1 / 22

I-84 at 257 th Ave. (Troutdale Interchange) Section: Lessons Learned during Construction

I-84 at 257 th Ave. (Troutdale Interchange) Section: Lessons Learned during Construction. Project Overview. Original Authorization: $3,409,384 Estimated Final Cost: $3,376,450 Total CCO Costs: $157,758 Project completed within 60 days of Original Specified Completion Date.

eros
Télécharger la présentation

I-84 at 257 th Ave. (Troutdale Interchange) Section: Lessons Learned during Construction

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. I-84 at 257th Ave. (Troutdale Interchange) Section:Lessons Learned during Construction

  2. Project Overview • Original Authorization: $3,409,384 • Estimated Final Cost: $3,376,450 • Total CCO Costs: $157,758 • Project completed within 60 days of Original Specified Completion Date

  3. What Today’s Meeting is About • Sharing the important lessons we in the Construction Office learned on this Project. • Passing the information on so that these valuable points are incorporated into future Projects. • Making sure costly lessons aren’t learned the costly way again.

  4. What Today’s Meeting is NOT About • Beating people up over the lessons we learned • Pointing the finger at any one • Assigning blame

  5. How This Meeting is Structured • This meeting will distill the lessons learned into general themes • Specific Examples of these themes will be highlighted • Each theme can be discussed in short, but time for in depth group discussion has been reserved for the end of the meeting

  6. Themes of the Lessons Learned • Most lessons learned from specific instances seemed to fit themes on this Project • Most fit into one of 3 Themes: • Better Site Familiarity = Better Designs that fit existing conditions • Interdisciplinary review of discipline specific work products prevents design conflicts • A decision that looks like it will save money during design can be costly during construction

  7. I. Better Site Familiarity = Better Design Design features that did not address, or at least account for, existing site conditions were a reoccurring theme. A site visit by design personnel quickly led to solutions in almost every case. If site visits, and/or more thorough “survey” of the site before design had been performed, design issues could have been avoided. “If a picture is worth a thousand words, a site visit is worth a thousand pictures.” –Bob Marshall, David Evans, & Associates

  8. Stone Embankment CCO Cost: $26,812.44 Stone Embankment was used to stabilize the roadway prism while building in what was essentially a swamp.

  9. Storm Drainage Facility Design Initial survey of the site did not include all drainage connections, and required redesign to route storm water through the project so as not to overload infiltration facilities. • Required consultant and ODOT PC to systematically open manholes and map interchange drainage system • Required additional pipe, and Type D inlets

  10. Final design had to account for ongoing hazmat contamination • Other inlets redesigned to account for existing site conditions Estimated additional cost: $30k - $35k

  11. Mast Arm Sign Fit Specified signs didn’t fit on the existing or specified mast arms. • Signs were rearranged, some mounted on adjustable sign brackets • It was a relatively cheap fix (about $1500), but 16 days were added to the end of the Contract to accommodate the fix.

  12. Staging Width Original placement of sawcut, and temporary striping didn’t provide enough room for traffic The sawcut was moved, and grabber tubes were substituted for barrels. This revision required additional grinding and a redesigned pavement cross-section to put longitudinal joint at the lane line. Net Cost about $3000, not including additional CE, but had this not been resolved, the Project wouldn’t have been able to continue.

  13. II. Interdisciplinary review prevents design conflicts Conflicts between final designs from different disciplines lead to multiple Contract Change Orders. Some where even illustrated on the plan sheets incorporated into the final Plans.

  14. Multiple Conduits Rerouted to Avoid Drainage Features • Fiber Optic Conduit rerouted to avoid the new infiltration swales • Illumination conduit rerouted under drainage ditch to supply power to existing light pole left between Storm Drainage Facilities • Illumination Conduit abandoned, and new conduit used to reroute power feeds out of infiltration swale.

  15. Total CCO costs: Approximately $29,000

  16. ESCP Update for Drainage Features • Tied to Incomplete survey of existing drainage Facilities • Included permanent ditch armoring, and temporary matting to hold compost/seeding on ditch slopes • CCO cost: $6133

  17. III. Decisions that look like a cost cutter during design can be costly during construction In many instances where a decision was made to help save money in design, that same decision created a cost, or issue during the Construction Phase. Some led to one or more Contract Change Orders, some required additional CE work to resolve, and some even created possible hazards for the Motoring Public.

  18. Thermoplastic vs. Tape • During design, In-laid Tape was specified for longitudinal markings. • Observation of previous projects has shown that the tape doesn’t hold up on radii at this interchange • Preformed Thermoplastic was used by CCO to prevent premature failure. • CCO cost: about $4000

  19. Illumination along EB Off-ramp • The existing illumination interfered with building the embankment. • No temporary illumination system was specified. • Two light poles were taken out of service while the embankment was built, exposing Public to insufficient lighting, and the associated hazards.

  20. Narrow Consultant Scoping • This was a problem that had ripple effects throughout the Project. • The narrow scoping led to design conflicts between Consultant designs, as previously mentioned.

  21. Miscellaneous • First time out on S-1, S-2 Markers: • ODOT wasn’t able to supply S-1 markers as specified. • Implementation on PM side was difficult to understand from Project Documents. • Cut/Fill Balance was deceptive: • May have included RAP, something a Contractor usually sells to a paving company. • DEQ didn’t like the idea of opening up the whole Project at once to pull enough fill to build the single large embankment. • High Groundwater is a major issue out here. This is something that needs to be better communicated to Contractors. • Vertical alignments for the Project reduced pavement thickness at first, something prohibited by the Pavement Report. Required multiple iterations to address. ($6977 overrun in leveling HMAC) • ESCP issues: • A QPL listed product did not meet DEQ requirements for inlet protection. CCO cost: $3600 • Required Emergency ESC BMP stockpile not in Bid Items. CCO cost: $3025 • ESCP had to be redone in phased approach (Un-quantified additional Consultant Cost) • Working Drawings didn’t account for space necessary for hinges on MPBs. CCO cost: $1323 & 11 Contract Days

More Related