90 80 6
OHIO STATE EDITION
A Supplement to:
422
6 80 24
6
4
71
76
199 30 30 75
68
30 77
71 23 22 68
4
70 70
70
22 71
75
77
27
December 5 2015
22 74
50
50 25
Vol. XVIII • No. 25
35
52
“The Nation’s Best Read Construction Newspaper… Founded in 1957.” Your Ohio Connection: Ed Bryden, Strongsville, OH • 1-800-810-7640
Feeling the Heat: Crews Race to Repair Span in 18 Days By Irwin Rapoport CEG CORRESPONDENT
Early in the morning of July 1, a fire caused by a tanker truck carrying ethanol exploded under a bridge on Interstate 70 on the outerbelt going around Columbus, Ohio. This required emergency work to be done to repair the bridge and adjacent ramp — a $1.186 million Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) contract that went to Shelly & Sands Inc. (S&S) a day after the incident. The bridge repair work was done in 18 days and reopened to traffic on July 21. Firemen from the Columbus Fire Department put out the blaze, which started around 6 a.m., in two hours. ODOT personnel were only able to access the site at 1:30 p.m., nearly eight hours after the incident, when the site was deemed to be safe. The fire reached a temperature of 1,800 degrees at its peak. The concrete slab bridge that carries traffic into Columbus from the west is at the juncture of the eastbound I-70 and I-270. “We had a tanker that rolled over and caught fire under that bridge,” said Matt Bruning, press secretary, ODOT. “and caused such severe damage to one of the spans of the bridge that we actually had to replace it. That was done through emergency federal funding — they front us the money that is already allocated to Ohio so that we could do the repair and we pay that back when we either reach an agreement with the insurance company or the trucking company to repay that money back.” Following shutting down the affected section of highway and dealing with the fire, ODOT staff quickly put together the process to
Shelly & Sands photo
Early in the morning of July 1, a fire caused by a tanker truck carrying ethanol exploded under a bridge on Interstate 70 on the outerbelt going around Columbus, Ohio.
“It took us about two minutes to decide that the concrete span had to be replaced, but it took a little more time to determine what to do with the columns and other parts.” Tim Keller ODOT
prepare a contract for bids. The tender was made on the day of the fire and of the four companies that submitted, S&S was chosen on July 2, with the 30-day completion
period beginning on July 3. “They did an excellent job in getting that bridge re-opened in 21 days,” said Bruning. “It also included the ramp below the
bridge because when the tanker caught fire, it damaged the concrete pavement.” S&S also was awarded a cost plus contract for the building of a
crossover on I-70. “We took the eastbound I-70, crossed it over to the westbound side and had bi-directional traffic going to get around the incident,” said Bruning. “Due to the incident, there was no time to bid so we just said ‘do it and bill us.’” The crossover work, when completed, cost ODOT $653,000. Tim Keller, ODOT’s bridge engineer, brought on for the emergency work, had not seen such damage before. “It took us about two minutes to decide that the concrete span had to be replaced,” he said, “but it took a little more time to determine what to do with the columns and other parts. We had about an hour before we asked the general contractors to show up on site to discuss the scope of service.” Cooperation was essential to repairing the damage quickly and properly, and the first meeting with S&S occurred 15 minutes after the contract was awarded “We wanted the contractor to be successful,” said Keller, “and we put a very aggressive schedule together and wanted it to be completed as soon as possible. I had given their project manager my cell phone number and he called me every day for the first week. We agreed on a general repair strategy by 6 p.m. Shelly & Sands had a couple of really good ideas that we accepted.” The original scope for the work called for the removal of two columns, which would have required temporary support for the bridge as one of its spans was being retained, but the contractor said ‘rather than remove the columns, why not encapsulate them?’ see BRIDGE page 2