Obtained by Bob Mackin via Freedom of Information

2010goldrush@gmail.com
twitter.com/bobmackin


Report
City of Vancouver


Burrard Street Bridge
Expansion Joint Rehabilitation
March 2012





































CONFIDENTIALITY AND COPYRIGHT

This document is for the sole use of the addressee and Associated Engineering (B.C.) Ltd. The document contains proprietary and confidential
information that shall not be reproduced in any manner or disclosed to or discussed with any other parties without the express written
permission of Associated Engineering (B.C.) Ltd. Information in this document is to be considered the intellectual property of Associated
Engineering (B.C.) Ltd. in accordance with Canadian copyright law.

This report was prepared by Associated Engineering (B.C.) Ltd. for the account of City of Vancouver. The material in it reflects Associated
Engineering (B.C.) Ltd.'s best judgement, in light of the information available to it, at the time of preparation. Any use which a third party makes
of this report, or any reliance on or decisions to be made based on it, are the responsibility of such third parties. Associated Engineering (B.C.)
Ltd. accepts no responsibility for damages, if any, suffered by any third party as a result of decisions made or actions based on this report.
REPORT
i
P:\20112789\00_Burrard_Rehab_Des\Engineering\03.00_Conceptual_Feasibility_Design\Expansion Joint Replacement\RPT_2012-03-
06\rpt_van_burrard_expjoints_20120306_ml.doc
Table of Contents
SECTION PAGE NO.

Table of Contents i
1 Introduction 1
2 Existing Expansion Joints 1
3 Joint Types Considered 3
5 Recommendations 8

s.13(1); s.15(1)(l); s.17(1)(c), (d), & (f); s.18(a); and s.19(1)(b)
s.13(1); s.15(1)(l); s.17(1)(c), (d), & (f); s.18(a); and s.19(1)(b)
REPORT
1
P:\20112789\00_Burrard_Rehab_Des\Engineering\03.00_Conceptual_Feasibility_Design\Expansion Joint Replacement\RPT_2012-03-06\rpt_van_burrard_expjoints_20120306_ml.doc
1 Introduction
Associated Engineering (AE) has been retained by the City of Vancouver to complete the retrofit
and rehabilitation design for the Burrard Street Bridge. As part of that assignment we have
reviewed design alternatives for the rehabilitation of the existing expansion joints. The
following report summarizes the alternatives considered and our recommendations.

2 Existing Expansion Joints
Existing expansion joints are located at the abutments, Bents 4, 7, 10, 13, 16, 19, 24, Pier 2 and
Pier 5, and at each side of Piers 1, 3, 4, and 6. Each joint extends the full width of the bridge
superstructure.

The record drawings indicate that all expansion joints were originally designed as sliding-plate
joints. However, all of the expansion joints currently on the bridge are either compression seal or
strip seal type joints. No record drawings were found for the last expansion joint upgrade. Most
expansion joints appear to be uncovered compression-seal joints, except the expansion joints at
Piers 1, 2, 5, and 6 which have incorporated compression seals into the original sliding-plate joints.
There are also four strip seals at Piers 2 and 5; and on the through-truss side of Piers 3 and 4.




Figure 2-1
Existing Deck Joints over Truss Spans
City of Vancouver

2
P:\20112789\00_Burrard_Rehab_Des\Engineering\03.00_Conceptual_Feasibility_Design\Expansion Joint Replacement\RPT_2012-03-06\rpt_van_burrard_expjoints_20120306_ml.doc
From our site inspection, the majority of the compression seals are locally deformed, depressed, or
damaged; all are leaking. Figure 2-1 above shows some of our inspection photos of existing deck
joints over truss spans.

Debris and water are accumulating at expansion joints where the joint seal is depressed or split. All
of the expansion joints have reached the end of their service life and need to be replaced. Details
of the current condition of all expansion joints can be found in detail in our inspection report titled
Burrard Street Bridge Condition Assessment Report, dated February 2012. Table 2-1 summarizes
the current configuration of the expansion joints.

Table 2-1
Current Expansion Joint Configuration
Location Width (mm)
Functioning
(Y/N)
Comments
SA 22 at W. curb N 61 mm at west sidewalk
B4 53 N
B7 50 N 52 at west sidewalk
B10 40 N 47 at west sidewalk
B13 75 N 60 at west sidewalk
B16 40 N 45 at west sidewalk
B19 50 N
P1S 35 at roadway N
10 to the south sidewalk cover plate
P1N 50 at roadway N
P2 56 at roadway N
P3S 50 at curb N
P3N 60 at curb N
P4S 120 N 100 at edge of bike lane
P4N 107 N
P5 67 N Overall width 285
P6S 67 N
P6N 20 at cover plate N
B24 44 at curb N 32 at sidewalk
NA 31 N

Report
Burrard Street Bridge
Expansion Joint Rehabilitation
3
P:\20112789\00_Burrard_Rehab_Des\Engineering\03.00_Conceptual_Feasibility_Design\Expansion Joint Replacement\RPT_2012-03-06\rpt_van_burrard_expjoints_20120306_ml.doc
3 Joint Types Considered
Expansion joints shall be designed to accommodate the structure movement due to temperature
change, as well as to allow the movement induced by the live loads. The most commonly used
expansion joints include compression seal and strip seal types. Figure 3-1 shows the expansion
joint detail for different type of joints from Watson Bowman ACME, which are representatives of
typical joint types by other suppliers as well.



Compression Seal

Accomondate smaller
movement (up to 76 mm)
[Is this true? Most have
very small movement
capacity]
Ease of installation
Performs well when
properly installed





Strip Seal

Accomondate larger
movement (76 to 127 mm)
Heavy Duty and Water
Tight
We recommned the use of
multi-celular strip seals
such as the EFE series


City of Vancouver

4
P:\20112789\00_Burrard_Rehab_Des\Engineering\03.00_Conceptual_Feasibility_Design\Expansion Joint Replacement\RPT_2012-03-06\rpt_van_burrard_expjoints_20120306_ml.doc
Others
Multi-Gland Modular Joint
Finger Joint







Figure 3-1
Watson Bowman ACME Expansion Joint Details

When replacing deck joint consideration shall be given to the different requirements of cyclists,
pedestrians, wheelchairs, motorcyclists, and other vehicular traffic. We recommend that any joint
design include a cover plate over the deck joints in sidewalks to provide smooth riding for
pedestrian and wheelchair users. The cover plate design for active users in walkway areas will
also need to accommodate wheel loading from maintenance vehicles. We do not recommend the
use of cover plates in the vehicle lanes.

When replacing expansion joints, consideration will be given for incorporating other needed repairs
into the joint details. For example, local deck patches or girder / diaphragm concrete repairs.

Expansion joints are always ongoing maintenance items and therefore it is worthwhile to consider
minimizing the number of expansion joints. Expansion joint treatments need to be compatible with
bearing articulations as well as any devices that restrict the movement between the superstructure
and substructure. The following aspects of the Burrard Street Bridge should be considered when
modifying/upgrading the expansion joints:

The arrangement and condition of the existing expansion joints.
The existing sliding bearings at Bent 4 and rocker bearings on the approach spans will be
replaced with disc bearings with the same articulations. A separate design contract is
currently underway for this work.
All bearings supporting the deck truss and through truss spans have been replaced with
seismic isolation bearings.
Longitudinal seismic restrainers and diagonal seismic braces have been added to Bents 4,
7, 10, 13, 16, 19 and 24.

Report
Burrard Street Bridge
Expansion Joint Rehabilitation
5
P:\20112789\00_Burrard_Rehab_Des\Engineering\03.00_Conceptual_Feasibility_Design\Expansion Joint Replacement\RPT_2012-03-06\rpt_van_burrard_expjoints_20120306_ml.doc
Currently. there are a total of 19 expansion joints on the Burrard Street Bridge. We analyzed the
temperature movements based on the existing expansion joint layout and the live load rotations
using the structural model. We conclude that it is possible to eliminate most of the intermediate
deck joints to accommodate the thermal movement without taking into account of seismic
restrainers.

However the approach spans of the bridge have been fitted with diagonal seismic braces which
effectively prevent the intermediate expansion joints from straining transversely as well as
longitudinally. There are two concerns raised if new link slab are installed:

.1 Thermal Movement: The longitudinal thermal movement will accumulate after the deck
slabs are linked.
.2 Live Load Rotation: With link slabs installed, girders on both sides shall be able to
accommodate the rotations from live load. The current lateral seismic restrainers of
diagonal braces will restrain the girder from live load rotations. Live load demands will
introduce cyclic stresses into the braces. We can't confirm that the additional forces from
the live load rotations will not compromise that performance of the braces. Therefore, we
do not recommend link slabs at these locations.

It appears possible to replace two joints with concrete link slabs between deck truss spans, which
would effectively eliminate the potential for deck run-off from contacting girder ends, diaphragms,
bearings, and piers. Link slabs would therefore reduce future maintenance and rehabilitation
works, and would also improve the ride quality for vehicular traffic, and potentially reduce traffic
noise. However, the new link slab will change the seismic response of the deck truss spans which
have not been adequately studied to show no negative impact.

Only the deck joint within the roadway would be replaced with link slabs if link slabs are adopted;
the deck joint in the walkways will either remain the same, or be replaced with compression seals
with or without with cover plates. This is to allow live load rations to occur without cracking the
raised concrete sidewalks. Details of the expansion joint or joints will be determined during the
detail design stage.

Link slab construction would involve removal of the existing joint hardware along with a portion of
asphalt surfacing and deck concrete on each side. A series of steel dowels will be installed and the
deck concrete reinstated. The concrete will be notched at the joint centre line to control cracking
during deck rotations.
s.13(1); s.15(1)(l); s.17(1)(c), (d), & (f); s.18(a); and s.19(1)(b)
City of Vancouver

6
P:\20112789\00_Burrard_Rehab_Des\Engineering\03.00_Conceptual_Feasibility_Design\Expansion Joint Replacement\RPT_2012-03-06\rpt_van_burrard_expjoints_20120306_ml.doc
s.13(1); s.15(1)(l); s.17(1)(c), (d), & (f); s.18(a); and s.19(1)(b)
Report
Burrard Street Bridge
Expansion Joint Rehabilitation
7
P:\20112789\00_Burrard_Rehab_Des\Engineering\03.00_Conceptual_Feasibility_Design\Expansion Joint Replacement\RPT_2012-03-06\rpt_van_burrard_expjoints_20120306_ml.doc
s.13(1); s.15(1)(l); s.17(1)(c), (d), & (f); s.18(a); and s.19(1)(b)
City of Vancouver

8
P:\20112789\00_Burrard_Rehab_Des\Engineering\03.00_Conceptual_Feasibility_Design\Expansion Joint Replacement\RPT_2012-03-06\rpt_van_burrard_expjoints_20120306_ml.doc
5 Recommendations
We recommend that the City upgrade the deck joints described in Option 1 expansion joint
replacement; this option has the lowest capital cost. Option 2 is similar to Option 1, except that two
deck joints will be replaced by link slabs. Although there is a minor benefit in maintaining two fewer
deck joints, adopting two link slabs will alter the bridge's seismic response. At this stage we have
not established whether there are any seismic benefits to Option 2. These two options have higher
life-cycle costs associated with ongoing maintenance and rehabilitation than Option 3.

Option 3 adds high risk to the integrity of the existing seismic components, and requires in-depth
investigation and evaluation of the seismic components. It is possible that this option will either
require significant modifications to the seismic restrainers, or may otherwise prove to be
impractical. Accordingly, we do not recommend adopting Option 3.

If you have any questions with this report, please call either David Harvey or me.


Prepared by: Reviewed by:












Mingyu Li, M.A.Sc., P.Eng. David Harvey, M.Sc., P.Eng., Struct.Eng.
Senior Bridge Engineer Senior Bridge Specialist

ML/DH/skn

s.13(1); s.15(1)(l); s.17(1)(c), (d), & (f); s.18(a); and s.19(1)(b)
s.13(1); s.15(1)(l); s.17(1)(c), (d), & (f); s.18(a); and s.19(1)(b)