Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAttach C.5 - 10 Pct Design Comment Log Status Codes: A = Incorporated; B = Alternate Revision Proposed; C = Evaluated/Not Incorporated; D = Deferred to Next Phase/Submittal; E = Response to Question Comment Log – 10% Design Project Panther Creek Culvert Replacement Report Author(s) GeoEngineers, Inc.; KPFF Consulting Engineers Name of Reviewer(s)/Agency(ies) City of Renton Document Page Line No. Exhibit No. Comment Reviewer Initials Response Status Code Responder Initials QC Back- check QA Check Preliminary Geotechnical Report for 10% Design (February 12, 2025) NO COMMENTS Alternatives Assessment (March 12, 2025) NO COMMENTS 10 Percent Hydraulic Design (February 14, 2025) NO COMMENTS FP 10pct Design Civil Basis of Design_COR 1 and 2 4 Since existing street and underlying road prism fill to be removed from ravine, suggest design 1% min. profile grade across bridge with 2% cross slope for bridge deck and approach slabs. JM Details to be worked out in next phase. D 2 Figure 1 What is the intent for the 2.0' min. between back of sidewalk and inside face of wing walls? The structural drawings show a continuation of the concrete vert. face barriers for the length of the approach slabs at each of the bridge, maintaining a dimension of 55-ft between inside faces of barriers on either side of bridge and approaches. JM Showing wider at this stage, can be refined next phase and coordinated with structural design. 2 16 will require full drainage review and tir per section 1.1.2.4. please note the requirements needed. JM Will include in resubmittal A 2 17 why is it exempt from flow control? what exemption is being used? please cite. JM Will include in resubmittal A 2 18 please cite the exemption being used for water quality treatment. JM Will include in resubmittal A 3 12,13 and 14 Lines crossed out JM Will edit for resubmittal A 3 16 and 17 Lines inserted: * AASHTO Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, 7th edition (2018) * WSDOT Local Agency Guidelines (LAG) Manual, Dec. 2024 JM Will edit for resubmittal A 3 18 to end of page The RMC reference is not a street design standard, it is a development standard. It does not address roadway alignment, profile, stopping site distance, etc. King County Road Standards apply to unincorporated areas of the county. The WSDOT Design Manual only applies to qualifying facilities (state route) and when required by grant funding source. Otherwise, the minimum design standard for Renton/PWD/Transportation is AASHTO. JM Will edit for resubmittal A ATTACHMENT C.5 Status Codes: A = Incorporated; B = Alternate Revision Proposed; C = Evaluated/Not Incorporated; D = Deferred to Next Phase/Submittal; E = Response to Question Comment Log – 10% Design Project Panther Creek Culvert Replacement Report Author(s) GeoEngineers, Inc.; KPFF Consulting Engineers Name of Reviewer(s)/Agency(ies) City of Renton Document Page Line No. Exhibit No. Comment Reviewer Initials Response Status Code Responder Initials QC Back- check QA Check Since a possible funding source for construction of this project is FHWA Federal Aid, the WSDOT Local Agency Guidelines (LAG) should be followed to maintain eligibility. Chapter 41 General Project Types includes a table for applicability of various design standards, depending upon the facility and project type. Talbot Road S is Fed Aid route (ID 1125) with Functional Classification = Major Collector. Since it is not a Principal Arterial, it is not on NHS. So Talbot Road S is a Non-NHS, City Street (non-State Highway). Per the Table on pages 41-1 and 41-2, the design standards are "City and County Design Standards See Chapter 42". The Deviation Approval resides with WSDOT Local Programs (only when FHWA Fed Aid funding included otherwise City) and Design Approval resides with City. Per Chapter 42.42 Project Type Definitions, this project most closely resembles New Construction or more specifically a Bridge New/Replacement type project. New Construction involves the construction of a new roadway facility or structure where nothing of its type currently exists. Refer to Local Agency Design Matrix Table 1.1 for Roadways on page 42-8 for New Construction. The majority of the categories require a Design Level D for New Construction. Also refer to Local Agency Design Matrix Table 1.3 for Bridges. All categories require a Design Level D for New Construction. Table 42.5 includes Design Level D Standards for Two Way Roads and Streets. There are allowable reductions (i.e. exterior lane width) as long as the minimum AASHTO standard is met. Therefore, suggest modifying references as shown above. Panther Creek FP 10pct Design Structural Basis of Design_COR 1 0 This project should go through the pre-application process to fully discuss the applicable land use permits. JD City to address. C 1 0 city of renton project manager (Jared McDonald) will do. (response to previous comment) JM City to address. C 4 18 to end Derek Comments To Be Discussed: One thing I don’t completely understand is how the span length was determined. There may be something I am not seeing. However, if the span were longer, the size of the wing walls and abutment stem walls would be reduced. The taller the stem walls the larger lateral load on the foundation that must be resisted by the drilled shafts. Also they did not appear to be concerned with conflicts between drilled shaft locations and existing underground utilities. The layout I did last year was attempting to avoid. The idea being these pipes can remain in place (and potentially in service in the case of Metro) while the drilled shafts are installed. I have some limited experience with drilled shafts. Granted that was 20 years ago. However, I don’t think the equipment and associated steel casings can get through 21” diam. concrete pipe or 16” diam. steel gas main. So this means that everything has to be excavated and removed prior to foundation installation. It may be the DA Balance between bridge length/area and length of walls. Design team attempted to find a reasonable balance for 10%, but it could be adjusted in a future phase. Additionally, if scour parameters change affecting side slopes, pending additional Geotech, bridge length may need to be adjusted accordingly. Assumed utilities would be relocated for construction. There is flexibility to adjust for sewer alignment. Due to utilities and bedrock (and noise disturbance), shafts are preferred by design team. Driven piles not feasible due to bedrock (cannot be driven into bedrock). Memorandum will be updated to include additional explanation/narrative. A Status Codes: A = Incorporated; B = Alternate Revision Proposed; C = Evaluated/Not Incorporated; D = Deferred to Next Phase/Submittal; E = Response to Question Comment Log – 10% Design Project Panther Creek Culvert Replacement Report Author(s) GeoEngineers, Inc.; KPFF Consulting Engineers Name of Reviewer(s)/Agency(ies) City of Renton Document Page Line No. Exhibit No. Comment Reviewer Initials Response Status Code Responder Initials QC Back- check QA Check only way. However, that was not the sequence I had in mind. If it is the case that the utility pipes need to be moved prior to foundation work, then we might want to evaluate steel pile foundations in the next phase. Pile driving is noisy and can be unsettling to adjacent neighbors and businesses. They don’t like it when their shelves rattle. At the same time, it can be much cheaper than drilled shafts. I ruled driven pile out only because I didn’t see how pile driving would not conflict and/or disturb existing utilities. PC_10pct Drawings- Combined_CO R TS01 Since existing street and underlying road prism fill to be removed from ravine, suggest design 1% min. profile grade across bridge with 2% cross slope for bridge deck and approach slabs. JM Details to be worked out in next phase. D TS01 What is the intent for the 2.0' min. between back of sidewalk and inside face of wing walls? The structural drawings show a continuation of the concrete vert. face barriers for the length of the approach slabs at each of the bridge, maintaining a dimension of 55-ft between inside faces of barriers on either side of bridge and approaches. JM Showing wider at this stage, can be refined next phase and coordinated with structural design. D DR01 please confirm that these utilities will be part of our project but for the contractor this note is here because PSE and King County will be moving these utilities. (typical) JM To be revised something like: “See Sheet S03; utility relocations to be coordinated with franchise utility owner” A DR01 Is the intent for this outfall to be placed above the OHWM? JF Yes, outfall will be above OHWM and 100-yr elevation; flow path will be graded down to stream. E DR01 remove existing 36-inch storm cmp JF Noted – ok. A ST-3 Footing depth? It appears that this note is hold over from 3-sided culvert plan. If bedrock is encountered, why remove any? Is it not the natural condition of the original channel? JM Note is carry-over and will be updated. Whether or not bedrock will need to be removed will be subject to refinement in next phase of project and pending coordination with regulatory agencies as well as additional geotechnical explorations to identify bedrock depth. A S01 How was span length determined? A longer span likely requires deeper girders (more $ same time to set) but potentially reduced size and length of wing walls (less $ and time) and shallower abutments. The abutment stem walls are large and high. Reducing their height, reduces lateral loads on foundation. Is the height to accommodate the Metro sewer or due to 3-ft scour depth? Chasing 3-ft scour depth up each slope results in deeper abutment cap and thus taller stem walls. Does slope paving and/or armoring alleviate this concern? JM Balance between bridge length/area and length of walls. Design team attempted to find a reasonable balance for 10%, but it could be adjusted in a future phase. Additionally, if scour parameters change affecting side slopes, pending additional Geotech, bridge length may need to be adjusted accordingly. Lateral migration countermeasures could be incorporated in a future phase to arrest channel migration and reduce depth of foundations relative to scour. D/E S02 Drilled shaft size, number and locations make sense. Have the locations been checked for conflicts with existing underground utilities. Most notably the 16" PSE gas main and 21" Metro sanitary sewer? If avoiding conflicts is not a consideration, then is the plan to temp relocate utilities prior to foundation work? If that is the case has driven steel pile been considered for the foundation? JM Assumed utilities would be relocated for construction. There is flexibility to adjust for sewer alignment. Due to utilities and bedrock, shafts are preferred by design team, but driven piles could be considered. D/E S03 Next phase verify that Telecom cannot be relocated to conduit run in bridge rail or embedded in sidewalk or rerouted off of bridge. JM Defer to next phase. D Status Codes: A = Incorporated; B = Alternate Revision Proposed; C = Evaluated/Not Incorporated; D = Deferred to Next Phase/Submittal; E = Response to Question Comment Log – 10% Design Project Panther Creek Culvert Replacement Report Author(s) GeoEngineers, Inc.; KPFF Consulting Engineers Name of Reviewer(s)/Agency(ies) City of Renton Document Page Line No. Exhibit No. Comment Reviewer Initials Response Status Code Responder Initials QC Back- check QA Check S03 Since existing street and underlying road prism fill to be removed from ravine, suggest design 1% min. profile grade across bridge with 2% cross slope for bridge deck and approach slabs. JM See prior comment. Can be adjusted in next phase. D S03 For next phase consider lengthening span to reduce size of wing/retaining walls. May require deeper girders. JM Can be considered in next phase. D S03 Gas line locations and hangers make sense. However, suggest next phase verify that another route off of the bridge is not feasible and/or an option. JM Defer to next phase. D S03 The pipe hanger configuration for the Metro Sanitary Sewer line is unconventional. This was anticipated and may ultimately be the only viable solution. Given the potential impact to the creek if the line were to break and that the public can access and cross it, suggest a steel casing around the pipe. If memory serves Metro indicated that a steel pipe line with special coating on inside would be preferred. Have to confirm. This would also require at least one new manhole structure to be set downstream side of ravine (north side of bridge) so that the steel pipe connects the existing upstream manhole with new downstream manhole. A larger diameter steel casing could potentially be used to span the ravine. JM Acknowledged. Details will be worked out in next phase. D S03 Water line location and hangers make sense. However, suggest next phase verify that another route off of the bridge is not feasible and/or an option. JM Defer to next phase. D