i

Maine Demonstration Project: 

Hotel Road (Littlefields Bridge) 

Replacement Using Superstructure SlideIn Technology 

Final Report

 April 2015

 
FOREWORD

The purpose of the Highways for LIFE (HfL) pilot program is to accelerate the use of 

innovations that improve highway safety and quality while reducing congestion caused by 

construction. LIFE is an acronym for Longer-lasting highway infrastructure using Innovations 

to accomplish the Fast construction of Efficient and safe highways and bridges.

Specifically, HfL focuses on speeding up the widespread adoption of proven innovations in the 

highway community. “Innovations” is an inclusive term used by HfL to encompass technologies, 

materials, tools, equipment, procedures, specifications, methodologies, processes, and practices 

used to finance, design, or construct highways. HfL is based on the recognition that innovations 

are available that, if widely and rapidly implemented, would result in significant benefits to road 

users and highway agencies. 

Although innovations themselves are important, HfL is as much about changing the highway 

community’s culture from one that considers innovation something that only adds to the 

workload, delays projects, raises costs, or increases risk to one that sees it as an opportunity to 

provide better highway transportation service. HfL is also an effort to change the way highway 

community decision-makers and participants perceive their jobs and the service they provide. 

The HfL pilot program, described in Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity 

Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) Section 1502, includes funding for demonstration 

construction projects. By providing incentives for projects, HfL promotes improvements in 

safety, construction-related congestion, and quality that can be achieved through the use of 

performance goals and innovations. This report documents one such HfL demonstration project. 

Additional information on the HfL program is at www.fhwa.dot.gov/hfl. 

NOTICE

This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S. Department of Transportation 

in the interest of information exchange. The U.S. Government assumes no liability for its 

contents or use thereof. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation.

The U.S. Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade and manufacturers’ 

names appear in this report only because they are considered essential to the object of the 

document.

QUALITY ASSURANCE STATEMENT

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) provides high-quality information to serve 

Government, industry, and the public in a manner that promotes public understanding. Standards 

and policies are used to ensure and maximize the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of its 

information. FHWA periodically reviews quality issues and adjusts its programs and processes to 

ensure continuous quality improvement.
1. Report 2. Government Accession

No

3. Recipient’s Catalog No

3. Title and Subtitle:

Maine Demonstration Project – Hotel Road (Littlefields Bridge)

Replacement Using Superstructure Slide-In Technology

5. Report Date

April 2015

6. Performing Organization Code

7. Authors

Amar Bhajandas

8. Performing Organization Report

9. Performing Organization Name and Address

Applied Research Associates, Inc.

100 Trade Centre Drive, Suite 200

Champaign, IL 61820

10. Work Unit (TRAIS) C6B

11. Contract or Grant

12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address

Office of Infrastructure

Federal Highway Administration

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE

Washington, DC 20590

12. Type of Report and Period Covered

Final Report

14. Sponsoring Agency Code

15. Supplementary Notes

Contracting Officer’s Representative: Julie Zirlin

Contracting Officer’s Task Manager: Ewa Flom

16. Abstract

As part of a national initiative sponsored by the Federal Highway Administration under the Highways for LIFE

program, the Maine Department of Transportation was awarded a $580,000 grant to demonstrate the use of proven,

innovative technologies for accelerated bridge removal and replacement. This report documents accelerated bridge

construction techniques using prefabricated bridge elements and slide-in technology to replace Littlefields Bridge over

Little Androscoggin River in Auburn. This report documents project/site challenges, construction details, use of glass

fiber reinforced polymer rebars, use of precast elements for structural components, use of innovative

incentive/disincentives to relocate utilities in an efficient and effective manner, and deployment of horizontal slide-in

technology that did not require special equipment or specialty subcontractors.

Under conventional construction methods, the project would have taken 4 months to build and would have required 

the construction of a temporary roadway and two-lane temporary bridge to channel traffic during construction. This 

would have required acquisition of right-of-way and relocation of residents. However, using precast elements and 

horizontal slide-in technology, the impact of the project’s construction was reduced to 33 days, during which the 

bridge was closed and traffic detoured. With its broader width, jointless construction, precast materials fabricated in a 

controlled environment, and high-performance deck reinforcement, the bridge is expected to demand less 

maintenance, last longer, and provide safer passage to the more than 10,000 daily users, including the many bicyclists 

who use this road.

The project cost was about the same as the expected cost if conventional methods were used, but the innovative option 

resulted in an additional user cost savings of $59,795. Nonetheless, this experience provides Maine Department of 

Transportation personnel with an additional tool to rapidly renew and replace bridges. Because of the success of this 

project, Maine plans to use the horizontal slide-in technology on future projects where it is feasible and appropriate for 

conditions.

17. Key Words

Highways for LIFE, accelerated bridge construction,

jointless construction, horizontal/lateral slide-in

technology, glass fiber reinforced polymers, GFRP,

innovative construction, prefabricated bridge elements

and systems, utility relocation

18. Distribution Statement

No restriction. This document is available to the public

through www.fhwa.dot.gov/hfl.

Security Classif.(of this report)

Unclassified

19. Security Classif. (of this page)

Unclassified

20. # of Pages

68 

21. Price

Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized
ii

SI* (MODERN METRIC) CONVERSION FACTORS

APPROXIMATE CONVERSIONS TO SI UNITS

Symbol When You Know Multiply By To Find Symbol

LENGTH

(none) mil 25.4 micrometers μm

in inches 25.4 millimeters mm

ft feet 0.305 meters m

yd yards 0.914 meters m

mi miles 1.61 kilometers km

AREA

in2 square inches 645.2 square millimeters mm2

ft2 square feet 0.093 square meters m2

yd2 square yards 0.836 square meters m2

ac acres 0.405 hectares ha

mi2 square miles 2.59 square kilometers km2

VOLUME

fl oz fluid ounces 29.57 millimeters mL

gal gallons 3.785 liters L

ft3 cubic feet 0.028 cubic meters m3

yd3 cubic yards 0.765 cubic meters m3

NOTE: volumes greater than 1000 L shall be shown in m3

MASS

oz ounces 28.35 grams g

lb pounds 0.454 kilograms kg

T short tons (2000 lb) 0.907 megagrams (or "metric ton") Mg (or "t")

TEMPERATURE (exact degrees)

°F Fahrenheit 5 (F-32)/9

or (F-32)/1.8

Celsius °C

ILLUMINATION

fc foot-candles 10.76 lux lx

fl foot-Lamberts 3.426 candela per square meter cd/m2

FORCE and PRESSURE or STRESS

lbf poundforce 4.45 Newtons N

lbf/in2 (psi) poundforce per square inch 6.89 kiloPascals kPa

k/in2 (ksi) kips per square inch 6.89 megaPascals MPa

DENSITY

lb/ft3 (pcf) pounds per cubic foot 16.02 kilograms per cubic meter kg/m3

APPROXIMATE CONVERSIONS FROM SI UNITS

Symbol When You Know Multiply By To Find Symbol

LENGTH

μm micrometers 0.039 mil (none)

mm millimeters 0.039 inches in

m meters 3.28 feet ft

m meters 1.09 yards yd

km kilometers 0.621 miles mi

AREA

mm2 square millimeters 0.0016 square inches in2

m2 square meters 10.764 square feet ft2

m2 square meters 1.195 square yards yd2

ha hectares 2.47 acres ac

km2 square kilometers 0.386 square miles mi2

VOLUME

mL milliliters 0.034 fluid ounces fl oz

L liters 0.264 gallons gal

m3 cubic meters 35.314 cubic feet ft3

m3 cubic meters 1.307 cubic yards yd3

MASS

g grams 0.035 ounces oz

kg kilograms 2.202 pounds lb

Mg (or "t") megagrams (or "metric ton") 1.103 short tons (2000 lb) T

TEMPERATURE

°C Celsius 1.8C+32 Fahrenheit °F

ILLUMINATION

lx lux 0.0929 foot-candles fc

cd/m2 candela per square meter 0.2919 foot-Lamberts fl

FORCE and PRESSURE or STRESS

N Newtons 0.225 poundforce lbf

kPA kiloPascals 0.145 poundforce per square inch lbf/in2 (psi)

MPa megaPascals 0.145 kips per square inch k/in2 (ksi)
iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................1

HIGHWAYS FOR LIFE DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS .................................................................1

Project Solicitation, Evaluation, and Selection ...................................................................1

HfL Project Performance Goals...........................................................................................2

REPORT SCOPE AND ORGANIZATION .........................................................................................3

PROJECT OVERVIEW AND LESSONS LEARNED..............................................................4

PROJECT OVERVIEW...................................................................................................................4

DATA COLLECTION .....................................................................................................................5

ECONOMIC ANALYSIS .................................................................................................................7

LESSONS LEARNED......................................................................................................................7

CONCLUSIONS..............................................................................................................................7

PROJECT DETAILS ....................................................................................................................9

BACKGROUND..............................................................................................................................9

PROJECT ENGINEERING............................................................................................................12

PROJECT CONSTRUCTION.........................................................................................................19

DATA ACQUISITION AND ANALYSIS.................................................................................36

SAFETY ......................................................................................................................................36

CONSTRUCTION CONGESTION ..................................................................................................37

QUALITY ....................................................................................................................................38

USER SATISFACTION .................................................................................................................39

ECONOMIC ANALYSIS ...........................................................................................................40

CONSTRUCTION TIME ...............................................................................................................40

CONSTRUCTION COSTS .............................................................................................................40

USER COSTS...............................................................................................................................40

COST SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................43

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS...........................................................................................................44

APPENDIX A—SPECIAL PROVISION FOR GFRP REBARS ...........................................45

APPENDIX B—SPECIAL PROVISION ON INCENTIVE/DISINCENTIVE.....................50

APPENDIX C—USER SATISFACTION SURVEY RESULTS.............................................52
iv

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Highlights of Special Provision 107. .............................................................................19

Table 2. Time and user cost delays for various detour options. ..................................................37

Table 3. Cost estimate for bridge closure and ABC. ...................................................................41

Table 4. Cost estimate for two-lane temporary bridge option. ....................................................42

Table 5. Survey responses on travel frequency. ..........................................................................52

Table 6. Survey responses on construction approach. .................................................................53

Table 7. Survey responses on facility-related satisfaction...........................................................54

Table 8. Survey responses on construction delays and disruptions.............................................55

Table 9. Survey responses on information availability................................................................56

Table 10. Survey responses on Maine DOT quality......................................................................57
v

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Map. Project location......................................................................................................9

Figure 2. Map. Project area..........................................................................................................10

Figure 3. Photos. Photographs of old structure............................................................................11

Figure 4. Diagram. Project profile. ..............................................................................................13

Figure 5. Diagram. Plan and elevation of integral abutment. ......................................................14

Figure 6. Diagram. Abutment sectional details. ..........................................................................15

Figure 7. Diagram. Abutment end section details........................................................................16

Figure 8. Diagram. Cross section of new girder structure. ..........................................................17

Figure 9. Diagram. Cross section of old truss structure...............................................................17

Figure 10. Diagram. Shematic representation of construction staging..........................................20

Figure 11. Photo. Sheetpiling working platforms for existing substructure in place. ...................21

Figure 12. Photo. Pile driving for temporary support structure.....................................................22

Figure 13. Photo. Girder launching and installation......................................................................22

Figure 14. Photo. View of GFRP rebar prior to placement off concrete. ......................................23

Figure 15. Photo. Concrete placement...........................................................................................23

Figure 16. Photo. View of new superstructure in relation to old structure....................................24

Figure 17. Photo. Variable message sign alerting travelers of upcoming roadway closure. .........25

Figure 18. Photo. Roadway closure in process..............................................................................25

Figure 19. Photo. Old structure being demolished at site..............................................................26

Figure 20. Diagram. HP 12x53 sled beam.....................................................................................27

Figure 21. Diagram. End anchorage details...................................................................................27

Figure 22. Photo. Sliding of superstructure. ..................................................................................28

Figure 23. Photo. View of both abutments and anchor beam in foreground. ................................28

Figure 24. Photo. View of slide operation from the existing abutment side. ................................29

Figure 25. Photo. View of end anchorage......................................................................................29

Figure 26. Photo. Close-up of Dywidag rods, jack, and jacking plates.........................................30

Figure 27. Photo. Webcam view of sliding operation on August 14, 2013...................................30

Figure 28. Photo. Installation of precast approach slabs. ..............................................................31

Figure 29. Photo. Utility installation..............................................................................................32

Figure 30. Photo. Preparation of subgrade for approach roadways...............................................33

Figure 31. Photo. Placement of asphalt material for surface courses. ...........................................33

Figure 32. Photo. Road opened for traffic use...............................................................................34

Figure 33. Photo. Guiderail installed, pavement striped, and new bridge in place. ......................34

Figure 34. Photo. Elevation view of completed bridge. ................................................................35

Figure 35. Chart. Post Construction IRI Measurements................................................................38

Figure 36. Chart. Post Construction SI Measurements..................................................................39

Figure 37. Chart. Survey responses on travel frequency. ..............................................................52

Figure 38. Chart. Survey responses on construction approach......................................................53

Figure 39. Chart. Survey responses on facility-related satisfaction...............................................54

Figure 40. Chart. Survey responses on construction delays and disruptions.................................55

Figure 41. Chart. Survey responses on information availability. ..................................................56

Figure 42. Chart. Survey responses on Maine DOT quality..........................................................57
vi

ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS

AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials

ABC accelerated bridge construction

AADT annual average daily traffic

DOT department of transportation

FHWA Federal Highway Administration

GFRP glass fiber reinforced polymer

HfL Highways for LIFE

IRI International Roughness Index

LRFD load and resistance factor design

OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration

PBES precast bridge elements and systems

SAFETEA-LU Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A 

Legacy for Users
acy for Users (SAFETEA-LU)—may provide incentives to a maximum of 1

tion projects a year. The funding amount may total up to 20 percent of the pro

re than $5 million. Also, the Federal share for an HfL project may be up to 1

us waiving the typical State-match portion. At the State’s request, a combinat

d waived match may be applied to a project.

idered for HfL funding, a project must involve constructing, reconstructing, o

ing a route or connection on an eligible Federal-aid highway. It must use inno

es, manufacturing processes, financing, or contracting methods that improve 

struction congestion, and enhance quality and user satisfaction. To provide a 

se areas, HfL has established demonstration project performance goals.

mance goals emphasize the needs of highway users and reinforce the importa

 safety, congestion, user satisfaction, and quality in every project. The goals d

ult while encouraging innovative solutions, raising the bar in highway transp

 safety. User-based performance goals also serve as a new business model fo

gencies can manage the highway project delivery process. 

t promotion involves showing the highway community and the public how 

tion projects are designed and built and how they perform. Broadly promotin

encourages more widespread application of performance goals and innovation

licitation, Evaluation, and Selection 

s issued open solicitations for HfL project applications since fiscal year 2006.

gencies submitted applications through FHWA Divisions. The HfL team revi

1

INTRODUCTION 

HIGHWAYS FOR LIFE DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS

The Highways for LIFE (HfL) pilot program, the Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) 

initiative to accelerate innovation in the highway community, provides incentive funding for 

demonstration construction projects. Through these projects, the HfL program promotes and 

documents improvements in safety, construction-related congestion, and quality that can be 

achieved by setting performance goals and adopting innovations. 

The HfL program—described in the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity 

Act: A Leg 5 

demonstra ject cost, 

but not mo 00 

percent, th ion of 

funding an

To be cons r 

rehabilitat vative 

technologi safety, 

reduce con target for 

each of the

The perfor nce of 

addressing efine the 

desired res ortation 

service and r how 

highway a

HfL projec

demonstra g 

successes s in the 

future.

Project So

FHWA ha State 

highway a ewed 

each application for completeness and clarity, and contacted applicants to discuss technical 

issues and obtain commitments on project issues. Documentation of these questions and 

comments was sent to applicants, who responded in writing. 

The project selection panel consisted of representatives of the FHWA offices of Infrastructure, 

Safety and Operations; the Resource Center Construction and Project Management team; the 

Division offices; and the HfL team. After evaluating and rating the applications and 
e quickly build long-lasting, high-quality, cost-effective projects that improv

 reduce congestion. 

l be ready for construction within 1 year of approval of the project applicatio

HfL program, FHWA considers a project ready for construction when the FH

ision authorizes it. 

onstrate the willingness of the State to participate in technology transfer and

rmation dissemination activities associated with the project.

t Performance Goals

rformance goals focus on the expressed needs and wants of highway users. T

l that represents the best of what the highway community can do, not just the

 been done. States are encouraged to use all applicable goals on a project: 

ety

Work zone safety during construction—Work zone crash rate equal to or less

preconstruction rate at the project location.

Worker safety during construction—Incident rate for worker injuries of less t

based on incidents reported via Occupational Safety and Health Administrati

(OSHA) Form 300. 

Facility safety after construction—Twenty percent reduction in fatalities and 

in 3-year average crash rates, using preconstruction rates as the baseline.

struction Congestion 

Faster construction—Fifty percent reduction in the time highway users are i

compared to traditional methods. 

Trip time during construction—Less than 10 percent increase in trip time co

the average preconstruction speed, using 100 percent sampling. 

Queue length during construction—A moving queue length of less than 0.5 

2

supplemental information, panel members convened to reach a consensus on the projects to 

recommend for approval. The panel gave priority to projects that accomplish the following: 

• Address the HfL performance goals for safety, construction congestion, quality, and user 

satisfaction.

• Use innovative technologies, manufacturing processes, financing, contracting practices, 

and performance measures that demonstrate substantial improvements in safety, 

congestion, quality, and cost-effectiveness. An innovation must be one the Applicant 

State has never or rarely used, even if it is standard practice in other States. 

• Include innovations that will change administration of the State’s highway program to 

mor e safety 

and

• Wil n. For 

the WA 

Div

• Dem

info

HfL Projec

The HfL pe hey are 

set at a leve average 

of what has

• Saf

o than the 

o han 4.0, 

on 

o injuries 

• Con

o mpacted, 

o mpared to 

o mile in a 

rural area or less than 1.5 miles in an urban area (in both cases at a travel speed 20 

percent less than the posted speed). 

• Quality

o Smoothness—International Roughness Index measurement of less than 48 inches per 

mile.
superstructure slide-in technology used to replace Littlefields Bridge over Little 

gin River in Auburn, Maine. The report presents project details relevant to the H

cluding innovative construction highlights, rapid superstructure demolition and 

t, HfL performance metrics measurement, and economic analysis. 

includes construction details of the superstructure supported on temporary suppo

uilt adjacent to the semi-integral abutments for the new bridge that were built be

nts of the old structure. It also discusses the details of the lateral slide set-up. Det

ns for the glass fiber reinforced polymer (GFRP) rebars—used for the first time 

also discussed, and the special provisions are included in appendix A.

entional construction methods, the project would have taken 4 months to build a

 required constructing a temporary roadway and bridge to channel traffic during 

n. A two-lane temporary bridge would have required the acquisition of right-ofane temporary bridge would have led to diversion of inbound or outbound traffic

4-month period. These situations were avoided and the project was successfully 

in 33 days with minimum disruption to highway users. 

3

o Noise—Tire-pavement noise measurement of less than 96.0 A-weighted decibels,

using the onboard sound intensity test method. 

• User Satisfaction

o User satisfaction—An assessment of how satisfied users are with the new facility

compared to its previous condition and with the approach used to minimize disruption 

during construction. The goal is a measurement of 4-plus on a 7-point Likert scale. 

REPORT SCOPE AND ORGANIZATION

This report documents accelerated bridge construction (ABC) techniques in the form of 

horizontal 

Androscog fL 

program, in

replacemen

The report rt 

structures b hind 

the abutme ailed 

specificatio in the 

State—are 

Under conv nd 

would have

constructio way, 

and a one-l

during the 

completed 
 was functionally obsolete because of its narrow curb-to-curb width of 22 feet. 

lly, with no shoulders on the bridge, there was inadequate space for the significant

 cyclist traffic traveling through the corridor. The bridge also severely constricted

s with 12-foot lanes and 8-foot shoulders, prompting safety concerns. 

d at this location is part of the Priority 3 Corridor, meaning that it is among a grou

considered to be of statewide significance. The Maine Department of Transportati

ermined that if the bridge was not replaced and allowed to fall into disrepair and 

closed, annual user costs would increase by approximately $1 million. The overal

y Rating for the bridge was 46.0, making it eligible for replacement. 

diate vicinity of the bridge presented traffic management and property related 

 for construction of a replacement bridge. On the downstream side of Littlefields 

 concrete arch bridge that formerly supported a trolley line and carries utilities, a

est corner of the bridge is a residence with limited setback from the roadway. 

ld structure being a truss, staged construction was not feasible. Conventional 

on would have required an 8-mile detour around the project for a period of 4 mont

ine DOT considered too disruptive for the significant amount of private and 

al traffic using Hotel Road. Two-lane and single-lane temporary bridge options w

dered but later disregarded—the two-lane option because of right-of-way impacts

lane option because of traffic disruption over a period of 4 months. Maine DOT

that ABC was the most prudent alternative, and it would provide agency personn

ble experience in the deployment of ABC technology. 

oject, Maine DOT obtained $580,000 in HfL funding. 

4

PROJECT OVERVIEW AND LESSONS LEARNED

PROJECT OVERVIEW

The Littlefields Bridge project is located in Androscoggin County, Maine. Littlefields Bridge 

carries Hotel Road (State Aid #11), a two-lane urban collector, over Little Androscoggin River 

and carries current annual average daily traffic (AADT) of 10,300 vehicles a day with 10 percent

trucks. The project is in the Lewistown-Auburn twin cities area along a major route that connects 

the cities to the interstate. The purpose of this project was to replace the single span bridge built 

in 1937, which had approached the end of its service life. 

The bridge

Additiona

volume of the 

approache

Hotel Roa p of 

highways on 

(DOT) det

ultimately l 

Sufficienc

The imme

challenges

Bridge is a nd on 

the northw

With the o

constructi hs, 

which Ma

commerci ere 

also consi and

the singleconcluded el 

with valua

For this pr

To decrease construction time, initial innovative options considered the use of full-depth precast 

deck panels with stainless steel or composite reinforcement, offering the contractor the flexibility 

to use precast elements in a number of areas including abutments, approach slabs, and curbs. 

Maine DOT subsequently decided on a horizontal/lateral slide option because it was feasible at 

this location, would not have joints inherent in precast panels, and would not require posttensioning. 
moval of old bridge, completion of pile supported abutment and wingwall 

nstruction, sliding of the new superstructure in its final position, installation of b

l and transition barriers, and clearance of site for use by utility companies. 

mpletion of utility work. 

mpletion of roadway work, including striping, until opening of roadway to two 

t-wide lanes of traffic.

as not to exceed 25 days, and phase 3 was not to exceed 4 days. The contractor 

d $7,500 per day if phase 1 was completed early (e.g., if phase 1 was completed 

award would be $7,500 x 3 = $22,500). Additionally, to encourage close positive

on with the utility contractors, the contractor was to be awarded a single no-excu

40,000 if phases 2 and 3 were completed within 15 consecutive days. 

rage the contractor from completing the project late, a $7,500 disincentive would

r each day or portion of a day that he went beyond the 25-day period in phase 1 

od in phase 3. 

d in the vicinity of the bridge was closed to traffic on July 29, 2013. It was reope

 30, 2013—12 days ahead of the anticipated closure period of 45 days. 

LECTION

nstruction congestion, quality, and user satisfaction data were collected before, d

onstruction to demonstrate that ABC technologies can be used to achieve the Hf

ce goals in these areas. 

5

The deck with GFRP reinforcement—a first for Maine DOT—was cast at the site. The entire 

superstructure, steel girders and deck, was then slid onto semi-integral abutments constructed 

behind the existing abutments, to its final position after removal of the old superstructure. The 

contractor had the overall responsibility for the design and construction of the temporary support 

structure and the design and deployment of the horizontal slide system. 

The Water and Sewer District for the twin cities decided to take advantage of the construction to 

upgrade major water and sewer mains that are located on a nearby trolley bridge that was also 

nearing the end of its service life. Maine DOT addressed the challenge of coordinating utility

work in the ABC environment with a unique incentive/disincentive approach. The agency 

divided the closure period into three phases: 

1. Re

co ridge 

rai

2. Co

3. Co 11-

foo

Phase 1 w was to 

be awarde 3 days 

early, the 

coordinati se 

bonus of $

To discou be 

applied fo and the 

4-day peri

Hotel Roa ned

on August

DATA COL

Safety, co uring, 

and after c L 

performan

A Maine DOT traffic study found that there were six crashes in the project area between 2008 

and 2010. The arrow lanes and limited sight distance caused by through truss members were 

identified as contributing to the crashes. By replacing the 22-foot-wide truss bridge with a 34-

foot-wide plate girder bridge, those contributing factors have been addressed. Furthermore, with 

improved alignment of approach roadways and upgraded traffic delineation and safety features,

the crash rate at this location should decrease in the future. A 3-year study after construction is 

likely to validate a reduction in crash rate by at least 20 percent, which is the HfL goal.
f contusion reported 100 yards south of the bridge, when workers were filling

 a fire hydrant as a source of supply. 

T uses alphabetical A-F levels of service to assess traffic conditions. Analysi

ions on this project using Synchro/SimTraffic software and the regional Andr

tion Resource Center Metropolitan Planning Organization travel demand mo

hat the affected intersections could accommodate the detour traffic, maintain

rvice of C or better (under 35 sec/veh). Therefore, queues were absent or min

ction, easily exceeding the HfL goal of queue length of less than 1.5 mile in a

 surfaces of the old bridge and its approaches had an average International R

) in the range of 204 to 256 inches per mile as measured in 2011, detracting f

rridor IRI which was in the range of 120 to 240 inches per mile. Measuremen

construction showed that the roughness of the section within the project limit

 mile, making the smoothness within the project limits consistent with the res

hough the new bridge offered a much smoother and improved surface with a 

value from 204 to 256 in/mi to 143 in/mi, the HfL goal of less than 48 in/mi 

on was not met. 

onstruction tire-pavement noise value was 99.2 dB(A). The new bridge, there

he HfL OBSI goal of 96.0 dB(A) or less. It can be safely assumed that the ne

ge surface—while aiding traction and increasing safety—is prone to increasi

T applies significant amounts of salt to its roads during the winter months, w

oncerns about corrosion and associated cracking of concrete and maintenance

6

In the absence of right-of-way takes, traditional construction methods would have required 

constructing a one-lane temporary bridge to provide uninterrupted service to inbound traffic to 

the Lewistown-Auburn area. Outbound traffic would have required alternate routes for 4 months 

during construction. With ABC, exposing travelers to bridge-related construction activities was 

completely avoided by the site’s closure, and both inbound and outbound traffic were impacted 

for only 33 days. In terms of impact of construction duration on travelers, this equates to a 

reduction of over 72 percent, easily exceeding the HfL goal of 50 percent. 

There were no work zone related crashes reported, easily meeting the HfL goal of a work zone 

crash rate equal to or less than the preconstruction rate at the project location. There also were no 

worker injuries reported on this project that were related to bridge construction. There was one 

incident o a water 

tank using

Maine DO s of 

detour opt oscoggin 

Transporta del 

indicated t ing a 

level of se imal due 

to constru n urban 

area.

The rough oughness 

Index (IRI rom the 

overall co ts 

following s was 143 

inches per t of the 

corridor. T reduction 

in the IRI after 

constructi

The post c fore, did 

not meet t w texture 

of the brid ng noise. 

Maine DO hich 

prompts c

demands. The agency considered the use of stainless steel and GFRP on this project to address 

these concerns and selected the GFRP option to better understand use of this technology, which 

is new to the State. The advantages of GFRP reinforcement include imperviousness to chloride 

ion and chemical attack, greater tensile strength than steel, and lower weight—about 25 percent

that of steel. Maine DOT believes that the higher initial cost of GFRP will be offset by lower 

maintenance costs during the bridge’s life cycle. 

Maine DOT performed a user satisfaction survey once the bridge was completed. The survey 

showed that 94 percent of the 54 respondents were satisfied with the new structure compared to 
eriod. However, the detour allowed the DOT to avoid relocating residents of a pro

 the northwest corner of the bridge. 

LEARNED

this project, Maine DOT gained valuable insights on the innovative processes 

—both those that were successful and those that need improvement in future proj

 

he closure period for the demolition of the old structure and sliding in of the new 

perstructure was adequate. 

he incentive/disincentive concept used on this project was effective. 

volving personnel from the utilities early in the project development and construc

rocesses led to success.

he specification, availability, and handling of GFRP material by contractor person

orked well. 

he horizontal slide-in of steel on steel with grease as the lubricant was slow but 

fective.

xtreme care is required to ensure that the superstructure is advancing equally at bo

utments to avoid binding. Excellent communications between personnel at either 

onitoring the advancement is a must. Do not rely on hydraulic readings alone. 

ublic outreach efforts and pre-event and during event communications with stakeh

ere effective. 

sers were very satisfied with the new bridge and the approach used by the agency 

inimize disruption to travel. 

7

the old one, which compares quite favorably with the HfL goal of 57 percent or more. The 

survey also found that 87 percent of the respondents were satisfied with the approach the agency 

used to minimize disruption during construction, again easily exceeding the HfL goal of 57

percent. 

ECONOMIC ANALYSIS

Using data provided by Maine DOT, it is estimated that the cost of delivering the project using 

the traditional method, including the cost of right-of-way and the cost of the temporary bridge, 

would have been the same as the innovative method used on this project. The innovative method 

had an additional user cost savings of $59,795 due to traffic being detoured during the roadway 

closure p perty 

located in

LESSONS

Through 

deployed ect 

delivery:

• T

su

• T

• In tion 

p

• T nel 

w

• T

ef

• E th 

ab end 

m

• P olders 

w

• U to 

m

CONCLUSIONS

From the standpoint of construction speed, motorist and worker safety, quality, and cost, this 

project was a success and embodied the ideals of the HfL program. Maine DOT learned that 

careful planning and the use of ABC technologies can result in projects that serve as watershed 

events in the way they are delivered to the public. A post-construction stakeholder survey clearly 

indicated that local residents, businesses, and commuters did not experience major delays as a 

result of the bridge work and were satisfied with the project.
8

Because of the success of this project, Maine DOT plans to consider bridge slide technology, 

GFRP reinforcement, precast bridge elements and systems (PBES), and utility coordination 

incentives/disincentives as viable tools in its ABC toolkit on all future projects.
urn Sewer and Water District decided to take advantage of this project’s constru

ajor water and sewer mains and relocate them on the new Littlefields Bridge. T

ffectively worked with the contractor and Maine DOT, who successfully coordi

tion in a remarkably short time using a unique incentive/disincentive approach. 

rsts” for Maine DOT on this project included: 

se of GFRP reinforcement. 

se of superstructure horizontal/lateral slide-in technology to accelerate bridge 

nstruction and minimize disruption to travelers. 

se of semi-integral abutments with shop fabricated elements assembled at site.

ying of bridge backwall and superstructure together for jointless construction. 

Project 

Location 

9

PROJECT DETAILS

BACKGROUND

Littlefields Bridge carries Hotel Road over Little Adroscoggin River. The site location is shown 

in figure 1. On the downstream side of the Littlefields Bridge are a railroad bridge about 250 feet 

away and a concrete arch bridge about 40 feet away, which formerly supported a trolley line and 

until recently carried gas, water, and sewer lines. The project area showing a plan view of the 

three bridges in a photograph taken prior to the bridge replacement is shown in figure 2. 

The Aub ction to 

upgrade m he 

District e nated 

the reloca 

Other “fi

• U

• U

co

• U

• T

 

Figure 1. Map. Project location. 
Figure 2. Map. Project area. 

The original Littlefields Bridge was a single span simply supported steel through truss which was 

classified as being functionally obsolete due to its narrow width. The approaches that feature 12-

foot lanes and 8-foot shoulders were severely constricted by the 22-foot curb-to-curb width.

Additionally, with no shoulders, the bridge did not provide sufficient space for the significant 

volume of cyclist traffic through this corridor. 

Per National Bridge Inspection Standards, the bridge’s superstructure was rated as being in fair 

condition and the substructure in satisfactory condition. It had an overall Sufficiency Rating of 

46.0 out of 100, making it eligible for replacement, primarily because of its functional 

obsolescence. 

Figure 3 shows photographs of the approach roadway, condition of north abutment, and typical 

condition of bearings and underside of the deck of the old bridge. 

The immediate vicinity of the bridge presented challenges in terms of construction and 

maintenance of traffic. With the old structure being a truss, staged construction was not feasible, 

and the 8-mile detour around the project was considered too disruptive for the 4-month period 

that conventional construction would have taken. 

10
ay Looking Northeasterly North Abutment 

k Underside, Typical Bearing, Typical

Figure 3. Photos. Photographs of old structure. 

nsidered the following options for traffic management: 

ane temporary bridge with alternating one-way traffic. 

ane temporary bridge with one-way traffic and a directional detour. 

e temporary bridge with a truck detour. 

adw

Dec

 co

le-l

le-l

-lan

-lane temporary bridge. 

ay bridge closure with ABC. 

s ruled out because of excessive and unacceptable delay times, and option 2 wa

ecause of concern, based upon experience in the vicinity, regarding vehicles 

 wrong way on a one-way temporary bridge, particularly at times of lower traff

11

 Ro

 

Maine DOT

1. Sing

2. Sing

3. Two

4. Two

5. 30-d

Option 1 wa s

eliminated b

traveling the ic 

volume. Options 3 and 4 would have involved substantial right-of-way impacts and temporary 

relocation of one property’s residents. Additionally, option 3 would have had long-term user cost

impacts on the significant truck traffic that uses Hotel Road. The cost of the temporary two-lane 

bridge was estimated at $350,000, and the right-of-way acquisition cost was estimated at 

$100,000. With these additions, the cost to deliver the project using either of these options was 

estimated to be the same as the ABC option. Maine DOT chose the ABC option. 
GINEERING

e site indicated bedrock at depths between 29 and 36 feet below the surface

cted for a possible pier at the center of the span indicated that bedrock was

2 feet below the streambed elevation. The project team considered the foll

rnatives:

e-span steel welded girder. 

e-span New England bulb tee. 

span concrete box beams. 

 eliminated because of the long span length, as it would push the New Eng

it. Option 3 was eliminated because of insufficient overburden for a pile-s

aditional mass pier on bedrock would have increased the construction durat

ction speed was critical at this location and option 1 is the appropriate stru

pan length needed at the site, the project team selected that option. The tea

athering steel, as the project site is not in a saltwater environment.

often encountered on rapid renewal and replacement projects is the need to 

turbance to the existing structure while constructing the replacement struct

 determined that, with the availability of bedrock at 29 to 35 feet below gro

t space to drive piles outside the existing bridge footing, integral abutments

e both viable and cost-effective. 

ws the profile at the bridge location. To regain some of the free board lost d

,134,271.50 

N

th

du

 1

te

gl

gl

oas

lim

tr

tru

 s

e

e 

is

n

r

o

.

o

l

i

c

u

u

pr

w

a

up

o

t

m 

r

n

a

u

12

ABC methods are known to have the following advantages: 

• Reduce onsite construction time. 

• Reduce disruption to traffic. 

• Improve construction-related safety.

• Improve quality because of construction of some of the elements in a controlled 

environment. 

• Reduce user costs.

The project was let on January 23, 2013 and was awarded to Wyman & Simpson, Inc. at a bid 

price of $ 2

PROJECT E

Borings at A 

boring con esent 

at less than ing 

structure al

1. Sin

2. Sin

3. Tw

Option 2 w nd bulb 

tees to the ported 

pier, and a n. 

Since cons ure 

type for the also 

specified w

A challeng

minimize d e. The 

project team d level 

and sufficie t this 

location we

Figure 4 sh e to the 

switch from a truss structure to a girder bridge, the profile of Hotel Road was raised 2 feet at the 

north abutment and 3 feet at the south abutment. The integral abutments behind the existing 

structure abutments were left in place. The distance from the existing abutment foundation was 

sufficient to not interfere with the pile driving operations. 
Figure 4. Diagram. Project profile. 

nd elevation of an abutment are shown in figure 5. This was the first time M

st modules with blockouts for the piling. Each precast module weighed appr

thout the cast-in-place concrete (shown by the hatched areas) in the void. Ea

 capped with self-consolidating concrete, and an elastomeric bearing was pl

 cap. Pertinent abutment sectional details are shown in figure 6. 

 backwall and the superstructure were tied together (see figure 7). 

13

ain

oxi

i ch 

s ace

h

e

The plan a e DOT 

used preca mately 

47 kips w pile 

driven wa d on 

top of eac

The bridg
Figure 5. Diagram. Plan and elevation of integral abutment. 

14
15

Figure 6. Diagram. Abutment sectional details. 
Figure 7. Diagram. Abutment end section details. 

16

The cross section of the new superstructure is shown in figure 8; for reference purposes, a 

drawing of the old truss structure is provided in figure 9. The new structure is much wider, and it 

has 5-foot shoulders on each side as well. The wider bridge provides improved access likely 

leading to safer travel, including safer bicycle travel, which is significant at this location.
Figure 8. Diagram. Cross section of new girder structure. 

Figure 9. Diagram. Cross section of old truss structure. 

e durability of the deck structure in the harsh winter environment, Maine DO

FRP reinforcement bars because the material is impervious to chloride ion an

ttack and has higher tensile strength than steel. Additionally, it weighs less th

the weight of steel, reducing the structural requirements for the temporary su

nd sliding system. 

17

To improv T

selected G d 

chemical a an 25 

percent of pport 

structure a

Because the application of GFRP bars in the highway industry is in its early stages, there is no 

mature organization to represent the competing manufacturers, whose capabilities varied 

substantially. Therefore, when developing the GFRP rebar specification for the project, the 

project team needed to balance the capabilities of the manufacturers with the minimum needs of 

the project without being too restrictive. The team approved five sources of supply. The Special 

Provision, SP 530 included the following requirements (see appendix A for the entire special 

provision): 
inimum tensile strength for bent bars shall be 65 ksi.

inimum tensile strength for straight #5, #6, #7, and #8 bars shall be 105 ksi, 1

i, and 90 ksi, respectively. 

yment for fabrication and delivery shall be lump sum. 

yment for placing shall be lump sum. 

lso shows approximate insertion points for the utilities that were relocated fr

dge during the road closure period. To minimize the duration of detour aroun

courage coordination between the contractor and utility owners, and minimi

 utilities, Maine DOT included Special Provision 107 in the contract. This S

 is included in its entirety in appendix B. 

mmarizes the incentives and disincentives for various phases of activities. T

ard bonus of $40,000 was included in the contract to incentivize the contract

th the utility owners and their subcontractors and complete the utility relocati

 activities within 15 days. The contractor took a “partnering” approach with t

volving their representatives early in the process.

stablishing and maintaining excellent communications throughout the project

ecution.

pproaching each emerging issue with a spirit of collaboration. 

road closure period was 33 days, making the contractor eligible for the no-ex

us. 

18

• All GFRP reinforcement shall conform to the requirements shown in the American 

Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Bridge Design 

Guide Specifications for GFRP Reinforced Concrete Bridge Decks and Traffic Railings 

(November 2009), unless otherwise specified. 

• Material shall be from approved manufacturers. Furthermore, all GFRP bars in the same 

structural component shall be from the same manufacturer; there shall be no mixing of 

products from different manufacturers in a component, unless otherwise specified. 

• Field bending of GFRP shall not be permitted. 

• Concrete cover shall be a minimum of 2 inches, unless otherwise noted. 

• Tensile modulus of elasticity shall be a minimum of 6,700 ksi. 

• M

• M 00 ksi, 95 

ks

• Pa

• Pa

Figure 8 a om the 

trolley bri d the 

project, en ze the time 

to relocate pecial 

Provision

Table 1 su he noexcuse aw or to work 

closely wi on and 

pavement he utilities 

by: 

• In

• E ’s 

ex

• A

The total cuse 

award bon
• Installation of bridge 

rail and 

and transition barriers

• Clearance of site for 

use by 

utility contractors 

 25 days • 4 days for phase 3

• 15 days for phases 2 & 3 comb

e for 

on

• $7,500 per day 

• Maximum for entire 

project, $100,000 

No excuse award bonus of $40,00

phases 2 & 3 completed within 15

less

tive 

on

$7,500 per day (open 

ended) •$7,500 for phase 3 (open ended)

ONSTRUCTION

t was completed in three stages. Figure 10 presents a schematic representatio

n staging. 

ge I, construction prior to closure. 

a. Secure temporary work area. 

b. Construct temporary bents. 

c. Construct new superstructure on temporary bents. 

ge II, construction during closure. 

a. Close existing bridge and detour traffic. 

b. Remove existing superstructure. 

c. Cutoff existing abutments and wingwalls. 

d. Place precast stem and wingwalls. 

19

Table 1. Highlights of Special Provision 107. 

Phase1 Phase 2 Phase 3

Activity 

• Removal of existing 

bridge 

• Installation of new pile 

supported 

abutments and 

wingwalls

• Sliding of new 

superstructure 

on new abutments 

Utility 

relocation

• Completion of roadway pavement 

• Completion of striping 

• Roadway opened to traffic

Duration ined

Incentiv

early 

completi

0 if both

 days or 

Disincen

for late 

completi

PROJECT C

The projec n of the 

constructio

1. Sta

2. Sta

e. Construct precast modular retaining wall. 

3. Stage III, construction during closure. 

a. Slide the bridge to final location. 

b. Place approach slabs. 

c. Complete utility relocation work. 

d. Complete roadway construction. 
Figure 10. Diagram. Shematic representation of construction staging. 

type construction, a substantial amount of engineering and construction wo

eted ahead of the bridge closure period. Engineering items include submissi

pproval for both the permanent structure and the temporary structures on 

20

For slide-in rk needs 

to be compl ons for 

foundation a which the 

superstructure rests, submission and approval of shop drawings for the precast fabricated 

elements, and review and approval of the slide-in process that will be utilized. Some of this work 

may be done while the old structure is being dismantled, but much of the work needs to be 

completed prior to the road closure, and contractors typically find themselves pressed for time. 

This was not the case on this project, however, because there was adequate lead time and agency 

reviews were completed in a timely manner.

The contractor was responsible for designing, fabricating, erecting, maintaining, and dismantling 

the temporary structural supports. The temporary bents were required to be designed to support 
ation of sheetpiling for erosion and sedimentation control, work began on pilin

f the temporary bents. See figure 11 showing sheetpiling in place and figure 1

of H piling for the temporary structure. Piling for the integral abutments was al

hind the existing abutments. This required extra care because each pile had to 

d in the precast element for subsequent placement of self-consolidating concre

re 11. Photo. Sheetpiling working platforms for existing substructure in place. 

21

all vertical and horizontal loading, including but not limited to live load and impact, differential 

settlement forces, and horizontal and longitudinal forces, and were to account for any temporary 

unbalanced loading due to jacking forces and other loading during load transfer. The design was 

required to meet the current requirements of AASHTO Load and Resistance Factor Design 

(LRFD) Bridge Construction Specifications. 

An important consideration in slide-in construction is the space needed to accommodate 

temporary bents and the large cranes needed to handle precast elements. On this project, two 

cranes were used, 100 tons and 80 tons. The contractor indicated that space was tight but 

manageable, although it would have been easier to operate if more space had been available. 

After install g for 

foundation o 2 for 

installation so 

installed, be align 

with the voi te.

Figu
Figure 12. Photo. Pile driving for temporary support structure. 

ep was launching and placing the mainline girders and diaphragms on the temp

own in figure 13. The deck over the girders and diaphragms was cast at the sit

ad previous experience with GFRP reinforcement, although that experience ha

n grade. The contractor stated that supply of material was not a problem, as a 

ources were available, and ended up purchasing all material needed for the pr

anufacturer. Working with the GFRP material was easy as well, as rebars were

ecause of the light weight. Trucking costs were also lower, as fewer truckloads

Figure 13. Photo. Girder launching and installation

22

The next st orary 

structure, sh e. The 

contractor h d been 

with slabs o good 

number of s oject 

from one m easier 

to handle b were 

needed.

 

Both top and bottom mats of reinforcement, shown in figure 14, are GFRP. Figure 15 shows 

placement of the concrete, which is similar to conventional construction. 
Figure 14. Photo. View of GFRP rebar prior to placement off concrete. 

Figure 15. Photo. Concrete placement. 

23
Figure 16. Photo. View of new superstructure in relation to old structure. 

24

The contractor was also responsible for all utility-related work within the structure, which he 

completed in stage 1, to minimize the time required once the superstructure was in its final 

position. Figure 16 is a photograph taken by the webcam installed at the site. This photograph 

was taken on July 25, 2013, and shows the deck covered with plastic and being cured. The 

temporary bent’s proximity to the old structure is also evident. 

On July 29, Hotel Road was closed to traffic at the bridge. Traffic was detoured using Kittyhawk 

Avenue, US Route 202/Washington Street, and Rodman Road. The variable message sign shown 

in figure 17 informed motorists about the closure. Figure 18 shows Hotel Road in process of 

being closed to traffic.
e 17. Photo. Variable message sign alerting travelers of upcoming roadway clo

25

Figur sure. 

Figure 18. Photo. Roadway closure in process. 
ctor utilized cranes at the site to lift the truss off the bearings and push it over 

mbankment of the project site, where it was demolished and hauled away (see

xisting abutments were cut off and completed to the elevations shown in figur

n in stage II were then completed, setting the stage to slide the structure. 

Figure 19. Photo. Old structure being demolished at site. 

ctor had prior experience sliding structures on rehabilitation type projects; ho

e first time he was to move a new structure in its final position. The contracto

26

The project team evaluated the feasibility, cost, and duration of several demolition alternatives:

• Single pick truss removal using a high-capacity lattice boom crawler crane. 

• Two pick truss removal using a temporary pier bent in the river at mid-span. 

• Float structure out on barges with temporary steel support frame. 

• Lateral skid using temporary steel support frames and Hillman type rollers. 

None of the alternatives stood out as significantly better or worse than the others, so Maine DOT

decided to permit the use of any of these alternatives.

The contra to the 

southern e figure 

19). The e e 4. 

Items show

The contra wever, 

this was th r chose 

not to go with Teflon pads or Teflon/stainless steel for sliding surfaces even though these 

systems have low coefficients of friction. He chose steel on steel as sliding surfaces with 

“Gorilla” grease as lubricant, a practice not uncommon in Maine’s shipbuilding industry. 

The sliding of the superstructure started on August 14 and took at least 10 hours to complete. 

The system used for the horizontal slide is a non-proprietary pull system that used dywidag rods. 

Figures 20 through 27 provide details. The superstructure slide-in was performed by the 

contractor’s in-house personnel and not by a specialty subcontractor. 
27

Figure 20. Diagram. HP 12x53 sled beam. 

Figure 21. Diagram. End anchorage details. 
Figure 22. Photo. Sliding of superstructure. 

28

Figure 23. Photo. View of both abutments and anchor beam in foreground. 
Figure 24. Photo. View of slide operation from the existing abutment side. 

29

Figure 25. Photo. View of end anchorage. 
Figure 26. Photo. Close-up of Dywidag rods, jack, and jacking plates. 

30

Figure 27. Photo. Webcam view of sliding operation on August 14, 2013. 
t in length (along stationing). The slabs for each abutment are in four pieces, with ea

5 inches wide by 15.6 inches long by 8 inches deep. Installation of the approach slab

n figure 28. 

e bridge work was completed, utilities were connected to the new bridge. Figure 29 

 sample connection.

31

The horizontal slide was designed so that the maximum jacking force at each abutment would 

not exceed 160 kips and the maximum anticipated pile head deflection would not exceed 0.4 

inches. The jacking system for each abutment was separate and not integrated. However, close 

communication was maintained by movement monitoring personnel, who guarded against one 

side advancing ahead of the other causing “fishtailing” or binding and possible damage to the 

structure. A special provision was included in the contract documents requiring a contingency 

plan for events such as equipment malfunction, binding of the slide system, differential 

movements, or excessive forces/deflections on the permanent bridge. Calibration records for the 

jacks utilized were also required. 

The approach slabs on this project were precast. Their dimensions, in plan are 30 feet wide by 

15.5 fee ch 

piece 7. s is 

shown i

Once th

shows a

Figure 28. Photo. Installation of precast approach slabs. 
Figure 29. Photo. Utility installation. 

30 through 32 show various stages of approach roadway work beng performed. Th

nt consisted of: 

12-inch aggregate subbase course, gravel. 

12-inch aggregate base course, crushed stone. 

3-inch hot mix asphalt, 3/4 inch aggregate. 

32

Figures e 

paveme

•

•

•

• 1.5-inch hot mix asphalt binder, 1/2 inch aggregate.

• 1.5-inch hot mix asphalt wearing course.

The roadway was opened for traffic use on August 30, 2013. Figure 33 shows the new, safer 

bridge that is wider, with improved alignment and upgraded traffic delineation and safety 

features in place. Figure 34 provides an elevation view of the new structure. 
Figure 30. Photo. Preparation of subgrade for approach roadways. 

33

Figure 31. Photo. Placement of asphalt material for surface courses. 
Figure 32. Photo. Road opened for traffic use. 

34

Figure 33. Photo. Guiderail installed, pavement striped, and new bridge in place. 
Figure 34. Photo. Elevation view of completed bridge. 

35
 discusses how well the Maine DOT met the specific HfL performance goa

t.

lide-in technology for this project provided several safety benefits. The tec

superstructures to be built in the staging area adjacent to the existing bridg

he traffic using Hotel Road. Traditional construction methods would have 

 the bridge while maintaining traffic through an onsite detour or staged co

on used allowed workers to work away from road traffic while Hotel Roa

ely away from traffic when traffic was diverted during the month-long AB

, throughout the construction period, workers were not exposed to traveler 

travelers were not exposed to construction work zone hazards. Also no cra

ing the ABC period during the traffic detour. With zero crashes, the projec

work zone crash rate equal to or less than the preconstruction rate at the pr

o injuries reported on this project that were related to bridge construction.

r, one incident of a shoulder bruise reported away from the bridge when w

a water tank using a fire hydrant as a source of supply. An employee of the

ond rung of a ladder. It is unknown at this time whether the injury resulted

icted duties. 

t the site pointed to the narrow width and limited sight distance caused by 

rs of the old structure as the causal factors for six crashes between 2008 a

36

DATA ACQUISITION AND ANALYSIS

Data on safety, traffic flow, quality, and user satisfaction were collected before, during, and after 

construction to determine compliance with the HfL performance goals where appropriate. The 

primary objective of acquiring these types of data was to quantify the project performance, 

provide an objective basis on which to determine the feasibility of the project innovations, and 

demonstrate that the innovations can be used to do the following: 

• Achieve a safer work environment for the traveling public and workers.

• Reduce construction time and minimize traffic interruptions. 

• Produce a high-quality project and gain user satisfaction. 

This section ls related 

to this projec

SAFETY

The use of s hnology 

enabled the e, yet 

away from t required 

constructing nstruction. 

The innovati d was open 

and complet C period. 

Accordingly intrusion 

hazards and shes were 

reported dur t met the 

HfL goal of oject 

location. 

There were n There 

was, howeve orkers 

were filling firm fell 

from the sec in lost 

time or restr

Crash data a through 

truss membe nd 2010. It 

is believed that these numbers will decrease in the 3 year period after construction by at least 20

percent (the HfL goal) because: 

• The bridge is 12 feet wider. 

• Sight distance is no longer hampered by truss members. 

• Separate areas now exist for bicyclists (although there were no bicycle related crashes 

reported during the 2008-2010 period). 

• The bridge no longer constricts the approach roadway.

• Safety features and traffic delineation have been improved. 
porary bridge. Maine DOT evaluated the following options: 

ion 1 - Alternate traffic on temporary one-lane bridge. 

ion 2 - Allow inbound traffic only on temporary one-lane bridge. 

ion 3 - Allow outbound traffic only on temporary one-lane bridge. 

ion 4 - Detour both directions of traffic. 

s calculated total delay in terms of time and daily user costs using the Synchr

l. The results are shown in table 2. 

Table 2. Time and user cost delays for various detour options. 

Option Total Delay 

(vehicle-hours)

Total Daily 

User Cost

Alternating one-way 60.0 $3,011.00 

Outbound detour 9.7 $1,482.75 

Inbound detour 4.8 $1,221.53 

Combined detour 17.1 $2,704.28 

ne temporary bridge option had been chosen, option 3 would likely have bee

sulting in a total delay during the 4-month construction period of: 

x 4.8 veh-hrs = 585.6 veh-hrs.

vative option used, the total delay during the 33-day period of bridge closure

o be:

 17.1 veh-hrs = 564 veh-hrs. 

37

CONSTRUCTION CONGESTION

An HfL performance goal on construction congestion is a 50 percent reduction in the time 

highway users are impacted, compared to traditional construction. The project team estimated 

that it would have taken 4 months (120 days) to build a replacement structure using traditional 

construction methods. Maine DOT was able to limit the impact on users to only 33 days, a 

reduction of more than 72 percent, easily exceeding the HfL goal.

The traditional option with a two-lane temporary bridge would not have had any delays. Maine 

DOT conducted traffic impact analysis to assess delays that construction would cause using a 

one-lane tem

• Opt

• Opt

• Opt

• Opt

The analysi o/Sim 

traffic mode

 

If the one-la n 

selected, re

122 (days) 

For the inno is 

calculated t

33 (days) x

Therefore, the aggregate delay for traditional construction with a one-lane temporary bridge 

would have been about the same as in the ABC construction used. 

Maine DOT’s analysis showed that the detour-affected intersections would maintain levels of 

service of C or better (under 35 sec/veh). The HfL goal for queue length in an urban area is 1.5 

miles or less, which would take at least 15 minutes to clear. Therefore, it is evident that the 

construction congestion along the detour on this project easily met the HfL goal.
Figure 35. Chart. Post Construction IRI Measurements 

ce the global SI level, the average of the front and rear OBSI values from both 

 was computed. The raw noise data were then normalized for the ambient air 

re and barometric pressure at the time of testing. The resulting mean SI level 

 to produce the SI frequency spectra in one-third octave bands, as shown in fig

e SI levels were calculated using logarithmic addition of the one-third octave 

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

Distance, ft

Postconstruction Mean 

IRI = 143 in/mi

38

QUALITY

The old bridge and approaches to the bridge had an average IRI in the range of 204 to 256 inches 

per mile, as measured in 2011. Measurements following construction reduced the roughness of 

the section within the project limits to 143 inches per mile. Figure 35 presents the post 

construction IRI values at 20-ft intervals. Though the new bridge offered a much smoother and 

improved surface with a reduction in the IRI value from 204 to 256 in/mi to 143 in/mi, the HfL 

goal of less than 48 in/mi after construction was not met. 

To produ lane 

directions

temperatu was Aweighted ure 36. 

The bridg band 

frequencies across the spectra. The SI level was 99.2 dB(A) after construction. The new bridge, 

therefore, did not meet the HfL OBSI goal of 96.0 dB(A) or less. It can be safely assumed that 

the new texture of the bridge surface—while aiding traction and increasing safety—is prone to 

increasing noise. 

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

160

IRI, in/mi
Figure 36. Chart. Post Construction SI Measurements 

roved ride quality and reduced noise, Maine DOT’s initiatives will result in

cture that will require less maintenance. The GFRP reinforcement will subst

ing of deck concrete despite the significant amounts of salt that States in th

pically apply during winters. The project team also addressed the detrimenta

ough jointless construction. Therefore, water-induced damage common in m

ould not occur with the same extent and severity on this project. Furthermo

ents for abutments, approach slabs, wingwalls, and modular walls fabricate

onditions with better curing and away from the traffic induced vibrations sh

ructure that is much more durable than the one replaced. 

FACTION

performed a user satisfaction survey through its website after the bridge 

was completed. Fifty-four participants responded. The questions and the ta

 are shown in appendix C from Figures 37 through 42 and tables 5 and 10 

. When asked how satisfied they were with the new facility compared to its 

400 500 630 800 100

0

125

0

160

0

200

0

250

0

315

0

40

0

construction 81.6 83.1 87.4 92.2 92.9 92.2 90.4 88.4 84.7 78.6 73.

60

65

Soun

Frequency, Hz

39

Besides imp a more 

durable stru antially 

reduce crack e 

northeast ty l effects 

of water thr ost 

structures sh re, 

precast elem d under 

controlled c ould 

result in a st

USER SATIS

Maine DOT

construction bulation 

of responses

respectively previous 

condition, the respondents gave an average rating of 4.72 out of a possible score of 5. This could 

be viewed as a score of 94 percent. This compares favorably with the HfL goal of 4 out of 7-

point Likert scale, or a score of 57 percent. When asked how satisfied they were with the 

approach used to minimize disruption during construction, the average respondent score was 

4.33 out of 5, or 87 percent—again, higher than the HfL goal of 57 percent. 

The survey also showed that users prefer getting information regarding transportation issues 

through newspapers, Maine DOT’s website and email notifications, and television. 

0 500

0

Post 0 69.5

70

75

80

85

90

95

d Intensity, dB(A)
TION TIME

e use of innovative construction technology, Maine DOT was able to dramati

impact of this project on roadway users. What would have been a 4-month tr

n project impacted users for only 33 days. 

TION COSTS

ed alternative from a traffic management perspective was the option that req

n of a two-lane temporary bridge. However, this would have cost approximat

nd the approach roadway to the bridge would have come within 20 feet of th

cated at the northwest corner of the bridge. With the necessary grade change

d proximity to the bridge, the residents would have been required to be locat

 alternative was estimated to be the same as the option ultimately chosen for t

dge closure with ABC). Table 3 shows the estimated construction cost for th

.2 million, which is in line with the low bid for this project of $2.1 million, 

bleness of the estimates provided. Table 4 shows the estimated construction 

e temporary bridge. 

S

are defined as added vehicle operating costs and delay costs to highway users

n activity. These costs are incurred because of extra travel distance using det

rists are delayed by congestion in the work zone, slowdown due to reduced l

channeling of traffic. 

40

ECONOMIC ANALYSIS

A key aspect of HfL demonstration projects is quantifying, as much as possible, the value of the 

innovations deployed. This entails comparing the benefits and costs associated with the 

innovative project delivery approach adopted on an HfL project with those from a more 

traditional delivery approach. The latter type of project is referred to as a baseline case and is an 

important component of the economic analysis. 

For this economic analysis, Maine DOT supplied the cost figures for the as-built project as well 

as the baseline case. 

CONSTRUC

Through th cally 

reduce the aditional 

constructio

CONSTRUC

The preferr uired 

constructio ely 

$350,000, a e 

residence lo of the 

roadway an ed. The 

cost of this his 

project (bri e ABC 

option at $2 validating 

the reasona cost for 

the two-lan

USER COST

User costs due to 

constructio ours and 

when moto ane 

width, and 

The two-lane temporary bridge constructed adjacent to the existing alignment would have had no 

delays at this site. The cost for the ABC option calculated by Maine DOT was estimated at 

$2,704 per day. The total user cost for the 33-day period the detour was in effect therefore is 

estimated to be $89,232. 
OW: 1,300 CY x $ 30.00 = 

T MODULAR GRAVITY 

2,250 SF x $ 60.00 = $ 

70 CY x $70.00 = 

G BRIDGE REMOVAL: 1 LS x $ 190,000.00 = $ 

 AND/OR TEMPORARY 

: 0 LS x $ 0.00 = 

LITATION CONTINGENCIES: N/A = 

LANEOUS (TCP'S, 

FFICE, ETC.): 10% = $ 

ATION: 10% = $ 

 

STRUCTURE SUBTOTAL = $ 2,

 

CHES: 435 LF x $ 300.00 = $ 

LANEOUS: 7% = 

ATION: 10% = 

APPROACHES SUBTOTAL = $ 

TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST = $ 2,

 

INARY ENGINEERING: 13% = $ 

F WAY: = 

UCTION ENGINEERING: 11% = $ 

41

Table 3. Cost estimate for bridge closure and ABC.

PROJECT: Auburn, Littlefields Bridge #3338 - Alternative 1

Bridge Replacement 144' Steel span with Integral Abutments. 

Bridge closure with Accelerated Bridge Construction and 

traffic maintenance with an offsite detour.

Deck Area: 144' x 37' - 4" = 5,380 SF 

WIN: 19284.00

ESTIMATED BY: GAG

SUPERSTRUCTURE: 5,380 SF x $ 225.00 = $ 1,211,000 

ABUTMENTS: 2 EA x $ 100,000.00 = $ 200,000 

COFFERDAMS: 1 LS x $ 8,000.00 = $ 8,000 

STRUCTURAL EXCAVATION 

& BORR $ 39,000 

PRECAS

WALLS: 135,000 

RIPRAP: $ 5,000 

EXISTIN 190,000 

DETOUR

BRIDGE $ 0

REHABI $ 0

MISCEL

FIELD O 179,000 

MOBILIZ 179,000 

155,000 

APPROA 131,000 

MISCEL $ 10,000 

MOBILIZ $ 14,000 

155,000 

310,000 

PRELIM 310,000 

RIGHT O $ 20,000 

CONSTR 260,000 

OTHER: = $ 0

TOTAL PROJECT COST = $ 2,900,000 
DAMS: 1 LS x $ 8,000.00 = $ 

URAL EXCAVATION & 

: 1,300 CY x $ 30.00 = $ 3

T MODULAR GRAVITY 

2,250 SF x $ 60.00 = $ 13

70 CY x $70.00 = $ 

G BRIDGE REMOVAL: 1 LS x $ 150,000.00 = $ 15

 AND/OR TEMPORARY 

: 1 LS x $ 350,000.00 = $ 35

LITATION CONTINGENCIES: N/A = 

ANEOUS (TCP'S, FIELD 

 ETC.): 10% = $ 17

ATION: 10% = $ 17

 

STRUCTURE SUBTOTAL = $ 2,13

 

CHES: 435 LF x $ 300.00 = $ 13

ANEOUS: 7% = $ 1

ATION: 10% = $ 1

APPROACHES SUBTOTAL = $ 15

TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST = $ 2,29

 

42

Table 4. Cost estimate for two-lane temporary bridge option. 

PROJECT: Auburn, Littlefields Bridge #3338 - Alternative 5

Bridge Replacement 144' Steel span with 

Integral Abutments and a two lane temporary 

bridge. 

Deck Area: 144' x 37' - 4" = 5,380 SF 

WIN: 19284.00

ESTIMATED BY: GAG

SUPERSTRUCTURE: 5,380 SF x $ 180.00 = $ 969,000 

ABUTMENTS: 2 EA x $ 60,000.00 = $ 120,000 

COFFER 8,000 

STRUCT

BORROW 9,000 

PRECAS

WALLS: 5,000 

RIPRAP: 5,000 

EXISTIN 0,000 

DETOUR

BRIDGE 0,000

REHABI $ 0

MISCELL

OFFICE, 8,000 

MOBILIZ 8,000 

5,000 

APPROA 1,000 

MISCELL 0,000 

MOBILIZ 4,000 

5,000 

0,000 

PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING: 11% = $ 255,000 

RIGHT OF WAY: = $ 100,000 

CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING: 11% = $ 255,000 

OTHER: = $ 0

TOTAL PROJECT COST = $ 2,900,000 
43

The user cost for the two-lane temporary bridge option was estimated to $149,027 at $1,221.53 

per day for 122 days. The user cost savings with the use of the ABC option was $59,795. 

COST SUMMARY

It is estimated that the cost of delivering the project using traditional methods would have been 

the same as the innovative method used on this project. However, the innovative method resulted 

in user cost savings of $ 59,795 due to traffic being detoured during the roadway closure period. 
44

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The project team would like to acknowledge the invaluable insights and guidance of FHWA 

Highways for LIFE Team Leader, Byron Lord; Program Coordinators, Mary Huie and Kathleen 

Bergeron; and Program Manager for FHWA’s Center for Accelerating Innovation, Ewa Flom. 

Their vast knowledge and experience with the various aspects of construction, technology 

deployment, and technology transfer helped immensely in developing both the approach and the 

technical matter for this document. The team also is indebted to Maine DOT personnel Darryl 

Belz, Nate Benoit, David Doucette, Wayne Frankhauser, Jr., and Dale Peabody; and FHWA 

Engineers Maria Drozd, Benjamin Beerman, and Tim Cupples for their advice, assistance, and 

coordination during this project. 
ans, Supplemental Specifications and Special Provisions. 

terials All GFRP reinforcement will conform to the requirements shown in the 

Bridge Design Guide Specifications for GFRP Reinforced Concrete Bridge De

lings (November 2009), except as shown on the plans, and as stated herein. Al

ent shall be deformed or sand coated. 

 shall be according to the modulus grade specified on the plans and shall be fr

wing approved manufacturers: 

an 100 by Hughes Brothers Inc. 

od by Pultrall Inc. 

mBAR by Schoeck Bauteile

teen-bar from Sigma Development Group, LLC 

bars in the same structural component shall be supplied by the same manufactu

be no mixing of products from different manufacturers in a component unless 

n the contract drawings.

ation For all GFRP reinforcement to be used on Department projects, the bar 

rer is to furnish the Resident with two (2) copies of written certifications that t

forcement meets the requirements of this specification. In addition, the certific

est values and test procedures used to determine the physical properties of the 

ent. Certifications bearing the notarized signature of a responsible authorized 

ive of the bar manufacturer are required. Each bundle of GFRP reinforcement 

ith a corresponding lot number with the lot numbers affixed to each bundle b

45

APPENDIX A—SPECIAL PROVISION FOR GFRP REBARS

SPECIAL PROVISION

SECTION 530

GLASS FIBER REINFORCED POLYMER

Section 530 Glass Fiber Reinforced Polymer of the Standard Specifications is added as follows: 

530.01 Description This work shall also consist of furnishing and placing Glass Fiber Reinforced 

Polymer (GFRP) reinforcement bars, in accordance with these specifications and in conformance 

with the Pl

530.02 Ma

AASHTO cks and 

Traffic Rai l GFRP 

reinforcem

GFRP bars om one 

of the follo

1. Asl

2. V-R

3. Co

4. Ma

All GFRP rer; 

there shall 

permitted i

Document

manufactu he 

GFRP rein ation is 

to list the t GFRP 

reinforcem

representat will be 

identified w y means 

of a durable tag. 

Repair Material The material used to repair the cut ends of GFRP reinforcement shall comply 

with the requirements established by the bar manufacturer. 

530.03 Schedule of Material When the Department does not furnish GFRP reinforcing bar 

schedules, the Contractor shall submit order lists, shape diagrams and bar layout drawings to the 

Resident for approval. The reinforcing bars shall not be ordered until these lists and drawings are 

approved. Approval shall not relieve the Contractor of full responsibility for the satisfactory 
forcement shall be stored on skids or other supports a minimum of 12 inches a

 surface and protected at all times from damage and surface contamination. Th

pports shall be constructed of wood, or other material that will not damage the 

forcement or epoxy coating. Bundles of bars shall be stored on supports in a si

h bundle shall be placed on the supports out of contact with adjacent bundles. I

hat GFRP bars will be required to be stored outdoors for a period in excess of t

en they shall be protected from ultraviolet radiation. Prevent exposure of GFR

res above 120 degrees Fahrenheit during storage. 

um total un-repaired visible damage permitted on each liner foot of each GFR

xceed 2 percent of the surface area in that linear foot of bar. The depth of the 

e damage shall not exceed 0.04 inches. 

brication Forming of GFRP reinforcing bars and tolerances for forming of GFR

 bars shall be in conformance with the latest edition of the "Manual of Standar

 the Concrete Reinforcing Steel Institute" and the "Detailing Manual of the A

nstitute". 

ng of GFRP reinforcing bars by mechanical means shall be done by equipment 

ntact areas, or by the use of nylon webbing slings. The use of chains or wire ro

l not be allowed, even when used with padding. All bundles of GFRP bars shal

 a strong back, spreader bar, multiple supports or a platform bridge to prevent 

n from sags in the bundles. Support points during lifting or transporting of bun

forcing bars shall be spaced at a maximum of 4.5 m [15 ft], or as required by t

rer, whichever is more restrictive. Bundled bars shall be strapped together with

 padded straps in a manner to prevent bar-to-bar abrasion due to relative move

46

completion of this item. When the Department allows the use of precast concrete deck panels, or 

any other significant changes that effect the quantity of reinforcing bars, the Contractor shall be 

responsible for revising the reinforcing bar schedule; the revised schedule shall be submitted to 

the Resident for approval. 

530.04 Protection of Material Delivery, storage and handling of GFRP bars shall be in 

accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions to prevent damage. Prevent bending, coating 

with earth, oil, or other material, or otherwise damaging the GFRP reinforcement. When 

handling GFRP reinforcement, use equipment that avoids damaging or abrading the GFRP bar. 

Do not drop or drag GFRP reinforcement. 

 

GFRP rein bove 

the ground e 

storage su surface 

of the rein ngle 

layer. Eac f it is 

expected t wo

months, th P to 

temperatu

The maxim P bar 

shall not e

permissibl

530.05 Fa P 

reinforcing d 

Practice of merican 

Concrete I

All handli having 

padded co pe 

slings shal l be 

lifted with bar-tobar abrasio dled 

GFRP rein he 

manufactu nonmetallic or ment 

between bars. 

Individual bars shall be handled in a manner that prevents damage to the coating due to abrasion 

or impact, and at no time shall any bar be moved by dragging over any surface, including other 

reinforcing bars. Sufficient personnel shall be assigned to assure that there is complied with the 

above. Bars loaded for transport shall be loaded and strapped down in a manner that will prevent 

damage from motion and vibration, to the greatest extent possible. Bundles of bent bars shall be 

transported strapped to wooden platforms or shall be crated. All individual bundles and layers of 

bundles shall be separated, and supported by dunnage. 
ng of GFRP will be permitted only with the approval of the Resident. The fiel

ith a high speed cutter, fine blade saw, diamond blade or masonry saw. The G

e shear cut. The ends of all field cut bars shall be treated per the manufacturer

dations. 

forcing bars supported on formwork shall rest on coated wire bar supports, or 

ade of dielectric material or other acceptable materials. Wire bar supports sha

h dielectric material for a minimum distance of 50 mm [2 in] from the point of

inforcing bars. Reinforcing bars used as support bars shall be epoxy-coated. T

 reinforcing bars shall be soft annealed wire that has been nylon, epoxy or plas

 be fastened together at all intersections except where spacing is less than 300 

r direction, in which case, fastening at alternate intersections of each bar with 

e permitted providing this will hold all the bars securely in position. This faste

htly twisted polymer coated wire or plastic ties. 

tances from the forms shall be maintained by means of stays, blocks, ties, han

oved means. Blocks used for this purpose shall be precast portland cement mo

approved shape and dimensions. Chairs may be used for this purpose and, whe

FRP or plastic. Layers of bars may be separated by precast portland cement m

other approved devices. The use of pebbles, pieces of broken stone or brick, m

 blocks shall not be permitted. The placing of reinforcement as concrete place

, without definite and secure means of holding the bar in its correct position, s

47

530.06 Placing and Fastening 

All GFRP reinforcement shall be accurately placed in the positions shown on the plans and shall 

be firmly held there during the placing and setting of the concrete. Immediately before placing 

concrete, GFRP reinforcement shall be free from all foreign material, which could decrease the 

bond between the GFRP and concrete. Such foreign material shall include, but not be limited to: 

dirt, paint, oil, bitumen and dried concrete mortar. 

GFRP bars within the formwork shall be secured to prevent movement during concrete 

placement. The bars must be adequately supported or tied to resist settlement, floating upward, 

or movement in any direction during concrete placement. Field bending of GFRP shall not be 

allowed.

Field cutti d cutting 

shall be w FRP bars 

shall not b ’s 

recommen

GFRP rein on bar 

supports m ll be 

coated wit contact 

with the re ie wire 

for GFRP tic 

coated. 

Bars shall mm [1 

ft] in eithe other 

bars will b ning 

may be tig

Proper dis gers or 

other appr rtar 

blocks of n used, 

must be G ortar 

blocks or etal pipe 

or wooden ment 

progresses hall not 

be permitted. GFRP reinforcing bars supported on formwork shall rest on coated wire bar 

supports, or on bar supports made of dielectric material or other acceptable materials. Wire bar 

supports shall be coated with dielectric material for a minimum distance of 50 mm [2 in] from 

the point of contact with the reinforcing bars. Reinforcing bars used as support bars shall be 

GFRP. In walls, spreader bars shall be GFRP. 

Ties for GFRP reinforcing bars shall be plastic ties or soft annealed wire that has been nylon, 

epoxy or plastic coated. Bars in bridge seats shall be placed so as to clear anchor bolts. When 

specified on the contract plans, reinforcing bars shall be anchored into drilled holes. The 
ent shall be inspected and approved by the Resident before any concrete is place

icing Reinforcing bars shall be spliced in accordance with the requirements of thi

d in the locations shown on the plans. No modifications of, or additions to, the sp

nts shown on the plans shall be made without the Resident's prior approval. 

onal splices authorized shall be staggered as much as possible. All splices shall b

manner that will ensure that not less than 75% of the clear concrete cover and not

f the minimum clear distance to other bars will be maintained, as compared to th

clear distance requirements for the unspliced bar. 

lices shall be made by placing the bars in contact and wiring/tying them together. 

 shall be made in accordance with the table provided on the plans. 

stitution Substitution of different size bars shall not be permitted except with the

horization of the Resident. 

thod of Measurement 

forcing bars shall be measured by the linear feet reinforcement authorized. 

sis of Payment 

ted quantity of GFRP reinforcing bars will be paid for at the contract unit price pe

completed, and accepted. Payment for work associated with revisions to the GFR

 schedule, required for any significant changes that affect the quantity of reinforc

be considered incidental to related contract items. 

48

anchoring material shall be one of the products listed on the Maine Department of 

Transportation's list of Prequalified Type 3 Anchoring Materials. Installation shall be in 

accordance with the manufacturer's published recommendations. 

At each anchor location, existing reinforcing will be located to avoid drilling through existing 

bars. Where interferences are found to exist, location adjustments will be determined by the 

Resident. Minimum embedment lengths of reinforcing bars shall comply with the manufacturer’s 

published recommendations for the anchoring material selected. These embedment lengths shall 

be verified by the Resident before installation of the reinforcing bars. The reinforcing bar lengths 

indicated on the Plans may be reduced, at the Contractor's option, to the determined minimum 

embedment lengths. 

Reinforcem d.

530.07 Spl s 

section, an lice 

arrangeme

Any additi e 

made in a less 

than 75% o e 

cover and 

Lapped sp

Splice laps

530.08 Sub

written aut

530.09 Me

GFRP rein

530.10 Ba

The accep r 

liner feet, P 

reinforcing ing 

bars, shall 
49

Payment will be made under:

Pay Item Pay Unit

530.30 Glass Fiber Reinforced Polymer, Linear Foot

Fabricated and Delivered

530.31 Glass Fiber Reinforced Polymer, Linear Foot

Placing
o traffic, excluding any allowed short term lane closures. 

will be considered complete when: the existing bridge is removed as shown o

 the new pile supported abutments and wingwalls are installed; the new bridge

ture is moved into its final position resting solely on the new abutments; the

l and transition barriers are installed; and the work site is clear and available f

 utility companies, with access unimpeded by the Contractor or its

ctors. 

This phase of the project begins at the completion of Phase #1 as 

ove with the road still closed to traffic, and continues until the third-party

cations are complete (including utility acceptance testing), and as determined

sident.

This phase of the project begins at the completion of Phase #2 and 

 until the point at which two, 11 foot wide travel lanes are open to traffic with 

ay pavement complete including base and surface pavement. The Resident 

e sole authority in determining when Phase #3 is complete.

e Award Bonus A financial incentive provision tied to accelerated

n of construction activities, construction phases or major milestones, within a 

ined time period, where the Contractor assumes all risks for completion and 

y right to claim.

VE/DISINCENTIVE FOR EARLY OR LATE COMPLETION

50

APPENDIX B—SPECIAL PROVISION ON INCENTIVE/DISINCENTIVE

WIN 19284.00 

January 11, 2013 

SPECIAL PROVISION

SECTION 107

(Incentive/Disincentive, Supplemental Liquidated Damages, Contract Time)

SUPPLEMENTAL DEFINITIONS

Phase #1 This phase of the project begins when two, 11 foot wide travel lanes are 

not open t

Phase #1 n 

the Plans;

superstruc

bridge rai or

use by the

subcontra

Phase #2 

defined ab

utility relo

by the Re

Phase #3 

continues

all Roadw

shall be th

No-Excus

completio

pre-determ

waives an

INCENTI

Work Time Periods. The duration of Phase #1 shall not exceed a total of twentyfive 

(25) Days. During Phase #1 the existing bridge may be reopened to two 11 foot wide

lanes of traffic after the completion of certain construction activities. Once the existing

bridge is removed, the roadway shall not be reopened to traffic until Phase #3 is 

complete

Each Day or portion of a Day that two 11 foot wide travel lanes are not open to 

traffic, excluding any allowed short term lane closures, will be counted against the 

twenty-five (25) Day duration for Phase #1. 
within fifteen (15) consecutive Days or less. 

letion Disincentives. The Contractor will be assessed a $7,500 

 for each Day or portion of a Day that Phase #1 is completed after the 

enty-five (25) Day duration. In addition, the Contractor will be assessed a 

ncentive for each Day or portion of a Day that Phase #3 is completed after the 

r (4) Day duration. These disincentives will be deducted from any monies 

come due to the Contractor. 

Total Contract Incentives/Disincentive. The maximum combined

centive, including any No-Excuse Award Bonus is capped at $100,000 for 

t. There is no upper limit to the dollar amount of the disincentive 

s.

rk. Sunday work will be allowed between the start of Phase #1 and up 

letion of Phase #3. 

s and Night work: The Contractor may work from 6:00 am to 7:00 

ith permission from the City of Auburn and Resident, the Contractor may 

ork hours up until 30 minutes after sunset. Night work is not approved for 

.

 Lane Closures: Short term lane closures will be considered for 

 the Resident for delivery of materials. 

51

Phase #1 shall not begin prior to June 16, 2013 to limit the impact on school bus 

routes. The Contractor will be able to close the road prior to this date if the work is 

coordinated when school is not in session. 

The duration of the Phase #3 portion of the Work shall not exceed four (4) 

consecutive Days.

Early Completion Incentives. The Contractor will be paid a $7,500 incentive for 

each complete Day that Phase #1 is completed early. In addition, the Contractor will be 

paid a single No-Excuse Award Bonus of $40,000 if Phase #2 and Phase #3 are 

completed 

Late Comp

disincentive

allowed tw

$7,500 disi

allowed fou

due or to be

Maximum 

monetary in

this contrac

assessment

Sunday Wo

to the comp

Work Hour

pm daily. W

extend the w

this project

Short Term

approval by
Figure 37. Chart. Survey responses on travel frequency.

Table 5. Survey responses on travel frequency. 

Answer Choices Responses

Number Percent 

Daily 32 59.26% 

Weekly 16 29.63% 

Monthly 4 7.41% 

Rarely 2 3.70% 

Total 54 100% 

Daily

Weekly

52

APPENDIX C—USER SATISFACTION SURVEY RESULTS

Monthly

Rarely

Q1 How often do you normally use Hotel Road and the Lifflefields 

Bridge

Answered 54 Skipped 2
Figure 38. Chart. Survey responses on construction approach.

Table 6. Survey responses on construction approach. 

Answer Choices Responses

Number Percent

Very Dissatisfied 4 7.41% 

Somewhat Dissatisfied 1 1.85% 

Neither Dissatisfied or Satisfied 3 5.56% 

Somewhat Satisfied 11 20.37% 

Very Satisfied 35 64.81% 

Total 54 100% 

Very Dissatisfied

Somewhat Satisfied

Very Satisfied

53

Average Rating 4.33

Somewhat 

Dissatisfied Neither Dissatisfied 

or Satisfied

Q2 How satisfied are you with the approach used to construct the new 

facility, including the traffic patterns used during the Littlefields Bridge 

construction? The traffic patterns include the complete closure for Hotel 

Road for 33 days and the use of a d
Figure 39. Chart. Survey responses on facility-related satisfaction. 

Table 7. Survey responses on facility-related satisfaction. 

Answer Choices Responses

Number Percent

Very Dissatisfied 3 5.56% 

Somewhat Dissatisfied 0 0.00% 

Neither Dissatisfied or Satisfied 0 0.00% 

Somewhat Satisfied 3 5.56% 

Very Satisfied 48 88.89% 

Total 54 100% 

Very Satisfied

54

Average Rating 4.72

Very Dissatisfied

Somewhat 

Dissatisfied

Q3 How satisfied are you with the new Littlefields Bridge compared to the 

previous structure?

Answered 54 Skipped 2
igure 40. Chart. Survey responses on construction delays and disruptions. 

Table 8. Survey responses on construction delays and disruptions. 

Answer Choices Responses

Number Percent

Strongly Disagree 3 5.56% 

Somewhat Disagree 0 0.00% 

Neither Agree or Disagree 1 1.85% 

Agree 13 24.07% 

Strongly Agree 37 68.52% 

Total 54 100% 

Agree

Strongly Agree

55

F

Average Rating 4.5

Strongly Disagree

Neither Agree or 

Disagree

Q4 Taking into consideration all that you experienced and know about this 

project, would you agree that construction delays and disruptions were 

minimized to the extent possible?

Answered 54 Skipped 2
Figure 41. Chart. Survey responses on information availability. 

Table 9. Survey responses on information availability. 

Answer Choices Responses

Number Percent

Newspapers 32 66.67% 

Television 22 45.83% 

Social Media such as Facebook and Twitter 13 27.08% 

Maine DOT website or Email Notifications 23 47.92% 

Radio 8 16.67% 

Public Meetings 9 18.75% 

Social Media such Television

as Facebook and 

Twitter

ineDOT website 

or Email 

Notifications

56

Total 48 100%

Newspapers

Ma

Radio

Public Meetings

Q5 How would you prefer to get information regarding transportation 

issues such as construction projects, detours, and travel delays? Of the 

following, please indicate your choices.

Answered 48 Skipped 8
Figure 42. Chart. Survey responses on Maine DOT quality. 

Table 10. Survey responses on Maine DOT quality. 

Answer Choices Responses

Number Percent

Very Poor 1 1.85% 

Poor 0 0.00% 

Fair 4 7.41% 

Good 20 37.04% 

Excellent 28 51.85% 

Don't Know 1 1.85% 

Good

Excellent

57

Total 54 100%

Average Rating 4.4

Very Poor

Fair

Don't Know

Q6 Taking into consideration your own experience as well as anything you 

may have seen or heard, how would you rate the overall quality of Maine 

DOT and the services it provides?

Answered 54 Skipped 2