Plan Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: PIA RESUBMITTAL
Plan Number - T07PI00026
Review Name: PIA RESUBMITTAL
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 02/11/2008 | THAD HARVISON | DOT ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | Subject: Parque de Santa Cruz River Park From: Brooks Keenan, P.E. Structural Engineer TDOT Planning Division As requested , I have reviewed the plans and structural calculations submitted by Westland Resources, Inc. on January 18, 2008. The engineering design for the composite steel and concrete bicycle and pedestrian bridge members, along with their anchorages to the existing reinforced concrete box culvert (RCBC), appears to be very thorough and well done. I have no objections to these elements of the design. However, the package of structural engineering calculations does not appear to have addressed your initial review comments, especially the concern about the capacity of the existing RCBC to handle the proposed new loads from the bike/ ped. bridge, in addition to the existing loadings on the RCBC from vehicle live loads and earth retaining forces. The new loadings proposed to be imparted to the existing RCBC include not only the vertical dead and live loads from the bike/ ped. bridge, but also lateral loads and forces resulting from the eccentricity of the supports for the bike/ ped. bridge that are attached to the RCBC. For example, the existing wing walls of the RCBC are functioning as earth retaining walls, designed to resist overturning from earth retaining forces. The proposed connections of the bridge girders to the existing wingwalls will impart additional overturning forces onto these retaining walls. Also, the ends of the cell walls of the existing RCBC act as concrete wall/ beam/ columns carrying vertical loads from the vehicle traffic on top of the RCBC, as well as moments in the direction perpendicular to the walls that result from alternate loading of the spans of the RCBC. There has been no attempt to determine what length of the ends of the RCBC cell walls is effective in carrying the combined loadings from the vehicle loads on the RCBC and the additional vertical, lateral, and eccentric loadings superimposed on the ends of these walls from the proposed bike/ ped. bridge, or to determine wether these effective sections of the ends of these walls are adequate for these combined loadings. Another item that I could not find on the drawings or in the calculations was a specification for the adhesive that is to be used to anchor the drilled and grouted anchors on details similar to Bracket "B" (section B-B) on Sheet 92 of 99. It also would have helped to expedite the review if the designers had presented a simple summary of the controlling live loads and lateral loads for the bike/ ped. bridge. I eventually found that information where it appeared in the design calculations for the various components, but it was'nt easy. I do not wish to be an obstructionist and I realize that a substantial amount of engineering design work has gone into the proposed bike/ ped. bridge. At this point, I do not see any reason to believe that the existing RCBC will not be adequate for the additional loadings to be superimposed by the proposed bike/ ped. bridge. But it is a responsibility of the designers to verify that, and it does not appear to have been done. For these reasons, I must request that the designers submit the following: 1) Analysis of the existing concrete wingwalls verifying their capacity to handle the additional vertical, lateral, and eccentric forces imparted by the proposed bike/ ped. bridge. 2) Analysis of the end sections of the existing RCBC cell walls verifying their capacity to handle the additional vertical, lateral, and eccentric forces imparted by the proposed bike/ ped. bridge. It is not necessary for the designers to perform a full AASHTO LRFD analysis of the existing RCBC in order to determine the compression and bending stresses in the RCBC walls resulting from the vehicle loads on the RCBC. Reasonable simplifying assumptions, perhaps as simple as using the old AISC Moments Shears and Reactions for Continous Highway Bridges, may be used to approximate these forces for an HL-93 or HS-20-44 vehicle loading. 3) A specification for the adhesive to be used to anchor the drilled and grouted bracket anchors. Please let me know if you have any questions. |
| 03/07/2008 | SMONTIE1 | PARK AND RECREATION | REVIEW | Denied | PIA# T07PI00026 Parks & Recreation has reviewed this project and has the following comments: 1) Parks & Recreation will require a 1 year maintenance and warranty period for all landscape plantings, seeded areas and irrigation systems. 2) Note #12 on plan pages 62 and 81 regarding water meter costs being waived by Tucson Water: Unless the owner can provide specific written documentation that this has been approved by Tucson Water, the owner will have to bear all of these costs. 3) Parks Recreation will require that all pole-mounted Luminaries (General Note #2, page 84) be mounted on 30' high poles. Thanks, Howard Dutt Landscape Architect Tucson Parks & Recreation (520) 837-8040 |
| 03/17/2008 | SMONTIE1 | PIA COORDINATOR | CUSTOMER CALLED; PLANS @ AMBASSADOR | Completed | |
| 03/17/2008 | SMONTIE1 | PIA COORDINATOR | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |