DOCSLIB.ORG

GDOT Bridge and Structures Design Manual

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
GDOT Bridge and Structures Design Manual Bridge and Structures Design Manual 4/16/2021 Revision 3.0 Atlanta, GA 30308 Disclaimer This manual is intended to be an aid to designers working on projects for the Georgia Department of Transportation. It is not to be used as a substitute for sound engineering practice and will be used at one’s own risk. The Georgia Department of Transportation and the authors of this document are not responsible for the consequences of the use and misuse of the contents of this document. The latest version of this document is available at: http://www.dot.ga.gov/PartnerSmart/DesignManuals/BridgeandStructure/GDOT_Bridge_and _Structures_Policy_Manual.pdf Basic drawings, MicroStation customization tools, design programs, and other helpful resources can be accessed from the Office of Bridge Design and Maintenance home page: http://www.dot.ga.gov/AboutGeorgia/Offices/Pages/OfficeDivisionsDetails.aspx?officeID=25 Please send constructive comments to the Bridge Design LRFD Committee care of Douglas Franks: [email protected]. Acknowledgement The original Bridge and Structures Design Manual was created through the public-private partnership of the Georgia Department of Transportation and the Consulting Engineering Companies of Georgia. This document was modified from the original Design Manual for inclusion of LRFD material and general content by Georgia Department of Transportation personnel. The following people have donated their time and resources to contribute to the quality of transportation engineering in Georgia: LRFD Design Committee Y. Stanley Kim, PhD, P.E. – GDOT Douglas D. Franks, P.E. – GDOT Steven K. Gaston, P.E. – GDOT Donn P. Digamon, P.E. – GDOT Design Committee for Original Document Paul V. Liles, Jr., P.E. – GDOT Ted Cashin, P.E. – GDOT Al Bowman, P.E. – The LPA Group Incorporated John Heath, P.E. – Heath and Lineback Engineers Greg Grant, P.E. – Wolverton and Associates Contributing Authors to Original Document Bob Mustin, P.E. – GDOT John Tiernan, P.E. – GDOT John Durand, P.E. – Parsons Brinckerhoff Page i Intentionally Left Blank Page ii Bridge and Structures Design Manual Revision Summary Revision Number Revision Date Revision Summary LRFD Bridge Manual Original 7/8/13 Original Release Date 1.0 10/1/13 Section 3.2.3.3 - Removed “after all necessary grinding” from 8” overhang thickness; Removed “(LRFD 13.7.3.1.2)” from 8” overhang thickness Section 3.5.2.1 - Changed LRFD reference from Table 4A-1 to Table A4-1 Section 4.4.2 - Modified tower bent placement directive; Added pile fixity assumption Section 3.2.2.3 - Removed Commentary 2.0 6/2/14 Section 2.1 - Updated LRFD Specification to 6th edition, 2012; updated Georgia Standard Specification to 2013; defined all bridges as “typical” Section 2.2.2.2 - Allowed Standard Specification widening of Existing Standard Specification bridges Section 2.4 - Changed office responsible for Survey Manual Section 2.8 - Added LRFD software submittal requirements for consultants Section 3.1.1 - New section added - Set minimum beam requirement for bridges with vehicular traffic Section 3.2.2.1 - Added reference to online slab design program Section 3.2.2.4.2 - Changed placement and spacing of temperature steel in top mat of deck Section 3.3.2.2.1 - Clarified urban area locations Section 3.3.2.2.2 - Edited height of fence Section 3.4.3.15.4 - New section added – limiting coping thickness to 6” Section 3.12.2.3.1 - Check clearance between cap and PSC beam when plain pads are used Section 3.12.2.5.2 - Added new section - Directive to minimize number of pad designs for bridge Section 4.2.1 - Specified use of kips in lieu of tons or pounds for foundations Section 4.2.2.3, 4.2.2.4, 4.2.2.5 - Added maximum factored resistances and stresses for all pile types Section 4.2.3.4 - Restricted use of spirals in caisson; limited ties to maximum size of #6; Stated seismic detailing at fixity is not required in caissons Section 4.4.1.2.1 - Added limits for depth to width Page iii Bridge and Structures Design Manual ratio of intermediate caps; Changed cap width increment to 3” Section 4.4.1.2.2 - Modified longitudinal rebar in riser of intermediate bents to # 5 Section 4.4.1.3 - Removed railroad from vehicular collision consideration Bridge Design Manual Original 1/26/15 General - Incorporated Standard Specification guidance from GDOT Bridge and Structures Design Manual into LRFD Bridge Manual to produce a consolidated manual Section 1.3.3 - Added requirement to submit design calculations in PDF format Section 1.4.3.1 - Added guidance for when a deck section is required on preliminary layouts Section 1.6.9.2.2 - Removed direction about railroad shoring review Section 1.6.9.2.4 - Added reference to 8.2.10 Section 3.2.4 - Revised requirement for epoxy reinforcement Section 3.2.5 - Removed requirement for grooving under medians Section 3.3.2.2 - Modified description of new curved fence detail Section 3.3.2.2.1 - Clarified directive for the use of handrail or fence on parapets Section 3.4.1.2.1 - Removed restriction on use of 0.6” diameter strands Section 3.4.2.6.2 - Limited coping thickness to be used for composite properties Section 3.4.2.7, 3.5.2.2 - Limited beam spacing to 9’-0” Section 3.6.2 - Added the use of “weathering steel” Section 3.9.1.1 - Added provisions for use of steel diaphragms for concrete beams Section 3.15.1 - Revised Drainage Manual reference Section 4.2.2.2 - Modified “Factored Axial Load” note Section 4.2.2.3 - Clarified directive on use of 50 ksi H-piles versus 36 ksi H-piles Section 4.2.2.4 - Removed 12” PSC piles from Table Section 4.2.2.5 - Added 20” and 24” metal shell piles to Table Page iv Bridge and Structures Design Manual Section 4.2.3.4 - Added 5” clear spacing as minimum for stirrups and vertical bars in caissons Section 4.3.4 - Modified wingwall length requirement Section 4.4.1.2.4 - Increased minimum stirrup spacing to 5” Section 4.4.1.3 - Added 4” minimum stirrup spacing requirement for columns Section 5.1.1.1 - Revised Table to change Modular Walls to Modular Block Walls Section 5.5.5 - Limited Modular Block Wall design height to 20 feet Section 8.1.1.1 - Modified when bridge plans require a revision mark Section 8.2.10 - Added direction about railroad shoring review Section 9.2.1 - Added directive to include Seismic Zone and SD1 on General Notes sheet 1.0 5/5/15 Section 2.1 - Updated LRFD Specification to 7th Edition, 2014 Section 2.1.3 - Removed Guide Specification reference; contact Bridge Office for guidance Section 2.3.3.1 - Added for vertical clearances to be satisfied for travelway Section 3.4.1.2.4 - Added that draped strands shall not be placed in the top 8” of beam Section 4.2.2.2 - Added guidance in reference to information needed in bridge plans for field measurement of driving resistance for piles for LRFD projects. Section 4.3.2, 4.4.2.1 - Added guidance that 5.10.8 need not apply to side faces of bent caps less than or equal to 2 foot high. 2.0 7/31/15 Reformatted manual to standard template 2.1 1/25/16 Section 1.3.3 – Added restriction for modifying title block Section 1.4.2 – expanded/clarified guidance for consultant QA/QC Section 1.6.7 - Added guidance for re-request for bridge condition surveys Section 2.9.4.4 - clarified span limit for pile bents for AASHTO PSC beams only Section 2.9.4.6 - Added reference to beam length limits Section 3.2.3.2.3 - changed title and added 1” difference limit for overhang Section 3.4.2.8 - Added section for beam length Page v Bridge and Structures Design Manual guidance Section 3.8 – Changed to include new precast beam types Section 3.10.1 - Added steel orientation guidance Section 3.11.2 - Added steel orientation guidance Appendix 3B – Changed beam charts for new beam length limits Section 4.3.2 – Waived LRFD 5.10.8 for bottom of caps Section 4.4.1.3 – Added 6” minimum stirrup spacing Section 4.4.2.1 – Waived LRFD 5.10.8 for bottom of caps Section 5.5.3.1(g) – revised coping names to match pay items Fig. 5.5.3.1-3 – revised to show sloping paving Fig. 9B-1 – Revised to show cross-ties for plastic hinge regions 2.2 10/26/16 Chapter 2 -Modified temporary vertical clearance for falsework Chapter 3 - Set maximum 28-day concrete strength for PSC beams to 10.0 ksi. Removed “with Bridge Office Approval” clause. Rewrote top strand pull force guidance for clarity Chapter 4 - Added guidance to place top mat of steel in all spread footings. Added guidance to place top mat of steel in seismic pile footings Chapter 8 - Defined lap splice requirements for welded wire fabric 2.3 7/11/17 Section 2.2 – Added guidance for application of truck-train loading Section 2.9.4.1 – Updated sq. ft costs Section 2.9.4.8 – removed cost references for steel beams Section 2.10 – Added requirement for quantities on Design-build projects Section 3.4.2.5 – Added limit for stirrup clear spacing in anchorage zone Table 3.8.1-1 – Updated span limits for cored slabs and box beams Section 3.9.1.1 – Added need for galvanization of steel diaphragm and rearranged guidance for use Section 3.10.2 – Defined what is deemed a “visible area” Section 3.14.1.3 – Added reference for utilities through MSE walls Page vi Bridge and Structures Design Manual Section 3.14.1.6 – Added limits of utility pipe sizes based on beam depths Section 4.1.2 – Section added for stiffness approach and re-organized 4.1 Section 4.2.2.4 – Modified guidance for HPC and stainless steel use in PSC piles Section 4.2.4.3 – Guidance for allowable settlement and keying spread footings Section 4.2.5.4 – Clarified zero uplift check Section 4.2.7 – Added; alternate foundation types Section 4.4.1.1 – Modified 2 column bent guidance to 60 ft Section 4.4.1.2.1 – Removed guidance that cap should extend beyond bottom edge of beam Section 4.4.1.2 – Added additional guidance for applying collision load to columns Section 4.4.1.5 – Added guidance for use of general note for special finish for navigable water bridges Section 5.1.3 – Section added for MSE wall design requirements Section 5.2.2(d) – Added reference Section 5.3 – wall plans to be drawn to equal vertical and horizontal scales.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 68: Protest, Policing, and Urban Space by Hans Nicholas Sagan A
    Specters of '68: Protest, Policing, and Urban Space by Hans Nicholas Sagan A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Architecture in the Graduate Division of the University of California, Berkeley Committee in charge: Professor Galen Cranz, Chair Professer C. Greig Crysler Professor Richard Walker Summer 2015 Sagan Copyright page Sagan Abstract Specters of '68: Protest, Policing, and Urban Space by Hans Nicholas Sagan Doctor of Philosophy in Architecture University of California, Berkeley Professor Galen Cranz, Chair Political protest is an increasingly frequent occurrence in urban public space. During times of protest, the use of urban space transforms according to special regulatory circumstances and dictates. The reorganization of economic relationships under neoliberalism carries with it changes in the regulation of urban space. Environmental design is part of the toolkit of protest control. Existing literature on the interrelation of protest, policing, and urban space can be broken down into four general categories: radical politics, criminological, technocratic, and technical- professional. Each of these bodies of literature problematizes core ideas of crowds, space, and protest differently. This leads to entirely different philosophical and methodological approaches to protests from different parties and agencies. This paper approaches protest, policing, and urban space using a critical-theoretical methodology coupled with person-environment relations methods. This paper examines political protest at American Presidential National Conventions. Using genealogical-historical analysis and discourse analysis, this paper examines two historical protest event-sites to develop baselines for comparison: Chicago 1968 and Dallas 1984. Two contemporary protest event-sites are examined using direct observation and discourse analysis: Denver 2008 and St.
    [Show full text]
  • Construction Guidelines for Wildlife Fencing and Associated Escape and Lateral Access Control Measures
    CONSTRUCTION GUIDELINES FOR WILDLIFE FENCING AND ASSOCIATED ESCAPE AND LATERAL ACCESS CONTROL MEASURES Requested by: American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Standing Committee on the Environment Prepared by: Marcel P. Huijser, Angela V. Kociolek, Tiffany D.H. Allen, Patrick McGowen Western Transportation Institute – Montana State University PO Box 174250 Bozeman, MT 59717-4250 Patricia C. Cramer 264 E 100 North, Logan, Utah 84321 Marie Venner Lakewood, CO 80232 April 2015 The information contained in this report was prepared as part of NCHRP Project 25-25, Task 84, National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Transportation Research Board. SPECIAL NOTE: This report IS NOT an official publication of the National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, or The National Academies. Wildlife Fencing and Associated Measures Disclaimer DISCLAIMER DISCLAIMER STATEMENT The opinions and conclusions expressed or implied are those of the research agency that performed the research and are not necessarily those of the Transportation Research Board or its sponsors. The information contained in this document was taken directly from the submission of the author(s). This document is not a report of the Transportation Research Board or of the National Research Council. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This study was requested by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), and conducted as part of the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Project 25-25 Task 84. The NCHRP is supported by annual voluntary contributions from the state Departments of Transportation. Project 25-25 is intended to fund quick response studies on behalf of the AASHTO Standing Committee on the Environment.
    [Show full text]
  • Cast-In-Place Concrete Barriers
    rev. May 14, 2018 Cast-In-Place Concrete Barriers April 23, 2013 NOTE: Reinforcing steel in each of these barrier may vary and have been omitted from the drawings for clarity, only the Ontario Tall Wall was successfully crash tested as a unreinforced section. TEST LEVEL NAME/MANUFACTURER ILLUSTRATION PROFILE GEOMETRIC DIMENSIONS CHARACTERISTICS AASHTO NCHRP 350 MASH New Jersey Safety-Shape Barrier TL-3 TL-3 32" Tall 32" Tall The New Jersey Barrier was the most widely used safety shape concrete barrier prior to the introduction of the F-shape. As shown, the "break-point" between the 55 deg and 84 deg slope is 13 inches above the pavement, including the 3 inch vertical reveal. The flatter lower slope is intended to lift the vehicle which TL-4 TL-4 http://tf13.org/Guides/hardwareGuide/index.php?a absorbs some energy, and allows vehicles impacting at shallow angles to be 32" Tall 36" Tall X ction=view&hardware=111 redirected with little sheet metal damage; however, it can cause significant instability to vehicles impacting at high speeds and angles. Elligibility Letter TL-5 TL-5 B-64 - Feb 14, 2000 (NCHRP 350) 42" Tall 42" Tall NCHRP Project 22-14(03)(MASH TL3) NCHRP 20-07(395) (MASH TL4 & TL5) F-shape Barrier TL-3 TL-3 The F-shape has the same basic geometry as the New Jersey barrier, but the http://tf13.org/Guides/hardwareGuide/index.php?a 32" Tall 32" Tall "break-point" between the lower and upper slopes is 10 inches above the ction=view&hardware=109 pavement.
    [Show full text]
  • Structural Design Guidelines
    Engineering Department Structural Design Guidelines Last Updated: 04/01/2017 Reviewed/Released 2018 v1.1 Engineering Department Manual Structural - TOC TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 OVERVIEW ............................................................................................ 1 2.0 TECHNICAL AND CODE STANDARDS/REGULATIONS .................................. 2 2.1 AVAILABLE STRUCTURAL TECHNICAL CODES AND STANDARDS ............................................... 2 2.1.1 BUILDINGS (1) ........................................................................................................... 2 2.1.2 BRIDGES (2) .............................................................................................................. 2 2.1.3 FEMA (SEISMIC) (3) .................................................................................................. 2 2.1.4 HELIPORT (4) ............................................................................................................ 2 2.1.5 PORTS (5) ................................................................................................................. 2 2.1.6 RAIL (6) .................................................................................................................... 2 2.2 AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR TESTING MATERIALS (ASTM) (7) ........................................................ 2 2.3 FACTORY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY (FMRC) (8) .............................................................. 2 2.4 AMERICAN CONCRETE INSTITUTE (ACI) (9) ..............................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Georgia Department of Transportation
    Updated 10-23-19 Georgia Department of Transportation Page 1 NPE Status Report --- Listed Alphabetically by Company Name NPE# Manufacturer Product Name / Description Estimated Time Contact Info Fee Status / Progress for Lab/Field Paid Report Evaluation 1107-3 3M Company "3M Scotch-Weld HoldFast 70" -- Complete -- Accepted 7910-1 3M Company 3M Brand Galvinizing -- Complete -- No Status 8002-1 3M Company / Traffic Control Devices Dept. Loop Sealant -- Complete -- No Status 0704-3 A.W.Cook Cement Products, Inc. "Cook Brand Rapid Cure Repair" - Rapid setting -- Complete -- Withdrawn/No Action cement/sand grout. 9512-5 ABT, Inc. PolyDrain (Surface Drainage System) -- Complete -- No Application 7809-1 Acme Highway Products Corp. Fiberglass Dowel Bars -- Complete -- No Status 7707-1 Acme Highway Products Corp. Acmaseal -- Complete -- No Status 0307-4 ACO Polymer Products, Inc. "FG200 Fiberglass" 8" internal, Heavy duty -- Complete -- No Application fiberglass trench drain. 0307-3 ACO Polymer Products, Inc. "K100S Trench Drain" 4" Internal, Polymer -- Complete -- No Application Concrete Trench. 0307-2 ACO Polymer Products, Inc. "S300K Powerdrain" 12" internal, Polymer -- Complete -- No Application Concrete Trench. 0307-1 ACO Polymer Products, Inc. "S100K Powerdrain" 4" internal, Polymer -- Complete -- Accepted Concrete Trench. 1302-1 Active Minerals International, LLC "ACTI-GEL 208" Nov-13 Complete No application 9601-1 ADDCO Manufacturing The Signal DTS-2000 (Construction work zone -- Complete -- No Application sign) 9510-1 ADS N-12 (Smooth Lined
    [Show full text]
  • WAKE ISLAND AIRFIELD, TERMINAL BUILDING HABS UM-2-A (Building 1502) UM-2-A West Side of Wake Avenue Wake Island Us Minor Islands
    WAKE ISLAND AIRFIELD, TERMINAL BUILDING HABS UM-2-A (Building 1502) UM-2-A West Side of Wake Avenue Wake Island Us Minor Islands PHOTOGRAPHS WRITTEN HISTORICAL AND DESCRIPTIVE DATA HISTORIC AMERICAN BUILDINGS SURVEY PACIFIC WEST REGIONAL OFFICE National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior 1111 Jackson Street, Suite 700 Oakland, CA 94607 HISTORIC AMERICAN BUILDINGS SURVEY WAKE ISLAND AIRFIELD, TERMINAL BUILDING (Wake Island Airfield, Building 1502) WAKE ISLAND AIRFIELD, TERMINAL BUILDING HABSNo. UM-2-A (Wake Island Airfield, Building 1502) West Side of Wake Avenue Wake Island U.S. Minor Islands Location: The Wake Island Airfield Terminal Building is on the west side of Wake Avenue, east and adjacent to the aircraft parking and fueling apron, and 1,500' north of the east end of the runway on Wake Island of Wake Atoll. It is approximately 1 mile north of Peacock Point. The pedestrian/ street entrance to the terminal is on the east side of the building facing Wake Avenue. The aircraft passenger entrance faces west to the aircraft parking apron and lagoon. Present Owner/ Wake Island is an unorganized, unincorporated territory (possession) of the United Occupant: States, part of the United States Minor Outlying Islands, administered by the Office of Insular Affairs, U.S. Department of the Interior. The airfield terminal is occupied by 15th Air Wing (AW) of the U.S. Air Force (USAF) and base operations support (BOS) services contractor management staff. Present Use: Base operations and air traffic control for USAF, other tenants, and BOS contractor. Significance: The Wake Island airfield played an important and central role in transpacific commercial airline and developments after World War II (WWII).
    [Show full text]
  • Concrete Road Barriers Subjected to Impact Loads: an Overview
    1824 Concrete road barriers subjected to impact loads: An overview Abstract Muhammad Fauzi Bin Mohd. Zaina Concrete barriers prevent vehicles from entering the opposite lane b Hasan Jasim Mohammed and going off the road. An important factor in the design of concrete barriers is impact load, which a vehicle exerts upon collision with a aFaculty of Engineering and Built Envi- concrete barrier. This study suggests that a height of 813 mm, a base ronment, Universiti Kebangsaan Malay- width of 600 mm, and a top width of 240 mm are optimum dimen- sia. sions for a concrete barrier. These dimensions ensure the stability of bDepartment of Civil and Structural En- concrete barriers during vehicle collisions. An analytical and experi- gineering, Faculty of Engineering and mental model is used to analyze the concrete barrier design. The LS- Built Environment, Universiti Kebang- DYNA software is utilized to create the analytical models because it saan Malaysia. can effectively simulate vehicle impact on concrete barriers. Field tests are conducted with a vehicle, whereas laboratory tests are con- Corresponding author: ducted with machines that simulate collisions. Full-scale tests allow [email protected] the actual simulation of vehicle collisions with concrete barriers. In [email protected] the vehicle tests, a collision angle of 25°, collision speeds of 100 km per hour, and a vehicle weighing more than 2 t are considered in the http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1679-78251783 reviewed studies. Laboratory tests are performed to test bridge con- crete barriers in static condition. Received 17.12.2014 Keywords In revised form 20.03.2015 Accepted 24.03.2015 Concrete barriers; LS-DYNA software; simulation; collision angle; Available online 02.05.2015 collision speed.
    [Show full text]
  • Barrier Beautification
    2011–2012 Barrier Beautification Request for Proposals BACKGROUND In spring and fall 2010, the New York City Department of Transportation (the “NYCDOT”) partnered with the Mayor’s Community Affairs Unit (the “CAU”) and New York Cares (the “NY Cares”) to produce temporary designs on a number of barrier sites around the City. Eight artists were selected to create final designs as well as translate and paint the design onto the designated sites, some of which include: Furman Street between Montague and Joralemon streets in Brooklyn; FDR Service Drive North between 35th and 37th Streets in Manhattan; and Hutchinson Parkway North at Edwards Avenue in the Bronx. Approximately 6,000 linear feet of barrier was covered with bright colorful imagery on two Saturdays, one in April and one in November, with support from hundreds of volunteers. This spring 2011, NYCDOT is partnering again with CAU and NY Cares to paint selected barrier sites around the City. All barrier sites will be primed in advance by NYC Community Cleanup. Each selected artist shall be assigned a site within one of the five boroughs and will be responsible for translating the design and overseeing the painting of the design onto the barriers. NY Cares volunteers will be assigned to assist each artist at a site on one Saturday in early spring 2011 to paint the design. PROJECT SCOPE NYCDOT invites artists and/or designers to envision the surface of these ordinary jersey barriers as canvases for art. All interested artists are eligible to submit materials to this open call. Selected artists shall accomplish the following tasks: • complete one (1) final design; • translate design (stenciling or hand drawing) onto barrier; and • lead volunteers in the process of painting the design onto the barrier.
    [Show full text]
  • Avista Upriver Park Survey
    STA DRIVEWAY 1 2 3 4 5 MATCH LINE-SEE SHEET V03.1 10 N. Post Street, Suite 500 AVISTA DRIVEWAY Spokane, WA 99201 PROPERTY LINE BENCH RIVER EDGE "NO PARKING" SIGN ph 509.328.2994 EL=1871.68 "BIKE LANE" SIGN www.coffman.com POND EFFR D TBM #7 D J EY EL WAS A I OF HIN T TE GT N Psalm 73: 25 H A Atha O DanielJeffrey Jesus Christ Reigns T John 3:16 N A A S D PROPERTY LINE P R R SPOKANE RIVER AREA DRAIN ROCKS O O F Y E E RIVER EDGE S 45775 V S REG ED R EL=1871.55 GRID NORTH I I STER U ON S LANDSCAPE AL LAND ISLAND "STOP" SIGN "STOP" SIGN AVISTA UPRIVER PARK POND CENTENNIAL TRAIL TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY POND BENCH BRIDGE RIVER EDGE S.9, T.25N., R.43E., W.M., CITY OF SPOKANE, "SPEED LIMIT 30" SIGN EL=1871.76 SPOKANE COUNTY, WA LAND EXPRESSION TREE TAG (TYP.) TBM INFORMATION ELECTRICAL POINT # NORTHING EASTING GRID NORTHING GRID EASTING ELEVATION DESCRIPTION / WATER VAULT "NO CAMPING" SIGN 7 264407.91 2488924.75 264408.03 2488924.83 1887.47 SET MAG TBM #10 10 265771.57 2489995.79 265771.53 2489995.74 1887.05 SET MAG STORM MANHOLE RIM EL=1890.21 RIVER EDGE CENTER CHANNEL=1881.36 EL=1871.75 LEGEND C CONCRETE C WATER VAULT ASPHALT LIFT STATION RIVER EDGE E. UPRIVER DR. AVISTA DRIVEWAY EL=1871.63 TRAFFIC STRIPING SPOKANE, WA 99252 CURB PUMP STATION CONTROL FENCE STORM E. UPRIVER DR. STORM (GIS) "NO CAMPING" SIGN SANITARY SEWER PVC OUTFALL RIVER EDGE CATCH BASIN WATER VAULT 8" I.E.=1888.99 (N) EL=1871.64 ELECTRICAL UNDERGROUND RIM EL=1891.62 8" I.E.=1888.08 (E) ELECTRICAL UNDERGROUND PVC OUTFALL PER AS-BUILT 8" I.E.=1889.04 (N) SANITARY SEWER PER AS-BUILT
    [Show full text]
  • A Historical Context and Methodology for Evaluating Trails, Roads, and Highways in California
    A Historical Context and Methodology for Evaluating Trails, Roads, and Highways in California Prepared by The California Department of Transportation Sacramento, California ® ® © 2016 California Department of Transportation. All Rights Reserved. Cover photography provided Caltrans Headquarters Library. Healdsburg Wheelmen photograph courtesy of the Healdsburg Museum. For individuals with sensory disabilities, this document is available in alternate formats upon request. Please call: (916) 653-0647 Voice, or use the CA Relay Service TTY number 1-800-735-2929 Or write: Chief, Cultural Studies Office Caltrans, Division of Environmental Analysis P.O. Box 942874, MS 27 Sacramento, CA 94274-0001 A HISTORICAL CONTEXT AND METHODOLOGY FOR EVALUATING TRAILS, ROADS, AND HIGHWAYS IN CALIFORNIA Prepared for: Cultural Studies Office Division of Environmental Analysis California Department of Transportation Sacramento 2016 © 2016 California Department of Transportation. All Rights Reserved. OTHER THEMATIC STUDIES BY CALTRANS Water Conveyance Systems in California, Historic Context Development and Evaluation Procedures (2000) A Historical Context and Archaeological Research Design for Agricultural Properties in California (2007) A Historical Context and Archaeological Research Design for Mining Properties in California (2008) A Historical Context and Archeological Research Design for Townsite Properties in California (2010) Tract Housing In California, 1945–1973: A Context for National Register Evaluation (2013) A Historical Context and Archaeological Research Design for Work Camp Properties in California (2013) MANAGEMENT SUMMARY The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) prepared this study in response to the need for a cohesive and comprehensive examination of trails, roads, and highways in California, and with a methodological approach for evaluating these types of properties for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP).
    [Show full text]
  • Company Profile
    COMPANY PROFILE NOOR MOHAMMAD GHARWAL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY President: Eng Noor Mohammad Gharwal Vice President: Ahmad Shekib Gharwal [email protected] , [email protected] www.noormgharwal.com Local +93(0) 777201620 – 799201620 – 786325034 International: +971528297033 Head address: Khair Khana, First Street, House No. 300, District 11; Kabul, Afghanistan - 1 – Note: These Documents are property Copying, Distributing and Reproduction of these Contents are prohibited. © 2013 N.M.G.C.C Company Profile. About us, Noor Mohammad Gharwal Construction, Business, Co. Established: 2003 Core activity: Construction Projects, Force Protection Barrier, K-span, O&M Service, DRMO Removal & Disposal Client base: U.S Army, Defense Logistic Agency, FLUOR, KBR and LBG JV B&V. Short Preface, We find the ways to make our organization successful these are Quality, Cost, Innovation, and speed. The basic Construction Project have been completed and have Engineers, Management of employer education experiences in Different sciences and work disciplines that it provides as broad and good as possible Combination In regard of achieving company goals and Afghanistan reconstruction needs Together. Gathering founder past experiences in the Company, the ultimate desire of N M G C C. is to offer total construction services with a whole. Package which includes general construction geographical survey work, architecture and civil engineering Contracting management in different scopes as a well in Service to U.S Army and other International Organizations in-wide policy encouraging shared performance responsibility ensures the highest degree of professional service and results on all projects. N M G C C is an active company registered by Afghan Investment Support Agency (AISA) Cage Code: 9WGZ2 DUNS Number: 850455409 JCCS Vendor ID Number: 53461 JCCS Registered Company Name: Noor Mohammad Gharwal Construction Company AISA License Number: D-35904 N M G Construction, Managements - 2 – Note: These Documents are property Copying, Distributing and Reproduction of these Contents are prohibited.
    [Show full text]
  • The Development of Crashworthy Rails for Fiber Reinforced Polymer Honeycomb Bridge Deck System
    Report No.: FHWA-KS-15-03 ▪ FINAL REPORT▪ July 2015 The Development of Crashworthy Rails for Fiber Reinforced Polymer Honeycomb Bridge Deck System Moni El-Aasar, Ph.D., P.E., FASCE BG Consultants, Inc. 1 Report No. 2 Government Accession No. 3 Recipient Catalog No. FHWA-KS-15-03 4 Title and Subtitle 5 Report Date The Development of Crashworthy Rails for Fiber Reinforced Polymer July 2015 Honeycomb Bridge Deck System 6 Performing Organization Code 7 Author(s) 7 Performing Organization Report Moni El-Aasar, Ph.D., P.E., FASCE No. 9 Performing Organization Name and Address 10 Work Unit No. (TRAIS) BG Consultants, Inc. 4806 Vue Du Lac Place 11 Contract or Grant No. Manhattan, KS 66503-8688 C1199 12 Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13 Type of Report and Period Kansas Department of Transportation Covered Bureau of Research Final Report 2300 SW Van Buren November 1999–March 2015 Topeka, Kansas 66611-1195 14 Sponsoring Agency Code RE-0213-01 & IBRC-R-0021 (301) 15 Supplementary Notes For more information write to address in block 9. Fiber reinforced polymer (FRP) honeycomb panels offer an efficient and rapid replacement to concrete decks. The system consists of FRP honeycomb sandwich panels with adequate guardrails. Although FRP bridge deck panels have already been designed and used over the past several years on a number of through truss bridges, they could not be used on steel girder bridges until approved crashworthy bridge railing attachments could be validated. Two systems have been successfully crash tested, one with steel thrie beams/guardrails on steel posts and the other with concrete barriers.
    [Show full text]