PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING DISTRICT 3-0 BRIDGE DESIGN UNIT Final Structure Plan Review S-31107

solesudaneseUrban and Civil

Nov 25, 2013 (3 years and 8 months ago)

69 views

PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

ENGINEERING DISTRICT 3
-
0

BRIDGE DESIGN
UNIT

Final
Structure Plan

Review

S
-
31107

PAGE __
1
_ OF _
1
__

DATE _
9
/
24
/20
1
2

____



COUNTY _
Lycoming

S.R. _
1
003
__

SEC. __
0
11

_
_

CONSULTANT
McTish, Kunkel, & Associate
s

REVIEWER _
B
ryan S. Miller, P.E.
_ PH # _
570
-
368
-
4330
_


TYPE OF STRUCTURE _
1
-
Span Steel I
-
beam Superstructure Replacement

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS:

Steven E. Rodgers, P.E. 412
-
824
-
2910


SHEET

NO.

COMMENT
#


COMMENTS


1

No fatigue analysis has been completed.

The Q/A form in Appendix A states that fatigue
analysis is N/A due to the bridge being a simple span rolled beam. However, the
connection plate weld details are C’ details (AASHTO Table 6.6.3.2.1
-
1)

that need to be
checked.



Response: Fatigue Analysi
s
has been

added to the final beam runs

1, 22,
23, 24

2

Moment slabs are detailed at the near left and far right.

The Special Provision section II.
Design (e) 1.2 states to end the vertical wall barrier at the ends of the deck. Is there a
specific reason

moment slabs are proposed?


Response:
Due to the sharp skew and the barrier width at the approach transition (1’
-
8”), there is a conflict with the wingwall extensions and the installation of the
first
guiderail post

off the structure, particularly at Wi
ng D. M
oment slabs were
required in
order to provide a proper approach transition.

1
, 17

3

Fixed and Expansion bearings are incorrectly shown on sheets 1 and 17. They are
correctly shown on sheet 14. Abutment 1 is the expansion end of the bridge and
abutment 2 is the fixed end.


Response: Corrected as indicated.

3

4

Quantity Tabs


Bridge Structure, As Designed, S
-
31107 should be changed to Item 8260
-
0010, Construction of Rehabilitation of Bridge Structure, S
-
31107 (LS).


Response: Corrected as ind
icated.

3

5

Quantity Tabs


Add Item 9043
-
0101, Epoxy Based Surface Treatment for Bridge Decks
(SY)


Response: Added as indicated.

3

6

Quantity Tabs


Item Selected Borrow Excavation, Structure Backfill should be Modified


Response: Corrected as indicat
ed.

3

7

Quantity Tabs


Note (4) should be added for “See Special Provisions”. Add Note (4) to
Items 8260
-
0010 and 9043
-
0101. Add Note (4) to Selected Borrow Excavation, Structure
Backfill

Modified, Adhesive Anchor, No. 4 Bar, Adhesive Anchor, No. 5 Bar
, Removal of
Portion of Existing Bridge, and Temporary Excavation Support and Protection System


Response: Added as indicated.

4

8

Phase Construction Sequence: Add Epoxy Overlay to the bridge deck during phase 2
construction.


Response: Added as indicated
.

11

9

Section B
-
B: Add note to fill triangular area below concrete abutment cap with PCP to
provide smooth transition for membrane waterproofing.


Response: Note added as indicated.

14

10

Verify that no diaphragm is located between B1 and B2 near the f
ar abutment. The plans
appear to have a dimension line that could be mistaken for a diaphragm.


Response: No diaphragm is located between B1 and B2 near the Far Abutment.

Dimension line was removed and CL DIAPHRAGM CONNECTION PL is now only shown in
one

location and labeled (TYP).

17

11

Add to note 11: Beveled Sole Plates are to be shop welded to the beams. Field welding
sole plates to the beams is not permitted.


Response: Note added.

21, 24

12

Reinforcement Bar Schedule: Bar Type 54 is shown to be u
sed at all four corners.
However, due to the 3
rd

dimension bend, Type 54 can only be used on 2 corners. A
different bar type needs to specified
,

with the 3
rd

dimension bend in the opposite
direction for the other 2 corners.


Response:
The type 54 bend i
s used in the moment slab transitions. A type 55 bend has
been added to identify the opposite corner bend in the deck barrier.



13

Please forward the STLRFD input files.


Response: STLRFD input files have been
included with this submission
. Please n
ote,
beam runs have been updated to version 2.1.0.0.


14

Was the finite element model developed to account for the half width construction?
Beams 4, 5, 6 will be composite prior to beams 1, 2, and 3 being set and the phase 2 deck
being poured. Any uplif
t issues encountered in the analysis under phased construction
analysis?



Response:
N
egative

(uplift)

reactions
come

from two main sources:


the barrier and the
live load.


The barrier causes uplift on the first interior girder since it is cantilevered o
ut
past the exterior girder.


For the phase 1 condition, the negative uplift from the outside
barrier should be tempered by the temporary barrier, which will be between G4 and G5
and will impart some downward load on G5.


The live load uplift is most prono
unced on
the fascia girder.


This occurs when the live load is further to the opposite side of the
bridge transversely.


Since only 1 lane is provided in Phase 1, the traffic will be forced to
drive over or very close to the fascia girder, which should pro
duce downward loads to
counteract any uplift due to twisting of the diaphragms.


Also, with the final condition
analysis we only saw actual uplift at the strength condition, and not under service
loads.


Therefore, we do not anticipate any uplift issues d
uring the phased
construction.


A note has been added to Beam Details 1 (Sheet 1
4
) that states “LEAVE ONE SIDE OF
DIAPHRAGM CONNECTION BETWEEN BEAMS 3 AND 4 UNBOLTED UNTIL ENTIRE DECK
AND BARRIER HAS BEEN PLACED”. This will ensure that the diaphragms in B
ay 3 do not
see additional loads due to the unbalanced loading.