cross
Cross Beam
Beam – Bent 2.55 1.62 2.21 1.40 2.09 1.32 1.99 1.26
– Bent 3
3
Note 1: KPFF did not rate this element. Rating factor scaled based on BDI 2003 testing and load rating analysis
for highway vehicles.
Note 2: Slab rating based on concrete cores taken from bridge slab. KPFF reported this strength as 8442 psi.
September 25, 2018 | 11

Table 6-3. Fourth Avenue South (Bridge 031W) Scaled Inventory Rating Factors

Element Element KPFF Inventory Inventory Inventory Inventory
Concrete Concrete
2.84 2.55 2.45 2.20 2.32 2.08 2.22 1.99
Slab - West Slab
East-West
Concrete
Crossbeam
Beam II 0.81 1.87 0.70 1.62 0.66 1.53 0.63 1.46
Bent II
(West) - FHS
Strengthened
East-West
Concrete
Crossbeam
Beam III 0.81 2.35 0.70 2.03 0.66 1.92 0.63 1.83
Bent III
(West) - FHS
Strengthened
East-West
Concrete
Crossbeam
Beam IV 0.81 1.97 0.70 1.70 0.66 1.61 0.63 1.54
Bent IV
(West) - FHS
Strengthened
12 | September 25, 2018

Table 6-4. Fourth Avenue South (Bridge 031W) Scaled Operating Rating Factors

Concrete Concrete
4.74 4.26 4.10 3.68 3.87 3.48 3.70 3.32
Slab - West Slab
East-West
Concrete
Crossbeam
Beam II 1.35 3.12 1.16 2.70 1.10 2.55 1.05 2.43
Bent II
(West) - FHS
Strengthened
East-West
Concrete
Crossbeam
Beam III 1.35 3.92 1.16 3.39 1.10 3.20 1.05 3.06
Bent III
(West) - FHS
Strengthened
East-West
Concrete
Crossbeam
Beam IV 1.35 3.29 1.16 2.84 1.10 2.69 1.05 2.57
Bent IV
(West) - FHS
Strengthened
September 25, 2018 | 13


Concrete Concrete
2.66 2.37 2.30 2.05 2.17 1.94 2.08 1.85
Slab - East Slab
North-South
Concrete
Beam on
Beam S56
Row C,
(Boundary
Between 0.81 3.23 0.70 2.79 0.66 2.64 0.63 2.52
between
Bents E2
West & East)
and E3
- FHS
Strengthened
Beams on
Rows C.1,
North-South
C.2, D, D.1,
Concrete
and D.2 1.03 1.61 0.89 1.39 0.84 1.32 0.80 1.26
Beam S50
Between
(East typical)
Bents E2
and E3
North-South Beam on
Concrete Row E,
Beam G (East Between 1.19 1.64 1.03 1.42 0.97 1.34 0.93 1.28
edge) - Note Bents E2
4 and E3
East-West Crossbeam
Concrete Bent E2,
Beam B6 Between 0.84 1.79 0.73 1.55 0.69 1.46 0.66 1.40
(East Typical) Rows D and
-Note 1 E
Following items are not listed in KPFF Report (Table 4-2). See notes.
East-West
Crossbeam
Concrete
Bent E3,
Beam B5 -
Between 0.81 1.79 0.70 1.55 0.66 1.46 0.63 1.40
FHS
Rows D and
Strengthened
E
- Note 2
14 | September 25, 2018


Crossbeam
East-West
Bents E2
Concrete
and E3,
Beams A5 0.84 1.79 0.73 1.55 0.69 1.46 0.66 1.40
Between
and A6 -
Rows C and
Note 3
D
Note 1: KPFF report called for this beam to be strengthened (KPFF report, Appendix A, figure 10). However, final
plans had no indication of strengthening.
Note 2: KPFF report and strengthening plans called for this beam to be strengthened (KPFF report, Appendix A,
figure 10) though it does not explicitly appear in Table 4-2 of the KPFF report.
Note 3: KPFF report called for these beams to be strengthened (KPFF report, Appendix A, figure 10), though their
rating factors are not specifically shown in the report. However, final plans had no indication of strengthening.
Rating factors for FHS are assumed to be the same as those shown for beam B6 due to a similar configuration.
Note 4: There are 2 separate beams along this line. One part of Bridge 031E and one part of Bridge 033W. Both
beams were strengthened despite the fact that the beam that is part of this bridge had an inventory rating above
1.0 in the KPFF report. Scaled rating factors are based on unstrengthened condition.
September 25, 2018 | 15


Concrete Concrete
4.44 3.96 3.84 3.42 3.63 3.24 3.46 3.09
Slab - East Slab
North-South
Concrete
Beam on
Beam S56
Row C,
(Boundary
Between 1.35 5.39 1.16 4.66 1.10 4.41 1.05 4.21
between
Bents E2
West & East)
and E3
- FHS
Strengthened
Beams on
Rows C.1,
North-South
C.2, D, D.1,
Concrete
and D.2 1.72 2.69 1.49 2.32 1.41 2.20 1.34 2.10
Beam S50
Between
(East typical)
Bents E2
and E3
North-South Beam on
Concrete Row E,
Beam G (East Between 1.99 2.74 1.72 2.37 1.63 2.24 1.55 2.14
edge) - Note Bents E2
4 and E3
East-West Crossbeam
Concrete Bent E2,
Beam B6 Between 1.40 2.99 1.21 2.58 1.14 2.44 1.09 2.33
(East Typical) Rows D and
-Note 1 E
Following items not listed in KPFF Report (Table 4-2). See notes.
East-West
Crossbeam
Concrete
Bent E3,
Beam B5 -
Between 1.35 2.99 1.16 2.58 1.10 2.44 1.05 2.33
FHS
Rows D and
Strengthened
E
- Note 2
16 | September 25, 2018


Crossbeam
East-West
Bents E2
Concrete
and E3,
Beams A5 1.40 2.99 1.21 2.58 1.14 2.44 1.09 2.33
Between
and A6 -
Rows C and
Note 3
D
Note 1: KPFF report called for this beam to be strengthened (KPFF report, Appendix A, figure 10). However, final
plans had no indication of strengthening.
Note 2: KPFF report and strengthening plans called for this beam to be strengthened (KPFF report, Appendix A,
figure 10) though it does not explicitly appear in Table 4-2 of the KPFF report.
Note 3: KPFF report called for these beams to be strengthened (KPFF report, Appendix A, figure 10), though their
rating factors are not specifically shown in the report. However, final plans had no indication of strengthening.
Rating factors for FHS are assumed to be the same as those shown for beam B6 due to a similar configuration.
Note 4: There are 2 separate beams along this line. One part of Bridge 031E and one part of Bridge 033W. Both
beams were strengthened despite the fact that the beam that is part of this bridge had an inventory rating above
1.0 in the KPFF report. Scaled rating factors are based on unstrengthened condition.
September 25, 2018 | 17

Table 6-7. S. Jackson Fourth to Fifth Viaduct – West (Bridge 033W) Scaled Inventory
Rating Factors

Structure Element BDI Inventory
BDI Description Rating Factors
(CAF 108.8K) (CAF 115K) (CAF 121K)
Rated Beams in positive

1.85 2.49 1.60 2.15 1.51 2.04 1.44 1.94
flexure and shear - Note 1
Rated Beams in negative
- 2.06 - 1.78 - 1.68 - 1.61
flexure - Note 2
flexure - plain concrete -
Note 3; controlling
- 1.95 - 1.69 - 1.59 - 1.52
elements noted as
interior beam end of un-
tapered section
Rated Cross-beams in
positive flexure and shear
- Note 4; controlling 1.58 2.05 1.37 1.77 1.29 1.68 1.23 1.60
element noted as Cross
Beam C, near midspan
negative flexure - Note 5;
controlling element - 0.97 - 0.84 - 0.79 - 0.76
noted as Cross Beam B,
face of column
Note 1: BDI only used shear capacity of concrete due to spacing of shear reinforcing
Note 2: Negative flexure rating factors computed by BDI in this row are assumed to be for the portion of beams
with negative flexural reinforcing
Note 3: BDI assumed tensile capacity of concrete can be relied upon per ACI 318-08 since negative moment
reinforcing is not present at all sections with negative moment demand. If ACI 318-08 cannot be relied upon,
then these rating factors all go to zero
Note 4: Controlling load condition appears to be HS-20 only
Note 5: All ratings appear to have used concrete strength demonstrated by limited core testing, as directed by
SDOT, per BDI report.
18 | September 25, 2018

Table 6-8. S. Jackson Fourth to Fifth Viaduct – West (Bridge 033W) Scaled Operating
Rating Factors
Scaled Scaled Scaled

Structure Element BDI Operating Operating Rating Operating Rating Operating Rating
BDI Description Rating Factors Factors (CAF Factors (CAF Factors (CAF
108.8K) 115K) 121K)
Rated Beams in positive

3.09 4.15 2.67 3.59 2.53 3.39 2.41 3.24
flexure and shear - Note 1
- 3.44 - 2.97 - 2.81 - 2.68
flexure - Note 2
flexure - plain concrete -
Note 3; controlling
- 3.25 - 2.81 - 2.66 - 2.54
elements noted as
interior beam end of un-
tapered section
positive flexure and shear
- Note 4; controlling 2.64 3.43 2.28 2.96 2.16 2.80 2.06 2.68
element noted as Cross
Beam C, near midspan
negative flexure - Note 5;
controlling element - 1.62 - 1.40 - 1.32 - 1.26
noted as Cross Beam B,
face of column
Note 1: BDI only used shear capacity of concrete due to spacing of shear reinforcing
Note 2: Negative flexure rating factors computed by BDI in this row are assumed to be for the portion of beams
with negative flexural reinforcing
Note 3: BDI assumed tensile capacity of concrete can be relied upon per ACI 318-08 since negative moment
reinforcing is not present at all sections with negative moment demand. If ACI 318-08 cannot be relied upon,
then these rating factors all go to zero
Note 4: Controlling load condition appears to be HS-20 only
Note 5: All ratings appear to have used concrete strength demonstrated by limited core testing, as directed by
SDOT, per BDI report
The following tables (Table 6-9 and Table 6-10) for bridge 033W use factors from the KPFF report.
They do not appear to have been used to make the final decisions in which members required
strengthening for bridge 033W, as the BDI testing and load rating was performed subsequently, and
resulted in higher load ratings. The exception is the beam KPFF refers to as “Transverse Concrete
Beam G (West end)”, which is the crossbeam at Bent 8, between rows C and D. This beam was
strengthened, and KPFF’s report showed an operating rating of less than 1.0 for it. Therefore, the
operating ratings in Table 6-10 that are less than 1.3 are only shown in red for this element. Other
September 25, 2018 | 19

elements in this bridge are assessed using the scaled BDI operating load ratings in Table 6-8,
therefore operating ratings less than 1.3 in Table 6-10 are not shown in red.
Rating Factors

Element Element KPFF Inventory Inventory Rating Inventory Inventory
KPFF SDOT Rating Factors Factors (CAF Rating Factors Rating Factors
Description Designation 108.8K) (CAF 115K) (CAF 121K)
Concrete Concrete
1.46 1.13 1.26 0.98 1.19 0.92 1.14 0.88
Slab Slab
Transverse Crossbeam
Concrete Bent 1,
0.82 2.37 0.71 2.05 0.67 1.94 0.64 1.85
Beam R (East Spans Row
end) C to D
Crossbeam
Transverse
Bents 2
Concrete
through 7, 0.60 1.01 0.52 0.87 0.49 0.83 0.47 0.79
Beam C
Spans Row
(Typical)
C to D
Transverse
Concrete Crossbeam
Beam G Bent 8,
0.81 3.07 0.70 2.65 0.66 2.51 0.63 2.40
(West end) - Spans Row
Strengthened C to D
- Note 1
Girders
Longitudinal between
Concrete Row C and
0.71 1.05 0.61 0.91 0.58 0.86 0.55 0.82
Stringer S18 D, spans
(East end) Bent 1 to
Bent 2
Girders
Concrete Row C and
0.71 1.05 0.61 0.91 0.58 0.86 0.55 0.82
(Typical) Bent 2 to
Bent 7
20 | September 25, 2018

Rating Factors

Element Element KPFF Inventory Inventory Rating Inventory Inventory
KPFF SDOT Rating Factors Factors (CAF Rating Factors Rating Factors
Description Designation 108.8K) (CAF 115K) (CAF 121K)
Girders
Concrete Row C and
0.79 1.21 0.68 1.05 0.65 0.99 0.62 0.94
(West end) Bent 7 to
Bent 8
Note 1: Rating factor does not include the additional dead load present from weight of concrete added by the
strengthening
Note 2: Report does not mention the use of concrete strength demonstrated by limited core testing for ratings in
this table.
Rating Factors

Concrete Concrete
2.44 1.89 2.11 1.63 1.99 1.54 1.90 1.47
Slab Slab
Transverse Crossbeam
Concrete Bent 1,
1.37 3.96 1.18 3.42 1.12 3.24 1.07 3.09
Beam R (East Spans Row
end) C to D
Crossbeam
Transverse
Bents 2
Concrete
through 7, 1.27 1.69 1.10 1.46 1.04 1.38 0.99 1.32
Beam C
Spans Row
(Typical)
C to D
September 25, 2018 | 21

Rating Factors

Transverse
Concrete Crossbeam
Beam G Bent 8,
1.35 5.12 1.16 4.42 1.10 4.19 1.05 3.99
(West end) - Spans Row
Strengthened C to D
- Note 1
Girders
Concrete Row C and
1.19 1.75 1.03 1.51 0.97 1.43 0.93 1.37
(East end) Bent 1 to
Bent 2
Girders
Concrete Row C and
1.19 1.75 1.03 1.51 0.97 1.43 0.93 1.37
(Typical) Bent 2 to
Bent 7
Girders
Concrete Row C and
1.32 2.02 1.14 1.75 1.08 1.65 1.03 1.58
(West end) Bent 7 to
Bent 8
Note 1: Rating factor does not include the additional dead load present from weight of concrete added by the
strengthening
Note 2: Report does not mention the use of concrete strength demonstrated by limited core testing for ratings in
this table.
22 | September 25, 2018

Table 6-11. S. Jackson Fourth to Fifth Viaduct – East (Bridge 033E) Scaled Inventory
Rating Factors
Structure Structure Scaled Scaled

Scaled Inventory
Element Element KPFF Inventory Inventory Rating Inventory Rating
Rating Factors
KPFF SDOT Rating Factors Factors (CAF Factors (CAF
(CAF 108.8K)
Description Designation 115K) 121K)
Concrete Concrete
1.35 1.41 1.17 1.22 1.10 1.15 1.05 1.10
Slab Slab
Beams Bent
Longitudinal 1 to Bent B
Concrete and Beams 1.21 1.22 1.05 1.05 0.99 1.00 0.94 0.95
Beam Bent A to
abutment
Longitudinal
Longitudinal Prestressed
Prestressed Concrete
2.00 2.64 1.73 2.28 1.63 2.16 1.56 2.06
Concrete Girder -
Girder Bent B to
Bent A
Crossbeam
Transverse Bent A,
Concrete Crossbeam
1.14 2.29 0.99 1.98 0.93 1.87 0.89 1.79
Beam (note Bent B,
1) Crossbeam
Bent 1
Note 1: Not clear which transverse beams KPFF is referring to. Likely, the crossbeams at bents A and B (which
are similar), but maybe also at Bent 1, which is the expansion bent adjacent to Bridge 033W.
.
Table 6-12. Fourth to Fifth Viaduct – East (Bridge 033E) Scaled Operating Rating
Factors

Concrete Concrete
2.25 2.35 1.94 2.03 1.84 1.92 1.76 1.83
Slab Slab
September 25, 2018 | 23

Table 6-12. Fourth to Fifth Viaduct – East (Bridge 033E) Scaled Operating Rating
Factors

Beams Bent
Longitudinal 1 to Bent B
Concrete and Beams 2.02 2.04 1.75 1.76 1.65 1.67 1.58 1.59
Beam Bent A to
abutment
Longitudinal
Prestressed Concrete
3.34 4.41 2.89 3.81 2.73 3.60 2.61 3.44
Concrete Girder -
Girder Bent B to
Bent A
Crossbeam
Transverse Bent A,
Concrete Crossbeam
1.90 3.82 1.64 3.30 1.55 3.12 1.48 2.98
Beam (note Bent B,
1) Crossbeam
Bent 1
Note 1: Not clear which transverse beams KPFF is referring to. Likely, the crossbeams at bents A and B (which
are similar), but maybe also at Bent 1, which is the expansion bent adjacent to Bridge 033W.
.
6.2 Screening for Members Not Load Rated

Table 6-13. Elements Not Rated, Affected by Streetcar LoadingTable 6-13 shows the
structural elements of the bridges’ superstructures either not load rated by the FHS
project or whose ratings were not reported in the FHS load rating reports, but that appear
to be affected by streetcar loading given the current track configuration on these five
bridges. Refer to 9.1.1Appendix C for a bent map with these elements highlighted.
Table 6-13. Elements Not Rated, Affected by Streetcar

Loading
Bridge Element Load Effects
2nd Ave Extension - Cross beam Bent 6 Connection shear

Br. 007 end connections
24 | September 25, 2018

Table 6-13. Elements Not Rated, Affected by Streetcar

Loading
Bridge Element Load Effects
2nd Ave Extension - Cross beam Bent 5 Connection shear

Br. 007 end connections
2nd Ave Extension - Bent 6 Bracing Connection shear

Br. 007 Connections
2nd Ave Extension - Bent X-3 Connections Connection Shear
Br. 007
2nd Ave Extension - Bents 1 & 2 Connection shear
Br. 007 Crossbeam End
Connections @ Col. B
&D
2nd Ave Extension - Bent 3 End Connection shear
Br. 007 Connections
2nd Ave Extension - Bent 3 Knee Bracing Bracing axial force;
Br. 007 and Connections Connection shear
4th Ave S - Br. 031E Beams on Rows C.1, Beam flexure and
C.2, D, D.1, and D.2 shear
Between Bents E1
and E2
4th Ave S - Br. 031E Beams on Row C and Beam flexure and
E, Between Bents E1 shear
and E2
S. Jackson St. - Br. Crossbeam Bent 1 Beam flexure and

033E shear
6.3 Members Requiring Strengthening

Based on the scaled operating load ratings, as well as an evaluation of the members
without load ratings, Table 6-14 shows the members and quantities estimated to require
strengthening for the CAF vehicle at either the 108.8k vehicle weight or at the 121k
vehicle weight. Quantity units of linear feet (LF) represent length along a beam or girder.
These are also shown graphically in Figure 6-1, Figure 6-2, and Figure 6-3.
A large portion of the members requiring strengthening are members previously
strengthened for the FHS project, but that appear to be deficient for the CAF loadings
based on the limited information currently available about their as-built structural
capacity. The majority of the remaining deficiencies are for negative moment in the
crossbeams for Bridge 033W (not previously strengthened), but there are also some
additional deficiencies on Bridge 007 and Bridge 031E in members not previously
strengthened.
September 25, 2018 | 25

It appears that the deficiencies to members can be corrected with strengthening, and will
not require full or partial replacement of any of the bridges. However, strengthening will
present construction challenges that will affect cost, schedule, and have potential
impacts to the roadway users.
Bridge Element Deficiency Unit Quantity at Quantity at

CAF 109k CAF 121k
2nd Ave Extension Bent 5 Bracing Connection shear EA 2 2

- Br. 007 Connection
2nd Ave Extension Cross Beam – Bent 1 Shear LF 31 31
- Br. 007
2nd Ave Extension Cross Beam – Bent 2 Shear EA 31 31
- Br. 007
2nd Ave Extension Cross Beam – Bent 1 Col. C End EA 2 2
- Br. 007 Connections
2nd Ave Extension Cross Beam – Bent 2 Col. C End EA 2 2

- Br. 007 Connections
2nd Ave Extension Cross Beam – Bent 3 Positive Flexure LF 0 62

- Br. 007
4th Ave S - Br. Crossbeam Bent II Shear LF 36 36
031W
4th Ave S - Br. Crossbeam Bent III Shear LF 36 36
031W
4th Ave S - Br. Crossbeam Bent IV Shear LF 36 36
031W
4th Ave S - Br. Beam on Row C, Shear LF 21 21
031E Between Bents E2 and
E3
4th Ave S - Br. Beam on Row C, Shear LF 21 21
031E Between Bents E1 and
E2
4th Ave S - Br. Crossbeam Bent E2, Shear LF 17 17
031E Between Rows D and E

031E Between Rows D and E

031E Between Rows C and D
4th Ave S - Br. Crossbeam Bents E3, Shear LF 17 17

031E Between Rows C and D
26 | September 25, 2018

Bridge Element Deficiency Unit Quantity at Quantity at

CAF 109k CAF 121k
S. Jackson St. - Br. Crossbeam Bent 2 Negative flexure** LF 0 40

033W
033W
033W
033W
033W
033W
033W
S. Jackson St. - Br. Crossbeam Bent 8 Shear LF 20 20
033W
**Length assumed to be from midway between rows B and C to midway between rows D and E.
September 25, 2018 | 27

Figure 6-1 Strengthening For 2nd Ave. S. Extension (Bridge 007)
Source: SDOT bent map with HDR annotation
28 | September 25, 2018

Figure 6-2 Strengthening for 4th Ave S. Bridge (Bridges 031E and 031W)
September 25, 2018 | 29

Figure 6-3 Strengthening for S. Jackson St. Bridge – 4th to 5th (Bridges 033W and
033E)
6.4 Strengthening Types and ROM Costs

6.4.1 2nd Ave. S. Extension – Bridge 007
The strengthening required for Bents 1, 2, and 5 is the same strengthening done for the
FHS project, which involved adding steel web plates to increase the shear capacity of the
existing steel beams and strengthening beam-to-column or beam-to-brace connections.
Therefore the assumption is that those steel web plates will need to be removed and
replaced with thicker plates.
Supplemental connection elements added at Bent 5 will need to be removed and
replaced. Connections at Bents 1 and 2 will be difficult to replace, since they involve
epoxied anchors into the concrete-encased columns. Therefore, it is assumed this
connection will be left as-is and supplemented below the existing beam.
At Bent 3, the assumed strengthening is to supplement the bottom flange of the beam
with additional steel material such as a plate or channel. The existing bottom flange will
need to have holes drilled to receive new bolts connecting it to the new steel elements,
as welding to existing steel framing of this age is not typically advisable.
For all this work, existing coatings will need to be removed, which may involve lead
abatement. Coatings will need to be replaced after the structural work is complete.
30 | September 25, 2018

This work should be able to be accomplished from below the bridge, not requiring lane
closures above. However, removal of existing strengthening or modifications that
temporarily reduce capacity of the existing structure will likely require load restrictions on
the bridge during construction, or robust temporary shoring schemes to maintain load-
carrying capacity.
Because this bridge spans over railroad tracks, work below the bridge will require
extensive coordination with BNSF Railway during design and construction, as well as
other users of the tracks, such as Amtrak and Sound Transit. BNSF railroad flaggers will
be required throughout construction, and the timing of construction activities can be
restricted based on train schedules, leading to loss of construction efficiency. Since bent
2 is located within one of the King St. Station passenger platforms serving the Sounder
commuter rail, work on this bent will likely require temporary closures to the north end of
this platform, and temporary closures of the stair tower just north of the 2nd Ave. S.
Extension Bridge.
6.4.2 4th Ave. S. – Bridge 031W

The bents on this bridge that require strengthening were previously strengthened for the
FHS project. The crossbeams had FRP fabric applied to add shear capacity. They will
require additional shear capacity for the CAF vehicles, and it is unclear if the existing
FRP can be supplemented. So the assumption is that the existing FRP will need to be
removed, and new FRP added in its place to gain the desired shear capacity.
This work can likely take place from below the bridge deck. However, it will also require
railroad flagging, similar to the work on Bridge 007, due to the proximity to the railroad
tracks.
6.4.3 4th Ave. S. – Bridge 031E

Some of the beams on this bridge that require strengthening were previously
strengthened for the FHS project. Similar to Bridge 031W, the assumption is that the
existing FRP will need to be removed from these beams, and new FRP added in its
place to gain the desired shear capacity. The beams not previously strengthened that
require additional shear capacity will also have FRP added. Preparatory work for FRP
application would include cleaning, crack repair, and spall repair of the concrete beams.
This work can likely take place from below the bridge deck. The area below the bridge
deck is part of the parking garage for the Union Station complex, with this specific area
used by Sound Transit. Coordination with the Union Station property manager and
garage operator will be necessary to acquire the construction easements that will be
needed.
6.4.4 S. Jackson Fourth to Fifth Viaduct – West – Bridge 033W

The beam along bent 8 that requires additional shear capacity is one that was
strengthened as part of the FHS project by widening the beam with additional concrete
and reinforcing steel to increase its shear capacity. To strengthen it further, it does not
appear to be feasible to add FRP given the location directly adjacent to a parallel beam
on the other side of an expansion joint. So, additional concrete and reinforcing steel will
September 25, 2018 | 31

be needed. Likely, access will be needed from the top of the deck as was done for the
FHS project, to anchor vertical reinforcing bars near the top of the beam. This will require
removal of some paving, and possibly a short segment of the streetcar rails, though
depending on the exact number and spacing of the vertical bars required, it may be
possible to work around the rails.
The strengthening of the crossbeams for negative moment is more challenging, since
this requires the addition of reinforcement of some kind near the top of the beams, which
are below the existing paving and streetcar rails. It may be possible to develop a
strengthening scheme that is applied below the bridge deck, but for this analysis,
strengthening at the top of beams/top of bridge deck is assumed. This will require
removal of paving at each beam, and the removal of parts of the streetcar rails in order to
access the top of the beams and adhere FRP reinforcing strips to them.
Work done from below would be in the parking garage for the Union Station complex,
with the same coordination and easement requirements as mentioned above for bridge
031E.
6.4.5 S. Jackson Fourth to Fifth Viaduct – West

Based on this screening, it appears that no modifications are needed for this bridge.
6.5 Total ROM Costs

Refer to Error! Reference source not found. for a summary of the estimate ROM costs
for strengthening the S. Jackson St. bridges for the CAF vehicle. The range is
$2,000,000 to $4,600,000 and reflects the amount of uncertainty and unknowns at this
stage. See 9.1.1Appendix C for a more detailed breakdown of costs.
Table 6-15. Rough Order-Of-Magnitude (ROM) Cost Estimate
CAF 108.8K CAF 121K Cost

Bridge
Cost Estimate Estimate
2nd Ave Extension $830,000 $1,770,000

4th Ave Viaduct West $500,000 $690,000
4th Ave Viaduct East $520,000 $680,000
S. Jackson 4th to 5th Viaduct West $150,000 $1,460,000
Subtotal $2,000,000 $4,600,000
This does not include soft costs such as sales tax, engineering design, project management,
and construction management.
32 | September 25, 2018

7 Discussion and Additional Caveats

The following subsections include some additional explanations and caveats related to
the findings in this report.
7.1 Inventory vs. Operating Load Ratings

The distinction between inventory and operating load ratings is intended to reflect a
balancing of safety with economics. Both types of ratings are intended to reflect the
bridge’s existing condition.
Inventory load rating factors represent the bridge’s ability to carry a range of vehicle
types traveling across the bridge for an indefinite period of time assuming the condition
remains the same.
Operating load rating factors are used to determine the maximum vehicular loads (trucks,
streetcars, automobiles, etc.) that should be allowed on a bridge. Repetitive travel by
any given vehicle load could ultimately reduce the bridge’s lifespan. Both SDOT and
WSDOT use operating load ratings to determine whether weight restrictions should be
posted for a bridge.
It should be noted that for assessing streetcar loads for either inventory or operating load
ratings, the analysis includes other vehicular loads simultaneously in adjacent lanes in
addition to those of the streetcars.
7.2 Load Testing and Rating vs. Analytical-Only Load

Rating
The results of the BDI load testing and load rating provide much higher (more favorable)
rating factors for most structural elements than those found through a more traditional
analysis – like that performed by KPFF. By instrumenting the bridge while running test
vehicles over it, they are able to capture the distribution of the loads to the various
structural members based on physical testing and not solely on theoretical distribution
factors or computer modeling the way an analytical-only load rating would. The amount
of improvement shown when using load testing is highly dependent on the specific
bridge, and in some cases there may be no improvement or even less favorable results.
7.3 Additional Caveats and Assumptions

 This assessment assumes the criteria that will be used as part of the future, detailed
analytical load rating will be the 1.0 operating rating factor threshold as discussed.
This criteria is critical to this assessment. Should SDOT choose to change the criteria
to more stringent the criteria, more strengthening will be required and the estimated
costs will increase.
 No structural calculations or backup documentation have been provided for the KPFF
report. The KPFF results presented have not been checked by HDR nor has HDR
performed an independent analysis.
September 25, 2018 | 33

 BDI uses proprietary software and calibration techniques that could not be verified.
HDR has not performed any type of independent analysis.
 Actual rating factors are going to strongly depend on the magnitude and the
distribution of the loads. Variability in either of these items can drastically alter the
results.
 A select number of concrete cores were taken for two of the bridges, and variability
of the concrete along the bridge is likely.
 No degradation/deterioration is assumed from the time of the previous analyses.
 FHS strengthening was installed as shown on the design plans (no as-built plans
have been located).
 Substructure elements have not been evaluated.
 Rail/transit loadings, other than vertical live load and impact as mentioned above,
have been neglected (e.g. continuous rail-structure interaction effects, horizontal
dynamic vehicular effects, etc.)
 Load testing can reduce the factors of safety inherent in design codes
 No consideration has been given for the remaining service life of these bridges. Four
of these bridges are in the age range of 90 to 100 years old and have passed what is
typically considered a realistic design life.
 Accessibility for strengthening these bridge elements may be challenging. Examples
of this may be long delays to obtain railroad agreements and construction
easements, or short time windows allowed to complete the construction near the
railroad tracks.
 Construction of the strengthening described herein may require temporarily taking
the FHS offline in this area for periods of time if strengthening is required from the
top of the bridge deck.
8 Next Steps
The results found herein are very approximate in nature and have inadequate backup to
even begin refining the calculations. Assuming the C3 streetcar project is carried
forward, all five of these bridges will need a full analytical load rating performed. This
analysis would account for the CAF vehicle loading the newer NRL and EV vehicles, and
finally, take into account the additional capacity resulting from the FHS project
strengthening of some of the structural elements.
Bridge 033W is likely to show as deficient under an analysis-based load rating, even if
operating rating factors are used (based on KPFF’s load rating results on the FHS
project). Therefore BDI may need to be engaged for this particular bridge to revisit their
previous analysis and update it for the CAF vehicle weight(s) and configuration as well
as the NRL and EV vehicles. This may require additional field testing, or it may only
require revisions to their analysis.
34 | September 25, 2018

A site visit will be required as part of this load rating work, to visually confirm the FHS
retrofit work is in place, perform a visual screening to confirm that the bridges’ conditions
have not changed since the last formal bridge inspections, and to measure and confirm
the member sizes for the parts of 2nd Ave Extension that do not have as-built plans (this
field measurements process was also performed by KPFF for FHS and documented in
their report).
Depending on the outcome of these analytical load ratings, BDI (or an equivalent testing
company) could be engaged to provide load testing and follow-on load rating analysis for
select members that show an operating rating factor less than 1.0 in the analytical load
rating.
Once these analyses are completed, elements identified as deficient would be analyzed
to develop strengthening concepts. These strengthening concepts would then be fully
designed as part of PS&E development for a construction contract.
9 References
Reference 1: KPFF
2011 Jackson Street Viaduct Structural Evaluation for Streetcar Loading, July 18, 2011, Draft
Revised Report (this report supersedes the report submitted on May 20, 2011).
Reference 2: Bridge Diagnostics, Inc.

2012 Field Testing and Load Rating Report: Jackson St. / 4th Ave. to 5th Ave. Bridge – Seattle,
WA BRG 33W, June 2012.
September 25, 2018 | 35

Appendix A. Bridge Bent Map Drawings
36 | September 25, 2018

Figure A-1 2nd Ave S. Extension Bridge
September 25, 2018 | 37

Figure A-2 4th Ave South Bridge
38 | September 25, 2018

Figure A-3 S. Jackson St. Bridge 4th to 5th
September 25, 2018 | 39

Appendix B. Scaled Rating Factor Calculations
40 | September 25, 2018

9/24/2018 3:15 PM
Project: SDOT C3 Computed: BJH Date: 9/17/18

Subject: Task 39 Checked: LA Date: 9/18/18
Task: Vehicle Weights Page: See Footer of: See Footer
Job #: No: 1
Data
Streetcar Weights and other Values
Weight Ratio
AW3 Loading RF Scale Factor
CAF/FHS
CAF Current Vehicle Weight = 108,771 lbs 1.16 0.86
CAF Current Vehicle Weight + 8% Add'l
115,000 lbs 1.22 0.82
Self-Wt=
CAF Max Contract Weight = 120,474 lbs 1.28 0.78
KPFF/BDI FHS Vehicle Weight = 94,000 lbs
Inventory Rating LL Factor 2.17 LRFD Design LL Factor 1.75

LRFD Design/Inventory live
Operating Rating LL Factor 1.30 0.81
load factor ratio
Inventory/operating live load factor
1.67
ratio
CAF Vehicle Axle Arrangement:
KPFF/BDI FHS Vehicle Axle Arrangement:
By:BJH 1 of 16 Sheet:Data
HDR Engineering c:\pwworking\sea\d1292105\SDOT C3 RF Scaling.xlsm
9/24/2018 3:15 PM

Task: Scaled Load Ratings Page: See Footer of: See Footer
Job #: No: 1
2nd Ave Extension - Br. 007

Scaled Rating Factors - Inventory
Scaled Inventory Rating Factors Scaled Inventory Rating Factors Scaled Inventory Rating Factors
KPFF Inventory Rating Factors
Structure Element - SDOT - CAF 109k - CAF 115k - CAF 121k
Structure Element - KPFF Description
Designation
Concrete Slab – West of Bent X-3 (Note Concrete Slab – West of Bent X-
1.27 1.81 1.10 1.56 1.04 1.48 0.99 1.41
2) 3
Concrete Slab – East of Bent X-
Concrete Slab – East of Bent X-3 (Note 2) 1.51 1.00 1.30 0.86 1.23 0.82 1.18 0.78
3
Steel Cross Beams West of Bent X-3 (Grid
Cross beam Bent 6 1.12 1.15 0.97 0.99 0.92 0.94 0.87 0.90
2NA)
Cross beam Bent 5 2.71 10.31 2.34 8.91 2.22 8.43 2.11 8.04
2NB)
Grid 2NB Bracing Connection - FHS
Bent 5 Bracing Connection 0.81 - 0.70 - 0.66 - 0.63 -
strengthened
Steel Cross Beam – Bent X-3 (Note 1) Cross Beam – Bent X-3 3.63 1.44 3.13 1.24 2.96 1.18 2.83 1.12
Steel Cross Beam – Bents 1 & 2 - FHS

strengthened for bear shear & Cross Beam – Bents 1 & 2 0.81 2.12 0.70 1.83 0.66 1.73 0.63 1.65
connection
Steel Cross Beam – Bent 3 Cross Beam – Bent 3 1.53 0.97 1.32 0.84 1.25 0.79 1.19 0.76
Note 1: Bent X-3 beam not rated by KPFF; KPFF concluded the rating factors would be greater than 1.0 for the FHS streetcar loading based
on BDI load testing and operating load rating for HS20 trucks done in 2003 (RF = 8.89 and 3.53 for shear and moment respectively.)
Approximate FHS streetcar inventory load rating by scaling the HS20 truck operating ratings by a ratio of 1.3/2.17 and by a ratio of the HS-
20 axle weight of 32 kips to the FHS streetcar truck (2 axle) weight of 47 kips.
Note 2: Concrete slab rating based on strength testing from concrete cores taken from bridge slab. KPFF reported this strength as 8442
psi.
By:BJH 2 of 16 Sheet:2ndAveExt-007
9/24/2018 3:15 PM
2nd Ave Extension - Br. 007

Scaled Rating Factors - Operating
Approx. FHS Operating Rating Scaled Operating Rating Scaled Operating Rating Scaled Operating Rating
Structure Element - SDOT Factors Factors - CAF 109k Factors - CAF 115k Factors - CAF 121k
Designation
Concrete Slab – West of Bent X-3 (Note Concrete Slab – West of Bent X-
2.12 3.02 1.83 2.61 1.73 2.47 1.65 2.36
2) 3
Concrete Slab – East of Bent X-
Concrete Slab – East of Bent X-3 (Note 2) 2.52 1.67 2.18 1.44 2.06 1.36 1.97 1.30
3
Cross beam Bent 6 1.87 1.92 1.62 1.66 1.53 1.57 1.46 1.50
2NA)
Cross beam Bent 5 4.52 17.21 3.91 14.87 3.70 14.07 3.53 13.43
2NB)
strengthened
Steel Cross Beam – Bent X-3 (Note 1) Cross Beam – Bent X-3 6.05 2.40 5.23 2.08 4.95 1.96 4.72 1.88
connection
Steel Cross Beam – Bent 3 Cross Beam – Bent 3 2.55 1.62 2.21 1.40 2.09 1.32 1.99 1.26
Note 1: Bent X-3 beam not rated by KPFF; KPFF concluded the rating factors would be greater than 1.0 for the FHS streetcar loading based
on BDI load testing and operating load rating for HS20 trucks done in 2003 (RF = 8.89 and 3.53 for shear and moment respectively.)
Approximate FHS streetcar inventory load rating by scaling the HS20 truck operating ratings by a ratio of 1.3/2.17 and by a ratio of the HS-
20 axle weight of 32 kips to the FHS streetcar truck (2 axle) weight of 47 kips.
Note 2: Concrete slab rating based on strength testing from concrete cores taken from bridge slab. KPFF reported this strength as 8442
psi.
By:BJH 3 of 16 Sheet:2ndAveExt-007
9/24/2018 3:15 PM

Job #: No: 1
4th Ave S - Br. 031W

Designation
Concrete Slab - West Concrete Slab 2.84 2.55 2.45 2.20 2.32 2.08 2.22 1.99
East-West Concrete Beam II (West) - FHS
Crossbeam Bent II 0.81 1.87 0.70 1.62 0.66 1.53 0.63 1.46
strengthened
East-West Concrete Beam III (West) - FHS
Crossbeam Bent III 0.81 2.35 0.70 2.03 0.66 1.92 0.63 1.83
strengthened
East-West Concrete Beam IV (West) - FHS
Crossbeam Bent IV 0.81 1.97 0.70 1.70 0.66 1.61 0.63 1.54
strengthened
By:BJH 4 of 16 Sheet:4thAveS-31W
9/24/2018 3:15 PM
4th Ave S - Br. 031W

Scaled Operating Rating Scaled Operating Rating Scaled Operating Rating
KPFF Operating Rating Factors
Structure Element - SDOT Factors - CAF 109k Factors - CAF 115k Factors - CAF 121k
Designation
Concrete Slab - West Concrete Slab 4.74 4.26 4.10 3.68 3.87 3.48 3.70 3.32
strengthened
strengthened
strengthened
By:BJH 5 of 16 Sheet:4thAveS-31W
9/24/2018 3:15 PM

Job #: No: 1
4th Ave S - Br. 031E

Designation
Concrete Slab - East Concrete Slab 2.66 2.37 2.30 2.05 2.17 1.94 2.08 1.85
North-South Concrete Beam S56

Beam on Row C, Between
(Boundary between West & East) - FHS 0.81 3.23 0.70 2.79 0.66 2.64 0.63 2.52
Bents E2 and E3
strengthened
Beams on Rows C.1, C.2, D,
North-South Concrete Beam S50 (East
D.1, and D.2 Between Bents E2 1.03 1.61 0.89 1.39 0.84 1.32 0.80 1.26
typical)
and E3
North-South Concrete Beam G (East Beam on Row E, Between
1.19 1.64 1.03 1.42 0.97 1.34 0.93 1.28
edge) - Note 4 Bents E2 and E3
East-West Concrete Beam B6 (East Crossbeam Bent E2, Between
0.84 1.79 0.73 1.55 0.69 1.46 0.66 1.40
Typical) -Note 1 Rows D and E
Elements not listed in KPFF Report Table 4-2
East-West Concrete Beam B5 - FHS Crossbeam Bent E3, Between

0.81 1.79 0.70 1.55 0.66 1.46 0.63 1.40
strengthened - Note 2 Rows D and E
East-West Concrete Beams A5 and A6 - Crossbeam Bents E2 and E3,
0.84 1.79 0.73 1.55 0.69 1.46 0.66 1.40
Note 3 Between Rows C and D
Note 1 - KPFF report called for this beam to be strengthened (see Appendix A, Figure 10); final strengthening plans show no strengthened
to it
Note 2 - KPFF report and final strengthening plans called for this beam to be strengthened (see Appendix A, Figure 10) though it does not
specifically appear in Table 4-2; Assumed deficient for FHS streetcar loading based on KPFF rating factor for beam B6
Note 3 - KPFF report called for these beams to be strengthened (see Appendix A, Figure 10) though they do not specifically appear in
Table 4-2; Assumed deficient for FHS streetcar loading based on KPFF rating factor for beam B6; final strengthening plans show no
strengthened to them
Note 4 - There are 2 separate beams along this line, one part of this bridge, and one part of bridge 33W. Both beams were strengthened
despite the fact that the beam that is part of this bridge had an inventory rating above 1.0 as shown. Scaled rating factors are based on
unstrengthened condition.
By:BJH 6 of 16 Sheet:4thAveS-31E
9/24/2018 3:15 PM
4th Ave S - Br. 031E

Structure Element - SDOT KPFF Operating Rating Factors
Structure Element - KPFF Description Factors - CAF 109k Factors - CAF 115k Factors - CAF 121k
Designation
Concrete Slab - East Concrete Slab 4.44 3.96 3.84 3.42 3.63 3.24 3.46 3.09
Bents E2 and E3
strengthened
Beams on Rows C.1, C.2, D,
North-South Concrete Beam S50 (East
D.1, and D.2 Between Bents E2 1.72 2.69 1.49 2.32 1.41 2.20 1.34 2.10
typical)
and E3
North-South Concrete Beam G (East Beam on Row E, Between
1.99 2.74 1.72 2.37 1.63 2.24 1.55 2.14
edge) - Note 4 Bents E2 and E3
East-West Concrete Beam B6 (East Crossbeam Bent E2, Between
1.40 2.99 1.21 2.58 1.14 2.44 1.09 2.33
Typical) -Note 1 Rows D and E
Elements not listed in KPFF Report Table 4-2
1.35 2.99 1.16 2.58 1.10 2.44 1.05 2.33
East-West Concrete Beams A5 and A6 - Crossbeam Bents E2 and E3,
1.40 2.99 1.21 2.58 1.14 2.44 1.09 2.33
Note 3 Between Rows C and D
Note 1 - KPFF report called for this beam to be strengthened (see Appendix A, Figure 10); final strengthening plans show no strengthened
to it
Note 2 - KPFF report and final strengthening plans called for this beam to be strengthened (see Appendix A, Figure 10) though it does not
specifically appear in Table 4-2; Assumed deficient for FHS streetcar loading based on KPFF rating factor for beam B6
Note 3 - KPFF report called for these beams to be strengthened (see Appendix A, Figure 10) though they do not specifically appear in
Table 4-2; Assumed deficient for FHS streetcar loading based on KPFF rating factor for beam B6; final strengthening plans show no
strengthened to them
Note 4 - There are 2 separate beams along this line, one part of this bridge, and one part of bridge 33W. Both beams were strengthened
despite the fact that the beam that is part of this bridge had an inventory rating above 1.0 as shown. Scaled rating factors are based on
unstrengthened condition.
By:BJH 7 of 16 Sheet:4thAveS-31E
9/24/2018 3:15 PM

Job #: No: 1
S. Jackson St. - Br. 033W - BDI Load Rating Factors

Scaled Inventory Rating Scaled Inventory Rating Scaled Inventory Rating
BDI Inventory Rating Factors
Structure Element - SDOT Factors - CAF 109k Factors - CAF 115k Factors - CAF 121k
Structure Element - BDI Description
Designation
Rated Beams in positive flexure and Beams between rows C and D,

1.85 2.49 1.60 2.15 1.51 2.04 1.44 1.94
shear - Note 1 Bent 1 to Bent 8
Rated Beams in negative flexure - Note Beams between rows C and D,

- 2.06 - 1.78 - 1.68 - 1.61
2 Bent 1 to Bent 8
Rated Beams in negative flexure - plain

concrete - Note 3; controlling elements Beams between rows C and D,
- 1.95 - 1.69 - 1.59 - 1.52
noted as interior beam end of un- Bent 1 to Bent 8
tapered section
Rated Cross-beams in positive flexure

and shear - Note 4; controlling element Bents 2 through 7 1.58 2.05 1.37 1.77 1.29 1.68 1.23 1.60
noted as Cross Beam C, near midspan
Rated Cross-beams in negative flexure -

Note 5; controlling element noted as Bents 2 through 7 - 0.97 - 0.84 - 0.79 - 0.76
Cross Beam B, face of column
All ratings appear to have used concrete strength demonstrated by

limited core testing, as directed by SDOT, per BDI report
Note 1 - shear reinforcing in prismatic sections cannot be used due to wide spacing; all shear capacity from concrete
Note 2 - negative flexure rating in this line is assumed to be for the portion of the beams with reinforcing
Note 3 - rating factor assumes tensile capacity of concrete can be relied upon per ACI 318-08 since negative moment reinforcing is
not present at all sections with negative moment; if it cannot be relied upon, then these ratings all go to zero.
Note 4 - controlling load condition appears to be HS-20 only
Note 5 - assumes this does not apply to Bent 1 beam (east end bent) which rated high for flexure in KPFF ratings
Note 6 - See 33W KPFF tab/sheet for information on beam along 33W Bent 8 (31E Row E), between 33W Row C and D
By:BJH 8 of 16 Sheet:S Jackson St West-33W BDI

9/24/2018 3:15 PM
S. Jackson St. - Br. 033W - BDI Load Rating Factors


Structure Element - SDOT BDI Operating Rating Factors
Structure Element - BDI Description Factors - CAF 109k Factors - CAF 115k Factors - CAF 121k
Designation
Rated Beams in positive flexure and Beams between rows C and D,

3.09 4.15 2.67 3.59 2.53 3.39 2.41 3.24
shear - Note 1 Bent 1 to Bent 8
Rated Beams in negative flexure - Note Beams between rows C and D,
- 3.44 - 2.97 - 2.81 - 2.68
2 Bent 1 to Bent 8
Rated Beams in negative flexure - plain
concrete - Note 3; controlling elements Beams between rows C and D,
- 3.25 - 2.81 - 2.66 - 2.54
noted as interior beam end of un- Bent 1 to Bent 8
tapered section
Rated Cross-beams in positive flexure

and shear - Note 4; controlling element Bents 2 through 7 2.64 3.43 2.28 2.96 2.16 2.80 2.06 2.68
noted as Cross Beam C, near midspan
Rated Cross-beams in negative flexure -

Note 5; controlling element noted as Bents 2 through 7 - 1.62 - 1.40 - 1.32 - 1.26
Cross Beam B, face of column
All ratings appear to have used concrete strength demonstrated by

limited core testing, as directed by SDOT, per BDI report
Note 1 - shear reinforcing in prismatic sections cannot be used due to wide spacing; all shear capacity from concrete
Note 2 - negative flexure rating in this line is assumed to be for the portion of the beams with reinforcing
Note 3 - rating factor assumes tensile capacity of concrete can be relied upon per ACI 318-08 since negative moment reinforcing is
not present at all sections with negative moment; if it cannot be relied upon, then these ratings all go to zero.
Note 4 - controlling load condition appears to be HS-20 only
Note 5 - assumes this does not apply to Bent 1 beam (east end bent) which rated high for flexure in KPFF ratings
Note 6 - See 33W KPFF tab/sheet for information on beam along 33W Bent 8 (31E Row E), between 33W Row C and D
By:BJH 9 of 16 Sheet:S Jackson St West-33W BDI

9/24/2018 3:15 PM

Job #: No: 1
S. Jackson St. - Br. 033W - KPFF Load Rating Factors

Designation
Concrete Slab Concrete Slab 1.46 1.13 1.26 0.98 1.19 0.92 1.14 0.88
Crossbeam Bent 1, Spans Row

Transverse Concrete Beam R (East end) 0.82 2.37 0.71 2.05 0.67 1.94 0.64 1.85
C to D
Crossbeam Bents 2 through 7,
Transverse Concrete Beam C (Typical) 0.60 1.01 0.52 0.87 0.49 0.83 0.47 0.79
Spans Row C to D
Transverse Concrete Beam G (West end) - Crossbeam Bent 8, Spans Row
0.81 3.07 0.70 2.65 0.66 2.51 0.63 2.40
FHS strengthened - Note 1 C to D
Longitudinal Concrete Stringer S18 (East Girders between Row C and D,
0.71 1.05 0.61 0.91 0.58 0.86 0.55 0.82
end) spans Bent 1 to Bent 2
Longitudinal Concrete Stringer S12 Girders between Row C and D,
0.71 1.05 0.61 0.91 0.58 0.86 0.55 0.82
(Typical) spans Bent 2 to Bent 7
Longitudinal Concrete Stringer S11 (West Girders between Row C and D,
0.79 1.21 0.68 1.05 0.65 0.99 0.62 0.94
KPFF Report does not mention the use of concrete strength

demonstrated by limited core testing to compute these ratings
Note 1 - Rating factor does not include the additional dead load present from weight of added concrete
Note 2 - Members Beam R, S18, and S11 not specifically addressed by BDI load testing and rating, but not strengthened. Assume that FHS
design team decided Beam R (Bent 1) was acceptable without strengthening based on BDI results for typical interior transverse beam, and
that S18 and S11 were acceptable without strengthening based on BDI results for typical interior stringer (e.g. S12).
By:BJH 10 of 16 Sheet:S Jackson St West-33W KPFF

9/24/2018 3:15 PM
S. Jackson St. - Br. 033W - KPFF Load Rating Factors


Designation
Crossbeam Bent 1, Spans Row

Transverse Concrete Beam R (East end) 1.37 3.96 1.18 3.42 1.12 3.24 1.07 3.09
C to D
Crossbeam Bents 2 through 7,
Transverse Concrete Beam C (Typical) 1.27 1.69 1.10 1.46 1.04 1.38 0.99 1.32
Spans Row C to D
1.35 5.12 1.16 4.42 1.10 4.19 1.05 3.99
Longitudinal Concrete Stringer S18 (East Girders between Row C and D,

1.19 1.75 1.03 1.51 0.97 1.43 0.93 1.37
Longitudinal Concrete Stringer S12 Girders between Row C and D,
1.19 1.75 1.03 1.51 0.97 1.43 0.93 1.37
(Typical) spans Bent 2 to Bent 7
Longitudinal Concrete Stringer S11 (West Girders between Row C and D,
1.32 2.02 1.14 1.75 1.08 1.65 1.03 1.58
KPFF Report does not mention the use of concrete strength

demonstrated by limited core testing to compute these ratings
Note 1 - Rating factor does not include the additional dead load present from weight of added concrete
Note 2 - Members Beam R, S18, and S11 not specifically addressed by BDI load testing and rating, but not strengthened. Assume that FHS
design team decided Beam R (Bent 1) was acceptable without strengthening based on BDI results for typical interior transverse beam, and
that S18 and S11 were acceptable without strengthening based on BDI results for typical interior stringer (e.g. S12).
By:BJH 11 of 16 Sheet:S Jackson St West-33W KPFF

9/24/2018 3:15 PM

Job #: No: 1
S. Jackson St. - Br. 033E

Designation
Beams Bent 1 to Bent B and

Longitudinal Concrete Beam 1.21 1.22 1.05 1.05 0.99 1.00 0.94 0.95
Beams Bent A to abutment
Longitudinal Prestressed Concrete Girder Concrete Girder - Bent B to 2.00 2.64 1.73 2.28 1.63 2.16 1.56 2.06
Bent A
Crossbeam Bent A, Crossbeam

Transverse Concrete Beam (note 1) 1.14 2.29 0.99 1.98 0.93 1.87 0.89 1.79
Bent B, Crossbeam Bent 1(?)
Note 1 - not completely clear which transverse beams they are referring to; likely the crossbeams at bents A and B (which are similar), but maybe also at Bent 1, which is the expansion
bent adjacent to Br 033W
By:BJH 12 of 16 Sheet:S Jackson St East-33E

9/24/2018 3:15 PM
S. Jackson St. - Br. 033E


Designation
Beams Bent 1 to Bent B and

Longitudinal Concrete Beam 2.02 2.04 1.75 1.76 1.65 1.67 1.58 1.59
Beams Bent A to abutment
Longitudinal Prestressed Concrete Girder Concrete Girder - Bent B to 3.34 4.41 2.89 3.81 2.73 3.60 2.61 3.44
Bent A
Crossbeam Bent A, Crossbeam

Transverse Concrete Beam (note 1) 1.90 3.82 1.64 3.30 1.55 3.12 1.48 2.98
Bent B, Crossbeam Bent 1(?)
Note 1 - not completely clear which transverse beams they are referring to; likely the crossbeams at bents A and B (which are similar), but maybe also at Bent 1, which is the expansion
bent adjacent to Br 033W
By:BJH 13 of 16 Sheet:S Jackson St East-33E

9/24/2018 3:15 PM
Project: SDOT C3 Computed: BJH Date:

Subject: Checked: Date:
Job #: No: 1
All Bridges - FHS Strengthened Members Only - Unstrengthened Rating Factors

Designation

strengthened
connection
strengthened
strengthened
strengthened
Bents E2 and E3
strengthened

0.84 1.79 0.73 1.55 0.69 1.46 0.66 1.40

0.66 3.07 0.57 2.65 0.54 2.51 0.51 2.40
By:BJH 14 of 16 Sheet:FHS Retrofitted Members

9/24/2018 3:15 PM
Notes - Issues to be addressed

Negative moment capacity issues - are KPFF/BDI assumptions OK (use plain conc strength); don't thi
Non-rated vehicle discussion (NRL , EV)
Recovery train discussion
By:BJH 15 of 16 Sheet:TBD
9/24/2018 3:15 PM
c strength); don't think that they evaluated the beams as simple span assuming 0 neg moment capacity
By:BJH 16 of 16 Sheet:TBD
Appendix C. Structural Members Affected but Not

Load Rated
September 25, 2018 | 41

Figure C-1 2nd Ave S. Extension Bridge Members Not Rated
42 | September 25, 2018

Figure C-2 4th Ave South Bridge Members Not Rated
September 25, 2018 | 43

Figure C-3 S. Jackson St. Bridge 4th to 5th Members Not Rated
September 25, 2018 | 44

Appendix D. ROM Cost Estimate Details
September 25, 2018 | 45

9/25/2018 8:43 AM
Project: SDOT C3 Computed BJH Date: 9/21/18

Subject Task 39 Checked: LA Date: 9/24/18
Task: Bridge Strengthening ROM Costs Page: See Footer of: See Footer
Job #: No: 1
All Bridges - Elements to be Strengthened for CAF Vehicle

Based on Scaled Operating Rating Factors < 1.3
ROM Strengthening Costs
Structure Element - SDOT Quantity at Quantity at Unit Cost at Unit Cost at Extended Cost Extended Cost @
Bridge Deficiency Unit Notes
Designation CAF 109k CAF 121k Low End High End @ Low End High End
2nd Ave Extension - Br. 007 Bent 5 Bracing Connection Connection shear? EA 2 2 $ 15,000 $ 18,000 $ 30,000 $ 36,000 Estimated
2nd Ave Extension - Br. 007 Cross Beam – Bent 1 Shear LF 31 31 $ 6,300 $ 7,560 $ 195,300 $ 234,360 Based on KSS change order #22 for FHS strengthening
2nd Ave Extension - Br. 007 Cross Beam – Bent 2 Shear EA 31 31 $ 6,300 $ 7,560 $ 195,300 $ 234,360 Based on KSS change order #22 for FHS strengthening
2nd Ave Extension - Br. 007 Cross Beam – Bent 1 Col. C End Connections EA 2 2 $ - $ - $ - $ - Included in Shear strengthening
2nd Ave Extension - Br. 007 Cross Beam – Bent 2 Col. C End Connections EA 2 2 $ - $ - $ - $ - Included in Shear strengthening
2nd Ave Extension - Br. 007 Cross Beam – Bent 3 Positive Flexure LF 0 62 $ 6,300 $ 7,560 $ - $ 468,720 Based on KSS change order #22 for FHS strengthening
4th Ave S - Br. 031W Crossbeam Bent II Shear LF 36 36 $ 2,500 $ 3,000 $ 90,000 $ 108,000 Based on KSS change order #14 for FHS strengthening, and other recent FRP bids
4th Ave S - Br. 031W Crossbeam Bent III Shear LF 36 36 $ 2,500 $ 3,000 $ 90,000 $ 108,000 Based on KSS change order #14 for FHS strengthening, and other recent FRP bids
4th Ave S - Br. 031W Crossbeam Bent IV Shear LF 36 36 $ 2,500 $ 3,000 $ 90,000 $ 108,000 Based on KSS change order #14 for FHS strengthening, and other recent FRP bids
4th Ave S - Br. 031E Shear LF 21 21 $ 2,500 $ 3,000 $ 52,500 $ 63,000 Based on KSS change order #14 for FHS strengthening, and other recent FRP bids
Bents E2 and E3
Bents E1 and E2
Crossbeam Bent E2, Between
Rows D and E
Rows D and E
Rows C and D
Crossbeam Bents E3, Between
Rows C and D
S. Jackson St. - Br. 033W Crossbeam Bent 2 Negative flexure LF 0 40 $ 2,000 $ 2,000 $ - $ 80,000 Assumed from midway between rows B and C to midway between rows D to E
S. Jackson St. - Br. 033W Crossbeam Bent 3 Negative flexure LF 0 40 $ 2,000 $ 2,000 $ - $ 80,000 Based on KSS change order #14 for FHS strengthening, and other recent FRP bids
S. Jackson St. - Br. 033W Crossbeam Bent 8 Shear LF 20 20 $ 3,000 $ 3,600 $ 60,000 $ 72,000 Estimated for concrete, rebar, doweling to existing
SUBTOTAL $ 989,600 $ 2,216,240
By:BJH 1 of 2 Sheet:C3 Members to Mod and Tot Cost

HDR Engineering c:\pwworking\sea\d1292105\C3 Strengthening Quantities_Rev1_LA.xlsx
9/25/2018 8:43 AM
ROM Other Costs and Totals
Extended Cost Extended Cost

@ Low End @ High End
Other Costs for Bridge 7 $ 200,000 $ 360,000
Other costs include contractor mobilization, railroad-related costs (railroad flagging, railroad
Other Costs for Bridge 31W $ 110,000 $ 190,000
agreement and insurance), street-level traffic control, Union Station garage construction easements,
demolition and reconstruction of Union Station garage separation wall, and demolition and
Other Costs for Bridge 31E $ 150,000 $ 230,000
reconstruction of street-level paving and streetcar tracks (where required).
Other Costs for Bridge 33W $ 50,000 $ 470,000
Other Costs Subtotal $ 510,000 $ 1,250,000
Total Construction Cost $ 1,499,600 $ 3,466,240
Contingency (30%) $ 449,880.0 $ 1,039,872.0
Total ROM Cost with With 30% contingency, but does not include sales tax, design, project management, construction
$ 2,000,000 $ 4,600,000
Construction Contingency management and other soft costs
By:BJH 2 of 2 Sheet:C3 Members to Mod and Tot Cost

HDR Engineering c:\pwworking\sea\d1292105\C3 Strengthening Quantities_Rev1_LA.xlsx

Draft Phase 1 Structural Report

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Draft Phase 1 Structural Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Initial Structural Screening -

September 25, 2018 | i

ii | September 25, 2018

September 25, 2018 | iii

This page is intentionally left blank.

iv | September 25, 2018

September 25, 2018 | 1

Figure 2-1 Bridges Along S. Jackson St.

2.1 Second Avenue South Extension

2.2 Fourth Avenue South Viaduct

2 | September 25, 2018

2.3 S. Jackson Fourth to Fifth Viaduct – West

2.4 S. Jackson Fourth to Fifth Viaduct – East

3.1 FHS Vehicle

Figure 3-1 FHS Vehicle Analysis Axle Configuration

Source: KPFF, 2011

September 25, 2018 | 3

3.2 CAF Vehicle

Figure 3-2 CAF Vehicle Axle Configuration

Source: CAF, 2018

4 | September 25, 2018

5 Screening and Analysis Approach

5.1 Scaling of Available Load Rating Factors

September 25, 2018 | 5

6 | September 25, 2018

September 25, 2018 | 7

5.2 Determine Other Members Affected by Streetcar

5.3 Screen for Members Requiring Strengthening

5.4 Determine General Type of Strengthening

8 | September 25, 2018

5.5 Determine Rough Order-of-Magnitude (ROM)

Shear Flexure Shear Flexure Shear Flexure Shear Flexure

September 25, 2018 | 9

Shear Flexure Shear Flexure Shear Flexure Shear Flexure

10 | September 25, 2018

Structure Structure Scaled Scaled Scaled

Shear Flexure Shear Flexure Shear Flexure Shear Flexure

September 25, 2018 | 11

Structure Structure Scaled Scaled Scaled

Shear Flexure Shear Flexure Shear Flexure Shear Flexure

12 | September 25, 2018

Structure Structure Scaled Scaled Scaled

Shear Flexure Shear Flexure Shear Flexure Shear Flexure

September 25, 2018 | 13

Structure Structure Scaled Scaled Scaled

Shear Flexure Shear Flexure Shear Flexure Shear Flexure

14 | September 25, 2018

Structure Structure Scaled Scaled Scaled

Shear Flexure Shear Flexure Shear Flexure Shear Flexure

September 25, 2018 | 15

Structure Structure Scaled Scaled Scaled

Shear Flexure Shear Flexure Shear Flexure Shear Flexure

16 | September 25, 2018

Structure Structure Scaled Scaled Scaled

Shear Flexure Shear Flexure Shear Flexure Shear Flexure

September 25, 2018 | 17

Scaled Inventory Scaled Inventory Scaled Inventory

Shear Flexure Shear Flexure Shear Flexure Shear Flexure

Rated Beams in positive

18 | September 25, 2018

Scaled Scaled Scaled

Shear Flexure Shear Flexure Shear Flexure Shear Flexure

Rated Beams in positive

September 25, 2018 | 19

Structure Structure Scaled Scaled Scaled

Shear Flexure Shear Flexure Shear Flexure Shear Flexure

20 | September 25, 2018