<%BANNER%>

The Low Impact Alternatives to Bridge/Pathway Construction

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0042282/00001

Material Information

Title: The Low Impact Alternatives to Bridge/Pathway Construction
Physical Description: 1 online resource (71 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Coan, Matthew
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2010

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: bridge, down, impact, low, pathway, top
Building Construction -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Building Construction thesis, M.S.B.C.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: This study examines the impacts, positive and negative, that various materials and installation processes have on the environment when applied to pathway and bridge construction. The literature review, covers traditional materials used in for these types of projects. Materials reviewed include concrete, pervious concrete, steel, wood, asphalt, crushed stone, mulch, and brick pavers. Traditional construction techniques are described and evaluated for their low impact performance. Low impact is defined in this study as minimal area surrounding the construction work being impacted by both square footage and weight equipment and material needed to build the pathway. With regard to bridge construction top down construction technique is compared to traditional pedestrian bridge construction techniques. The top down method has less of an environmental impact on the underlying and surrounding area than that of traditional methods. The data in the literature review was obtained through various sources determining the make-up of each material and the cost and materials needed to have it installed. Overall, the study will bring further insight to evaluating construction methods based on a low impact performance matrix.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Matthew Coan.
Thesis: Thesis (M.S.B.C.)--University of Florida, 2010.
Local: Adviser: Sullivan, James.
Local: Co-adviser: Issa, R. Raymond.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2010
System ID: UFE0042282:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0042282/00001

Material Information

Title: The Low Impact Alternatives to Bridge/Pathway Construction
Physical Description: 1 online resource (71 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Coan, Matthew
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2010

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: bridge, down, impact, low, pathway, top
Building Construction -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Building Construction thesis, M.S.B.C.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: This study examines the impacts, positive and negative, that various materials and installation processes have on the environment when applied to pathway and bridge construction. The literature review, covers traditional materials used in for these types of projects. Materials reviewed include concrete, pervious concrete, steel, wood, asphalt, crushed stone, mulch, and brick pavers. Traditional construction techniques are described and evaluated for their low impact performance. Low impact is defined in this study as minimal area surrounding the construction work being impacted by both square footage and weight equipment and material needed to build the pathway. With regard to bridge construction top down construction technique is compared to traditional pedestrian bridge construction techniques. The top down method has less of an environmental impact on the underlying and surrounding area than that of traditional methods. The data in the literature review was obtained through various sources determining the make-up of each material and the cost and materials needed to have it installed. Overall, the study will bring further insight to evaluating construction methods based on a low impact performance matrix.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Matthew Coan.
Thesis: Thesis (M.S.B.C.)--University of Florida, 2010.
Local: Adviser: Sullivan, James.
Local: Co-adviser: Issa, R. Raymond.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2010
System ID: UFE0042282:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text





THE LOW IMPACT ALTERNATIVES TO BRIDGE/PATHWAY CONSTRUCTION


By

MATTHEW R. COAN
















A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF SCIENCE OF BUILDING CONSTRUCTION

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

2010

































2010 Matthew R. Coan
































To my parents who will always be the reason I can face any challenge that I am
presented with for their never-ending support and for always believing in me. And also
to the rest of my family for all of the support that they showed and for being the people
that I hope to grow up to be some day.









ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I thank Dr. Sullivan for his patients and ongoing support while working with me on

this paper. I would like to thank Dr. Issa, Dr. Ries, and Dr. Chini for their help and

support on this paper as well as all of the faculty and staff at the Rinker School of

Building Construction for their education and insight into the wonderful field of building

construction. I would like to thank Dottie Beaupied for making sure I was always where I

needed to be to do my best. Lastly, I would like to that Mr. Mallet as well as Mr. Dodson

for taking the time to answer questions and provide insight into the part of this study that

was done on top down construction.









TABLE OF CONTENTS

paqe

A C KNOW LEDG M ENTS ................................... ....... ......................................... 4

LIST OF TABLES .............. ........................ ............. 7

LIS T O F F IG U R E S .................................................................. 8

ABSTRACT .............. .......... .......... ............. 9

CHAPTER

1 INTRODUCTION ............... .......... .......... ......... 10

Introduction and Overview .............. .......................... 10
Importance of Topic .......... ....... .......... ........ ............... 10
Report Focus............................................. ............... 11
O u tlin e ............................................................................................... 1 2
Summary ........ ...... .......... .............................. 12

2 APPLIED MATERIAL, THEIR COSTS, AND METHODS OF INSTALLATION....... 14

Growth in the State of Florida ............................................ .......... 14
W hat Is Sustainable Construction? .................................................. .......... 16
Sustainable Form s of C construction ................................................................ .. 16
Traditional Bridge and W alkway Construction .................................................... 17
Permitting Solutions .............. .. ......................... ....... .......... 18
Projects in jurisdiction that do not require a permit ........ ................ 18
Minimum Impact Projects (Trails Notification Form) ................... 18
M inor Im pact Projects (Perm it) .................................................... ....... .. 19
M ajor Im pact Projects.............................. ............... 19
Pathway Materials to be Considered .............................. 20
Concrete......................................... ............... 20
Pervious Concrete ...... .............. ................................................ 21
A spha lt ................ ................................................................. ................ 23
Mulch Pathway ............................. ............................ 24
C rushed Stone ..... ............................................ .............................. 25
Stone Pavers .............................................................. .... ..... ...... ................... 26
Materials and Techniques for Bridge Construction ..................... ...... ......... 26
Concrete Bridge ............................. ......... ................... 26
Steel Bridge............................................ ............... 28
W ood Bridge.................................. ........... ......... 29
Construction in W etland Areas .................................................... ....... .. 30
Top Down Construction ......... ....................... ............ ....... 31
Life Cycle Costs ............... ......... .................................... ............... 32









3 METHODOLOGY AND PLACEMENT IMPACTS OF MATERIALS ................... 37

O v e rv ie w ........................................................... ............................................ 3 7
Placement by Material and Environmental Impacts....................... ................. 37
P athw ays ............. .. ... ... ........................................................... 3 7
Concrete and Pervious Concrete .................. ......................... .............. 37
Asphalt ....... .. .. ................... ...................... 39
M ulch and Crushed Stone ......... ........................................ ................... 40
Brick Pavers ... ............. ......... ......... ......................... 41
Bridges........................................ ............... 41
Concrete Bridge ........................................ ........ .................. 42
Steel Bridge............................................ ............... 42
W oo d B rid g e ............................. ........................ 4 3
Application of the Top Down Method of Installation.................... ...... ............ 43
S u m m a ry ........... ..... .. ............................................................................ ... 4 4
Footprint Im pact Values..................... ....................... .................... 44
Life Cycle Cost (LC C ) Values.............................. .............................. ..... 45
Life-Cycle Im pact Ranking M odel ........... .... ..... .............................. ............... 45

4 C A S E S T U D IE S ............. .. ................ ......................................... ............ 48

North Carolina Department Of Transportation Bridge Project on US 17................. 48
JD James Nature Bridges ............... .... ........................ 49

5 INTERVIEWS ................ ......... .................. 51

Results ................ ...... ............ ............ ................... 52
S u m m a ry .............. ..... ............ ................. ............................................... 5 6

6 RESULTS AND ANALYSIS ............... ..... ....................... 58

P a th w a y s .............. ..... ............ ................. ............................................... 5 8
B rid g e s............................... .............. ...... 5 9
S u m m a ry .............. ..... ............ ................. ............................................... 6 0

APPENDIX: MARK SMALLER AND RON DODSON RESUME B ............................... 63

LIST OF REFERENCES ........................ .......... ......... 68

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ..... ........... ........ ........ ......... 71










6









LIST OF TABLES

Table page

2-1 Increase of material prices from the year 2003 to the year 2007..................... 36

3-1 Footprint and W eight/Yard Results.................. ............ .................. ............... 44

3.2 Footprint and W eight/Yard Result............... .................................. ............... 45

3-3 Life Cycle Costs for Pathway Materials (20 Years)...................................... 47

6-1 LCC and Footprint Ranking for Pathway Materials.................... ........... 58

6-2 Final R ankings............................................. ....... .............. 59

6-3 First Costs and Footprint Impact for Bridge Materials................ .............. 59

6-4 Final R ankings............................................. ....... .............. 60









LIST OF FIGURES


Figure page

2-1 Yearly construction growth over the past 16 years....... ..... ...................... 35

2-2 Total number of bridges built and their type in the year 1955, 1975, and 1995.. 35

2-3 Number of structurally deficient bridges built from 1950-1998.......................... 36









Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in Building Construction

THE LOW IMPACT ALTERNATIVES TO BRIDGE/PATHWAY CONSTRUCTION

By

Matthew R. Coan

August 2010

Chair: Jim Sullivan
Co-chair: Raymond Issa
Major: Building Construction

This study examines the impacts, positive and negative, that various materials and

installation processes have on the environment when applied to pathway and bridge

construction. The literature review, covers traditional materials used in for these types

of projects. Materials reviewed include concrete, pervious concrete, steel, wood,

asphalt, crushed stone, mulch, and brick pavers. Traditional construction techniques are

described and evaluated for their low impact performance. Low impact is defined in this

study as minimal area surrounding the construction work being impacted by both square

footage and weight equipment and material needed to build the pathway. With regard

to bridge construction top down construction technique is compared to traditional

pedestrian bridge construction techniques. The top down method has less of an

environmental impact on the underlying and surrounding area than that of traditional

methods. The data in the literature review was obtained through various sources

determining the make-up of each material and the cost and materials needed to have it

installed. Overall, the study will bring further insight to evaluating construction methods

based on a low impact performance matrix.









CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

Introduction and Overview

Every year the population on this planet grows. And with that growing number of

people comes a growing demand for places that these people can live, work, and

gather. It is also found every year that the supplies that this planet has to offer are not

limitless and that non-renewable materials will most likely run out at some point. These

resources include potable water, fuel, and also some of the building materials that we

take for granted everyday. Because of this, the market for sustainable construction in

the most recent years has increased and may soon become the industry standard on

many projects. Likewise construction activity also negatively impacts the environment.

This report examines environmentally sensitive alternatives to pedestrian bridge

and pathway construction. Through a review of traditional materials and placement

methods, the study developed a systematic way to evaluate these alternatives from a

long term maintenance perspective as well as an immediate construction activity

perspective.

The study also brought to light advancements in technology that can be applied to

materials and their placement so that their effect on the environment, before, during and

after installation will have as minimal an impact on the environment as possible. A rating

method for which materials should be used was developed based on design or owner

constraints.

Importance of Topic

As stated above, the population on this planet continues to grow, and with this

growth comes a greater need for transportation and recreational areas for these people









to enjoy. As of 2010, the state of Florida has more golf courses that any other state in

the United States, totaling more than 1,250. (StateofFlorida.com 2010) And with the

average golf course length being 7100 yards, there is a total of almost 9 million yards of

pathways that are already built. Florida also ranks 24th in the US for the total number of

bridges already built totaling 11,451 as of 2010. (statemaster.com 2010) Up to this

point, there has been no way to quantify the environmental impacts that these pathways

and bridges have had, and also how the process of installing them has impacted the

environment.

The state of Florida has 161 state parks that thousands of people visit each day.

(FloridaStateParks.org 2010) These parks are located in almost every part of the state

and involve every activity from camping to visiting the beach. It is important to keep and

maintain these parks in the condition were originally in, and with so many people using

them everyday bridges and pathways are used a great deal. Overtime more pathways

and bridges will need to be installed and existing ones will need to be repaired. Because

the number of bridges/pathways is so large the smallest reduction in the environmental

impact that the construction of these projects has can make a significant difference.

Report Focus

The following questions were addressed:

* Q1: Which material and associated installation techniques have a lesser
comparative environmental impact?

* Q2: How can these products be evaluated in order to determine the effect that
they have on the underlying and surrounding area before, during, and after they
are built?

* Q3: What is the life-cycle costs (LCC) associated with the materials selected for
pathways?









This study addressed impacts such as the amount of area that has to be disturbed

during construction, how the material will react to natural occurrences such as rain and

how it will affect runoff, and also the costs to purchase these materials and to have

them installed. It seems that the number of pathways and bridges that will be needed in

the future in the state of Florida will continue to grow, by making only a small impact to

the environmental consequences that these materials and their installation has, it will

create a huge difference.

Outline

This report contains six chapters. Following the introduction chapter, there will be the

literature review, which will address the types of material, their costs, and the equipment

that is needed to install them. Top down for bridges are also discussed. The

methodology chapter outlines how these materials are installed and their corresponding

construction footprint. Chapter 4 provides examples of case studies of bridges that have

already been completed using these new methods and what their effect has been up to

this point. Chapter 5 contains interviews that were conducted with experts in the field of

top down construction and its environmental impacts, and finally chapter 6 will be the

results and conclusions of this study.

Summary

The focus of this report is to demonstrate in a systematic way the tradeoffs and

benefits of low impact construction techniques in the fields of pathway and pedestrian

bridge construction. Pedestrian bridges and pathways will continue to be part of the

landscape of Florida. As such the smallest improvement can create an environmental

benefit. These improvements will not only benefit the state of Florida, but the rest of the

country and the world as well. The amount of space and resources that is available









today will continue to decrease and so will the quality of the space that is already in use

unless changes are made. Sustainable construction will lead the way in order to

preserve what we already have and it will also make sure that projects in the future will

keep and maintain the level of quality that we are already presented with.









CHAPTER 2
APPLIED MATERIAL, THEIR COSTS, AND METHODS OF INSTALLATION

Growth in the State of Florida

The state of Florida has the 4th largest population of all the states in the U.S.

behind California, Texas and New York. (StateofFlorida.com 2010) The population in

Florida increased by 16% from 2000 to 2009, compared to the national average of the

entire U.S increasing only 9% (U.S. Census Bureau 2009). Also, since 1991 the rate of

construction growth in Florida has been double that of the rest of the country (Lee

2007). Figure 2-1 breaks down the years from 1991 up to 2006 and how the

construction rate has increased every year except 2006.

Materials and techniques for pathways and pedestrian bridges are similar to those

used in more structurally sound transportation elements such as sidewalks, roads, and

transportation bridges. Although there has been a reduction recently in construction

growth in Florida the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) sees this as only

temporary and that prices will continue to increase along with the population (Lee 2007).

The FDOT has also taken steps to address this problem and to try to find solutions and

alternatives to the increase in prices and population that they anticipate, all of which are

outlined below:

* Convening a Construction Cost Summit In February 2006, FDOT convened a
summit in Orlando that bought together a variety of key partners and stakeholders
who began to address the challenges associated with delivering the program in
light of increasing construction costs;

* Conducting Regular Reviews of Material Prices and Construction Cost Indexes -
FDOT routinely calculates weighted average unit prices for a number of the more
common material types, as shown in Table 1. In addition, there are a variety of
national cost indexes that FDOT is tracking;

* Soliciting input on Cost Trends from Industry In cooperation with the Florida
Transportation Builders Association a survey was conducted of a number of









contractors and material suppliers that serve the highway construction market in
Florida;

* Reviewing Florida's Construction Market Characteristics, History and Performing
Comparison with Peer States The review included value of construction put in
place by different market segments, construction employment and numbers of
businesses and comparisons to California, Georgia and Texas, as well as the U.S.
as a whole;

* Conducting a Review of Estimating Procedures and Work Program Integration -
FDOT today is a decentralized organization, which means that its seven district
offices have considerable autonomy with respect to their operations. Recent
increases in cost have heightened interest in FDOT's estimating techniques and
have also resulted in a review of the estimating process in each district. This
review resulted in the identification of a number of improved practices that FDOT
is planning to implement, as well as increasing the consistency of the estimating
process overall, and improving the way that FDOT accounts for inflation in order to
easily determine exactly what dollar amount has been set aside for inflation (in
progress);

* Performing a Strategic Aggregate Study Recognizing the importance of
aggregate to highway construction, FDOT has enlisted a consultant to document
the importance of aggregate materials and to evaluate ways to insure the quantity
and quality of materials moving forward (in progress);

* Investigating Material Supply and Consumption Statistics In addition to the
aggregate study, and in response to recent shortages of other materials, FDOT is
attempting to develop a better understanding of the supply and demand issues
related to materials commonly used in highway construction including asphalt,
cement and ready-mixed concrete, and steel products (in progress);

* Maintaining a Statewide Construction Database In an effort to better understand
the relative magnitude and timing of construction projects of other major
purchasers in Florida, FDOT has implemented a web-based system that allows
other organizations to enter and maintain their plans for construction activity.
FDOT already has and will regularly solicit input from several hundred purchasers
of construction services (ongoing);

* Tracking Outstanding Contract Values and Existing Backlog of FDOT Contractors
FDOT has begun to track relative workloads and backlogs of its contractors so
that it might better gauge overall capacity and utilization trends might be gauged
more accurately.

* Identifying and Reporting on a Series of Construction Leading Indicators A
fundamental goal of FDOT's construction cost initiatives is the monthly publication
of a 'Morningstar' like report for FDOT executives that provides insight into the
current state and direction of Florida's construction market.









What Is Sustainable Construction?

Many things can be labeled sustainable and many people demand that these

products are used on their projects. Sustainability is something that is not easily defined

in the construction realm. The main focus of the research is to define both sustainable

materials and sustainable practices that can be applied to pathways and bridges.

Pathways and pedestrian bridges, for the purposes of this study, include golf courses,

nature walkways, raised pedestrian bridges, and their surrounding areas. As the

population continues to grow, these types of access elements will only become more

and more in demand.

Sustainable construction also focuses on the life cycle costing (LCC) of material.

This process evaluates the initial cost as well as maintenance of materials selected for

construction. By applying LCC to a material a truer long-term material value can be

generated that will allow it to be compared to other materials. This value is what owners

and designers will use when choosing how important a portion of the low impact score

for a material is on their project.


Sustainable Forms of Construction

The research focuses on the practices applied to bridge and pathway construction

and how the sustainability values of these new construction methods can be obtained.

The main focus of this review will be on golf courses pathways and pedestrian bridges.

Many new techniques and methods for the construction of the structures are being

applied today, but it is difficult to determine if they work and how effective these

techniques are. It is also important to know if the new methods are any better than the

older traditional ways and if the added costs are realized, do these features save money









in the long run. Table 2-1 shows how the price of these materials has increased from

the year 2003 to the year 2007.

Traditional Bridge and Walkway Construction

Almost every piece of developed land needs to have a place for people to walk to

and from where they are to where they need to go. Sometimes this involves paving a

simple trail or pathway that people can walk on and sometimes a small-scale pedestrian

bridge is needed as well. In some cases access involves a large-scale bridge or

pathway that is capable of transporting thousands of people. However, with the

construction of these areas many consequences can take place during the build

process that can have a negative environmental impact.

The research looks into some of the options for pathway construction. At first, one

would think that the best pathways would be a straight line from where people are

located to where they would like to go. But different factors should be considered even

before construction begins. A pathway placement may be governed by many design

constraints. These constraints include maximizing land value, meeting required access

codes, and limiting damage to environmentally sensitive areas. A pathway should be

placed in an area that requires minimal maintenance and post-construction upkeep.

One of the main ways to keep maintenance at a minimum is to build a pathway while

causing the least amount of transformation possible to the natural surrounding soil. The

main cause of this transformation will most likely be from the equipment used to put he

trail or bridge in place. After the job is done one might not be able to see how the

equipment used in the building process has caused damage to the underlying or

surrounding soil and sometimes the damage is immediately noticeable and potentially

show itself years after construction is complete. One of the most significant forms of









damage that can be noticed is in the form of erosion after the job is completed, resulting

in the loss of most, if not all, of the surrounding soil. Another problem for bridge

construction is the accumulation of sediment that is unable to flow freely due to the

construction of the pathway. The research will look into the requirements already being

implemented, as well as those that are needed in order to create and build a pathway or

bridge.

Permitting Solutions

Before construction of a path or pedestrian bridge is done it needs to be classified

as a specific type of project. Following is a list of projects and what places them into

their respected classifications. (State of New Hampshire Department of resources and

Economic Development 1994)

Projects in jurisdiction that do not require a permit

* The mowing or cutting of vegetation in a wet meadow, swamp, or forested
wetland, provided that roots of the vegetation are not disturbed, and the ground is
frozen or sufficiently dry to avoid making ruts, and the area is stabilized once
thawed and the project is not located in a bog or adjacent to a prime wetland.

* Installation of a culvert in an area where waters flow during runoff to such a limited
extent as not to create a defined, scoured channel nor maintain wetlands
vegetation or wetlands soils.

Minimum Impact Projects (Trails Notification Form)

* Projects that involve impacts of less than 3,000 square feet in swamps or wet
meadows that are not in or adjacent to municipality-designated prime wetlands.

* Installation of a bridge provided that no work is done in the water or wetland, fill
does not exceed 3,000 square feet on the banks or bed of a river, and is not
located in bogs and marshes or adjacent to or in prime wetlands.

* Maintenance dredging of nontidal drainage ditches and plugged culverts within the
bounds of a constructed project.

* Projects that disturb less than 50 linear feet of a seasonal stream during periods of
non-flow.









* Repair in-kind of culverts, bridges, riprap slopes, and retaining walls.

Minor Impact Projects (Permit)

* Projects involving less than 20,000 square feet of alteration in the aggregate in
nontidal wetlands, nontidal surface waters, or banks adjacent to nontidal surface
waters.

* Projects that disturb less than 200 linear feet of a stream, riverbanks, or channel.

* Construction of boardwalks in a marsh or swamp.

* Projects located in jurisdiction that do not meet the definition of minimum or major.

Major Impact Projects

* Projects in or adjacent to municipality-designated prime wetlands, sand dunes,
tidal wetlands, upland tidal buffer zones, or bogs.

* Projects within 100 linear feet of the highest observable tide line that alter any
bank, flat, wetland, surface water, or undeveloped upland tidal buffer zone.

* Projects that involve alteration of nontidal wetlands, nontidal surface waters, and
banks adjacent to nontidal surface waters in excess of 20,000 square feet in the
aggregate.

* Projects that disturb more than 200 linear feet of an intermittent or perennial
stream, river, lake, or pond.

* Projects in a wetland that has been identified by the Natural Heritage Bureau
(DRED) as an exemplary natural community, or that has documented occurrence
of state or federally listed Endangered or Threatened species.

* Projects classified as major require a field inspection by DES Wetlands staff.
Projects that propose to impact areas adjacent to or in prime wetlands require a
public hearing.

These classifications define what type of practice needs to be implemented before,

during, and after the construction process. But these classifications do not include new

sustainable forms of construction. Some sustainable practices may reduce the damage

that is done. This research looks into some of these methods and the benefits of more

sustainable practices and drawbacks of traditional techniques of each application. The

first step is to define the materials that are most widely used in these applications.









Pathway Materials to be Considered


Concrete

Concrete is the most widely used sidewalk material in the state of Florida. It is

used in almost every type and size of architectural and engineering structure and is

used in everything from building super structures to drainage swales (Simmons, 2007).

Concrete can be stronger and more durable than the other materials that that are used

to build pathways and it can also be colored in any way that is desired. One of the

drawbacks is that concrete needs time to cure, and if this process is not done correctly

the desired result and strength will be lost. But once it is in place and cured, the owner

does not have to worry about any maintenance or upkeep for many years. Figure 2-2

shows how the number of concrete bridges that has been built has increased over time,

while the number of steel and wooden bridges has decreased. Concrete is an old

material, but the technology associated with it continues to evolve (Simmons, 2007).

Because concrete is used in so many applications, the builder needs to determine what

type of concrete will be needed for what is being built. The term "concrete of suitable

quality" encompasses the following criteria (Simmons 2007):

* Strength to carry superimposed loads
* Impervious to prevent water penetration
* Durability to resist wear and weather
* Workability to ensure proper handling, placing, finishing, and curing

One of the drawbacks of a concrete pathway is that it can be damaged by the

vegetation and trees that surround it. Tree roots can grow over time and cause damage

to the concrete pathway, which would require the concrete to be pulled up, the root cut

and then the concrete replaced and cured again. This brings in a serious drawback to

the sustainable quality that concrete has, as it will cause a change in the natural growth









of the trees and plants in the immediate area. Another drawback is that water does not

permeate through traditional concrete, which can cause standing water in the

surrounding area and also change the overall drainage properties of the surrounding

area. Overall, the benefits of concrete are its strength and durability and also the low

relative costs to purchase and install concrete. Figure 2-3 illustrates how the durability

of concrete bridges has surpassed that of steel and wood over time. If properly

designed and placed almost anything can be driven over concrete without causing it any

damage. Additionally concrete can be painted any color to add to the visibility of the

path. However, concrete does take a while to cure and its installation process can

cause a great deal of damage to the surrounding area.

Costs: In order to place a 3,000 PSI 2-1/2" thick concrete pathway you will need:

* 1 labor foreman whose hourly cost is $33.60 and daily costs is $268.80
* 4 laborers at an hourly costs of $31.60 and daily cost of $1011.20
* 1 light equipment operator at an hourly rate of $39.05 and daily rate of $312.40
* 5-ton tandem roller at the daily rate of $137.80
* Cost of materials: $7.65 per S.Y. (square yards)
* Maximum daily output: 660 S.Y. (Waier, 2009, p 596)

Pervious Concrete

Pervious Concrete is a good alternative to the use of regular concrete. According

to an author of the website www.perviousconcrete.org, "Pervious concrete is a unique

and effective means to address important environmental issues and support green,

sustainable growth. By capturing storm water and allowing it to seep into the ground,

porous concrete is instrumental in recharging groundwater, reducing storm water runoff,

and meeting U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) storm water regulations. In

fact, the use of pervious concrete is among the Best Management Practices (BMPs)

recommended by the EPA, and by other agencies and geotechnical engineers across









the country for the management of stormwater runoff on a regional and local basis. This

pavement technology creates more efficient land use by eliminating the need for

retention ponds, swales, and other stormwater management devices. In doing so,

pervious concrete has the ability to lower overall project costs on a first-cost

basis."(Perviouspavment.org, 2010) According to the U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, about 90 percent of surface pollutants are carried by the first 1-1/2 inch of

rainfall. Storm water drains don't typically channel this polluted runoff to treatment

facilities, but instead convey it directly into local water bodies. This can increase algae

content, harm aquatic life, and require expensive treatments to make the water

potable.(6) Pervious concrete can be extremely beneficial for pathways that are

installed on golf courses, as many chemicals are used on a daily basis. Some other

benefits include:

* Reduction in the amount of untreated runoff discharging into

* Storm sewers

* Direct recharge of groundwater to maintain aquifer levels

* Channeling of more water to tree roots and landscaping, so there is less

* Need for irrigation

* Mitigation of pollutants that can contaminate watersheds and harm sensitive
ecosystems

* Elimination of hydrocarbon pollution from asphalt pavements and
sealers(ConcreteNetwork.com, 2010)

Pervious concrete uses the same materials as conventional concrete, with the

exceptions that the fine aggregate typically is removed entirely, and the grading size

distribution of the coarse aggregate is kept smaller, allowing for relatively little particle

packing. This formula provides for useful hardening properties, but also results in a









composition that requires different considerations in mixing, placing, compaction, and

curing. The mixture proportions are somewhat less forgiving than conventional concrete

mixtures and stricture controls are required with the watching of all of the ingredients are

necessary to provide the desired results. (Perviouspavment.org, 2010)

A Study at Washington State University by Jon Thomle, Will Goede, and Liv

Haselbach found that the costs of pervious concrete is relatively close to that of regular

concrete at $2-$6 per square feet.(Thomle & Goede & Haselback, 2010). The main

difference between the two types of concrete is that pervious is slightly less strong than

traditional concrete and the placing and curing process for it is more complicated and

leaves less room for error.

Asphalt

The United States has more than 2 million miles of paved roads and highways,

and 94 percent of those are surfaced with asphalt. The United States has around 4,000

asphalt plants, at least one in every congressional district. Each year, these plants

produce 500 to 550 million tons of asphalt pavement material that is worth in excess of

$30 billion. Asphalt pavement material is a precisely engineered product composed of

about 95 percent stone, sand, and gravel by weight, and about 5 percent asphalt

cement, which is a petroleum product. Asphalt cement acts as the glue to hold the

pavement together.(National Asphalt Pavement Association, 2010)

Asphalt can be a cheaper and more beneficial alternative to concrete depending

on the intended use of the pathway. The cost for a 10 feet wide concrete trail is

approximately $35 per linear foot versus $20 per linear foot for a comparable asphalt

path. These numbers are a 30% to 60% savings compared to using asphalt(Peterson,

2007). The City of Durango, CO reports that asphalt provides a softer surface and is









preferred by joggers and walkers.(Peterson, 2007) The maintenance and upkeep of

asphalt can also be more beneficial than that of concrete. When concrete requires

maintenance it is very costly, whether the maintenance requires slab replacement or

joint grinding. Maintenance of an asphalt trail can frequently be done by agency

employees at a reduced cost. (Peterson, 2007) Asphalt can also be designed and

placed in many of the same ways as concrete. For example, a porous asphalt is

available that has the same properties as pervious concrete. For this paper the research

looks into the costs of placing regular asphalt for the use of a path or walkway.

Costs: In order to place a 2" thick asphalt pathway you will need

* 1 labor foreman whose hourly cost is $33.60 and daily costs is $268.80
* 4 laborers at an hourly costs of $31.60 and daily cost of $1011.20
* 1 light equipment operator at an hourly rate of $39.05 and daily rate of $312.40
* 5-ton tandem roller at the daily rate of $137.80
* Cost of materials: $6.05 per square yards.
* Maximum daily output: 720 square yards (Waier, 2009, pg 596)

The crew needed is exactly the same as what is needed to place regular concrete.

The difference is in the cost of materials, with the material costs for asphalt at 21% less

than that of concrete and the daily output for asphalt at 8% greater.

Mulch Pathway

All factors considered, mulch is probably the most environmentally friendly

material to choose when building a pathway. The definition of mulch reads: "a covering,

as of straw, compost, or plastic sheeting, spread on the ground around plants to prevent

excessive evaporation or erosion, enrich the soil, inhibit weed growth, etc."

(Dictionary.com, 2010) Although mulch is usually used in garden beds and landscape

areas, it can be used to create a useful path that is both functional and pleasing to the

eye. Mulch comes in many different colors and is easy to place. The main drawback









and probably the reason mulch is not useful in large-scale pathways is that it requires a

great deal of upkeep. Any heavy rainfall can wash away large amounts of this material

and, in order to keep up its image and its functionality, it needs to be replaced

immediately. Placing mulch is relatively easy and does not require any heavy equipment

or a lot of manpower.

Costs: In order to place a 3" thick mulch pathway:

* 4 labors at an hourly cost of $31.60 and a daily cost of $1011.20
* 1 equipment operator at an hourly cost of $39.05 and a daily cost of $312.40
* 1 skid steer loader at a daily cost of $149.20
* Cost of material: $320 per 100 square feet
* Maximum daily output: 1320 per 100 square feet (Waier, 2009, pg 611)

Crushed Stone

Crushed stone provides many of the main benefits and drawbacks that a mulch

pathway does. Crushed stone allows for water to permeate and allows the trees and

vegetation to grow freely around it. It can be placed on almost any flat terrain and it

allows for easy installation of curves and turns. Crushed stone can come in any color

and also any size of rock can be used as well. Installation is easy and a Better Homes

and Gardens article lists the only needed materials as follows:

* 6x24 inch log sections
* Weed barrier: PVC sheeting
* Coarse sand
* Crushed Stone
* Gravel for setting log section (Better Homes and Gardens, 2010)

As with mulch, any significant rain storm can wash away some of the stones and

the traffic that travels over it can also remove stones from the path.

Costs: In order to place 1" thick white marble crushed stone

* 2 laborers at the hourly rate of $30.60 and a daily rate of $244.80
* Cost of material: $0.22 per square foot









* Maximum daily output: 1700 square feet (Waier, 2009, pg 596)

Stone Pavers

Stone or brick pavers offer the stability of a fixed material and eliminate the

maintenance that is required with mulch and crushed stone pathways. The bricks are

cemented into place and can be replaced individually if needed. Brick pavers come in

many sizes, shapes, and colors and can be mix and matched anyway that the owner

pleases. One of the main drawbacks to brick pavers is that there are extremely heavy in

comparison to the other materials and they are also not as cost effective as the other

materials.

Costs: In order to place 2" thick brick pavers:

* 1 brick layer at an hourly costs of $40.50 and a daily cost of $324.00
* 1 brick layer helper at an hourly cost of $32.15 and an daily cost of $257.20
* Cost of material: $12.60 per square foot
* Daily output: 83 square feet (Waier, 2009, pg 600)

Materials and Techniques for Bridge Construction

Concrete Bridge

The National Concrete Bridge Council states that there are over 475,000 bridges

in the U.S. today, and of those the ones made of concrete outperform bridges made of

other materials by a wide margin. (National Concrete Bridge Council, 2010) The table

below shows that more concrete bridges are built over time than any other type of

bridge and also shows how they perform against other bridges.

This study will look at the advantages and disadvantages that small-scale concrete

bridges have to offer. The National Concrete Bridge Council lists 4 main reasons to

choose concrete over other materials such as wood and steel:

* Cost-savings From reduced initial construction costs to lower maintenance costs,
structures built with concrete are economical.









* Durability Bridges built with high performance concrete (HPC) can have a service
life of 100 years. They easily withstand extreme temperature changes and
corrosive chemicals in a variety of conditions.

* Competitiveness The value of concrete is repeatedly recognized in competitive
bidding situations.

* Aesthetics Dynamic, graceful, long-span bridges often become symbols of a
city's hope for the future, become tourist attractions, and, ultimately, encourage
economic development.(National Concrete Bridge Council, 2010)

The above benefits are the reasons why concrete is chosen as often as it is. Concrete

gives owners, engineers, and contractors a lot more options to work with, varying from

to high strength to creating a unique look to any project.

One of the main disadvantages to concrete is that it does not perform well under

tensile stress. Bridges experience different forces over time and if a great deal of tensile

stress is put onto a concrete bridge it will fail. Concrete also requires the use of other

materials such as rebar to compensate for some of its strength limitations, which can

greatly increase the costs. Concrete also has to be placed and cured in ideal conditions;

otherwise it will not reach its desired strength and could fail under normal stress. Once

concrete is cracked or deformed it cannot return to its original shape or strength

capabilities.

Costs: In order to build a 120' span, 8' wide precast concrete pedestrian bridge

* 1 Structural steel foreman at the hourly rate of $46.70

* 4 structural steel workers at the hourly rate of $44.70 and the daily rate of
$1430.40

* 1 equipment operator (crane) at the hourly rate of $42.55 and the daily rate of
$340.40

* 1 equipment operator (oiler) at the hourly rate of $36.80 and the daily rate of
$294.40

* 1 lattice boom crane daily rate of $1741.00









* Costs of material: $80.50 per square feet

* Daily output: 160 square feet (Waier, 2009, pg 609)

Steel Bridge

Steel has been used in the construction of bridges for many years, as it offers

some advantages over concrete and wood. Steel has a higher tensile strength than

wood and concrete, which is important considering the forces that a bridge will

experience over time. Steel is also produced in a workshop where ideal conditions can

be created to ensure the proper design and strength requirements. Steel can also be

constructed in a smaller space than what is needed for concrete. There is no need for

pumps and trucks in the construction area and the steel that is waiting to be used can

be stored off-site and out of the way. Steel can also bend and deform to a certain extent

and be returned to its original shape and strength capabilities.

Some of the disadvantages of steel are that it does not lessen noise or vibration as

well as concrete and wood does. What is traveling over the bridge will determine

whether or not this would be a factor. Steel also is not always readily available. As

stated before, it is produced in a workshop and there are only so many people and

shops that can fabricate steel at any given time, compared with wood and concrete that

is usually readily available and sometimes produced on-site. One of steel's main

drawbacks is that it can rust and this can cause a huge deficit in its strength capabilities.

Costs: In order to build a 120' span, 8' wide, 40' span steel bridge

* 1 Structural steel foreman at the hourly rate of $46.70 and the daily rate of
$373.60

* 4 structural steel workers at the hourly rate of $44.70 and the daily rate of
$1430.40









* 1 equipment operator (crane) at the hourly rate of $42.55 and the daily rate of
$340.40

* 1 equipment operator (oiler) at the hourly rate of $36.80 and the daily rate of
$294.40

* 1 lattice boom crane daily rate of $1741.00

* Costs of material: $167.00 per square feet.

* Daily output: 365 square feet.(Waier, 2009, pg 609)

Wood Bridge

Of the bridges in the United States with spans of longer than 20 feet,

approximately 12 percent of them are made of timber. In the USDA Forest Service

approximately 7,500 timber bridges are in use and more are built each year. The

railroads have more than 1,500 miles of timber bridges and trestles in service. More

than 1,000 Timber vehicular bridges 90 years old or older are still in service throughout

the U.S. (22) One of wood's main advantages over concrete and steel is its strength to

weight ratio. Wood is considered to be very light and can hold and support a great deal

of weight if placed properly. With the advancement of technology and the ways that

wood is treated, wood can last a very long time. Another advantage of wood is that its

initial costs, as well as life cycle costs, are comparable with that of concrete and steel.

Over time, the price of concrete and steel has risen dramatically and the price of wood

has remained relatively stable. (22)

Some of the disadvantages of wood are that it takes a lot more material to reach

the strength capabilities of steel and concrete; wood would not be ideal for a large

spanning bridge that has to carry a great deal of weight. And even with the

advancement of chemical treatments and other additives that can be put into wood, it is









still susceptible to fire. Once wood has been ignited it will burn until it is put out or there

is no more fuel to burn, resulting in complete destruction of the project.

Costs: In order to build a 130' span wood bridge

* 1 carpenter foreman at the hourly rate of $46.70 and the daily rate of $335.60

* 3 carpenters at the hourly rate of $39.95 and the daily rate of $958.80

* 1 laborer at the hourly rate of $31.60 and the daily rate of $252.80

* 1 carpenter foreman at the hourly rate of $46.70 and the daily rate of $335.60

* 1 equipment operator (crane) at the hourly rate of $42.55 and the daily rate of
$340.40

* 1 hydraulic 12-ton crane at the daily rate of $768.80

* Cost of material: $60.50 per square feet.

* Daily output: 153 square feet.(Waier, 2009, pg 609)

Construction in Wetland Areas

With the increase in population and the need to have transportation from one

place to another, there will need to be some man-made structures that are built over

wetlands, mainly bridges and pathways that are created over waterways or marshes. In

the book Sustainable Construction, Charles J. Kibert explains that wetlands on their

own are "self maintaining, self regulating, and self organizing" (13). Therefore, it is

important to leave these areas in their original, most natural state possible. Any change

to these areas can cause severe changes that do not allow them to operate in their

natural way and also to perform their natural functions, such as the breakdown of

material that enters them. Kibert also states that natural systems can "degrade and

absorb undesirable toxic and metal compounds, converting them into stable

compounds" (13) pg 262. If this process is disturbed, the already toxic materials that are









entering the wetlands will not be broken down properly, thereby increasing the damage

that will result. If a normal waterway that receives runoff from a highway or a golf course

is torn up to build a bridge or pathway it will not be able to break down these already

present toxins as well as the future toxins that will enter them. There is no way around

the fact that most bridges that are in place had to be built to support the growing

population. However, a form of construction needs to be implemented so that these

areas are disrupted as little as possible before, during, and after the construction

process.

All of these materials can be and are used in the process of creating bridge and

pathway construction. It is difficult to see these prices going down a great deal or even

returning back to the levels they were in the early 2000's. Therefore, either a new form

of construction that is cheaper and uses fewer materials needs to be created or owners

will continue to see their costs increase. The FDOT contributes the rise in costs to 3

major factors:

* Strong growth in Florida's construction activity, especially residential construction
* Florida's construction market operating at, or close to, capacity
* Global material price increases in oil, for example (Lee, 2007)

Top Down Construction

A new form of construction is being used to build these pathways and on both

small and large-scale bridges that is called "top down construction." This method

eliminates all equipment from ever touching the ground where the job is being

completed. In some applications the only thing that touches the ground is the feet of the

workers. The construction process consists of building wood, steel, or concrete bridges

from the top down, practically eliminating destruction of surrounding vegetation. (James,









2009) The top down process can also possibly cut down on construction costs as well

as reduce the build time as well.

Life Cycle Costs

Life cycle costing (LCC) is a way for contractors and owners to find the total cost

of building over the serviceable life of a project. This method becomes highly useful

when an owner is presented with many options, such as the ones discussed for the

construction of bridges and pathways, to determine what will have the lowest cost

during the life span that the project will be in existence. Because there are so many

options that are available when building a bridge or pathway it is important for owners to

go through this process to determine what the best material will be. It is potentially

difficult to estimate what the LCC would be for each material because of the various

service life of different materials. Some of these factors include type of material (i.e.,

concrete, wood, steel), location, the time that the project is built, weather, and natural

disasters. It is also important to note that the material with the best LCC value might not

always be the best material when it comes to environmental integrity or its impact to the

natural surrounding area.

The methodology for performing LCC analysis for composite structures such as

pedestrian bridges is dependent on several factors. This study focused on only first

costs for pedestrian bridges. "Issues such as target reliability level, whole-life

performance assessment rules, and optimum inspection-repair-replacement strategies

for bridges must be analyzed and resolved from a life-cycle cost perspective."(Aktan &

Culmo & Frangopol & French & Rabbat & Rails & Russel & Sanders & Showers &

Tadros & Woods, 2010) The LCC is determined on a project to project basis and can

only really be determined by looking at individual projects and variables.









For the construction and building of structures, such pathways, many factors can

be included into the LCC equation. These factors are

* Initial Costs
* Purchase, Acquisition, Construction Costs
* Fuel Costs
* Operation, Maintenance, and Repair Costs
* Replacement Costs
* Resale or Salvage Values or Disposal Costs(Fuller, 2010)

* Initial Costs. Initial costs are mainly the cost to acquire land and construction that
is needed to prepare the land for construction to begin on the project. The main
factor under initial costs is the money that will be needed to have the area prepped
for the job to begin.

* Construction Costs. These are the costs that were listed above. They include the
material, equipment, and labor costs that will be needed in order to build the
project. This is where the main difference in the LCC for each material can be
seen. This factor is the easiest to calculate as the price for materials and
installation has little variance between different locations.

* Fuel Costs. This will include the cost of fuel that is needed to complete the project.
Because the average cart path length is 7100 yards fuel can become a significant
factor in the construction costs of a project. Because fuel prices fluctuate over time
it will be difficult to assume what this cost could be by using prices that are
available today. There are also many different methods that can be used to cut
fuel costs, but these methods might also add time to the construction schedule.

* Operation, Maintenance, and Repair Costs. This value is the hardest to estimate
because future events such as weather are difficult to predict. Weather will be the
main factor in determining the operation, maintenance, and repair costs when
figuring out the LCC for mulch, and crushed stone. And factors such as salt
exposure can have an effect or the LCC for steel and reinforced concrete. Natural
disasters, such as a hurricane, can also have a large effect on LCC.

* Replacement Costs. This will depend of the estimated life span of the project. This
value depends on many factors and also how the owner will make decisions in the
future. Sometimes something that can be repaired to solve the problem and
extend the life span of a structure can turn into a decision by the owner to just tear
down the existing structure and replace it with a brand new one.

* Resale or Salvage Values or Disposal Costs. This includes the costs that are
needed at the time that the project is going to be completely removed and
replaced. These values can vary greatly between the materials as certain









materials, such as steel can be sold and reused, and something like concrete,
once it has been broken up does not have a significant resale value.

This study develops a strategy for determining the overall low-impact score for the

selection of materials to be used in pedestrian bridge and pathway construction. By

utilizing both LCC data and construction technique data (i.e., types of equipment,

number of trips) this study allows for a comparison of construction elements and their

impacts.











70,000

60,000

50,000

40,000 Non

30,000 No

20,000

10,000



1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10111213141516


Figure 2-1. Yearly construction growth over the past 16 years


building
residential Building
idential Building


Pernt
80


1 QA


Coamne S kl ier

Source: NBI Decame 1998

Figure 2-2. Total number of bridges built and their type in the year 1955, 1975, and
1995










ntucmiMuyoe UT ii~ca BUIR 1950-1 99W

Percent
40

35

30

25

20

15


5



Conlel Steel- T"mbr
Samu: NBI Deortw 1998

Figure 2-3. Number of structurally deficient bridges built from 1950-1998


Table 2-1. Increase
Pay Item Unit
Group

Earthwork Cubic
Cubic Yard
Asphalt Ton
Structural Cubic
Concrete Yard
Structural Pound
Steel
Reinforcing Pound
Steel


of material prices from the
2003/2004 2004/2005


$4.73


$57.62
$546.32


$1.51


$0.67


$5.66


$68.49
$653.43


$1.34


$0.86


year 2003 to the year 2007
2005/2006 2006/2007 Total
(Jul-Feb) Percent
Change
$7.93 $7.43 57%


$90.81 $103.58 80%
$892.89 $778.40 42%


$1.68 $2.08 38%


$0.96 $0.95 42%









CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY AND PLACEMENT IMPACTS OF MATERIALS

Overview

The purpose of this study is to look into the benefits and drawbacks of new

sustainable practices for pedestrian bridge and pathway construction. Information was

obtained for this study through literature researched online and in journals as well as

asking questions to contractors, and experts who have applied these methods to past

and present projects. Insights regarding pathway materials and cost were developed

through the literature review and costing estimates. Pedestrian bridge construction

research was augmented by expert interviews. The expert interviews were geared

toward the understanding of how designers feel about top down construction and if they

think that in the future it will be a large part of the bridge and pathway building process.

Placement by Material and Environmental Impacts

This section covers how each material is placed and what equipment is needed.

For these examples it will be assumed that the environmental impact will be kept at a

minimum. For the pathway examples the average length of a golf course will be used

(7,100 yards) and it will have a width of six feet. This will create a path that occupies

14,200 square yards of area that needs to be placed for the pathway alone. Bridge data

collected was for a concrete and steel bridge that spans 120 feet and a wood bridge

that spans 130 feet.

Pathways

Concrete and Pervious Concrete

First a path needs to be defined where the concrete path is going to be placed.

This will involve pulling up and removing the underlying soil and plant systems, for this









example the depth of the path will be six inches deep. Then formwork will need to be

placed in order to keep the concrete in place. The concrete should then be placed as

close to its final location as possible. Because of the amount of concrete and the

distance that it will cover it is assumed that a concrete truck will be placed and driven

along side of the path and drive along the path as it is placed. A source of water will

have to keep pace with the truck in order to keep the subsurface area moist before the

concrete is place. Therefore there will be a concrete truck on one side of the path at all

times and a truck that has a water pump on the other side. We will assume that a

general light duty truck will be sufficient enough for the water pump. The width of a

concrete truck is 8.19 feet. (Alibaba.com, 2010), and the width of a light duty truck is

6.57 feet (fordvehicles.com) This creates an overall width of area that needs to altered

in order to place the path at 20.76 feet. This brings the total area that will be altered

during the construction process to 49,132 square yards.

A normal concrete truck can carry 10 cubic yards of concrete. In order to convert

cubic yards into square yards the total square yardage of a cart path for 9 holes (7100

sq. yd.) is multiplied by the thickness of the path divided by 36 inches.

(6inches/36inches) to get how many cubic yards of concrete will be needed. This total

is 1184 cubic yards. Than 1184 cubic yards is then divided by 10 (the cubic yards of

concrete that a truck can hold) to find out how many trucks it will take to carry that much

concrete. The total came to 118 trucks. Each trip will result in 60 square yards of

concrete that is 6 inches thick (7100 square yards/118 total trips), and will reduce the

travel distance for the next truck by 30 yards. Normal concrete weighs 4000 pounds per

cubic yard, so a full truck will have 40,000 pounds of concrete in it plus the weight of the









truck, which is 26,000 pounds, bringing the full total weight of a concrete truck to 66,000

pounds. Taking into account distance and typical placement techniques for concrete,

this would result in a total of 7,778,000 pounds of full concrete trucks and 3,068,000

pounds of empty trucks each traveling a total distance of 205,920 yards along the path.

The weight of the water truck is 5,000 pounds and we will assume that it travels the

same distance as that of the concrete truck.(5,000 x 118 = 590,000 total pounds)

Combining these numbers would result in 55.59 pounds/yards that the pathway would

experience while installing a concrete path. This process will be used to find the weight

impact for all of the materials used in the construction of pathways.

Asphalt

The placement of asphalt requires the same preparation that is needed for

concrete. The pathway desired needs to have soil and vegetation removed and the soil

underneath compacted. A self-propelled paver that travels over the desired area is used

to place and compact the asphalt. An example of one of these pavers is the 1750-c

Super paver, which has a width of 10 feet. (Mauldin.com, 2010) We will assume that the

paver is left in place after each day of work so that is does not have to travel over

undisturbed area to stop and restart work. The same size truck as the one that is used

to carry the concrete mix is used for asphalt. With its width being 8.19 feet added to the

extra 4 feet the paver will take up the overall footprint for creating an asphalt path is

28,850 square yards (12.19 x 7100= 86,549/3 = 28,850). Although the footprint for

asphalt is not the same as concrete, mainly due to the absence of the water truck, the

main component that will impact the surrounding area is the same truck that was used

in the concrete example. The paver that is used travels directly over the path and that is









where most of its weight is applied. There for the resulting number will be slightly

smaller resulting in a footprint weight of 52.72 pounds/yard.

Mulch and Crushed Stone

In order to place a mulch or crushed stone pathway the underlying soil will need to

be displaced, removed and formwork shall be put into place. Because of the amount of

material needed a dump truck will be needed to carry and transport the material to

where it is going to be placed. The truck is the only needed piece of equipment as

laborers can place the material. The width of a typical dump truck needed to carry the

material is 11.33 feet. (InternationalTrucks.com, 2010) It will need to make many trips

back and forth so it will be assumed that is uses the same path for all of its trips making

the overall effected area 41,014 square yards ((11.33 + 6)/3). Each dump truck can

carry 10 cubic yards of material and the depth of the material will be 6 inches. This will

result in the same number of trips that needed to be taken in order to place concrete.

The weight of a typical dump truck is 35,000 pounds and 10 cubic yards of crushed

weighs 27,000 pounds (Alibaba.com, 2010). The total weight of a full truck is 62,000

pounds. With the same 118 trips that would be needed this would result in 7,316,000

pounds of full trucks and 3,186,000 pounds of empty trucks that would need to travel

over the 205,920 yards alongside the path. This will result in 50.99 pounds/yard that the

pathway would experience while installing the path.

The weight of 10 cubic yards of mulch is 5,000 pounds. The same truck and

pathway will be used as in crushed stone. The weight of full truck of mulch totals 40,000

pounds and the weight of the empty truck is still 35,000 pounds. The 118 trips will result

in 4,720,000 pounds of full loads and 3,186,000 of empty truckloads over the 205,920









yards that needs to be traveled. This will result in 38.39 pounds/yard that the pathway

will experience.

Brick Pavers

As with the other methods the underlying soil needs to be removed so that the

pathway can be defined. In order to place brick pavers a concrete sub-pavement needs

to be placed first. This will require the same materials and equipment that is needed to

place the concrete. Once this is complete a thin layer of sand will be placed over the

concrete and the brick will be placed on top of that. After that a 8 wheel trailer truck will

deliver the pavers to the place they will be installed. The width of this truck is 9.84

feet(Australbricks.com), since this truck is wider and it will travel the same path as the

concrete truck the total footprint will be that of the 8 wheel trailer truck on one side and

the light duty truck for the water on the other side. This brings the total footprint to

53,037 square yards.

The total weight will be that of the concrete truck total which was 55.59 pounds per

yard plus the weight of the 8-wheel trailer truck. The truck when it is full of brick paver

weighs a total of 110,231 pounds(Australbricks.com, 2010), the empty truck weighs

59,524 pounds. We will use the same number of trips that was used for concrete at 118

and the total weight of full trucks is 13,007,258 pounds and empty trucks is 7,023,823

pounds. This brings the weight applied to the surrounding area to 100.15 pounds/yard.

Bridges

Bridge data collected was for a concrete and steel bridge that spans 120 feet and

a wood bridge that spans 130 feet. This study looked at typical construction techniques

for installing these bridges as well as if the bridges were built using the top down

technique.









Concrete Bridge

A support system needs to be placed in the underlying environment that will hold

up the decking that will be used for the bridge. This can be done by a crane that drills

shafts into the ground that will later be used to remove the soil or rock so that concrete

can be pumped into place. The crane will have to travel along the immediate shoreline.

A concrete bridge requires the use of a 90-ton lattice boom crane. The width of this

type of crane (which is attached to a large truck so it can be driven wherever it needs to

go) is 8 feet 6 inches wide. (Maximcrane.com, 2010) It will be assumed that the crane

will have to travel the full length of the bridge and that the boom can reach over to the

other side, making it so that the crane will not have to travel up and down both sides of

the bridge. This will result in a total footprint for the 120-foot span bridge of 340 square

yards ((8.15/3)*120). Once the support is in place then it can be used to carry the other

equipment that is needed to finish the bridge, such as the concrete truck.

In order to calculate the weight impact for the equipment needed to build the

bridge the total distance traveled will need to be multiplied by the total weight of the

equipment in order to get the pounds per yard that will be the total footprint. The

calculation for the bridge footprint is much simpler than that of the pathways because

the crane is only making one trip. It will be assumed that the crane does not have to

return to its entry point once the job is complete. The total weight of the 90-ton crane is

81,500 pounds (Maximcrane.com, 2010). This will result in a total of 239 pounds/yards

that the surrounding soil will experience (81,500/340).

Steel Bridge

For the process of determining what the footprint will be for a steel bridge it will

involve the same process and equipment as that of the concrete bridge. It will need a









90-ton lattice boom crane that will only need to travel along one side of the bridge in

order to place the support system. This will result in the same 340 square yard footprint.

Then once the support system is installed it can be used to hold up and transport all

other needed material. Because all of the equipment is the same for steel as it was for

concrete the resulting footprint consequence will be the same 239 pounds/yard.

Wood Bridge

The process of installing a wooden bring is the same as installing and building a

concrete and steel one, the main difference is the size of the crane that will be needed.

The crane needed for a wooden brings is a 12-ton hydraulic crane. An example of one

of these is the 12-ton XCMG hydraulic crane, which has a width of 8.2 feet

(Alibaba.com, 2010). Just as with the other bridges the crane will only have to be on

one side of the bridge and will create a total footprint of 328 square yards for a 120-foot

bridge.

The total weight of the 12-ton crane is 35,200 pounds. (Alibaba.com, 2010) This

will result in a footprint of 107 pounds/yard.

Application of the Top Down Method of Installation

Incorporating the top down method into any of the bridge installation processes will

greatly reduce the environmental impacts and in some cases it will even reduce the time

and budget of the projects as well. Many companies have invented there own methods

as in how to apply the top down method to their jobs and the case studies in this report

show how some of these techniques are applied to the construction of concrete and

wood bridges. By eliminating the need for equipment to touch the ground and

minimizing the amount of time the crew needs to be on the ground less damage will be

done to the underlying environment. Because there are so many variations to the top









down method there is no single way to define how each job has to be done. The main

objective is to truly build the project from the "top down" and apply the principles that are

described above. As time passes and technology advances more and more methods to

the top down technique will be added and each company will have their own unique way

of doing it.

Summary

Reviewing the given materials and the methods that are used to place them shows

how they will have more than just an effect on the immediate area that the pathways

occupies. All of these materials have benefits and drawbacks that can be analyzed

when choosing one of them for a project. There is a fine line that contractors and

owners have to walk to balance these benefits and drawbacks when selecting a

material for a project.

The result for which material is best for minimizing the impact it has on the immediate

area is based on the total footprint that is needed along with the LCC of the material

over a 20-year period. Below is a list of the materials and the total footprint area as well

as the weight per yard that is imposed to construct it.

Footprint Impact Values

Table 3-1. Footprint and Weight/Yard Results
Concrete and pervious concrete: 49,132 square yards 55.59 pounds/yard
Asphalt: 28,850 square yards 52.72 pounds/yard
Crushed stone: 41,014 square yards 50.99 pounds/yard
Mulch: 41,014 square yards 38.39 pounds/yard
Brick pavers: 53,037 square yards 100.15 pounds/yard

As seen above, considering materials used in pathway construction, asphalt has the

smallest footprint while mulch has the lowest weight impact on the surrounding area.









The following table shows the results for the analysis that was done for the bridge

materials.

Table 3.2. Footprint and Weight/Yard Result
Concrete: 340 square yards 239 pounds/yard

Steel: 340 square yards 239 pounds/yard

Wood: 328 square yards 107 pounds/yard


Concrete and steel both involved the same basic construction process so their

footprint and weight results were the same. Wood, mainly because of the lighter crane

that is needed, provided the smallest footprint as well as the smallest weight result.

Life Cycle Cost (LCC) Values

The LCC for each of the materials used for the pathways was obtained by calculating

the initial cost of the project, including materials, equipment and labor. Then the

maintenance and repair for each of the materials was determined based on how often

maintenance and repair would be needed and also how much of the path would need

attention. Mulch, crushed stone, and brick pavers were considered to require attention

every year. Mulch would need to have 50% of the path maintained, crushed stone

would need 30%, and the brick pavers would only need 0.5%. Concrete and asphalt

would each require attention every 5 years and only 0.5% of the path would require

attention. With all of the initial costs and maintenance added up and then with a 0.05%

discount rate applied the total LCC for 20 years was obtained for each of the pathway

materials.

Life-Cycle Impact Ranking Model

This paper proposes a life-cycle impact ranking model that lets the design team

compare and weight the life-cycle costs of pathway and bridge materials and their









construction area impact. For pathways the user may weight both the LCC and

Footprint Impact measures with percentages that sum to a hundred. By doing so the

design team may determine the percentage weight for each category for which they

deem more important. For bridges first costs only were substituted for LCC data. The

materials are then sorted numerically to determine their ranking. The sum of both the

LCC and Footprint Impact Rankings determine the products final score and subsequent

final ranking. The power of this model is its ability to quantify construction technique

impacts along with life-cycle concerns such as first costs and maintenance. For this

study a 80 percent weight for LCC and a 20 percent weight for Impact Rankings were

arbitrarily assigned.









Table 3-3. Life Cycle Costs for Pathway Materials (20 Years)
Initial Cost Concrete Asphalt Mulch


Crushed Stone


Material (S.F.) $2.62 $2.22 $0.32 $5.85 $12.60
Equipment
(S.F.) $0.21 $0.27 $0.11 $0.62
Labor (S.F.) $1.72 $3.22 $0.10 $0.39 $7.00
Initial Costs
(Total) $4.55 $5.71 $0.53 $6.86 $19.60
First Costs $581,490.00 $729,738.00 $67,478.40 $48,706.00 $2,504,880.00
Repair Costs
Every year $33,739.20 $14,611.80 $12,524.40
Every 3 years
Every 5 years $2,907.45 $3,648.69
LCC/20 years $588,348.70 $737,967.06 $487,943.41 $230,876.70 $2,661,037.09


Pavers









CHAPTER 4
CASE STUDIES

North Carolina Department Of Transportation Bridge Project on US 17

This bridge is a 6.8-mile bypass on US 17 that goes around the city of Washington

North Carolina. The main obstacle that they ran into was the crossing of the Tar River

and other environmentally sensitive wetland areas. This bridge was located on the

Carolina coastal plain in Beaufort County and in the end it totaled 4 lanes wide and 2.8

miles long. The contractor, Flatiron-United, was in charge of the design team and also

the construction of this bridge. The engineer on record was a team from Earth Techs

North Carolinas operations. During the design phase Flatiron-United developed a new

and innovative top down approach that incorporated the use of an overhead gantry. The

article on this project states that the use of this method had a "minimal impact on the

wetlands and accelerated construction schedule when compared to conventional

construction techniques" (Shearin & Jordan, 2010). The total cost of the project was

$192 million and is scheduled to be completed in November of 2010.

The building process includes a pair of 592 ft long gantries that weigh 750 tons

each. The gantries are each placed at the end of the bridge and work their way towards

the middle. Also included in the process is a self-launching truss system that performs

the complete list of sequencing for the construction activities. These activities include

the driving of the 30 inches square pressured concrete pilings and also the setting of the

precast post-tensioned bent caps and 72 inches modified Bulb-T girders. The system

also handles the materials for construction of the cast-in-place concrete deck. This is

the first system of its kind in the case of pile driving operation from an erection gantry

and it eliminates the need for equipment and temporary access trestles and also









eliminates the need for groundwork in the wetlands. Therefore eliminating the potential

immediate and future damage that could be done to the wetlands.

This process also creates an assembly line type construction process. As the deck

is completed and cured the gantry moves ahead to begin the next pile driving operation.

The article states that this is a "true top down" operation and it was well received by the

US Army Corps of Engineers, North Carolina Department of Natural Resources, US

Coast Guard, and other environmental agencies. (Shearin & Jordan, 2010) The bridge

is mostly straight which allows continuous work for the system until the remaining 0.5

miles on the north end where the bridge starts to curve. Here the bridge will be broken

into the two components of north and southbound lanes and they are completed

separately.

Because of its location the bridge was designed to withstand 100 MPH winds that

hurricanes could bring to the area during the construction period. The gantry was

designed to operate in winds up to 45 MPH at which point it is secured into place and

shut down until the wind speed comes back down. Although once the wind speed hits

64 MPH the gantry is pulled back over a span of the bridge that is all ready completed

and anchored into place. This operation and the parts to go along with it are Flatiron-

United's patent-pending system that will revolutionize the process of bridge construction

in the future.

JD James Nature Bridges

JD James Inc. specializes in the building of nature bridges in northwest Florida.

The Rookery Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve was a project that was began

on May 4th 2009 and was completed august 12th 2009. The project consisted of 4,770

s.f. of pedestrian bridges and the contract amount was $696,965.00. The owner of the









project was the Florida Department of Environmental Protection and preservation of the

underlying environment as well as the surrounding area was their top priority going into

this project. JD James was contracted to build a 10' x 400' wooden and fiberglass-

reinforced plastic pedestrian bridge system. In order to reduce the impact on the

ecologically sensitive mangrove forests that the bridge would pass over JD James

incorporated their innovative top down construction method along with a custom

retrofitted barge with a pile guide platform. The top down method included an excavator

that was equipped with a hydraulic vibratory hammer that drives pile sets to their

required depth. The process calls for a 10-foot section of the bridge to be built then the

machine moves forward on the completed section and repeats this process until the

bridge is complete. Carpenters are used to install the pile caps, stringers, and decking.

All of the material is staged at one end of the bridge and delivered to the construction

area by a modified forklift. This eliminates the need for any heavy equipment to touch

the ground at any time and greatly reduces the impact that the construction process

would have on the underlying environment. The only modification to the underlying

environment that was made was trimming to the mangrove that was needed to establish

the path for the bridge, and that trimming was limited to the width of the bridge. By also

using the top down method no equipment had to be stored or placed along side of the

bridge, this also solved the problem of having to drive piles and compensating for the

change in tides that occurred every day. The only part of the job that was not self

performed and was sub-contracted out was the operation of a crane that was needed.

As of today this is the only free-span fiberglass reinforced plastic pedestrian bridge

currently installed in the state of Florida. (James, 2009)









CHAPTER 5
INTERVIEWS

Questions

1. What do you feel the requirements are that classifies a job as being a top down
construction job?

2. What benefits do you think that top down construction brings to owners, engineers,
and contractors?

3. Is the cost of having the top down construction method applied to a job more or
less costly than that of having traditional methods used?

4. Do you feel that the top down construction method creates any long-term benefit
to the sustainability of the surrounding area where the project is being completed?

5. Are there any other methods that can be used in the construction process that are
not considered top down construction that can achieve the same results?

6. What type, if any, training is needed for workers to work on a job where top down
construction is being done?

7. What kind of delays are encountered using the top down construction method that
would normally be avoided by using traditional methods?

8. Do you feel that top down construction being implemented as a requirement on
jobs being built in environmentally sensitive areas will be required in the near
future?

9. Are there any governing agencies (An example would be the LEED certifying
process) that oversee a top down construction job to make sure that the process
was done correctly? If not do you feel that there should be?

10. Do you feel advertising your company as a top down construction only would be
profitable at this point in time?

These questions were directed to Mark Mallet, who was a project manager on the

North Carolina DOT Bridge Project on US 17. The project was considered a top down

project and his company implemented their own unique method to incorporate the Top

Down process. Ron Dodson was also interviewed and he is an expert on how to build

and manage golf courses and how to have the least environmental impact as possible.









Mr. Dodson has written a series of books on the process and was addressed the same

questions as Mr. Mallet on the effects and benefits of the top down process.

Results

Mark Mallett (Resume attached)

1. What do you feel the requirements are that classifies a job as being a top down

construction job?

Response: All construction activities are constructed from the existing structure

and no construction activities required below. (minor items like surveying, inspection

etc.. sometimes occur at ground or water level)

2. What benefits do you think that top down construction brings to owners,

engineers, and contractors?

Response: Significant less environmental impact greatly improves the permit

acquisition process, less temporary works results in less construction risk and a safer

construction project. Also, top down construction tends to be performed in a repetitious

assembly line type process which results in higher quality product and more cost

efficient.

3. Is the cost of having the top down construction method applied to a job more or

less costly than that of having traditional methods used?

Response: Developing a sound top down construction system requires more up

front engineering, R&D, and planning. However cost savings from elimination of

expensive temporary trestles and associated equipment will result in top down being a

more cost effective construction method. The longer the bridge the more this is the

case.









4. Do you feel that the top down construction method creates any long-term

benefit to the sustainability of the surrounding area where the project is being

completed?

Response: Top down has less environmental impact (essentially zero). Compared

to other methods that may damage wildlife, fisheries, etc... top down can avoid potential

long term impacts due to construction.

5. Are there any other methods that can be used in the construction process that

are not considered top down construction that can achieve the same results?

Response: I am not that I know of otherwise I would consider them top down.

6. What type, if any, training is needed for workers to work on a job where top

down construction is being done?

Response: Training is jobsite specific for the means and methods used however,

we also train our employees the importance of the environment we are constructing in

and minimizing our "construction footprint".

7. What kind of delays are encountered using the top down construction method

that would normally be avoided by using traditional methods?

Response: None that I am aware of.

8. Do you feel that top down construction being implemented as a requirement on

jobs being built in environmentally sensitive areas will be required in the near future?

Response: I see no reason why it should not be required. Proven means and

methods have are available and have delivered challenging projects ahead of schedule

and for lower costs than conventional methods.









9. Are there any governing agencies (An example would be the Leadership in

Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certifying process) that oversee a top down

construction job to make sure that the process was done correctly? If not do you feel

that there should be?

Response: I am only aware of the regulatory agencies monitoring that the

construction process does not violate the associated permits.

10. Do you feel advertising your company as a top down construction only would

be profitable at this point in time?

Response: We perform many different types of bridge and road construction. We

have developed an excellent top down method and see great potential to successfully

execute it again on future projects.

Ron Dodson (resume attached)

1. What do you feel the requirements are that classifies a job as being a top down

construction job?

Response: If this question pertains to the style of job, then it means the

construction of a conveyance (bridge, or other raised passageway) that is constructed in

such a manner to minimize any impact to the soil, plants, water and so forth by creating

not only a raised surface for passage over the soil, plants, water and so forth, but the

actual construction process minimizes the use of any practices during construction that

might impact the surfaces below the passageway.

2. What benefits do you think that top down construction brings to owners,

engineers, and contractors?









Response: The process could speed permitting and therefore save time and

money in the permitting process. If done properly it could also save money on

construction material and labor costs.

3. Is the cost of having the top down construction method applied to a job more or

less costly than that of having traditional methods used?

Response: I believe, overall it is less costly.

4. Do you feel that the top down construction method creates any long-term

benefit to the sustainability of the surrounding area where the project is being

completed?

Response: Yes, I believe it does, both from an environmental point of view

regarding the actual site, and depending on the materials used, there can be offsite

benefits as well.

5. Are there any other methods that can be used in the construction process that

are not considered top down construction that can achieve the same results?

Response: Not that I am aware of.

6. What type, if any, training is needed for workers to work on a job where top

down construction is being done?

Response: For workers I don't think there is any special training necessary other

than being able to follow directions.

7. What kind of delays are encountered using the top down construction method

that would normally be avoided by using traditional methods?









Response: Possibly permitting delays as some regulators do not understand the

concept of top down construction and until they do, they may be hesitant to permit an

approach to passage over a sensitive area, without knowledge of the process.

8. Do you feel that top down construction being implemented as a requirement on

jobs being built in environmentally sensitive areas will be required in the near future?

Response: I believe that may come to pass, but it will be coupled with education

and awareness of permitting agencies.

9. Are there any governing agencies (An example would be the LEED certifying

process) that oversee a top down construction job to make sure that the process was

done correctly? If not do you feel that there should be?

Response: I think LEED and other such programs should consider giving extra

points for such construction and therefore recognize top down construction as a

valuable addition to sustainable development. I think it is possible that some third party

organization might offer a certification for top down construction in the future, but I am

unsure as to who that might be.

10. Do you feel advertising your company as a top down construction only would

be profitable at this point in time?

Response: Given the state of the economy and the fact that it is not widely known

in the permitting areas, I don't think so at this time.

Summary

To summarize these interviews will conclude whether or not the top down

construction process is considered profitable, by the two people interviewed, and

whether or not it has a significant impact on the environment or the immediate

surrounding area around the job. Although it is hard to conclude what impact a job had









on the environment; whatever problems that can be observed after the job should be

considered that they originated from the construction process.

Both of the people that were questioned about the top down process agreed that it

does have a more positive impact on the environment than traditional construction

methods. Mr. Dodson expressed that the only delay that could be involved with the top

down process would be the uneducated mindset of some permitting officials who do not

understand the top down process. Mr. Mallett had a conflicting response on the

permitting issue viewing the top down process as a way to speed up the permitting

process therefore saving time. The only other difference the two had in their responses

was based on the question of whether or not the top down process could be used as an

advertising tool to promote business for a company that specializes in the top down

process. Mr. Mallett feels that it would generate more business and Mr. Dodson feels

that because of the current economy in 2010 and the level of education about the

process, the top down process would not create more business for a construction

company.

Because of some of the conflicting issues, it can be assumed that not enough is

known about the top down process and the effect it will have on a process to conclude

that it in some instances it is better than traditional building methods. On the issue of

whether or not top down has a positive effect on the surrounding area and the reduction

of future problems only time will tell. More research needs to be done and more

comparisons need to be made between top down and traditional methods to come to a

definitive answer.









CHAPTER 6
RESULTS AND ANALYSIS

After reviewing all of the materials and the methods that are used to place them it

can be concluded that each material and each application has it own benefits and

drawbacks for each kind of job. Pathways and bridges take on many forms and can be

used to perform different types of functions depending on how much weight will be

applied and the length that is needed. As of today, it is up to the owner and the designer

on how much of an effort will be placed on trying to prevent the extent of damage that

will be done to the environment during the building process. There are no guidelines or

rules in place to regulate this process.

Pathways

The results for which material has the lowest impact for pathways was based on

the LCC costs of the material and also the weight per square yard that was applied to

the surrounding area during the construction process.

Table 6-1. LCC and Footprint Ranking for Pathway Materials
Material Ranking LCC Value Material Ranking Footprint Impact
80% 20%
Crushed
Stone 1 0.8 Mulch 1 0.2
Crushed
Mulch 2 1.6 Stone 2 0.4
Concrete 3 2.4 Asphalt 3 0.6
Asphalt 4 3.2 Concrete 4 0.8
Brick Pavers 5 4.0 Brick Pavers 5 1.0









Results
The results show that when giving LCC a weighted value of 80% and the footprint

a weight value of 20% that crushed stone has the best score.

Table 6-2. Final Rankings
Final
Material Score Ranking

Crushed Stone 1.2 1
Mulch 2.0 2
Concrete 3.2 3
Asphalt 3.8 4
Brick Pavers 5.0 5


Bridges

The choice for which material to use for bridges also comes down to elements

such as first costs, use, soil conditions, and longevity and/or maintenance of the bridge.

Weight requirements and length also influence what is chosen in the end. Unlike

pathways, where there are many options to chose from, bridges can be narrowed down

to three main materials, concrete, steel, and wood. Each of these materials posses

benefits that the others do not and the factors noted above will decide which material

will be used. Below the table shows a comparison between the different materials and

how their first costs and footprint impact rank them.

Table 6-3. First Costs and Footprint Impact for Bridge Materials
Material Results First Cost Material Results Footprint Impact
80% 20%
Wood 1 0.8 Wood 1 0.2
Concrete 2 1.6 Concrete 2 0.4
Steel 3 2.4 Steel 3 0.6


The part of bridge construction that can have the biggest impact on the amount of

environmental damage that is done is how it is built and installed. As seen in the case

studies, the top down process can be applied to all of these materials during the









construction process. There is currently no standard on how to perform the top down

process and more and more techniques are being created every day. The problem is

that, because it is a fairly new process, not many owners and contractors have enough

awareness of the process and associated environmental benefits. Most bridges pass

over some sort of environment that would benefit from the top down process. The

purpose of a bridge is so that people can pass from one place to another without having

to travel through whatever obstacle that the bridge is spanned over. By building the

bridge using the Top Down method you achieved this result and the obstacle, the

underlying environment, is left as close to its original condition as possible.

Results
The results show that when giving the first cost value a weighted score of 80% and

giving the footprint value a weighted score of 20% that wood produced the lowest score

making it the best choice.

Table 6-4. Final Rankings
Final
Material Score Ranking
Wood 1.0 1
Concrete 2.0 2
Steel 3.0 3


Summary

All of the materials that are listed in this study have their own cost, placement, and

environmental benefits and drawbacks. The ultimate deciding factor is what the owner

and designer decide to prioritize. If a pathway is being built that will be used for runners

and bikers than asphalt will be the best choice because it is cheaper than concrete and

provides a softer more forgiving surface. But if the pathway will be used by tractors and

heavy equipment, than traditional concrete would be a better choice because of the









strength properties it has. For bridges that will span a long distance wood would

probably not be the best choice and it would be better to go with steel or concrete

because less material will be needed and the strength properties are much better than

wood over a long distance. The methodology of including environmental footprint is

unique to this study. It allows the designer and the owner to take into consideration such

considerations as first costs, maintenance and replacement costs as well as

construction ecological impacts. Although mulch will probably require the most

maintenance over time its impact on the surrounding area was the least of all of the

materials. In the end these are the decisions that will have to be made when choosing a

material to use.

Now for pedestrian bridges, with the rise of top down construction, they also have

the option of deciding to build the project without impacting the spanned environment.

The top down process eliminates most of the potential damage that will be done to the

environment and in some cases reduces the time and budget as well. More research

needs to be done into the method of building using top down to truly know its benefits.

Also, more owners and contractors need to be educated on the possible option of

implementing top down onto a project. Because of the ongoing increase in population

and their need for bridges and pathways changes need to made to ensure that what

natural areas and systems we have remain as close to their original condition as

possible. And the top down method allows us to have the transportation and access that

is needed while also preventing damage to the environment that they pass over. The

sooner research and studies are done on the benefits that top down posses, then the

sooner it will most certainly become a requirement on all jobs. In the end we get the









access and transportation requirements that are needed while still being able to enjoy

what the natural environment has to offer.










APPENDIX A
MARK SMALLER AND RON DODSON RESUME B


Mark Mallett is one of our best project managers with over 16 years of experience in Heavy and
Highway Construction, with 12 of those years working for Flatiron. Mr. Mallett has been a successful
member of numerous design-build teams, including the construction of the Carolina Bays Parkway in
Myrtle Beach, South Carolina. With each project, Mr. Mallett has taken on ever increasing
responsibility. Most recently Mr. Mallett has been Project Manager on the Washington Bypass Project
in Washington, North Carolina, which is a $192 million design-build project consisting of 6.8 miles of 4-
lane highway, two major interchanges and one three-mile long bridge, through an environmentally
sensitive area.



FLATIRON (1997 Present)
Project Manager, Washington Bypass Washington, NC (2007 Present)
This $192 million design-build project consists of 6.8 miles of 4-lane highway, two major interchanges and
one three-mile long bridge, through environmentally sensitive terrain. Flatiron is utilizing a new patent-
pending variation of the top-down construction technique to ensure minimal disturbance of the
surrounding environment.
Mr. Mallett manages this 6.8 mile long construction project, which includes a 2.8 mile long bridge over
environmentally sensitive wetlands and the Tar River. He ensures safety is first priority for "Top Down"
construction methods of two Launching Gantries. Works closely with NCDOT and environmental
agencies ensuring construction is within environmental permit requirements. Manages project staff of
125 during peak production and actively oversees project safety, schedules, subcontractors, suppliers,
project costs, and public relation events.
Superstructure Construction Engineering Manager, San Francisco Oakland Bay Bridge-Skyway -
Oakland, CA (2002 Present)
Flatiron was part of the joint venture team that constructed a portion of the east span of the San
Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge known as the Skyway. This $1,085,000,000 project is the largest contract
ever awarded by the California Department of Transportation. The project consisted of two precast
segmental bridges that will connect a future Self-Anchored Suspension (SAS) span with the city of
Oakland. The Skyway will carry up to 10 lanes of traffic with four full-width shoulders on two parallel
bridges. A major milestone was reached on December 7, 2006 when the team lifted the final segment
into place. The Skyway section has since been completed; however, the bridge will not be open to traffic
until the Self-Anchored Suspension span, procured as a separate contract, is completed in 2012.
Mr. Mallett managed construction engineering consultants for the complete construction and erection of
the bridge superstructure and worked directly with the owner reviewing design issues that needed
resolution in a timely manner. Mr. Mallett also managed and supervised the steel transition span
deliveries and Heavy-Lift erection operations.
Project Engineer/Senior Field Engineer, Carolina Bays Parkway Myrtle Beach, SC (2000 2002)
This $254 million design-build project included over 20 miles of new 6 lane limited access highway with
34 sensitive wetlands, 5 fully directional interchanges. This project was completed 7 months early, and
recently awarded DBIA's 2003 national "Design-Build Excellence Award".
Mr. Mallett oversaw all construction and design engineering of the project. This included a design
consultant and supervision of five field engineers and two office engineers. As well as the supervised
complete construction of 13 ASHTO Girder bridges and 5 precast slab bridges on this design-build
project. He was involved in the constructability review and "work method" development processes for
each bridge and created "Construction Lift" drawings for all construction activities including heavy crane










picking operations, concrete formwork details, bridge deck finishing machine grades, and survey layout
requirements.
Senior Field Engineer, Bath-Woolwich Bridge Bath, ME (1997 2000)
This $48 million design-build project was the construction of a new segmental bridge; the 3,000-foot long,
69-foot wide bridge spans the Kennebec River with four lanes for vehicular traffic, two bike lanes and a
pedestrian sidewalk. There are three approach spans varying from 164 to 184 feet at each end of the
main river crossing. Six main spans over the river vary from 203 feet to a record-breaking span of 420
feet over the navigational channel. Each span was constructed using precast concrete box girder
segments and erected in balanced cantilever fashion.
Mr. Mallett supervised casting and erection of a concrete precast segmental bridge. Supervised design
and construction of formwork systems for cast-in-place Superstructure of segmental Bridge. Worked with
construction superintendents setting up construction procedures of casting and erecting precast
superstructure segments, cast-in-place columns, and cast-in-place superstructure. Supervised
engineering and construction of 8 foot diameter drilled shafts utilizing concrete tremie pours. Supervised
the post-tensioning installation and stressing activities during the erection of Segments and during the
column construction. Mr. Mallett also supervised the document control office of the entire design-build
job. This department contains original copies of all "engineering documentation" (for construction and
shop drawings, specifications, reinforcement bar and post-tensioning material lists).

STRAIT CROSSING
Design Management Engineer, Confederation Bridge Project Prince Edward Island, Canada
(1996 -1997)
Mr. Mallett worked with several consultants in various civil and electrical engineering applications. The
civil engineering applications included working with the bridge designer to implement/coordinate several
bridge finishing procedures, i.e., expansion joint and beam/bearing installation and adjustment. Scour
protection of approach bridge piers and shoreline revetments. Coordinated design with the traffic
consultant and authorities for the traffic signs and signals on and off the Confederation Bridge. The
electrical engineering applications included the Ice Shield Cathodic Protection System, Traffic
Management system, and Toll collection system. Worked closely with the project management teams
and produced a weekly critical item list. Monitored the construction planning activities for the last eight
months of the project.
Pier Base Area Engineer, Confederation Bridge Project Prince Edward Island, Canada (1994 -
1996)
Mr. Mallett established and modified work methods for Pier Base construction. Organized and
maintained quality control for Pier Base Area. Coordinated and maintained schedule updates.
Conducted Productivity/Schedule meetings with area Foreman. Worked with design staff to implement
construction procedure and structural design changes. Maintained costing records, keeping track of
individual construction activity budgets. Provided technical assistance (interpretation of
drawings/specifications & recommendations for construction methods) to fieldwork foreman. Prepared
weekly report on construction quantities installed.
DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES AND OCEANS
Junior Engineer, Dartmouth, Nova Scotia (winter, 1993)

STRESCON LIMITED
Concrete Inspector, Bedford, Nova Scotia (fall, 1993)









Ronald G. Dodson
P.O. Box 339
Feura Bush, New York 12067
518-859-5370

Education and Training

M.S., Natural Resource Management and Planning. Indiana State University

B.S., Wildlife Biology. Oakland City University.

(Post M.S. training and certification in hazardous waste management, air and water
quality management and monitoring from the University of Kentucky.)

Experience Summary

Audubon International (Al), (1987-present)
+ National Audubon Society, (1982-1987), Regional Vice-President
+ Audubon International Golf & Environment Land Trust, Inc., Chairman
+ International Sustainability Council (ISC), Chairman (2007-present)
+ Editor, Golf and Environment Section American AmericanOnLine.com
(1997-1999)
+ Columnist, Golfdom Magazine The Nature of the Game series (2000-
2003)
+ Author: 2 Books on Golf and the Environment
+ Presently, Sustainability Advisor to the following organizations:
+ LandDesign, Inc.,
+ Bloomsbury Properties International, LLC
+ Audubon Lifestyles, Inc. (Serve on Board of Directors)
+ Sustainable Golf & Development, LLC
+ City of Franklin, Tennessee
+ Charlotte Mecklenburg Housing Partnership, Inc
+ Equestrian Services, LLC
+ Urbana University (Serve on Board of Trustees)
+ University of Alaska, Fairbanks, (Adjunct Professor of
Sustainability)
+ University of Florida Program for Resource Efficient Communities
+ University of California, Palm Desert
+ Siena College, Loudonville, NY, (Community Advisory Council)

+ United States Golf Association Turf and Environmental Research Committee
+ GolfPreserves, Inc., Board of Advisors
+ National Fish and Wildlife Foundation Wildlife Links Research Committee
+ Urban Land Institute Sustainable Development Council
+ American National Fish and Wildlife Museum Board of Directors









+ 1000 Friends of Florida, Inc. Community Development Planning Committee,
contributing author to 2 1000 Friends of Florida, Inc. publications.
+ American Planning Association Member, Energy, Environment and Natural
Resources Division

+ Re-started the Audubon Society of New York State, Inc., (the second oldest
Audubon Society in the United States) in 1987. The Audubon Society of New
York State is also known as Audubon International and presently has
membership and land management projects underway 26 countries around the
world. Through Audubon International Dodson created the Audubon Cooperative
Sanctuary System (including programs for schools, farms, backyards, corporate
properties, golf courses and municipalities) and the Audubon Signature
Cooperative Sanctuary Program designed for properties in the planning and
design stages of development. All of these programs are internationally
recognized and has received awards and praise from the U.S. EPA, the United
Nations and various other international, national, state and local government
bodies.

+ Oversees, the Sustainability Campaign of the International Sustainability
Council through which he and other ISC Council members are working with
government agencies, universities, businesses and Not-for-profit organizations
that are planning for a more sustainable future. Projects include work in Florida,
Tennessee, North Carolina, Alabama, New York, South Africa, Portugal and
China.

+ Prior his present position with Audubon International Dodson was a Regional
Vice President of the National Audubon Society, Executive Director of the
Western Kentucky Environmental Planning Agency, and Manager of the
Environmental Department for Anaconda Aluminum Company and a biology and
science teacher at the high school and college levels.

+ Regional Director of the Alaska Coalition during the Carter Administration,
working in Washington, D.C. and Alaska on Native Claims and Federal Parks
and Refuge establishment.

Example Publications and Reports:

Books:

Sustainable Golf, 2005. Wiley and Sons Publishers

Managing Wildlife Habitat on Golf Courses, 2003. Wiley and Sons Publishers

R.G. Dodson and Smart, M.M. 1999. Best Management Practices for Golf Courses,
Lewis Publishers in conjunction with the United States Golf Association.









R.G. Dodson and Smart, M.M. 1999. An Environmental Performance Audit for Clubs
A Full Facility Self-Audit. Club Managers Association of America.

R.G. Dodson and Smart, M.M. in prep. Water Quality Management on Human
Managed Landscapes. Lewis Publishers with Audubon International.

R.G. Dodson, Harker, D. 2000. Landscape Restoration Handbook. Lewis Publishers.
R.G. Dodson, L.M. Woolbright and Smart, M.M. in Prep. Natural Resource Management
Planning for Sustainable Communities.

R.G. Dodson, Jones, P. et. al. In Prep. Field Guide to Sustainable Development. With
Audubon International and the University of Florida Program for Resource Efficient
Communities.

Technical Client Presentations:

Dodson is the principle author of more than two-hundred-fifty reports and presentations
to State and Federal agencies and clients in the private sector. Topics of reports
included hazardous waste assessments and audits, water quality assessment,
ecological studies, restoration planning, Environmental Impact Statements and
community planning.


Public and popular publications:

Columnist:

Golfdom Magazine The Nature of the Game.

Green Section Record (USGA Publication), various articles

Stewardship News Audubon International, On the Road for Stewardship

Selected Recognition:

Environmental Communicator of the Year, 2004 Turf and Ornamental
Communicators Association of America
Presidents Award for Environmental Leadership, GCSAA 1996
Person of the Year Landscape Management Magazine, 1998
Environmental Steward of the Year, 1999 New Jersey Turfgrass Association
Environmentalist of the Year Friends of Audubon, 1985
Donald Ross Award American Society of Golf Course Architects, 2009









LIST OF REFERENCES


Aktan, E., Culmo,M., Frangopol, D., French, C., Rabbat, B., Rails, M., Russel, H.,
Sanders, D., Showers, J., Tadros, M., Woods, S., (2010). Concrete
Bridges. [WWWdocument]. URL
http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/millennium/00019.pdf

Alibaba.com. (2010) Concrete Truck Mixers. [WWWdocument].
URLhttp://www.alibaba.com/product-
gs/206522509/Concrete_Truck_Mixers.html

Australbricks.com. (2010) Delivery Guildlines. [WWWdocument].
URLhttp://ebrick.australbricks.com.au/DELIVERY.htm

Better Homes and Gardens. (2010) Crushed Stone Path. [WWWdocument].
URLhttp://www.bhg.com/home-improvement/outdoor/walkways/crushed-
stone-path/

BridgeBuilders.com. (2010) Why Use Timber. [WWWdocument].
URLhttp://www.bridgebuilders.com/why_timber.php

ConcreteNetwork.com. (2010). Environmental Benefits [WWW Document]. URL
http://www.concretenetwork.com/pervious/environ_benefits.html

Dictionary.com. (2010) Mulch. [WWWdocument].
URLhttp://dictionary.reference.com/browse/mulch

Florida State Parks.org. (2010) FloridaStateParks. [WWWdocument].
URLhttp://www.floridastateparks.org/resources/doc/statewide/fspguide_fro
nt.pdf

Fordvehicles.com. (2010) F150Specifications. [WWWdocument].
URLhttp://www.fordvehicles.com/trucks/f150/specifications/

Fuller,S. (2010) Life Cycle Cost Analysis. [WWWdocument].
URLhttp://www.wbdg.org/resources/lcca.php

Information Please Database. (2007) Florida. [WWWdocument].
URLhttp://www. infoplease.com/ipa/A0108198.html

InternationalTrucks.com. (2010)Workstar7300. [WWWdocument].
URLhttp://www.internationaltrucks.com/Trucks/Trucks/Series/WorkStar/73
00

James, J. D. (2009) Construction Process for Wood and Timber Bridges.
[WWWdocument]. URL http://www.naturebridges.com/process/









Kibert, C. (2008). Sustainable Construction Green Building Design and Delivery.
New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons

KingCountry.gov. (2010) [WWVdocument].
URLhttp://your.kingcounty.gov/solidwaste/business/documents/Conversio
ns.pdf

Lee, D. (2007). Update on highway construction Cost Trends in Florida. [WWVW
document]. URLhttp://www.dot.state.fl.us/planning/policy/costs/Update-
0407.pdf

Levi. (2008) Structural Advantages Using Steelln Bridges. [WWVdocument].
URLhttp://l2build. com/steel%20articles/structural%20advantages%20usin
g%20steel%20in%20bridges.html

Maximcrane.com. (2010) HTC8690. [WWVdocument].
URLhttp://www. maximcrane.com/loadcharts/3%20%20%20Hydraulic%20
Truck%20Cranes/Link-Belt/HTC-8690_90%20ton. pdf

Mauldin. (2010) MauldinPavingProducts1750C. [WWVdocument].
URLhttp://www.apellc.com/images-
%20current/literature/Maudlin%201750-C%20and%201750-
C%20Silver%2016.pdf

National Asphalt Pavement Association. (2010) Asphalt Pavement Overview.
[WWWdocument].
URLhttp://www.hotmix.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=
14<emid=33

National ConcreteBridge Council. (2010) Concrete Advantage Benefits of
Concrete. [WWVdocument].
URLhttp://www.nationalconcretebridge.org/advantage.html

Perviouspavement.org (2010). Mix Design and Materials. [WWVdocument].
URLhttp://www.perviouspavement.org/mixture%20proportioning.htm

Peterson, Tom. (2007). Concrete or Asphalt: Making Decisions to Ensure Quality
Paved Trails and Greenways Rail trails, Recreation Transportation Shared
Use Path System, Linear National State Park, Develop Process Public
Input, Adjacent Landowner, State Federal Agency Partnership,
Wheelchair and Disabled, Accessible Surface, Forest Service, American
Federal Right-of-way Abandoned, Hiking, Bicycle, Pedestrian, Study, Link
System Connect. American Trails Your National Resource for Trails and
Greenways. [WWVdocument].
URLhttp://www.americantrails.org/resources/trailbuilding/BuildAsphaltClos
erLook.html.









Shearin, T. & Jordan, W. (2010). A Bridge Building Machine in North Carolina:
True Top Down Construction [WWWdocument].
URLhttp://www.flatironcorp.com/assets/pdf/ASHE-
WashingtonBypassArticle-FALL_2008.pdf

Simmons, L. (2007). Olin's Construction Principles, Materials, and Methods. New
Jersey: John Wiley & Sons

StateMaster.com. (2010) Transportation Statistics. [WWWdocument].
URLhttp://www.statemaster.com/graph/trnbri_tot_num-transportation-
bridges-total-number

StateofFlorida.com (2010). Florida Quick Facts.
[WWWdocument]. URLhttp://www.stateofflorida.com/florquicfac.html

State of New Hampshire Department of Resources and Economic Development
Division of Parks and Recreation Bureau of Trails. (1994) Best
Management Practices for Erosion Control During Trail Maintenance and
Construction [WWWdocument].
URLhttp://www.americantrails.org/resources/trailbuilding/NHerosioncontrol
.html

Thomle, J., Goede, W., Haselback, L. (2010) Pervious Concrete.
[WWWdocument].
URLhttp://www.palousewatersumm it.org/2009PBWS_1615_Thom le_Goed
e_Haselbach.pdf

U.S. Census Bureau(2009). State and County Quickfacts [WWW document].
URL http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/12000.html

Waier, Phillip. (Eds.). (2009). RSMeans Building Construction Cost Data 2009.









BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Matthew R. Coan was born in Plantation Florida. He graduated high school in

2003 and later that summer started classes at the University of Florida. He received a

Bachelor of Arts degree in geology from the University of Florida in 2007. He was then

admitted to grad school in the Rinker School of Building Construction at the University

of Florida and received his Masters in Science in Building Construction in the summer of

2010.





PAGE 1

1 THE LOW IMPACT ALTERNATIVES TO BRIDGE/PATHWAY CONSTRUCTION By MATTHEW R. COAN A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS F OR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE OF BUILDING CONSTRUCTION UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2010

PAGE 2

2 2010 Matthew R. Coan

PAGE 3

3 To my parents who will always be the reason I can face any challenge that I am presented with f or their never ending support and for always believing in me. And also t o the rest of my family for all of the support that they showed and for being the people that I hope to grow up to be some day.

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I thank Dr. Sullivan for his patients and ongoing support while working with me on this paper I would like to thank Dr. Issa, Dr. Ries, and Dr. Chini for their help and support on this paper as well as all of the faculty and staff at the Rinker School of Building Construction for their education and insight into the wonderful field of building construction I would like to thank Dottie Beaupied for making sure I was always where I needed to be to do my best. Lastly I would like to that Mr. Mallet as well as Mr. Dodson for taking the time to answer questions and provide insight into the part of this study that was done on top down construction.

PAGE 5

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .................................................................................................. 4 LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................ 7 LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................................... 8 ABSTRACT ..................................................................................................................... 9 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 10 Introduction and Overview ...................................................................................... 10 Importance of Topic ................................................................................................ 10 Report Focus .................................................................................................... 11 Outline .............................................................................................................. 12 Summary .......................................................................................................... 12 2 APPLIED MATERIAL, THEIR COSTS, AND METHODS OF INSTALLATION ....... 14 Growth in the State of Florida ................................................................................. 14 What Is Sustainable Construction? ......................................................................... 16 Sustainable Forms of Construction ......................................................................... 16 Traditional Bridge and Walkway Construction ........................................................ 17 Permitting Solutions ................................................................................................ 18 Projects in jurisdiction that do not require a pe rmit ........................................... 18 Minimum Impact Projects (Trails Notification Form) ......................................... 18 Minor Impact Projects (Permit) ......................................................................... 19 Major Impact Projects ....................................................................................... 19 Pathway Materials to be Considered ...................................................................... 20 Concrete ........................................................................................................... 20 Pervious Concrete ............................................................................................ 21 Asphalt ............................................................................................................. 23 Mulch Pathway ................................................................................................. 24 Crushed Stone ................................................................................................. 25 Stone Pavers .................................................................................................... 26 Materials and Techniques for Bridge Construction ................................................. 26 Concrete Bridge ............................................................................................... 26 Steel Bridge ...................................................................................................... 28 Wood Bridge ..................................................................................................... 29 Construction in Wetland Areas ......................................................................... 30 Top Down Construction .................................................................................... 31 Life Cycle Costs ............................................................................................... 32

PAGE 6

6 3 METHODOLOGY AND PLACEMENT IMPACTS OF MATERIALS ....................... 37 Overview ................................................................................................................. 37 Placement by M aterial and Environmental Impacts ................................................ 37 Pathways ................................................................................................................ 37 Concrete and Pervious Concrete ..................................................................... 37 Asphalt ............................................................................................................. 39 Mulch and Crushed Stone ................................................................................ 40 Brick Pavers ..................................................................................................... 41 Bridges .................................................................................................................... 41 Concrete Bridge ............................................................................................... 42 Steel Bridge ...................................................................................................... 42 Wood Brid ge ..................................................................................................... 43 Application of the Top Down Method of Installation ................................................ 43 Summary ................................................................................................................ 44 Footprint Impact Values .................................................................................... 44 Life Cycle Cost (LCC) Values ........................................................................... 45 Life Cycle Impact Ranking Model ........................................................................... 45 4 CASE STUDIES ..................................................................................................... 4 8 North Carolina Department Of Transportation Bridge Project on US 17 ................. 48 JD James Nature Bridges ....................................................................................... 49 5 INTERVIEWS ......................................................................................................... 51 Results .................................................................................................................... 52 Summary ................................................................................................................ 56 6 RESULTS AND ANALYSIS .................................................................................... 58 Pathways ................................................................................................................ 58 Bridges .................................................................................................................... 59 Summary ................................................................................................................ 60 APPENDIX : MARK MALLER AND RON DODSON RESUME B ................................... 63 LIST OF REFERENCES ............................................................................................... 68 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ............................................................................................ 71

PAGE 7

7 LIST OF TABLES Table page 2 1 Increase of material prices from the year 2003 to the year 2007 ........................ 36 3 1 Footprint and Weight/Yard Results ..................................................................... 44 3.2 Footprint and Weight/Yard Result ....................................................................... 45 3 3 Life Cyc le Costs for Pathway Materials (20 Years) ............................................. 47 6 1 LCC and Footprint Ranking for Pathway Materials ............................................. 58 6 2 Final Rankings .................................................................................................... 59 6 3 First Costs and Footprint Impact for Bridge Materials ......................................... 59 6 4 Final Rankings .................................................................................................... 60

PAGE 8

8 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 2 1 Yearly construction growth over the past 16 years ............................................. 35 2 2 Total number of bridges built and their type in the year 1955, 1975, and 1995 .. 35 2 3 Number of structurally deficient bridges built from 19501998 ............................ 36

PAGE 9

9 A bstract of Thesis P resented to the G raduate S chool of the U niversity of F lorida in P artial F ulfillme nt of the R equirements for the D egree of M aster of S cience in B uilding C onstruction T HE L OW IMPACT A LTERNATIVES TO B RIDGE / PATHWAY C ONSTRUCTION By Matthew R. Coan August 2010 Chair : Jim Sullivan Co chair: Raymond Issa Major: Building Construct ion This study examines the impacts positive and negative, that various materials and installation process es have on the environment when applied to pathway and bridge construction. The literature review covers traditional materials used in for these types of projects Materials reviewed include concrete, pervious concrete, steel, wood, asphalt, crushed stone, mulch, and brick pavers T raditional construction techniques ar e described and evaluated for their low impact performance. Low impact is defined in this study as minimal area surrounding the construction work being impacted by both square footage and weight equipment and material needed to build the pathway. With regard to bridge construction top down construction technique is compared to traditional pedestrian bridge construction techniques. T he t op d own method has less of an environmental impact on the underlying and surrounding area than that of traditional methods. The data in the literature review was obtained through various sources determining the makeup of each material and the cost and materials needed to have it installed. Overall the study will bring further insight to evaluating construction methods based on a low impact performance matrix

PAGE 10

10 CHAPTER 1 I NTRODUCTION Introduction and Overview Every year the population on this planet grows And with that growing number of people comes a growing demand for places that these people can live, work, and gather. It is also found every year that the supplies that this planet has to offer are not limitless and that non renewable materials will most likely run out at some point. These resources include potable water, fuel, and also some of the building materials that we take for granted everyday. Because of this the market for sustainable construction in the most recent years has increased and may soon become the industry standard on many projects Likewis e construction activity also negatively impact s the environment. This report examines environmentally sensitive alternatives to pedestrian bridge and pathway construction. Through a review of traditional materials and placement methods, the study developed a systematic way to evaluate these alternatives from a long term maintenance perspective as well as an immediate construction activity perspective. Th e study also br ought to light advancements in technology that can be applied to materials and their placement so that their effect on the environment, before, during an d after installation will have as minimal an impact on the environment as possible. A rating method for which materials should be used was developed based on design or owner constraints Importance of Topic As stated above, the population on this planet continues to grow, and with this growth comes a greater need for transportation and recreational areas for these people

PAGE 11

11 to enjoy. As of 2010, the state of Florida has more gol f courses that any other state in the United States, totaling more than 1,250. ( StateofFlorida .com 2010 ) And with the average golf course length being 7100 yards there is a total of almost 9 million yards of pathways that are already built. Florida also ranks 24th in the US for the total number of bridges already built totaling 11,451 as of 2010. ( statemaster.com 2010) Up to this point there has been no way to quantify the environmental impacts that these pathways and bridges have had, and also how the process of installing them has impacted the environment The state of Florida has 161 state parks that thousands of people visit each day. ( FloridaStateParks.org 2010) These parks are located in almost every part of the state and involve every activity from camping to visiting the beach. It is important to keep and maintain these parks in the condition were originally in, and with so many people using them everyday bridges and pathways are used a g reat deal. Overtime more pathways and bridges will need to be installed and existing ones will need to be repaired. Because the number of bridges/pathways is so large the smallest reduction in the environmental impact that the construction of these project s has can make a significant difference. Report Focus The following questions were addressed: Q1: Which materi al and associated installation techniques have a lesser comparative environmental impact ? Q2: How can these products be evaluated in order to determine the effect that they have on the underlying and surrounding area before, during, and a fter they are built? Q3: What is the life cycle cost s (LCC) associated with the materials selected for pathways?

PAGE 12

12 Th is study address ed impacts such as the amount of area that has to be disturbed during construction, how the material will react to natural occurrences such as rain and how it will affect runoff, and also the costs to purchase these materials and to have them installed. It seems that the number of pathways and bridges that will be needed in the future in the state of Florida will continue to grow, by making only a small impact to the environmental consequences that these materials and their installation has, it will create a huge difference. Outline This report contains six chapters. Following the introduction c hapter there will be the literature review, which will address the types of material, their costs, and the equipment that is needed to install them. Top down for bridges are also discussed T he methodology chapter outline s how these materials are installed and their corresponding construction footprint Chapter 4 provides examples of case studies of bridges that have already been completed using these new methods and what their effect has been up to this point. Chapter 5 contains interviews that were conducted with experts in the field of t op d own construction and its environmental impacts, and finally chapter 6 will be the results and conclusions of this study. Summary The focus of this report is to demonstrate in a systematic way the tradeoffs and benefits of low impact const ruction techniques in the fields of pathway and pedestrian bridge construction. Pedestrian bridges and pathways will continue to be part of the landscape of Florida. As such the smallest improvement can create an environmental benefit These improvements will not only benefit the state of Florida, but the rest of the country and the world as well The amount of space and resources that is available

PAGE 13

13 today will continue to decrease and so will the quality of the space that is already in use unless changes are made. Sustainable construction will lead the way in order to preserve what we already have and it will also make sure that projects in the future will keep and maintain the level of quality that we are already presented with.

PAGE 14

14 C HAPTER 2 APPLIED MATERIAL, TH EIR COSTS AND METHODS OF INSTALLATION Growth in the State of Florida The state of Florida has the 4th largest population of all the states in the U.S. behind California, Texas and New York. ( StateofFlorida.com 2010 ) The populati on in Florida increased by 16% from 2000 to 2009, compared to the national average of the entire U.S increasing only 9% ( U.S. Census Bureau 2009) Also, since 1991 the rate of construction growth in Florida has been double that of the rest of the countr y ( Lee 2007) Figure 21 breaks down the years from 1991 up to 2006 and how the construction rate has increased every year except 2006. Materials and techniques for pathways and pedestrian bridges are similar to those used in more structurally sound transportation elements such as sidewalks, roads, and transportation bridges. Although there has been a reduction recently in construction growth in Florida the Florida Department of Transportation ( FDOT ) sees this as only temporary and tha t prices will continue to increase along with the population ( Lee 2007) The FDOT has also taken steps to address this problem and to try to find solutions and alternatives to the increase in prices and population that they anticipate, all of which are outlined below: C onvening a Construction Cost Summit In February 2006, FDOT convened a summit in Orlando that bought together a variety of key partners and stakeholders who began to address the challenges associated with delivering the program in light of increasing construction costs; Conducting Regular Reviews of Material Prices and Construction Cost Indexes FDOT routinely calculates weighted average unit prices for a number of the more common material types, as shown in Table 1. In addition, there are a variety of national cost indexes that FDOT is tracking; Soliciting input on Cost Trends from Industry In cooperation with the Florida Transportation Builders Association a survey was conducted of a number of

PAGE 15

15 contractors and material suppliers that serve the highway construction market in Florida; Reviewing Floridas Construction Market Characteristics, History and Performing Comparison with Peer States The review included value of construction put in place by dif ferent market segments, construction employment and numbers of businesses and comparisons to California, Georgia and Texas, as well as the U.S. as a whole; Conducting a Review of Estimating Procedures and Work Program Integration FDOT today is a decentr alized organization, which means that its seven district offices have considerable autonomy with respect to their operations. Recent increases in cost have heightened interest in FDOTs estimating techniques and have also resulted in a review of the estim ating process in each district. This review resulted in the identification of a number of improved practices that FDOT is planning to implement, as well as increasing the consistency of the estimating process overall, and improving the way that FDOT accou nts for inflation in order to easily determine exactly what dollar amount has been set aside for inflation (in progress); Performing a Strategic Aggregate Study Recognizing the importance of aggregate to highway construction, FDOT has enlisted a consultant to document the importance of aggregate materials and to evaluate ways to insure the quantity and quality of materials moving forward (in progress); Investigating Material Supply and Consumption Statistics In addition to the aggregate study, and in r esponse to recent shortages of other materials, FDOT is attempting to develop a better understanding of the supply and demand issues related to materials commonly used in highway construction including asphalt, cement and ready mixed concrete, and steel pr oducts (in progress); Maintaining a Statewide Construction Database In an effort to better understand the relative magnitude and timing of construction projects of other major purchasers in Florida, FDOT has implemented a webbased system that allows ot her organizations to enter and maintain their plans for construction activity. FDOT already has and will regularly solicit input from several hundred purchasers of construction services (ongoing); Tracking Outstanding Contract Values and Existing Backlog of FDOT Contractors FDOT has begun to track relative workloads and backlogs of its contractors so that it might better gauge overall capacity and utilization trends might be gauged more accurately Identifying and Reporting on a Series of Construction Leading Indicators A fundamental goal of FDOTs construction cost initiatives is the monthly publication of a Morningstar like report for FDOT executives that provides insight into the current state and direction of Floridas construction market

PAGE 16

16 What I s Sustainable Construction? Many things can be labeled sustainable and many people demand that these products are used on their project s. S ustainability is something that is not easily defined in the construction realm The main focus of the research is to define both sustainable materials and sustainable practices that can be applied to pathways and bridges Pathways and pedestrian bridges, for the purposes of this study, i nclude golf courses, nature walkways, raised pedestrian bridges, and their surrounding are as. As the population continues to grow these types of access elements will only become more and more in demand. Sustainable construction also focuses on the life cycle costing (LCC) of material. This process evaluates the initial cost as well as maintenance of materials selected for construction. By applying LCC to a material a truer long term material value can be generated that will allow it t o be compared to other materials. This value is what owners and designers will use when choosing how important a portion of the low impact score for a material is on their project. Sustainable Forms of Construction T he research focus es on the practices applied to bridge and pathway construction and how the sustainability values of these new construction methods can be obtai ned. The main focus of this review will be on golf courses pathways and pedestrian bridges Many new techniques and methods for the construction of the structures are being applied today, but it is difficult to determine if they work and how effective these techniques are It is also important to know if the new methods are any better than the older traditional ways and if the added cost s are realized, do these features save money

PAGE 17

17 in the long run. Table 2 1 shows how the price of these materials has increased from the year 2003 to the year 2007. Traditional Bridge and Walkway Construction Almost every piece of developed land needs to have a place for people to walk to and from where they are to where they need to go. Sometimes this involves paving a simple trail or pathway that people can walk on and sometimes a small scale pedestrian bridge is needed as well. In some cases acces s involves a largescale bridge or pathway that is capable of transporting thousands of people. However, with the construction of these areas many consequences can take place during the build process that can have a negative environmental impact The research look s into some of the options for pathway construction. At first, one would think that the best pathways would be a straight line from where people are located to where they would like to go. But different factors should be considered even before construction begins. A pathway placement may be governed by many design constraints. These constraints include maximizing land value, meeting required access codes, and limiting damage to environmentally sensitive ar eas. A pathway should be placed in an area that requires minimal maintenance and post construction upkeep. One of the main ways to keep maintenance at a minimum is to build a pathway while causing the least amount of transformation possible to t he natural surrounding soil. The main cause of this transformation will most likely be from the equipment used to put he trail or bridge in place. After the job is done one might not be able to see how the equipment used in the building process has caused damage to the underlying or surrounding soil and sometimes the damage is immediately noticeable and potentially show itself years after construction is complete. One of the most significant for ms of

PAGE 18

18 damage that can be noticed is in the form of erosion after the job is completed, resulting in the loss of most, if not all, of the surrou n ding soil. Another problem for bridge construction is the accumulation of sediment that is unable to flow freely due to the construction of the pathway The research will look into the requirements already being implemented, as well as those that are needed in order to create and build a pathway or bridge. Permitting Solutions Before construction o f a path or pedestrian bridge is done it needs to be classified as a specific type of project. Following is a list of projects and what places them into their respected classifications. ( State of New Hampshire Department of resources and Economi c Development 1994) Projects in jurisdiction that do not require a pe rmit The mowing or cutting of vegetation in a wet meadow, swamp, or forested wetland, provided that roots of the vegetation are not disturbed, and the ground is frozen or sufficiently dry to avoid making ruts, and the area is stabilized once thawed and the project is not located in a bog or adjacent to a prime wetland. Installation of a culvert in an area where waters flow during runoff to such a limited extent as not to create a defined, scoured channel nor maintain wetlands vegetation or wetlands soils. Minimum Impact Projects (Trails Notification Form) Projects that involve impacts of less than 3,000 square feet in swamps or wet meadows that are not in or adjacent to municipality designated prime wetlands. Installation of a bridge provided t hat no work is done in the water or wetland, fill does not exceed 3,000 square feet on the banks or bed of a river, and is not located in bogs and marshes or adjacent to or in prime wetlands. Maintenance dredging of nontidal drainage ditches and plugged culverts within the bounds of a constructed project. Projects that disturb less than 50 linear feet of a seasonal stream during periods of nonflow.

PAGE 19

19 Repair in kind of culverts, bridges, riprap slopes, and retaining walls. Minor Impact Projects (Per mit) Projects involving less than 20,000 square feet of alteration in the aggregate in nontidal wetlands, nontidal surface waters, or banks adjacent to nontidal surface waters. Projects that disturb less than 200 linear feet of a stream, riverbanks, or channel. Construction of boardwalks in a marsh or swamp. Projects located in jurisdiction that do not meet the definition of minimum or major. Major Impact Projects Projects in or adjacent to municipality designated prime wetlands, sand dunes tidal wetlands, upland tidal buffer zones, or bogs. Projects within 100 linear feet of the highest observable tide line that alter any bank, flat, wetland, surface water, or undeveloped upland tidal buffer zone. Projects that involve alteration of nontidal wetlands, nontidal surface waters, and banks adjacent to nontidal surface waters in excess of 20,000 square feet in the aggregate. Projects that disturb more than 200 linear feet of an intermittent or perennial stream, river, lake, or pond. Projects in a wetland that has been identified by the Natural Heritage Bureau (DRED) as an exemplary natural community, or that has documented occurrence of state or federally listed Endangered or Threatened species. Projects classified as major require a field inspection by DES Wetlands staff. Projects that propose to impact a reas adjacent to or in prime wetlands require a public hearing. These clas sifications define what type of practice needs to be implemented before, during, and after the construction process. But these classifications do not include new sustainable forms of construction. Some sustainable practices may reduce the damage that is done. Th is research look s into some of these methods and the benefits of more sustainable practices and drawbacks of traditional techniques of each application. The first s tep is to define the materials that are most widely used in these applications.

PAGE 20

20 Pathway Materials to be Considered Concrete Concrete is the most widely used sidewalk material in the state of Florida. It is used in almost every type and size of architect ural and engineering structure and is used in everything from building super structures to drainage swales ( Simmons, 2007) Concrete can be stronger and more durable than the other material s that that are used to build pathways and it can also be c olored in any way that is desired. One of the drawbacks is that concrete needs time to cure, and if this process is not done correctly the desired result and strength will be lost. But once it is in place and cured the owner does not have to worry about any maintenance or upkeep for many years Figure 22 shows how the number of concrete bridges that has been built has increased over time, while the number of steel and wooden bridges has decreased. Concrete is an old material, but the technol ogy associated with it continues to evolve ( Simmons, 2007) Because concrete is used in so many applications, the builder needs to determine what type of concrete will be needed for what is being built. The term concrete of suitable quality encompasses the following criteria (Simmons 2007) : S trength to carry superimposed loads I mpervious to prevent water penetration D urability to resist wear and weather W orkability to ensure proper handling, placing, finishing, and curi ng One of the drawbacks of a concrete pathway is that it can be damaged by the vegetation and trees that surround it Tree roots can grow over time and cause damage to the concrete pathway, which would require the concrete to be pulled up, the root cut and then the concrete replaced and cured again. This brings in a serious drawback to the sustainable quality that concrete has, as it will cause a change in the natural growth

PAGE 21

21 of the trees and plants in the immediate area. Another drawback is that water does not permeate through traditional concrete, which can cause standing water in the surrounding area and also change the overall drainage properties of the surrounding area. Overall, the benefits of concrete are its strength and durability and also the low relative costs to purchase and install concrete. Figure 23 illustrates how the durability of concrete bridges has surpassed that of steel and wood ov er time. If properly designed and placed a lmost anything can be driven over concrete without causing it any damage. Additionally concrete can be painted any color to add to the visibility of the path. However, concrete does take a while to cure and its installation process can cause a great deal of damage to the surrounding area. Costs : In order to place a 3,000 PSI 21/2 thick concrete pathway you will need: 1 labor foreman whose hourly cost is $33.60 and daily costs is $268.80 4 laborers at an hourly costs of $31.60 and daily cost of $1011.20 1 light equipment operator at an hourly rate of $39.05 and daily rate of $312.40 5 ton tandem roller at the daily rate of $137.80 Cost of materials: $7.65 per S Y (s quare yards) Maximum daily output: 660 S.Y. ( Waier 2009, p 596 ) Pervious Concrete Pervious Concrete is a good alternative to the use of regular concrete. According to an author of the website www.perviousconcrete.org Pervious concrete is a unique and effective means to address important environmental issues and support green, sustainable growth. By capturing storm water and allowing it to seep into the ground, porous concrete is instrumental in recharging groundwater, reducing storm water runoff, and meeting U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) storm water regulations. In fact, the use of pervious concrete is among the Best Management Practices (BMPs) recommended by the EPA and by other agencies and geotechnical engineers across

PAGE 22

22 th e country for the management of stormwater runoff on a regional and local basis. This pavement technology creates more efficient land use by eliminating the need for retention ponds, swales, and other stormwater management devices. In doing so, pervious concrete has the ability to lower overall project costs on a first cost basis. ( Perviouspavment.org, 2010) According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, about 90 percent of surface pollutants are carried by the first 11/2 inch of rainfall. Sto rm water drains don't typically channel this polluted runoff to treatment facilities, but instead convey it directly into local water bodies. This can increase algae content, harm aquatic life, and require expensive treatments to make the water potable.(6) Pervious concrete can be extremely beneficial for pathways that are installed on golf courses, as many chemicals are used on a daily basis. Some other benefits include: Reduction in the amount of untreated runoff discharging into S torm sewers Dir ect recharge of groundwater to maintain aquifer levels Channeling of more water to tree roots and landscaping, so there is less N eed for irrigation Mitigation of pollutants that can contaminate watersheds and harm sensitive ecosystems Elimination of hydrocarbon pollution from asphalt pavements and sealers( ConcreteNetwork.com, 2010) Pervious concrete uses the same materials as conventional concrete, with the exceptions that the fine aggregate typically is removed entirely, and the grading size dis tribution of the coarse aggregate is kept smaller, allowing for relatively little particle packing. This formula provides for useful hardening properties, but also results in a

PAGE 23

23 composition that requires different considerations in mixing, placing, compacti on, and curing. The mixture proportions are somewhat less forgiving than conventional concrete mixtures and stricture controls are required with the batching of all of the ingredients are necessary to provide the desired results. ( Perviouspavment.org, 20 10) A Study at Washington State University by Jon Thomle, Will Goede, and Liv Haselbach found that the costs of pervious concrete is relatively close to that of regular concrete at $2$6 per square feet ( Thomle & Goede & Haselback, 2010). The main di fference between the two types of concrete is that pervious is slightly less strong than traditional concrete and the placing and curing process for it is more complicated and leaves less room for error. Asphalt The United States has more than 2 million miles of paved roads and highways, and 94 percent of those are surfaced with asphalt. The United States has around 4,000 asphalt plants, at least one in every congressional district. Each year, these plants produce 500 to 550 million tons of asphalt pavem ent material that is worth in excess of $30 billion. Asphalt pavement material is a precisely engineered product composed of about 95 percent stone, sand, and gravel by weight, and about 5 percent asphalt cement, which is a petroleum product. Asphalt cement acts as the glue to hold the pavement together.( National Asphalt Pavement Association, 2010) Asphalt can be a cheaper and more beneficial alternative to concrete depending on the intended use of the pathway T he cost for a 10 feet wide concrete trail is approximately $35 per linear foot versus $20 per linear foot for a comparable asphalt path. These numbers are a 30% to 60% savings compared to using asphalt( Peterson, 2007). T he City of Durango, CO reports that asphalt provides a softer surface and is

PAGE 24

24 preferred by joggers and walkers.( Peterson, 2007) The maintenance and upkeep of asphalt can also be more beneficial than that of concrete. When concrete requires maintenance it is very costly, whether the maintenance requires slab replaceme nt or joint grinding. Maintenance of an asphalt trail can frequently be done by agency employees at a reduced cost. ( Peterson, 2007) Asphalt can also be designed and placed in many of the same ways as concrete. For example, a porous asphalt is available that has the same properties as pervious concrete. For this paper the research look s into the costs of placing regular asphalt for the use of a path or walkway. Costs : In order to place a 2 thick asphalt pathway you will need 1 labor foreman whos e hourly cost is $33.60 and daily costs is $268.80 4 laborers at an hourly costs of $31.60 and daily cost of $1011.20 1 light equipment operator at an hourly rate of $39.05 and daily rate of $312.40 5 ton tandem roller at the daily rate of $137.80 Cost of materials: $6.05 per s quare yards Maximum daily output: 720 square yards ( Waier, 2009, pg 596) The crew needed is exactly the same as what is needed to place regular concrete. The difference is in the cost of materials, with the material costs for asphalt at 21% less than that of concrete and the daily output for asphalt at 8% greater. Mulch Pathway All factors considered, mulch is probably the most environmentally friendly material to choose when building a pathway. The de finition of mulch reads: a covering, as of straw, compost, or plastic sheeting, spread on the ground around plants to prevent excessive evaporation or erosion, enrich the soil, inhibit weed growth, etc. ( Dictionary.com, 2010) Although mulch is usually used in garden beds and landscape areas, it can be used to create a useful path that is both functional and pleasing to the eye. Mulch comes in many different colors and is easy to place. The main drawback

PAGE 25

25 and probably the reason mulch is not useful in large scale pathways is that it requires a great deal of upkeep. Any heavy rainfall can wash away large amounts of this material and, in order to keep up its image and its functionality, it needs to be replaced immediately. Placing mulch is relati vely easy and does not require any heavy equipment or a lot of manpower. Costs : In order to place a 3 thick mulch pathway : 4 labors at an hourly cost of $31.60 and a daily cost of $1011.20 1 equipment operator at an hourly cost of $39.05 and a daily cost of $312.40 1 skid steer loader at a daily cost of $149.20 Cost of material: $320 per 100 square feet Maximum daily output: 1320 per 100 square feet ( Waier, 2009, pg 611 ) Crushed Stone Crushed stone provides many of the main benefits and drawbacks that a mulch pathway does. Crushed stone allows for water to permeate and allows the trees and vegetation to grow freely around it. It can be placed on almost any flat terrain and it allows for easy installation o f curves and turns. Crushed stone can come in any color and also any size of rock can be used as well. Installation is easy and a Better Homes and Gardens article lists the only needed materials as follows: 6x24 inch log sections Weed barrier: PVC sheet ing Coarse sand Crushed Stone Gravel for setting log section ( Better Homes and Gardens, 2010) As with mulch, any significant rain storm can wash away some of the stones and the traffic that travels over it can also remove stones from t he path. Costs : In order to place 1 thick white marble crushed stone 2 laborers at the hourly rate of $30.60 and a daily rate of $244.80 Cost of material: $0.22 per square foot

PAGE 26

26 Maximum daily output: 1700 s quare feet ( Waier, 2009, pg 596 ) St one Pavers Stone or brick pavers offer the stability of a fixed material and eliminate the maintenance that is required with mulch and crushed stone pathways. The bricks are cemented into place and can be replaced individually if needed. Brick pavers com e in many sizes, shapes, and colors and can be mix and matched anyway that the owner pleases. One of the main drawbacks to brick pavers is that there are extremely heavy in comparison to the other materials and they are also not as cost effective as the other materials. Costs : In order to place 2 thick brick pavers : 1 brick layer at an hourly costs of $40.50 and a daily cost of $324.00 1 brick layer helper at an hourly cost of $32.15 and an daily cost of $257.20 Cost of material: $12.60 per s quare foot Daily output: 83 s quare feet ( Waier, 2009, pg 600 ) Materials and Techniques for Bridge Construction Concrete Bridge The National Concrete Bridge Council states that there are over 475,000 bridges in the U.S. today, and of those the ones made of concrete outperform bridges made of other materials by a wide margin. ( National Concrete Bridge Counc il, 2010 ) The table below shows that more concrete bridges are built over time than any other type of bridge and also shows how they perform against other bridges. This study will look at t he advantages and disadvantages that small scale concrete bridges have to offer. The National Concrete Bridge Council lists 4 main reasons to choose concrete over other materials such as wood and steel: Cost savings From reduced initial construction c osts to lower maintenance costs, structures built with concrete are economical.

PAGE 27

27 Durability Bridges built with high performance concrete (HPC) can have a service life of 100 years. They easily withstand extreme temperature changes and corrosive chemical s in a variety of conditions. Competitiveness The value of concrete is repeatedly recognized in competitive bidding situations. Aesthetics Dynamic, graceful, long span bridges often become symbols of a city's hope for the future, become tourist attractions, and, ultimately, encourage economic development.( National Concrete Bridge Council, 2010) The above benefits are the reasons why concrete is chosen as often as it is. Concrete gives owners, engineers, and contractors a lot more options t o work with, varying from to high strength to creating a unique look to any project. One of the main disadvantages to concrete is that it does not perform well under tensile stress. Bridges experience different forces over time and if a great deal of tensile stress is put onto a concrete bridge it will fail. Concrete also requires the use of other materials such as rebar to compensate for some of its strength limitations, which can greatly increase the costs. Concrete also has to be placed and c ured in ideal conditions; otherwise it will not reach its desired strength and could fail under normal stress. Once concrete is cracked or deformed it cannot return to its original shape or strength capabilities. Costs : In order to build a 120 span, 8 wide precast concrete pedestrian bridge 1 Structural steel foreman at the hourly rate of $46.70 4 structural steel workers at the hourly rate of $44.70 and the daily rate of $1430.40 1 equipment operator (crane) at the hourly rate of $42.55 and the daily rate of $340.40 1 equipment operator (oiler) at the hourly rate of $36.80 and the daily rate of $294.40 1 lattice boom crane daily rate of $1741.00

PAGE 28

28 Costs of material: $80.50 per s quare feet Daily output: 160 s quare feet ( Waier, 2009, pg 609) Steel Bridge Steel has been used in the construction of bridges for many years, as it offers some advantages over concrete and wood. Steel has a higher tensile strength than wood and concrete, which is important considering the forces that a bridg e will experience over time. Steel is also produced in a workshop where ideal conditions can be created to ensure the proper design and strength requirements. Steel can also be constructed in a smaller space than what is needed for concrete. There is no ne ed for pumps and trucks in the construction area and the steel that is waiting to be used can be stored off site and out of the way. Steel can also bend and deform to a certain extent and be returned to its original shape and strength capabilities. So me of the disadvantages of steel are that it does not lessen noise or vibration as well as concrete and wood does W hat is traveling over the bridge will determine whether or not this would be a factor. Steel also is not always readily available. As stated before, it is produced in a workshop and there are only so many people and shops that can fabricate steel at any given time, compared with wood and concrete that is usually readily available and sometimes produced onsite. One of steels main drawbacks is that it can rust and this can cause a huge deficit in its strength capabilities. Costs: In order to build a 120 span, 8 wide, 40 span steel bridge 1 Structural steel foreman at the hourly rate of $46.70 and the daily rate of $373.60 4 structur al steel workers at the hourly rate of $44.70 and the daily rate of $1430.40

PAGE 29

29 1 equipment operator (crane) at the hourly rate of $42.55 and the daily rate of $340.40 1 equipment operator (oiler) at the hourly rate of $36.80 and the daily rate of $294.40 1 l attice boom crane daily rate of $1741.00 Costs of material: $167.00 per square feet Daily output: 365 square feet .( Waier, 2009, pg 609 ) Wood Bridge Of the bridges in the United States with spans of longer than 20 feet, approximately 12 percent of them are made of timber. In the USDA Forest Service approximately 7,500 timber bridges are in use and more are built each year. The railroads have more than 1,500 miles of timber bridges and trestles in service. More than 1,000 Timber vehicular bridges 90 years old or older are still in service throughout the U.S. (22) One of woods main advantages over concrete and steel is its strength to weight ratio. Wood is considered to be very light and can hold and support a great deal of weight if placed properly. With the advancement of technology and the ways that wood is treated, wood can last a very long time. Another advantage of wood is that its initial costs, as well as life cycle costs, are comparable with that of concrete and steel. Over time, the pric e of concrete and steel has risen dramatically and the price of wood has remained relatively stable. (22) Some of the disadvantages of wood are that it takes a lot more material to reach the strength capabilities of steel and concrete; wood would not be id eal for a large spanning bridge that has to carry a great deal of weight. And even with the advancement of chemical treatments and other additives that can be put into wood, it is

PAGE 30

30 still susceptible to fire. Once wood has been ignited it will burn until it is put out or there is no more fuel to burn, resulting in complete destruction of the project. Costs: In order to build a 130 span wood bridge 1 carpenter foreman at the hourly rate of $46.70 and the daily rate of $335.60 3 carpenters at the hourly rat e of $39.95 and the daily rate of $958.80 1 laborer at the hourly rate of $31.60 and the daily rate of $252.80 1 carpenter foreman at the hourly rate of $46.70 and the daily rate of $335.60 1 equipment operator (crane) at the hourly rate of $42.55 and the daily rate of $340.40 1 hydraulic 12ton crane at the daily rate of $768.80 Cost of material: $60.50 per square feet Daily output: 153 square feet .( Waier, 2009, pg 609 ) Construction in Wetland Areas With the increase in population and the need to have transportation from one place to another, there will need to be some manmade structures that are built over wetlands, mainly bridges and pathways that are created over waterways or marshes. In the book Sustainable Construction, Charles J. Kibert explains that wetlands on their own are self maintaining, self regulating, and self organizing (13). Therefore, it is important to leave these areas in their original, most natural state possible. Any change to these areas can cause severe changes that do not allow them to operate in their natural way and also to perform their natural functions, such as the breakdown of material that enters them. Kibert also states that natural systems can degrade and absorb undesirable toxic and metal compounds, convert ing them into stable compounds (13) pg 262. If this process is disturbed, the already toxic materials that are

PAGE 31

31 entering the wetlands will not be broken down properly, thereby increasing the damage that will result. If a normal waterway that receives runof f from a highway or a golf course is torn up to build a bridge or pathway it will not be able to break down these already present toxins as well as the future toxins that will enter them. There is no way around the fact that most bridges that are in place had to be built to support the growing population. However, a form of construction needs to be implemented so that these areas are disrupted as little as possible before, during, and after the construction process. All of these materials can be and are used in the process of creating bridge and pathway construction. It is difficult to see these prices going down a great deal or even returni ng back to the levels they were in the early 2000s. Therefore, either a new form of construction that is cheaper and uses fewer materials needs to be created or owners will continue to see their costs increase. The FDOT contributes the rise in costs to 3 major factors: Strong growth in Floridas construction activity, especially residential construction Floridas construction market operating at, or close to, capacity Global material price increases in oil, for example ( Lee, 2007) Top Down Construc tion A new form of construction is being used to build these pathways and on both small and largescale bridges that is called t op d own construction. This method eliminates all equipment from ever touching the ground where the job is being completed. In some applications the only thing that touch es the ground is the feet of the workers. Th e construction process consists of building wood, steel, or concrete bridges from the top down, practically eliminating destruction of surrounding vegetation. ( James,

PAGE 32

32 2009) The top down process can also possibly cut down on construction costs as well as reduce the build time as well. Life Cycle Costs Life cycle cost ing (LCC) is a way for contractors and owners to find the total cost of building over the serviceable life of a project. This method becomes highly useful when an owner is presented with many options, such as the ones discussed for the construction of bridges and pathways, to determine what will have the lowest cost during the life span that the project will be in existence. Because there are so many options that are available when building a bridge or pathway it is important for owners to go through this process to determine what the best material will be. It is potentially difficult to estimate what the LCC would be for each material because of the various service life of different materials Some of these factors include type of material (i.e., concrete, wood, steel), location, the time that the project is built, weather, and natural di sasters. It is also important to note that the material with the best LCC value might not always be the best material when it comes to environmental integrity or its impact to the natural surrounding area. The methodology for performing LCC analysis for composite structures such as pedestrian bridges is dependent on several factors. This study focused on only first costs f or pedestrian bridges Issues such as target reliability level, wholelife performance assessment rules, and optimum inspectionrepair replacement strategies for bridges must be analyzed and resolved from a lifecycle cost perspective.( Aktan & Culmo & Frangopol & French & Rabbat & Ralls & Russel & Sanders & Showers & Tadros & Woods, 2010 ) The LCC is determined on a project to project basis and c a n only really be determined by looking at individual projects and variables.

PAGE 33

33 For the construction and building of structures, such pathways, many factors can be included into the LCC equation. These factors are Initial Costs Purchase, Acquisition, Construction Costs Fuel Costs Operation, Maintenance, and Repair Costs Replacement Costs Resale or Salvage Values or Disposal Costs( Fuller, 2010) Initial Costs. Initial costs are mainly the cost to acquire land and construction that is needed to prepare the land for construction to begin on the pr oject. The main factor under initial costs is the money that will be needed to have the area prepped for the job to begin. Construction Costs. These are the costs that were listed above. They include the material, equipment, and labor costs that will be needed in order to build the project. This is where the main difference in the LCC for each material can be seen. This factor is the easiest to calculate as the price for materials and installation has little variance between different locations. Fuel Cost s. This will include the cost of fuel that is needed to complete the project. Because the average cart path length is 7100 yards fuel can become a significant factor in the construction costs of a project. Because fuel prices fluctuate over time it will be difficult to assume what this cost could be by using prices that are available today. There are also many different methods that can be used to cut fuel costs, but these methods might also add time to the construction schedule. Operation, Maintenance, and Repair Costs. This value is the hardest to estimate because future events such as weather are difficult to predict. Weather will be the main factor in determining the operation, maintenance, and repair costs when figuring out the LCC for mulch, and crus hed stone. And factors such as salt exposure can have an effect or the LCC for steel and reinforced concrete. Natural disasters, such as a hurricane, can also have a large effect on LCC Replacement Costs. This will depend of the estimated life span of the project. This value depends on many factors and also how the owner will make decisions in the future. Sometimes something that can be repaired to solve the problem and extend the life span of a structure can turn into a decision by the owner to just tear down the existing structure and replace it with a brand new one. Resale or Salvage Values or Disposal Costs. This includes the costs that are needed at the time that the project is going to be completely removed and replaced. These values can vary greatly between the materials as certain

PAGE 34

34 materials, such as steel can be sold and reused, and something like concrete, once it has been broken up does not have a significant resale value. This study develops a strategy for determining the overall low im pact score for the selection of materials to be used in pedestrian bridge and pathway construction. By utilizing both LCC data and construction technique data (i.e., types of equipment, number of trips) this study allows for a comparison of construction elements and their impacts.

PAGE 35

35 Figure 2 1. Y early construction growth over the past 16 years Figure 22. T otal number of bridges built and their type in the year 1955, 1975, and 1995

PAGE 36

36 Figure 23. N umber of structurally deficient bridges built from 19501998 Table 21. I ncrease of material prices from the year 2003 to the year 2007 Pay Item Group Unit 2003/2004 2004/2005 2005/2006 2006/2007 (Jul Feb) Total Percent Change Earthwork Cubic Cubic Yard $4.73 $5.66 $7.93 $7.43 57% Asphalt Ton $57.62 $68.49 $90.81 $103.58 80% Structural Concrete Cubic Yard $546.32 $653.43 $892.89 $778.40 42% Structural Steel Pound $1.51 $1.34 $1.68 $2.08 38% Reinforcing Steel Pound $0.67 $0 .86 $0.96 $0.95 42%

PAGE 37

37 CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY AND PLACEMENT IMPACTS OF MATERIALS Overview The purpose of this study is to look into the benefits and drawbacks of new sustainable practices for pedestrian bridge and pathway construction. Information was obtained for this study through literature researched online and in journals as well as asking questions to contractors, and experts who have applied these methods to past and present projects. Insights regarding pathway materials and cost were developed through the literature review and costing estimates. Pedestrian bridge construction research was augmented by expert interviews. The expert interviews were geared toward the understanding of how designers feel about t op d own construction and if they think that in the future it will be a large part of the bridge and pathway building proc ess. Placement by Material and Environmental Impacts This section cover s how each material is placed and what equipment is needed. For these examples it will be assumed that the environmental impact will be kept at a minimum. For the pathway examples the average length of a golf course will be used (7 100 yards) and it will have a width of six feet This will create a path that occupies 14,200 sq uare yards of area that needs to be placed for the pathway alone. Bridge dat a collected was for a concrete and steel bridge that spans 120 feet and a wood bridge that spans 130 feet Pathways Concrete and Pervious Concrete First a path needs to be defined where the concrete path is going to be placed. This will involve pulling up and removing the underlying soil and plant systems, for this

PAGE 38

38 example the depth of the path will be six inches deep. Then formwork will need to be placed in order to keep the concrete in place. The concret e should then be placed as close to its final location as possible. Because of the amount of concrete and the distance that it will cover it is assume d that a concrete truck will be placed and driven along side of the path and drive along the path as it is placed. A source of water will have to keep pace with the truck in order to keep the subsurface area moist before the concrete is place. Therefore there will be a concrete truck on one side of the path at all times and a truck that has a water pum p on the other side. We will assume that a general light duty truck will be sufficient enough for the water pump. The width of a concrete truck is 8.19 feet. ( Alibaba.com, 2010 ), and the width of a light duty truck is 6.57 f eet ( fordvehicles.com ) Thi s creates an overall width of area that needs to altered in order to place the path at 20 .76 feet. This brings the total area that will be altered during the construction process to 49,132 sq uare yards A normal concrete truck can carry 10 cubic yards of concrete. In order to convert cubic yar d s into square yards the total square yardage of a cart path for 9 holes (71 00 sq. yd.) is multiplied by the thickness of the path divided by 36 inches. ( 6 inches/36 inches ) to get how many cubic yards of concrete will be needed. This total is 1184 cubic yards Than 1184 cubic yards is then divided by 10 (the cubic yards of concrete that a truck can hold) to find out how many trucks it will take to carry that m uch concrete. The total came to 118 trucks. Each trip will result in 60 square yards of concrete that is 6 inches thick (7100 square yards/118 total trips ) and will reduce the travel distance for the next truck by 30 yards N ormal concrete weighs 4000 pounds per cubic yard, so a full truck will have 40,000 pounds of concrete in it plus the weight of the

PAGE 39

39 truck, which is 26,000 pounds, brin g ing the full total weight of a concrete truck to 66,000 pounds Taking into account distance and typical placement techniques for concrete, this would result in a total of 7,778,000 pounds of full concrete trucks and 3,068,000 pounds of empty trucks each traveling a total distance of 205,920 yards along the path. The weight of the water truck is 5,000 pounds and we will assume that it travels the same distance as that of the concrete truck. (5,000 x 118 = 590,000 total pounds) Combining these numbers would result in 55.59 pounds/yards that the pathway would experience while installing a concrete path. This process will be used to find the weight impact for all of the materials used in the construction of pathways. Asphalt The placement of asphalt requires the s ame preparation that is needed for concrete. The pathway desired needs to have soil and vegetation removed and the soil underneath compacted. A self propelled paver that travels over the desired area is used to place and compact the asphalt. An example of one of these pavers is the 1750c Super paver, which has a width of 10 feet ( Mauldin.com, 2010) We will assume that the paver is left in place after each day of work so that is does not have to travel over undisturbed area to stop and restart work. Th e same size truck as the one that is used to carry the concrete mix is used for asphalt. With its width being 8.19 feet added to the extra 4 feet the paver will take up the overall footprint for creating an asphalt path is 28,850 square yards (12.19 x 7100= 86,549/3 = 28,850). Although the footprint for asphalt is not the same as concrete, mainly due to the absence of the water truck, the main component that will impact the surrounding area is the same truck that was used in the concrete example. T he paver that is used travels directly over the path and that is

PAGE 40

40 where most of its weight is applied. There for the resulting number will be slightly smaller resulting in a footprint weight of 52.72 pounds/yard. Mulch and Crushed Stone In order to place a mulch or crushed stone pathway the underlying soil will need to be displaced removed and formwork shall be put into place. Because of the amount of material needed a dump truck will be needed to carry and transport the material to where it is going to be placed. The truck is the only needed piece of equipment as laborers can place the material. The width of a typical dump truck needed to carry the material is 11.33 feet. ( InternationalTrucks.com, 2010) I t will need to make many trips back and forth so it will be assumed that is uses the same path for all of its trips making the overall effected area 41,014 sq uare yards ((11.33 + 6)/3) Each dump truck can carry 10 cubic yards of material and the depth of the material will be 6 inches. This will result in the same number of trips that needed to be take n in order to place concrete. The weight of a typical dump truck is 35,000 pounds and 10 cubic yards of crushed weighs 27,000 pounds ( Alibaba.com, 2010 ). The total weight of a full truck is 62,000 pounds. With the same 118 trips that would be needed thi s would result in 7,316,000 pounds of full trucks and 3,186,000 pounds of empty trucks that would need to travel over the 205,920 yards alongside the path. This will result in 50.99 pounds/yard that the pathway would experience while installing the path. The weight of 10 cubic yards of mulch is 5,000 pounds. The same truck and pathway will be used as in crushed stone. The weight of full truck of mulch totals 40,000 pounds and the weight of the empty truck is still 35,000 pounds. The 118 trips will result i n 4,720,000 pounds of full loads and 3,186,000 of empty truckloads over the 205,920

PAGE 41

41 yards that needs to be traveled. This will result in 38.39 pounds/yard that the pathway will experience. Brick Pavers As with the other methods the underlying soil needs to be removed so that the pathway can be defined. In order to place brick pavers a concrete subpavement needs to be placed first. This will require the same materials and equipment that is needed to place the concrete. Once this is complete a thin l ayer of sand will be placed over the concrete and the brick will be placed on top of that. After that a 8 wheel trailer truck will deliver the pavers to the place they will be installed. The width of this truck is 9.84 feet ( Australbricks.com ) since this truck is wider and it will travel the same path as the concrete truck the total footprint will be that of the 8 wheel trailer truck on one side and the light duty truck for the water on the other side. This brings the total footprint to 53,037 square yards. The total weight will be that of the concrete truck total which was 5 5.59 pounds per yard plus the weight of the 8wheel trailer truck. The truck when it is full of brick paver weighs a total of 110,231 pounds( Australbricks.com, 2010), the empty truck weighs 59,524 pounds. We will use the same number of trips that was used for concrete at 118 and the total weight of full trucks is 13,007,258 pounds and empty trucks is 7,023,823 pounds. This brings the weight applied to the surrounding area to 100.15 pounds/yard. Bridges Bridge data collected was for a concrete and steel bridge that spans 120 feet and a wood bridge that spans 130 feet. This study looked at typical construction techniques for installing these bridges as well as if the bridges were built using the top down technique.

PAGE 42

42 Concrete Bridge A support system needs to be placed in the underlying environment that will hold up the decking that will be used for the bridge. This can be done by a crane that drills shafts into th e ground that will later be used to remove the soil or rock so that concrete can be pumped into place. The crane wi ll have to travel along the immediate shoreline. A concrete bridge requires the use of a 90ton lattice boom crane. The width of this type of crane (which is attached to a large truck s o it can be driven wherever it needs to go) is 8 feet 6 inches wide. ( Maximcrane.com, 2010) It will be assumed that the crane will have to travel the full length of the bridge and that the boom can reach over to the other side, making it so that the crane will not have to travel up and down both si d es of the bridge. This will result in a total footprint for the 120 foot span bridge of 340 square yards ((8.15/3)*120) Once the support is in place then it can be used to carry the other equipment that is needed to finish the bridge, such as the concrete truck. In order to calculate the weight impact for the equipment needed to build the bridge the t otal distance traveled will need to be multiplied by the total weight of the equipment in order to get the pounds per yard that will be the total footprint. The calculation for the bridge footprint is much simpler than that of the pathways because the crane is only making one trip. It will be assumed that the crane does not have to return to its entry point once the job is complete. The total weight of the 90ton crane is 81,500 pounds ( Maximcrane.com, 2010). This will result in a total of 239 pounds/yards that the surrounding soil will experience (81,500/340) Steel Bridge For the process of determining what the footprint will be for a steel bridge it will involve the same process and equipment as that of the concrete bridge. It will need a

PAGE 43

43 90ton lattic e boom crane that will only need to travel along one side of the bridge in order to place the support system. This will result in the same 340 square yard footprint. Then once the support system is installed it can be used to hold up and transport all other needed material. Because all of the equipment is the same for steel as it was for concrete the resulting footprint consequence will be the same 239 pounds/yard. Wood Bridge The process of installing a wooden bring is the same as installing and building a concrete and steel one, the main difference is the size of the crane that will be needed. The crane needed for a wooden brings is a 12ton hydraulic crane. An example of one of these is the 12ton XCMG hydraulic crane, which has a width of 8.2 feet ( Alibaba.com, 2010) Just as with the other bridges the crane will only have to be on one side of the bridge and will create a total footprint of 328 square yards for a 120 foot bridge. The total weight of the 12ton crane is 35,200 pounds ( Alibaba.com, 2 010 ) This will result in a footprint of 107 pounds/yard. Application of the Top Down Method of Installation Incorporating the top down method into any of the bridge installation process es will greatly reduce the environmental i mpacts and in some cases it will even reduce the time and budget of the projects as well. Many companies have invented there own methods as in how to apply the top down method to their jobs and the case studies in this report show how some of these techniq ues are applied to the construction of concrete and wood bridges. By eliminating the need for equipment to touch the ground and minimizing the amount of time the crew needs to be on the ground less damage will be done to the underlying environment Because there are so many variations to the top

PAGE 44

44 down method there is no single way to define how each job has to be done. The main objective is to truly build the project from the top down and apply the principles that are described above. As time passes and technology advances more and more methods to the top down technique will be added and each company will have their own unique way of doing it. Summary Reviewing the given materials and the methods that are used to place them shows how they will have more than just an effect on the immediate area that the pathways occupies. All of these materials have benefits and drawbacks that can be analyzed when choosing one of them for a project. There is a fine line that contractors and owners have to walk to balance these benefits and drawbacks when selecting a material for a project. The result for which material is best for minimizing the impact it has on the immediate area is based on the total footprint that is needed along with the LCC of the material over a 20year period. Below is a list of the materials and the total footprint area as well as t he weight per yard that is imposed to construct it. Footprint Impact Values Table 31 Footprint and Weight/Yard Results Concrete and pervious concrete: 49,132 square yards 55.59 pounds/yard Asphalt: 28,850 square yards 52.72 pounds/yard Crushed ston e: 41,014 square yards 50.99 pounds/yard Mulch: 41,014 square yards 38.39 pounds/yard Brick pavers: 5 3,037 square yards 100.15 pounds/yard As seen above, considering materials used in pathway construction, asphalt has the smallest footprint while mulch has the lowest weight impact on the surrounding area.

PAGE 45

45 The following table shows the results for the analysis that was done for the bridge materials. Table 3.2 Footprint and Weight/Yard Result Concrete: 340 square yards 239 pounds/yard Steel : 340 square yards 239 pounds/yard Wood: 328 square yards 107 pounds/yard Concrete and steel both involved the same basic construction process so their footprint and weight results were the same. W ood, mainly because of the lighter crane tha t is needed, provided the smallest footprint as well as the smallest weight result. Life Cycle Cost (LCC) Values The LCC for each of the materials used for the pathways was obtained by calculating the initial cost of the project, including materials, equipment and labor. Then the maintenance and repair for each of the materials was determined based on how often maintenance and repair would be needed and also how much of the path would need attention. Mulch, crushed stone, and brick paver s were considered to require attention every year. Mulch would need to have 50% of the path maintained, crushed stone would need 30%, and the brick pavers would only need 0.5%. Concrete and asphalt would each require attention every 5 years and only 0.5% of the path would require attention. With all of the initial costs and maintenance added up and then with a 0.05% discount rate applied the total LCC for 20 years was obtained for each of the pathway materials. Life Cycle Impact Ranking Model This paper proposes a lifecycle impact ranking model that lets the design team compare and weight the life cycle costs of pathway and bridge materials and their

PAGE 46

46 construction area impact. For pathways t he user may weight both the LCC and Footprint Impact measures with percentages that sum to a hundred. By doing so the design team may determine the percentage weight for each category for which they deem more important. For bridges first costs only were substituted for LCC data. The materials are then sorted numerically to determine their ranking. The sum of both the LCC and Footprint Impact Rankings determine the products final score and subsequent final ranking. The power of this model is its ability to quantify construction technique impacts along with life cycle co ncerns such as first costs and maintenance. For this study a 80 percent weight for LCC and a 20 percent weight for Impact Rankings were arbitrarily assigned.

PAGE 47

47 Table 33 Life Cycle Costs for Pathway Materials (20 Years) Initial Cost Concrete Asphalt Mulch Crushed Stone Pavers Material (S.F ) $2.62 $2.22 $0.32 $5.85 $12.60 Equipment (S.F.) $0.21 $0.27 $0.11 $0.62 Labor (S.F.) $1.72 $3.22 $0.10 $0.39 $7.00 Initial Costs (Total) $4.55 $5.71 $0.53 $6.86 $19.60 First Costs $581,490.00 $729,73 8.00 $67,478.40 $48,706.00 $2,504,880.00 Repair Costs Every year $33,739.20 $14,611.80 $12,524.40 Every 3 years Every 5 years $2,907.45 $3,648.69 LCC/20 years $588,348.70 $737,967.06 $487,943.41 $230,876.70 $2,661,037.09

PAGE 48

48 CHAPTER 4 CASE STUDIES North Carolina D epartment O f T ransportation Bridge Project on US 17 This bridge is a 6.8mile bypass on US 17 that goes around the city of Washington North Carolina. The main obstacle that they ran into was the crossing of the Tar River and other environmentally sensitive wetland areas. This bridge was located on the Carolina coastal plain in Beaufort County and in the end it totaled 4 lanes wide and 2.8 miles long. The contractor, FlatironUnited, was in charge of the design team and also t he construction of this bridge. The engineer on record was a team from Earth Techs North Carolinas operations. During the design phase FlatironUnited developed a new and innovative t op d own approach that incorporated the use of an overhead gantry. The article on this project states that the use of this method had a minimal impact on the wetlands and accelerated construction schedule when compared to conventional construction techniques (Shearin & Jordan, 2010) The total cost of the project was $19 2 million and is scheduled to be completed in November of 2010. The building process includes a pair of 592 ft long gantries that weigh 750 tons each. The gantries are each placed at the end of the bridge and work their way towards the middle. Also included in the process is a self launching truss system that performs the complete list of sequencing for the construction activities. These activities include the driving of the 30 inches square pressured concrete pilings and also the setting of the precas t post tensioned bent caps and 72 inches modified BulbT girders. The system also handles the materials for construction of the cast in place concrete deck. This is the first system of its kind in the case of pile driving operation from an erection gantry and it eliminates the need for equipment and temporary access trestles and also

PAGE 49

49 eliminates the need for groundwork in the wetlands. Therefore eliminating the potential immediate and future damage that could be done to the wetlands. This process also cre ates an assembly line type construction process. As the deck is completed and cured the gantry moves ahead to begin the next pile driving operation. The article states that this is a true t op d own operation and it was well received by the US Army Corps of Engineers, North Carolina Department of Natural Resources, US Coast Guard, and other environmental agencies. ( Shearin & Jordan, 2010) The bridge is mostly straight which allows continuous work for the system until the remaining 0.5 miles on the north end where the bridge starts to curve. Here the bridge will be broken into the two components of north and southbound lanes and they are completed separately. Because of its location the bridge was designed to withstand 100 MPH winds that hurricanes could bring to the area during the construction period. The gantry was designed to operate in winds up to 45 MPH at which point it is secured into place and shut down until the wind speed comes back down. Although once the wind speed hits 64 MPH the gantry is pulled back over a span of the bridge that is all ready completed and anchored into place. T his operation and the parts to go along with it are FlatironUniteds patent pending system that will revolutionize the process of bridge construction in the future. JD James Nature Bridges JD James Inc. specializes in the building of nature bridges in northwest Florida. The Rookery Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve was a project that was began on May 4th 2009 and was completed august 12th 2009. The proj ect consisted of 4,770 s.f. of pedestrian bridges and the contract amount was $696,965.00. The owner of the

PAGE 50

50 project was the Florida Department of Environmental Protection and preservation of the underlying environment as well as the surrounding area was their top priority going into this project. JD James was contracted to build a 10 x 400 wooden and fiberglass reinforced plastic pedestrian bridge system. In order to reduce the impact on the ecologically sensitive mangrove forests that the bridge would pass over JD James incorporated their innovative t op d own construction method along with a custom retrofitted barge with a pile guide platform. The top down method included an excavator that was equipped with a hydraulic vibratory hammer that drives pile s ets to their required depth. The process calls for a 10foot section of the bridge to be built then the machine moves forward on the completed section and repeats this process until the bridge is complete. Carpenters are used to install the pile caps, stri ngers, and decking. All of the material is staged at one end of the bridge and delivered to the construction area by a modified forkli f t This eliminates the need for any heavy equipment to touch the ground at any time and greatly reduces the impact t hat the construction process would have on the underlying environment. The only modification to the underlying environment that was made was trimming to the mangrove that was needed to establish the path for the bridge, and that trimming was limited to the width of the bridge. By also using the top down method no equipment had to be stored or placed along side of the bridge, this also solved the problem of having to drive piles and compensating for the change in tides that occurred every day The only part of the job that was not self performed and was subcontracted out was the operation of a crane that was needed. As of today this is the only freespan fiberglass reinforced plastic pedestrian bridge currently installed in the state of Florida. (James, 2009)

PAGE 51

51 CHAPTER 5 INTERVIEWS Questions 1 What do you feel the requirements are that classifies a job as being a t op d own construction job? 2 What benefits do you think that t op d own construction brings to owners, engineers, and contract ors? 3 Is the cost of having the t op d own construction method applied to a job more or less costly than that of having traditional methods used? 4 Do you feel that the t op d own construction method creates any long term benefit to the sustainability of the surrounding area where the project is being completed? 5 Are there any other methods that can be used in the construction process that are not considered t op d own construction that can achieve the same results? 6 What type, if any, training is needed for workers to work on a job where t op d own construction is being done? 7 What kind of delays are encountered using the t op d own construction method that would normally be avoided by using traditional methods? 8 Do you feel that t op d own construction being implemented as a requirement on jobs being built in environmentally sensitive areas will be required in the near future? 9 Are there any governing agencies (An example would be the LEED certifying process) that oversee a t op d own co nstruction job to make sure that the process was done correctly? If not do you feel that there should be? 10. Do you feel advertising your company as a t op d own construction only would be profitable at this point in time? These questions were directed to Mark Mallet, who was a project manager on the North Carolina DOT Bridge Project on US 17. The project was considered a t op d own project and his company implemented their own unique method to incorporate the Top Down process. Ron Dodson was also inter viewed and he is an expert on how to build and manage golf courses and how to have the least environmental impact as possible.

PAGE 52

52 Mr. Dodson has written a series of books on the process and was addressed the same questions as Mr. Mallet on the effects and benefits of the t op d own process. Results Mark Mallett (Resume attached) 1. What do you feel the requirements are that classifies a job as being a t op d own construction job? Response: All construction activities are constructed from the existing st ructure and no construction activities required below. (minor items like surveying, inspection etc.. sometimes occur at ground or water level) 2. What benefits do you think that t op d own construction brings to owners, engineers, and c ontractors? R e sponse: S ignificant less environmental impact greatly improves the permit acquisition process, less temporary works results in less construction risk and a safer construction project. Also, top down construction tends to be performed in a repetitious assembly line type process which results in higher quality product and more cost efficient. 3. Is the cost of having the t op d own construction method applied to a job more or less costly than that of having traditional methods used? Response: Developing a sound t op d own construction system requires more up front engineering, R&D, and planning. However cost savings from elimination of expensive temporary trestles and associated equipment wil l result in top down being a more cost effective construction method. The longer the bridge the more this is the case.

PAGE 53

53 4. Do you feel that the t op d own construction method creates any long term benefit to the sustainability of the surr ounding area where the project is being completed? Response: Top down has less environmental impact (essentially zero). Compared to other methods that may damage wildlife, fisheries, etc... top down can avoid potential long term impacts due to construction. 5. Are there any other methods that can be used in the construction process that are not considered t op d own construction that can achieve the same results? Response: I am not that I know of otherwise I would consider them top down. 6. What type, if any, training is needed for workers to work on a job where t op d own construction is being done? Response: Training is jobsite specific for the means and methods used however, we also train o ur employees the importance of the environment we are constructing in and minimizing our "construction footprint". 7. What kind of delays are encountered using the t op d own construction method that would normally be avoided by using tr aditional methods? Response: None that I am aware of. 8. Do you feel that t op d own construction being implemented as a requirement on jobs being built in environmentally sensitive areas will be required in the near future? R esponse: I see no reason why it should not be required. Proven means and methods have are available and have delivered challenging projects ahead of schedule and for lower costs than conventional methods.

PAGE 54

54 9. Are there any governing agencies (An example would be the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design ( LEED ) certifying process) that oversee a t op d own construction job to make sure that the process was done correctly? If not do you feel that there should be? Response: I am only aware of the regulatory agencies monitoring that the construction process does not violate the associated permits. 10. Do you feel advertising your company as a t op d own construction only would be profitable at this point in time? Response: We perform many different types of bridge and road construction. We have developed an excellent top down method and see great potential to successfully execute it again on future projects. Ron Dodson (resume attached) 1. What do you feel the requirements are that classifies a job as being a t op d own construction job? Response: If this question pertains to the style of job, then it means the construction of a conveyance (bridge, or other raised passageway) that is constructed in such a manner to minimize any impact to the soil, plants, water and so forth by creating not only a raised surface for passage over the soil, plants, water and so forth, but the actual construction process minimizes the use of any practices during construction that might impact the surfaces below the passageway. 2. What benefits do you think that t op d own construction brings to owners, engineers, and contractors?

PAGE 55

55 Response: The process could speed permitting and therefore save time and money in the permitting process. If done properly it could also save money on construction material and labor costs. 3. Is the cost of having the t op d own construction method applied to a job more or less costly than that of having traditional methods used? Response: I believe, overall it is less costly. 4. Do you feel that the t op d own construction method creates any long term benefit to the sustainabilit y of the surrounding area where the project is being completed? Response: Yes, I believe it does, both from an environmental point of view regarding the actual site, and depending on the materials used, there can be offsite benefits as well. 5. Are there any other methods that can be used in the construction process that are not considered t op d own construction that can achieve the same results? Response: Not that I am aware of. 6. What type, if any, training is needed for workers to work on a job where t op d own construction is being done? Response: For workers I don't think there is any special training necessary other than being able to follow directions. 7. What kind of delays are encountered using the t op d own construction method that would normally be avoided by using traditional methods?

PAGE 56

56 Response: Possibly permitting delays as some regulators do not understand the concept of t op d own construction and until they do, they may be hesitant to permit an approach to passage over a sensitive area, without knowledge of the process. 8. Do you feel that t op d own construction being implemented as a requirement on jobs being built in environmentally sensitive areas will be required in the near future? Response: I believe that may come to pass, but it will be coupled with education and awareness of permitting agencies. 9. Are there any governing agencies (An example would be the LEED certifying process) that oversee a t op d own construction job to make sure that the process was done correctly? If not do you feel that there should be? Response: I think LEED and other such programs s hould consider giving extra points for such construction and therefore recognize t op d own construction as a valuable addition to sustainable development. I think it is possible that some third party organization might offer a certific ation for t op d own construction in the future, but I am unsure as to who that might be. 10. Do you feel advertising your company as a t op d own construction only would be profitable at this point in time? Respons e : Given the state of the economy and the fact that it is not widely known in the permitting areas, I don't think so at this time. Summary To summarize these interviews will conclude whether or not the top down construction process is considered pr ofitable by the two people interviewed, and whether or not it has a significant impact on the environment or the immediate surrounding area around the job. Although it is hard to conclude what impact a job had

PAGE 57

57 on the environment; whatever problems that can be observed after the job should be considered that they originated from the construction process. Both of the people that were questioned about the t op d own process agreed that it does have a more positive impact on the environment than traditional c onstruction methods. Mr. Dodson expressed that the only delay that could be involved with the t op down process would be the uneducated mindset of some permitting officials who do not understand the t op d own process. Mr. Mallett had a conflicting respons e on the permitting issue viewing the t op d own process as a way to speed up the permitting process therefore saving time. The only other difference the two had in their responses was based on the question of whether or not the t op down process could be used as an advertising tool to promote business for a company that specializes in the t op down process. Mr. Mallett feels that it would generate more business and Mr. Dodson feels that because of the current economy in 2010 and the level of education about the process the top down process would not create more business for a construction company. Because of some of the conflicting issues it can be assumed that not enough is know n about the t op d own process and the effect it will have on a process to c onclude that it in some instances it is better than traditional building methods. On the issue of whether or not t op d own has a positive effect on the surrounding area and the reduction of future problems only time will tell. More research needs to be do ne and more comparisons need to be made between t op d own and traditional methods to come to a definitive answer.

PAGE 58

58 CHAPTER 6 RESULTS AND ANALYSIS After reviewing all of the materials and the methods that are used to place them it can be concluded that each material and each application has it own benefits and drawbacks for each kind of job. Pathways and bridges take on many forms and can be used to perform different types of functions depending on how much weight will be applied and the length that is ne eded. As of today it is up to the owner and the designer on how much of an effort will be placed on trying to prevent the extent of damage that will be done to the environment during the building process. There are no guidelines or rules in place to regulate this process. Pathways The results for which material has the lowest impact for pathways was based on the LCC costs of the materi al and also the weight per square yard that was applied to the surrounding area during the construction process. Table 6 1 LCC and Footprint Ranking for Pathway Materials Material Ranking LCC Value Material Ranking Footprint Impact 80% 20% Crush ed Stone 1 0.8 Mulch 1 0.2 Mulch 2 1.6 Crushed Stone 2 0.4 Concrete 3 2.4 Asphalt 3 0.6 Asphalt 4 3.2 Concrete 4 0.8 Brick Pavers 5 4.0 Brick Pavers 5 1.0

PAGE 59

59 Results The results show that when giving LCC a weighted value of 80% and the footprint a weight value of 20% that crushed stone has the best score. Table 6 2 Final Rankings Material Score Final Ranking Crushed Stone 1.2 1 Mulch 2.0 2 Concrete 3.2 3 Asphalt 3.8 4 Brick Pavers 5.0 5 Bridges The choice for whi ch material to use for bridges also comes down to elements such as first costs, use, soil conditions, and longevity and/or maintenance of the bridge. Weight requirements and length also influence what is chosen in the end. Unlike pathways, where there are many options to chose from, bridges can be narrowed down to three main materials, concrete, steel, and wood. Each of these materials posses benefits that the others do not and the factors noted above will decide which material will be used. Below the table shows a comparison between the different materials and how their first costs and footprint impact rank them. Table 6 3 First Costs and Footprint I mpact for Bridge Materials Material Results First Cost Material Results Footprint Impact 80% 20% Wood 1 0.8 Wood 1 0.2 Concrete 2 1.6 Concrete 2 0.4 Steel 3 2.4 Steel 3 0.6 The part of bridge construction that can have the biggest impact on the amount of environmental damage that is done is how it is built and installed. As seen in the case studies, the t op down process can be applied to all of these materials during the

PAGE 60

60 construction process. There is currently no standard on how to perf orm the t op d own process and more and more techniques are being created every day. The problem is that because it is a fairly new process not many owners and contractors have enough awa reness of the process and associated environmental benefits Most bridges pass over some sort of environment that would benefit from the top down process The p urpose of a bridge is so that people can pass from one place to another without having to travel through whatever obstacle that the bridge is spanned over By building the bridge using the Top Down method you achieved this result and the obstacle, the underlying environment, is left as close to its original condition as possible. Results The results show that when giving the first cost value a weighted score of 80% and giving the footprint value a weighted score of 20% that wood produced the l owest score making it the best choice. Table 6 4 Final Rankings Material Score Final Ranking Wood 1.0 1 Concrete 2.0 2 Steel 3.0 3 Summary All of the materials that are listed in this study have their own cost, placement, and environmental benefits and drawbacks T he ultimate deciding factor is what the owner and designer decide to prioritize If a pathway is being built that will be used for runners and bikers than asphalt will be the best choice because it is cheaper than concrete and provides a softer more forgiving surface. But if the pathway will be used by tractors and heavy equipment, than traditional concrete would be a better choice because of the

PAGE 61

61 strength properties i t ha s. For bridges that will span a long distance wood would probably not be the best choice and it would be better to go with steel or concrete because less material will be needed and the strength properties are much better than wood over a long distance. T h e methodology of including environmental footprint is unique to this study It allows the designer and the owner to take into consideration such considerations as first costs, maintenance and replacement costs as well as construction ecological impacts Although mulch will probably require the most maintenance over time its impac t on the surrounding area was the least of all of the materials. In the end these are the decisions that will have to be made when choosing a material to us e. Now for pedestrian bridges with the rise of t op down construction, they also have the option of deciding to build the project without impacting the spanned environment The t op d own process eliminates most of the potential damage that will be done to the environment and in some cases reduces the time and budget as well. More research needs to be done into the method of building using t op d own to truly know its benefits. Also more owners and contractors need to be educated on the possible option of implementing t op d own onto a project. Because of the ongoing increase in population and their need for bridges and pathways changes need to made to ensure that what natural areas and systems we have remain as c lose to their original condition as possible. And the t op d own method allows us to have the transportation and access that is needed while also preventing damage to the environment that they pass over. The sooner research and studies are done on the bene fits that t op d own posses, then the sooner it will most certainly become a requirement on all jobs. In the end we get the

PAGE 62

62 access and transportation requirements that are needed while still being able to enjoy what the natural environment has to offer.

PAGE 63

63 APPENDIX A MARK MALLER AND RON DODSON RESUME B Mark Mallett is one of our best project managers with over 16 years of experience i n Heavy and Highway Construction, with 12 of those years working for Flatiron. Mr. Mallett has been a successful member of numerous designbuild teams, including the construction of the Carolina Bays Parkway in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina. With each pro ject, Mr. Mallett has taken on ever increasing responsibility. Most recently Mr. Mallett has been Project Manager on the Washington Bypass Project in Washington, North Carolina, which is a $192 million designbuild project consisting of 6.8 miles of 4lan e highway, two major interchanges and one threemile long bridge, through an environmentally sensitive area. FLATIRON ( 1997 Present) Project Manager, Washington Bypass Washington, NC (2007 Present) This $192 million designbuild project consists of 6.8 miles of 4lane highway, two major interchanges and one threemile long bridge, through environmentally sensitive terrain. Flatiron is utilizing a new patent pending variation of the topdown construction technique to ensure minimal disturbance of the surrounding environment. Mr. Mallett m anages this 6.8 mile long construction project, which includes a 2.8 mile long bridge over environmentally sensitive wetlands and the Tar River. He e nsures safety is first priority for Top Down construction methods of two Launching Gantries. Work s closely with NCDOT and environmental agencies ensuring construction is within environmental permit requirements. Manages project staf f of 125 during peak production and actively oversee s project safety, schedules subco ntractors, suppliers, project costs, and public relation events. Superstructure Construction Engineering Manager, San Francisco Oakland Bay Bridge Skyway Oakland, CA (2002 Present) Flatiron was part of the joint venture team that constructed a portion of the east span of the San Francisco Oakland Bay Bridge known as the Skyway. This $1,085,000,000 project is the largest contract ever awarded by the California Department of Transportation. The project consisted of two precast segmental bridges that wil l connect a future Self Anchored Suspension (SAS) span with the city of Oakland. The Skyway will carry up to 10 lanes of traffic with four full width shoulders on two parallel bridges. A major milestone was reached on December 7, 2006 when the team lifted the final segment into place. The Skyway section has since been completed; however, the bridge will not be open to traffic until the Self Anchored Suspension span, procured as a separate contract, is completed in 2012. Mr. Mallett m anage d construction engineering consultants for the complete construction and erection of the bridge superstructure and w orked directly with the owner reviewing design issues that needed resolution in a timely manner. Mr. Mallett also managed and supervised the steel transition span deliveries and Heavy Lift erection operations. Project Engineer /Senior Field Engineer Carolina Bays Parkway Myrtle Beach, SC (200 0 2002) This $254 million designbuild project included over 20 miles of new 6 lane limited access highway with 34 sensitive wetlands, 5 fully directional interchanges. This project was completed 7 months early, and recently awarded DBIAs 2003 national DesignBuild Excellence Award Mr. Mallett o versaw all construction and design engineering of the project. This in cluded a d esign consultant and supervision of five field engineers and two office engineers. As well as the s upervised complete construction of 13 ASHTO Girder bridges and 5 precast slab bridges on this designbuild project. He was i nvolved in the constr uctability review and "work method" develo pment processes for each bridge and c reated "Construction Lift" drawings for all construction activities including heavy crane

PAGE 64

64 picking operations, concrete formwork details, bridge deck finishing machine grades, and survey layout requirements. Senior Field Engineer, Bath Woolwich Bridge Bath, ME (1997 2000) This $48 million designbuild project was the construction of a new segmental bridge; the 3,000foot long, 69foot wide bridge spans the Kennebec River with four lanes for vehicular traffic, two bike lanes and a pedestrian sidewalk. There are three approach spans varying from 164 to 184 feet at each end of the main river crossing. Six main spans over the river vary from 203 feet to a recordbreaking span of 420 feet over the navigational channel. Each span was constructed using precast concrete box girder segments and erected in balanced cantilever fashion. Mr. Mallett s upervised casting and erection of a concrete precast segmental bridge. Supervised design and construction of formwork systems for cast in place Superstructure of segmental Bridge. Worked with construction superintendents setting up c onstruction procedures of casting and erecting precast superstructure segments, cast in place columns, and cast i n place superstructure. Supervised engineering and construction of 8 foot diameter drilled shafts utilizing concrete tremie pours. Supervised the post tensioning installation and stressing activities during the erection of Segments and during the column construction. Mr. Mallett also supervised the document control office of the entire designbuild job. This department contains original copies of all "engineering documentation" (for construction and shop drawings, specifications, reinforcement bar and p ost tensioning material lists). STRAIT CROSSING Design Management Engineer, Confederation Bridge Project Prince Edward Island, Canada (1996 1997) Mr. Mallett w orked with several consultants in various civil and electrical engineering applications. The civil engineering applications included working with the bridge designer to implement/coordinate several bridge finishing procedures, i.e., expansion joint and beam/bearing installation and adjustment. Scour protection of approach bridge piers and shore line revetments. Coordinated design with the traffic consultant and authorities for the traffic signs and signals on and off the Confederation Bridge. The electrical engineering applications included the Ice Shield Cathodic Protection System, Traffic Management system, and Toll collection system. Worked closely with the project management teams and produced a weekly critical item list. Monitored the construction planning activities for the last eight months of the project. Pier Base Area Engineer, Con federation Bridge Project Prince Edward Island, Canada (1994 1996) Mr. Mallett established and modified work methods for Pier Base construction. Organized and maintained quality control for Pier Base Area. Coordinated and maintained schedule updates. Conducted Productivity/Schedule meetings with area Foreman. Worked with design staff to implement construction procedure and structural design changes. Maintained costing records, keeping track of individual construction activity budgets. Provided tec hnical assistance (interpretation of drawings/specifications & recommendations for construction methods) to fieldwork foreman. Prepared weekly report on construction quantities installed. DEPARTMENT OF FISHER IES AND OCEANS Junior Engineer, Dartmouth, Nova Scotia (winter, 1993) STRESCON LIMITED Concrete Inspector, Bedford, Nova Scotia (fall, 1993)

PAGE 65

65 Ronald G. Dodson P.O. Box 339 Feura Bush, New York 12067 518859 5370 Education and Training M.S., Natural Resource Management and Planning. Indiana State University B.S., Wildlife Biology. Oakland City University. (Post M.S. training and certification in hazardous waste management, air and water quality management and monitoring from the University of Kentucky.) Experience Summary Audubon Internati onal (AI), (1987present) National Audubon Society, (19821987), Regional VicePresident Audubon International Golf & Environment Land Trust, Inc., Chairman Internation al Sustainability Council (ISC), Chairman (2007present) Editor, Golf and Environment Section American AmericanOnLine.com (19971999) Columnist, Golfdom Magazine The Nature of the Game series (20002003) Author: 2 Books on Golf and the Environment Presently, Sustainability Advisor to the following organizations : LandDesign, Inc., Bloomsbur y Properties International, LLC Audubon Lifestyles, Inc. (Serve on Board of Directors) Sustainable Golf & Development, LLC City of Franklin, Tennessee Charlotte Mecklenburg Housing Partnership, Inc Equestrian Services, LLC U rbana University (Serve on Board of Trustees) University of Alaska, Fairbanks, (Adjunct Professor of Sustainability) University of Florida Program for Resource Efficient Communities University of California, Palm Desert Siena College, Loudon ville, NY, (Community Advisory Council) United States Golf Association Turf and Environmental Research Co mmittee GolfPreserves, Inc., Board of Advisors National Fish and Wildlife Foundation Wi ldlife Links Research Committee Urban Land Institute S ustainable Development Council American National Fish and Wildlife Museum Board of Directors

PAGE 66

66 1000 Friends of Florida, Inc. Community Development Planning Committee, contributing author to 2 1000 Friends of Florida, Inc. publications. American Planning Association Member, Energy, Environment and Natural Resources Division R e started the Audubon Society of New York State, Inc., (the second oldest Audubon Society in the United States) in 1987. The Audubon Society of New York State is also known as Audubon I nternational and presently has membership and land management projects underway 26 countries around the world. Through Audubon International Dodson created the Audubon Cooperative Sanctuary System (including programs for schools, farms, backyards, corporat e properties, golf courses and municipalities) and the Audubon Signature Cooperative Sanctuary Program designed for properties in the planning and design stages of development. All of these programs are internationally recognized and has received awards and praise from the U.S. EPA, the United Nations and various other international, national, state and local government bodies. Oversees, the Sustainability Campaign of the International Sustainability Council through which he and other ISC Council members are working with government agencies, universities, businesses and Not for profit organizations that are planning for a more sustainable future. Projects include work in Florida, Tennessee, North Carolina, Alabama, New York, South Africa, Portugal and Chin a. Prior his present position with Audubon International Dodson was a Regional Vice President of the National Audubon Society, Executive Director of the Western Kentucky Environmental Planning Agency, and Manager of the Environment al Department for Anaconda Aluminum Company and a biology and science teacher at the high school and college levels. Regional Director of the Alaska Coalition during the Carter Administration, working in Washington, D.C. and Alaska on Native Claims and Federal Parks and Refuge establishment. Example Publications and Reports: Books: Sustainable Golf 2005. Wiley and Sons Publishers Managing Wildlife Habitat on Golf Courses 2003. Wiley and Sons Publishers R.G. Dodson and Smart, M.M. 1999. Best Management Practices for Golf Courses Lewis Publishers in conjunction with the United States Golf Association.

PAGE 67

67 R.G. Dodson and Smart, M.M. 1999. An Environmental Performance Audit for Clubs A Full Facility Self Audit Club Managers Association of America. R.G. Dodson and Sma rt, M.M. in prep. Water Quality Management on Human Managed Landscapes Lewis Publishers with Audubon International. R.G. Dodson, Harker, D. 2000. Landscape Restoration Handbook Lewis Publishers. R.G. Dodson, L.M. Woolbright and Smart, M.M. in Prep. Natural Resource Management Planning for Sustainable Communities. R.G. Dodson, Jones, P. et. al. In Prep. Field Guide to Sustainable Development With Audubon International and the University of Florida Program for Resource Efficient Communities. Technic al Client Presentations: Dodson is the principle author of more than twohundredfifty reports and presentations to State and Federal agencies and clients in the private sector. Topics of reports included hazardous waste assessments and audits, water quality assessment, ecological studies, restoration planning, Environmental Impact Statements and community planning. Public and popular publications: Columnist: Golfdom Magazine The Nature of the Game Green Section Record (USGA Publication), various articles Stewardship News Audubon International, On the Road for Stewardship Selected Recognition: Environmental Communicator of the Year, 2004 Turf and Ornamental Communicators Association of America Presidents Award for Environmental Leadership, GCSAA 1996 Person of the Year Landscape Management Magazine, 1998 Environmental Steward of the Year, 1999 New Jersey Turfgrass Association Environmentalist of the Year Friends of Audubon, 1985 Donald Ross Award American Society of Golf Course Architects, 2009

PAGE 68

68 LIST OF REFERENCES Aktan, E., Culmo,M., Frangopol, D., French, C., Rabbat, B., Ralls, M., Russel, H., Sanders, D., Showers, J., Tadros, M., Woods, S., (2010) Concrete Bridges [WWWdocument]. URL http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/millennium/00019.pdf Alibaba.com. (2010) Concrete Truck Mixers [WWWdocument]. URL http://www.a libaba.com/product gs/206522509/Concrete_Truck_Mixers.html Australbricks.com. (2010) Delivery Guildlines [WWWdocument]. URL http://ebrick.australbricks.com.au/DELIVERY.htm Better Homes and G ardens. (2010) Crushed Stone Path [WWWdocument]. URL http://www.bhg.com/home improvement/outdoor/walkways/crushedstonepath/ BridgeBuilders.com. (2010) Why Use Timbe r [WWWdocument]. URL http://www.bridgebuilders.com/why_timber.php ConcreteNetwork.com. (2010). Environmental Benefits [WWW Document]. URL http://www.concretenetwork.com/pervious/environ_benefits.html Dictionary.com. (2010) Mulch [WWWdocument]. URL http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/mulch Florida State Pa rks.org. (2010) FloridaStateParks [WWWdocument]. URL http://www.floridastateparks.org/resources/doc/statewide/fspguide_fro nt.pdf Fordvehicles.com. (2010) F150Specifications [WWWdocument]. URL http://www.fordvehicles.com/trucks/f150/specifications/ Fuller,S. (2010) Life Cycle Cost Analysis [WWWdocument]. URL http://www.wbdg.org/resources/lcca.php Information Please Database. (2007) Florida [WWWdocument]. URL http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0108198.html InternationalTrucks.com. (2010) Workstar7300. [WWWdocument]. URL http://www.internationaltrucks.com/Trucks/Trucks/Series/WorkStar/73 00 James, J. D. (2009) Construction Process for Wood and Timber Bridges [WWWdocument]. URL http://www.natur ebridges.com/process/

PAGE 69

69 Kibert, C. (2008). Sustainable Construction Green Building Design and Delivery New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons KingCountry.gov. (2010) [WWWdocument]. URL http://your.kingcounty.gov/solidwaste/business/documents/Conversio ns.pdf Lee, D. (2007). Update on highway construction Cost Trends in Florida. [WWW document]. URL http://www.dot.state.fl.us/planning/policy/costs/Update0407.pdf Levi. (2008) Structural Adv antages Using SteelIn Bridges [WWWdocument]. URL http://l2build.com/steel%20articles/structural%20advantages%20usin g%20steel%20in%20bridges.html Maximcrane.com. (2010) HTC8690. [WWWdocument]. URL http://www.maximcrane.com/loadcharts/3%20%20%20Hydraulic%20 Truck%20Cranes/Link Bel t/HTC 8690_90%20ton.pdf Mauldin. (2010) MauldinPavingProducts1750C [WWWdocument]. URL http://www.apellc.com/images %20current/literature/M audlin%201750C%20and%201750C%20Silver%2016.pdf National Asphalt Pavement Association. (2010) Asphalt Pavement Overview [WWWdocument]. URL http://www.hotmix.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id= 14&Itemid=33 National ConcreteBridge Council. (2010) Concrete Advantage Benefits of Concrete. [WWWdocument]. URL http://www.nationalconcretebridg e.org/advantage.html Perviouspavement.org (2010). Mix Design and Materials [WWWdocument]. URL http://www.perviouspavement.org/mixture%20proportioning.htm Peterson, Tom. (2007). C oncrete or Asphalt: Making Decisions to Ensure Quality Paved Trails and Gree n ways Rail trails, Recreation Transportation Shared Use Path System, Linear National State Park, Develop Process Public Input, Adjacent Landowner, State Federal Agency Partnership, Wheelchair and Disabled, Accessible Surface, Forest Service, American Federal Right of way Abandoned, Hiking, Bicycle, Pedestrian, Study, Link System Connect. American Trails Your National Resource for Trails and Greenways. [WWWdocument]. URL http://www.americantrails.org/resources/trailbuilding/BuildAsphaltClos erLook.html

PAGE 70

70 Shearin, T. & Jordan, W. (2010). A Bridge Building Machine in North Carolina: True Top D own Construction [WWWdocument]. URL http://www.flatironcorp.com/assets/pdf/ASHE WashingtonBypassA rticle FALL_2008.pdf Simmons, L. (2007). Olins Construction Principles, Materials, and Methods New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons StateMaster.com. (2010) Transportation Statistics. [WWWdocument]. URL http://www.statemaster.com/graph/trn_bri_tot_num transportationbridges total number StateofFlorida.com (2010). Florida Quick Facts. [WWWdocument].URLhttp://www. stateofflorida.com/florquicfac.html State of New Hamp shire Department of Resources and Economic Development Division of Parks and Recreation Bureau of Trails. (1994) Best Management Practices for Erosion Control During Trail Maintenance and Construction [WWWdocument]. URL http://www.americantrails.org/resources/trailbuilding/NHerosioncontrol .html Thomle, J., Goede, W., Haselback, L. (2010) Pervious Concrete [WWWdocument]. URL http://www.palousewatersummit.org/2009PBWS_1615_Thomle_Goed e_Haselbach.pdf U.S. Census Bureau(2009). State and County Quickfacts [WWW document]. URL http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/12000.html Waier, Phillip. (Eds.). (2009). RSMeans Building Construction Cost Data 2009

PAGE 71

71 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Matthew R. Coan was born i n Plantation Florida He graduated hi gh school in 2003 and later that summer started classes at the University of Florida. He received a Bachelor of Arts degree in geology from the University of Florida in 2007. He was then admitted to grad school in the Rinker School of Building Construction at the University of Florida and received his Masters in Science in Building Construction in the summer of 2010.