CC 2016-07-26_09k Swinging Bridge EvaluationMEMORANDUM
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: TERESA MCCLISH, DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
BY: MATT HORN, CITY ENGINEER
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO AN
AGREEMENT FOR CONSULTANT SERVICES WITH QUINCY
ENGINEERING FOR SWINGING BRIDGE EVALUATION
DATE: JULY 26, 2016
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended the City Council approve and authorize the Mayor to execute
Amendment No. 1 to the Consultant Services Agreement with Quincy Engineering, Inc.
for Phase 2 of the Swinging Bridge Evaluation for an amount not to exceed $55,000.
IMPACT ON FINANCIAL AND PERSONNEL RESOURCES:
The Swinging Bridge Evaluation work was funded in the amount of $40,000. Obtaining
geotechnical ground borings cost $3,000. Completing necessary maintenance work on
the Swinging Bridge cost $9,000, leaving an available project budget of $28,000.
$5,000 was appropriated from the Local Sales Tax Fund and an agreement was
executed with Quincy Engineering for $33,000 to complete the Phase One Swinging
Bridge Evaluation work. Phase Two work will cost $55,000 and Phase Three
Construction is currently estimated to cost $145,000. With these estimated costs in
mind, the project was funded with an additional $200,000 with the 2016-17 budgeting
process.
BACKGROUND:
The Swinging Bridge was originally constructed in early 1875 by the Short family,
whose land was divided by the Arroyo Grande Creek. The bridge span length from
cable tower to cable tower is approximately 133 feet and is suspended 40 feet above
Arroyo Grande Creek. The Swinging Bridge is owned and maintained by the City of
Arroyo Grande.
Item 9.k. - Page 1
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO AN AGREEMENT FOR
CONSULTANT SERVICES WITH QUINCY ENGINEERING FOR SWINGING BRIDGE
EVALUATION
JULY 26, 2016
PAGE 2
During a review of the Swinging Bridge, indications were observed that one of the
cable towers was rotating in toward the creek, bridge abutment undermining was
observed, and the cabling that supports the bridge appeared to have differential
amounts of tension and failed anchorage. At that time, the project was placed into the
Capital Improvement Plan for evaluation and future correction.
Item 9.k. - Page 2
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO AN AGREEMENT FOR
CONSULTANT SERVICES WITH QUINCY ENGINEERING FOR SWINGING BRIDGE
EVALUATION
JULY 26, 2016
PAGE 3
Schematic Plan View of Swinging Bridge
The Swinging Bridge was closed for several weeks of maintenance work and reopened
on May 23, 2016. Based on available information, maintenance and repair work has
occurred at periodic intervals. The Swinging Bridge’s major maintenance work has
occurred in 1913, 1918, 1947, 1953 and 1985. More exhaustive repairs were
completed in 1995 after a tree fell on the Swinging Bridge.
Item 9.k. - Page 3
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO AN AGREEMENT FOR
CONSULTANT SERVICES WITH QUINCY ENGINEERING FOR SWINGING BRIDGE
EVALUATION
JULY 26, 2016
PAGE 4
Photo of Swinging Bridge damage in 1995
The recently completed maintenance work consisted of replacing normal wear and tear
items of the Swinging Bridge’s surface elements including:
• bridge deck walkway,
• hand-railing boards,
• bridge railing fencing,
• several loose and broken connections; and
• paint.
City maintenance staff completed a majority of this work in order to expedite the repairs
at the same time as reducing overall costs. This recently completed maintenance work
is in addition to the Swinging Bridge Evaluation Phase Two work that is the subject of
this request.
Running concurrently with the Swinging Bridge maintenance efforts is this Capital
Improvement Plan project to secure a Structural Engineering firm to address the
structural integrity of the Swinging Bridge.
ANALYSIS OF ISSUES:
On April 12, 2016 the City Council awarded an agreement to Quincy Engineering, Inc
to complete the Swinging Bridge Evaluation. Based on the unknowns of the necessary
repairs, the Swinging Bridge Evaluation was phased.
Phase One work included an evaluation of the critical components of the bridge
including:
• Survey of the bridge and cables;
Item 9.k. - Page 4
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO AN AGREEMENT FOR
CONSULTANT SERVICES WITH QUINCY ENGINEERING FOR SWINGING BRIDGE
EVALUATION
JULY 26, 2016
PAGE 5
• Inspection of Bridge Members, Joints and Connections; and
• Bridge Load Rating Analysis.
Attachment 1 includes the Swinging Bridge Evaluation Phase One Report. The report
provides recommended load limits for the Bridge as well as an analysis of critical
bridge components that will be the subject of Swinging Bridge Phase Two work.
Phase-One Report Summary
The Swinging Bridge was analyzed and several areas for improvement were identified.
Areas for improvement include:
• Hanger Rods and Hanger Rod Connections
• Towers and Abutments
• Stringer Connections
• Wind Bracing
• Cable anchorage
Based on the Swinging Bridge’s current condition, load limits are required. In the
Swinging Bridge’s current configuration, the bridge is currently capable of handling 15
evenly spaced people (one person per panel) on the Swinging Bridge at one time.
Keeping people evenly spaced during an unsupervised condition is not realistic,
therefore during normal day-to-day operations the load limit of the Swinging Bridge has
been posted for 5 people only. The Swinging Bridge must also be closed to pedestrian
traffic when wind speeds reach 30 MPH. Once Phase Three construction is complete
the Swinging Bridge will be capable of increased loading, but this final load limit is not
currently known.
Phase-Two Work Plan
The Phase Two work, that is the subject of this current request, will evaluate the cable
anchorages and foundations. Retrofit measures will be developed to ensure that the
Swinging Bridge remains functional in the long term. These measures will be
developed into construction documents suitable for public bidding and construction to
support Phase-Three.
ALTERNATIVES:
The following alternatives are provided for the Council’s consideration:
• Approve Amendment No. 1 to the Agreement with Quincy Engineering;
• Do not approve the Amendment with Quincy Engineering; or
• Provide direction to staff.
ADVANTAGES:
Amending the Agreement to Quincy Engineering and using a phased project approach
has allowed the Swinging Bridge to remain open and usable during the analysis and
Item 9.k. - Page 5
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO AN AGREEMENT FOR
CONSULTANT SERVICES WITH QUINCY ENGINEERING FOR SWINGING BRIDGE
EVALUATION
JULY 26, 2016
PAGE 6
will allow the Swinging Bridge to remain open during the construction document
preparation work. This phased approach will also allow the City Council the best
available information to make financial decisions along this project’s path to
completion.
DISADVANTAGES:
No disadvantages have been identified.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
In compliance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) the project is
categorically exempt per section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENTS:
The Agenda was posted in front of City Hall on Thursday, July 21, 2016. The Agenda
and staff report were posted on the City’s website on Friday, July 22, 2016.
Attachments
1. Phase-One – Swinging Bridge Evaluation Report
Item 9.k. - Page 6
AGREEMENT FOR CONSULTANT SERVICES
AMENDMENT NO. 1
This First Amendment ("First Amendment") to Agreement for Consultant Services
(“Agreement”) by and between the CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE and Quincy
Engineering, Inc. (“Consultant”) is made and entered into this 29th day of June 2016.
WHEREAS, the parties entered into an Agreement dated April 13, 2016 for the Swinging
Bridge Evaluation; and
WHEREAS, the parties desire to further modify the Agreement as set forth herein.
NOW THEREFORE, for valuable consideration the receipt and sufficiency of which is
acknowledged, the parties agree as follows:
1. To include the additional services at the increased cost as specified in Exhibit "A"
attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
2. Except as modified herein, all other terms and conditions set forth in the
Agreement, as amended, shall remain unchanged.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, CITY and CONSULTANT have executed this First
Amendment the day and year first above written.
QUINCY ENGINEERING, INC.
By:________________________________
MARK RENO
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
By:________________________________
JIM HILL, MAYOR
Item 9.k. - Page 7
May24,2016
CityofArroyoGrande
CommunityDevelopmentDepartment
Attention:Mr.MattHorn,PE,CityEngineer
300EastBranchStreet
ArroyoGrande,California93420
Re:Phase2ProposalfortheSwingingBridgeEvaluation,CIPProjectNumber5620
DearMr.Horn:
ItisourpleasuretosubmitQuincyEngineering,Inc.’s(Quincy)updatedProposalforthePhase2oftheSwinging
BridgeProject.ThisisthefollowͲonphasetotheinspection,analysisandevaluationphasethatwasdoneduring
Phase1.
Quincy'soriginallyproposedtwoͲphaseapproachtowardtheevaluationofretrofitinvolvedthefollowing:
x Phase1ͲScopeofWorkwouldincludeanevaluationofthecriticalcomponentsofthebridgeandthe
developmentofsimpleretrofitmeasuresthatcouldpossiblyallowthebridgetobesafelyopenedtothe
publicforalimiteddurationfortheStrawberryFestival.
x Phase2ͲScopeofWorkwouldevaluatethecableanchorages,andfoundations.Retrofitmeasures
wouldbedevelopedtoinsurethatthebridgeremainsfunctionalforthelongterm.
AstheprojectdevelopedandlongͲtermretrofitstrategiesbecamemoreapparent,theCityhasexpressedto
desiretohavePhase2bethefinalPS&EDesignPhase,inanticipationofthePhase3ͲConstructionPhase.
QuincyhasupdatedthePhase2scopeofworktoassisttheCityofArroyoGrandetocompletethebridge
evaluationandperformthefinalPS&Edesign.
Newscopeofworkincludesdevelopmentoftechnicalspecificationsandconstructioncostestimatestobeused
inthedevelopmentofabidpackage.BasedonthePhase1findings,itisdeterminedthatthecableanchorageis
essentialtothelongͲtermretrofitandstabilityoftheSwingingBridge.Duetothelimitedexistinggeotechnical
information,anaddedscopeofsubsurfaceexploration(beyondwhathadpreviouslybeenanticipated)is
necessarytodesignforthenewanchoragesystems.
BasedonourupdatedPhase2ͲScopeofWork,ourNottoExceedPhase2Costis$54,724.
Intheeventthattheinformationcontainedhereinisdifferentthanwhatyouexpected,pleasecontactusand
wewilladjustthescopeandcostproposalaccordingly.Pleasefeelfreetocontactmeat(916)368Ͳ9181,viamy
personalcellphoneat(916)799Ͳ3891,orviamyemailatmarkr@quincyeng.com
TheentireQuincyTeamlooksforwardtocontinueworkingwithyouandyourstaffonthisimportantandurgent
project.
Ifyouhaveanyquestionsorneedadditionalinformation,pleasedonothesitatetocallme.Yourcallwillreceive
myimmediateattention.
Sincerely,
QUINCYENGINEERING,INC.
MarkL.Reno,PE
PrincipalEngineer/ProjectManager
www.quincyeng.com|11017 Cobblerock Drive, Suite 100 | Rancho Cordova, CA 95670 |P: 916.368.9181 |F:916.368.1308
EXHIBIT A
Item 9.k. - Page 8
RFP:ȱ Swingingȱ Bridgeȱ Evaluationȱ |ȱ Cityȱ ofȱ Arroyoȱ Grande|ȱ Quincyȱ Engineering,ȱInc.Page 1
ScopeofWorkPhase2–RetrofitPS&E
ȱ
QuincyȱEngineering,ȱInc.ȱ(Quincy)ȱhasȱadaptedȱtheȱscopeȱofȱworkȱtoȱassistȱtheȱCityȱofȱArroyoȱGrandeȱ(City)ȱwithȱtheȱ
goalȱ ofȱ openingȱ theȱ bridgeȱ duringȱ theȱ Strawberryȱ Festivalȱ inȱ Mayȱ 2016.ȱȱWeȱ proposedȱ aȱ twoȱ phaseȱ approachȱ towardȱ
theȱevaluationȱandȱretrofit.ȱȱPhaseȱ1ȱofȱtheȱscopeȱofȱworkȱincludedȱanȱevaluationȱofȱtheȱcriticalȱcomponentsȱofȱtheȱbridgeȱ
thatȱ wouldȱ allowȱ theȱ bridgeȱ toȱ beȱ safelyȱ openedȱ withȱ limitedȱnumberȱ ofȱ pedestriansȱ andȱ windȱspeed.ȱȱPhaseȱ2ȱ ofȱtheȱ
scopeȱ ofȱ workȱ wouldȱ evaluateȱ theȱ windȱ cableȱ anchorages,ȱ andȱ abutmentȱ foundations.ȱȱȱRetrofitȱ measuresȱ wouldȱ beȱ
developedȱ toȱ insureȱ thatȱtheȱbridgeȱ remainsȱ functionalȱ forȱ theȱ longȱ term.ȱȱInȱ thisȱPhase,ȱ weȱ wouldȱalsoȱ performȱ finalȱ
designȱ andȱdevelopȱfinalȱ PS&Eȱ forȱPhaseȱ 3ȱȬȱConstruction.ȱ Theȱ scopeȱ ofȱ workȱ describedȱ belowȱ addressesȱ theȱ Phaseȱ 2ȱ
work.ȱȱȱ
Quincyȱ Engineering,ȱ Inc.ȱ wouldȱ likeȱ toȱ utilizeȱ ourȱ vastȱ experienceȱ withȱ repairȱ projectsȱ andȱ provideȱ theȱ followingȱ
approach:ȱ
TASK 1 - PROJECT MANAGEMENT AND REVIEW MEETINGS
Task 1.1 – Project Management
Quincyȱ willȱ provideȱ generalȱ projectȱ managementȱ duringȱ theȱ projectȱ whichȱ
includesȱtrackingȱofȱprojectȱengineeringȱdesignȱbudget,ȱadministrativeȱcosts,ȱ
projectȱ progressȱ reporting,ȱ projectȱ scheduleȱ management,ȱ andȱ projectȱ
managementȱcoordinationȱwithȱtheȱCity.ȱȱ
Task 1.2 – Review Meetings
Aȱ kickȬoffȱ teleconferenceȱ willȱ beȱ heldȱ afterȱ theȱ Noticeȱ toȱ Proceedȱ andȱ willȱ
introduceȱ theȱ Projectȱ Team,ȱ establishȱ communicationȱ channels,ȱ setȱ theȱ
projectȱschedules,ȱclarifyȱtheȱScopeȱofȱWork,ȱandȱdefineȱtheȱrolesȱandȱresponsibilitiesȱofȱtheȱvariousȱTeamȱmembers.ȱȱȱ
Uponȱcompletionȱofȱtheȱexistingȱbridgeȱevaluation,ȱQuincyȱwillȱscheduleȱteleconference(s)ȱwithȱtheȱCityȱtoȱdiscussȱtheȱ
findingsȱandȱretrofitȱrecommendations.ȱȱForȱeachȱmeeting,ȱQuincyȱwillȱdistributeȱanȱapprovedȱmeetingȱagenda,ȱarrangeȱ
attendanceȱofȱkeyȱteamȱmembers,ȱandȱdistributeȱmeetingȱminutes.ȱȱ
TASK 2 – GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
Quincy,ȱinȱconjunctionȱwithȱFugroȱConsultants,ȱInc,ȱwillȱprovideȱgeotechnicalȱconsultingȱservicesȱtoȱreviewȱpreviouslyȱ
collectedȱ geotechnicalȱ data,ȱ performȱ subsurfaceȱ exploration,ȱ performȱ laboratoryȱ testing,ȱ andȱ evaluateȱ optionsȱ forȱ theȱ
stabilizationȱ ofȱ theȱ existingȱ abutmentȱ foundations.ȱȱFugroȱ willȱ provideȱ geotechnicalȱ dataȱ forȱ theȱ evaluationȱ ofȱ theȱ
existingȱ mainȱ cableȱ anchorage,ȱ newȱ windȱ cableȱ anchoragesȱ andȱ theȱ abutments.ȱ Fugroȱ hasȱ aȱ moreȱ detailedȱ separateȱ
scopeȱofȱworkȱwhichȱisȱattachedȱtoȱthisȱscopeȱofȱwork.ȱȱQuincyȱwouldȱ
expectȱ toȱ determineȱ theȱ abutmentȱ constructionȱ byȱ excavatingȱ aȱ
portionȱ ofȱ eachȱ abutmentȱ inȱ orderȱ toȱ measureȱ theȱ existingȱ
foundations.ȱȱQuincyȱhasȱassumedȱthatȱtheȱCityȱwillȱprovideȱtheȱstaffȱ
andȱequipmentȱ toȱ provideȱaccessȱtoȱtheȱ abutmentȱ foundations.ȱȱTheȱ
bridgeȱshouldȱbeȱclosedȱtoȱtheȱpublicȱduringȱtheȱinspection.ȱ
TASK 3 – BRIDGE INSPECTION
Quincyȱwillȱperformȱaȱsiteȱinspectionȱandȱevaluateȱtheȱexistingȱabutmentȱfoundations,ȱandȱassessȱtheȱfeasibilityȱofȱnewȱ
cableȱanchoragesȱlocations.ȱȱȱ
InformationȱonȱtheȱexistingȱabutmentȱfoundationȱatȱtheȱtowerȱsupportȱlocationȱareȱnotȱavailableȱinȱtheȱexistingȱasȬbuilts,ȱ
records,ȱ andȱ bridgeȱ inspectionȱ reports.ȱȱTheȱ existingȱ foundationȱ dimensionsȱ areȱ neededȱ toȱ assessȱ abutmentȱ bearing,ȱ
sliding,ȱ andȱ overturningȱ capacities.ȱȱDuringȱ theȱ Phaseȱ 2ȱ inspection,ȱ Quincyȱ willȱ measureȱ andȱpossiblyȱ handȱ excavateȱ
portionȱ ofȱ theȱ soilȱ toȱ exposeȱ portionȱ ofȱ theȱ abutmentȱ concreteȱ toȱ estimateȱ theȱ approximateȱ limitsȱ ofȱ theȱ foundation.ȱȱȱ
Task 1 Deliverables:
Kick-off Teleconference Agenda and
Meeting Minutes
Teleconference with City to discuss
report findings
Task 2 Deliverables:
Electronic PDF of Geotechnical Memorandum
EXHIBIT A
Item 9.k. - Page 9
RFP:ȱ Swingingȱ Bridgeȱ Evaluationȱ |ȱ Cityȱ ofȱ Arroyoȱ Grande|ȱ Quincyȱ Engineering,ȱInc.Page 2
ScopeofWorkPhase2–RetrofitPS&E
ȱ
QuincyȱhasȱassumedȱthatȱtheȱCityȱwillȱprovideȱtheȱstaffȱandȱequipmentȱtoȱprovideȱaccessȱtoȱtheȱabutmentȱfoundations.ȱȱ
Theȱbridgeȱshouldȱbeȱclosedȱtoȱtheȱpublicȱduringȱtheȱinspection.ȱ
AsȱresultȱofȱtheȱPhaseȱ1ȱassessment,ȱaȱretrofitȱstrategyȱisȱtoȱpreventȱtheȱexistingȱtowersȱfromȱleaningȱfurtherȱbyȱinstallingȱ
additionalȱ cablesȱ fromȱtheȱtowerȱtoȱtheȱground.ȱȱPossibleȱstrategiesȱcouldȱinvolveȱattachingȱnewȱcablesȱtoȱtheȱexistingȱ
anchorȱeyeȱnutsȱonȱtheȱexistingȱanchorȱsystems,ȱorȱinstallingȱnewȱChanceȱHelicalȱAnchorsȱnearȱtheȱexistingȱanchorages.ȱȱ
BasedȱonȱQuincyȇsȱpreviousȱfieldȱ visits,ȱ itȱappearsȱ thatȱ installingȱ newȱ Chanceȱ Helicalȱ Anchorsȱ atȱtheȱ ShortȱStreetȱ sideȱ
isȱfeasibleȱ withȱ theȱwideȱ openȱareaȱtoȱinstallȱ newȱanchors.ȱȱHowever,ȱwhereȱtoȱinstallingȱtheȱ newȱanchorsȱonȱtheȱCityȱ
Hallȱ sideȱ isȱ limited.ȱȱTheȱ fieldȱ inspectionȱ visitȱ withȱ theȱ Cityȱ personnelȱ couldȱ determineȱ theȱ appropriateȱ andȱ feasibleȱ
locationȱofȱnewȱanchors.ȱȱ
Anotherȱ potentialȱ retrofitȱ strategyȱ isȱ toȱ reinstallȱ theȱ windȱ anchorȱ
systems.ȱȱTheȱexistingȱwindȱanchorageȱappearedȱtoȱbeȱlooseȱandȱmayȱ
beȱ inȱ adequateȱ forȱ theȱ designȱ forces.ȱȱPossibleȱ locationȱ ofȱ theȱ newȱ
windȱcableȱanchorageȱwillȱbeȱdeterminedȱduringȱtheȱfieldȱinspection.ȱȱȱ
TASK 4 – BRIDGE ANALYSIS
QuincyȱwillȱutilizeȱtheȱmodelingȱfromȱPhaseȱ1ȱanalysisȱtoȱevaluateȱtheȱfesibilityȱofȱnewȱmainȱcableȱandȱnewȱwindȱcableȱ
anchoragesȱandȱtheȱexistingȱabutments.ȱ
TASK 5 – 95% PS&E DESIGN, DETAILS, SPECIFICATION, AND ESTIAMTES
Basedȱ uponȱ theȱ resultsȱ ofȱ theȱ Phaseȱ 1ȱ analysisȱ andȱ findingsȱ obtainedȱ duringȱ theȱ Phaseȱ 2ȱ work,ȱ Quincyȱ willȱ performȱ
finalȱ design.ȱȱTheȱ planȱ sheetsȱ willȱ beȱ preparedȱ inȱ AutoCADȱ thatȱ isȱ compatibleȱ formatȱ accordingȱ toȱ Cityȱ draftingȱ
standards.ȱȱȱ
PlansȱwillȱbeȱpreparedȱinȱEnglishȱunitsȱandȱwillȱbeȱconsistentȱwithȱCaltransȱStandards.ȱAllȱplansȱwillȱbeȱsignedȱbyȱtheȱ
civilȱengineerȱ(registeredȱinȱtheȱstateȱofȱCalifornia)ȱinȱresponsibleȱchargeȱofȱtheȱdesign.ȱ
QuincyȱwillȱdevelopȱtechnicalȱspecificationsȱinȱCaltransȱ2015ȱStandardȱSpecificationȱformat.ȱȱȱ
Itȱ isȱ assumedȱ thatȱ theȱ Cityȱ willȱ combineȱ itsȱ boilerȱ plateȱ withȱ theȱ technicalȱ specifications.ȱȱModificationsȱ toȱ theȱ
specificationsȱforȱtheȱuniqueȱnatureȱofȱtheȱadvertising/biddingȱprocessȱforȱthisȱprojectȱwillȱbeȱcompletedȱbyȱtheȱCity.ȱ
Quincyȱ willȱ developȱ constructionȱ quantitiesȱ andȱ theȱ estimateȱ ofȱ constructionȱ costs.ȱȱQuantitiesȱ willȱ beȱ calculatedȱ inȱ
accordanceȱwithȱCaltransȇȱpracticeȱandȱsegregatedȱintoȱpayȱitems.ȱȱTheȱestimateȱwillȱshowȱquantitiesȱandȱcostsȱasȱwellȱ
asȱaȱprojectȱcostȱsummary.ȱ
Anȱ independentȱ checkȱ ofȱ theȱ designȱ willȱ beȱ performed.ȱȱUsingȱ theȱ uncheckedȱ bridgeȱ detailedȱplans,ȱ anȱengineerȱ willȱ
independentlyȱ evaluateȱ theȱ designȱ ofȱ retrofitȱ componentsȱ forȱ theȱ project.ȱȱBasedȱ uponȱ theȱ independentȱ checkȱ andȱ
agreementȱtoȱrevisionsȱbyȱtheȱcheckerȱandȱdesigner,ȱtheȱplansȱwillȱbeȱrevised.ȱ
Asȱ anȱ integralȱ partȱ ofȱ theȱ Quincyȱ QA/QCȱ Program,ȱ aȱ seniorȱ levelȱ engineerȱ
willȱ reviewȱ theȱ entireȱ draftȱ PS&Eȱ (95%ȱ PS&E)ȱ packageȱ forȱ uniformity,ȱ
compatibilityȱandȱconstructability.ȱȱTheȱreviewȱwillȱincludeȱcomparingȱbridgeȱ
plansȱforȱconflictsȱorȱinconsistencies.ȱȱTheȱspecificationsȱandȱestimateȱwillȱbeȱ
reviewedȱforȱconsistencyȱwithȱtheȱplans,ȱandȱtoȱassureȱthatȱeachȱconstructionȱ
itemȱhasȱbeenȱaddressed.ȱ
Quincyȱ willȱ thenȱ submitȱ theȱ Draftȱ 95%ȱ PS&Eȱ packageȱ consistingȱ ofȱ plans,ȱ
technicalȱspecifications,ȱandȱestimateȱtoȱtheȱCityȱforȱreviewȱandȱcomment.ȱȱȱ
Task 5 Deliverables:
Electronic PDF of the following:
95% Plans
95% Technical Specifications
95% Construction Cost Estimate
Task 3 Deliverables:
Report of Structural Bridge Inspection
EXHIBIT A
Item 9.k. - Page 10
RFP:ȱ Swingingȱ Bridgeȱ Evaluationȱ |ȱ Cityȱ ofȱ Arroyoȱ Grande|ȱ Quincyȱ Engineering,ȱInc.Page 3
ScopeofWorkPhase2–RetrofitPS&E
ȱ
TASK 6 – 100% PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, AND ESTIMATES
Uponȱ receivingȱ reviewȱ commentsȱ fromȱ theȱ City,ȱ commentsȱ willȱ beȱ
reviewed,ȱdiscussed,ȱandȱaddressed.ȱȱAppropriateȱmodificationsȱwillȱ
thenȱ beȱ madeȱ toȱ theȱ plans,ȱ specifications,ȱ andȱ estimate.ȱȱTheȱ finalȱ
PS&EȱpackageȱwillȱbeȱfurnishedȱtoȱtheȱCity,ȱincludingȱfullȬsizedȱandȱ
halfȬsizedȱ plans,ȱ signedȱ andȱ stampedȱ specifications,ȱ andȱ quantitiesȱ
andȱ constructionȱ costȱ estimates,ȱ inȱ bothȱ hardȱ copyȱ andȱ electronicȱ
format.ȱ
Theȱ Cityȱ willȱ compileȱ andȱ reproduceȱ theȱ actualȱ bidȱ documentsȱ forȱ
advertising.ȱ
Task 6 Deliverables:
Full sized, signed Plans on vellum
Half sized, signed Plans (11x17) on bond
Signed and stamped Specifications
Quantity and Construction cost estimate
Design & Independent Check Calculations
EXHIBIT A
Item 9.k. - Page 11
Arroyo Grande Swing Bridge Phase 2 - Final Design PS&E
TASKS
Pr
i
n
c
i
p
a
l
i
n
C
h
a
r
g
e
Se
n
i
o
r
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
-
P
E
As
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
-
P
E
Dr
a
f
t
i
n
g
M
a
n
a
g
e
r
Ad
m
i
n
Se
n
i
o
r
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
-
P
E
Se
n
i
o
r
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
-
P
E
Qu
i
n
c
y
T
o
t
a
l
H
o
u
r
s
QE
I
T
o
t
a
l
L
a
b
o
r
D
o
l
l
a
r
s
Qu
i
n
c
y
F
e
e
Mc
M
i
l
l
a
n
L
a
n
d
S
u
r
v
e
y
s
Fu
g
r
o
W
e
s
t
Su
b
c
o
n
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
S
u
b
t
o
t
a
l
To
t
a
l
F
e
e
p
e
r
T
a
s
k
MR MP JC BM MK GY
No.Initial Hourly Rate $78.00 $68.00 $52.00 $44.00 $33.00 $54.10 $62.00
1 Project Management and Meetings
Project Management 4 4 $312 $931 $0 $931
Kickoff Teleconference 2 2 2 6 $396 $1,182 $0 $1,182
Review Teleconference 2 2 4 $292 $871 $0 $871
2 Geotechnical Investigation
Coordinate Geotechnical Services 2 2 $136 $406 $0 $406
Geotechnical Investigation $0 $0 $15,500 $15,500 $15,500
3 Bridge Inspection
Inspect Abutments & Wind Cable Anchorage 4 8 4 16 $976 $2,912 $0 $2,912
4 Bridge Analysis
Evaluate Wind Cable Anchorages 4 2 6 $376 $1,122 $0 $1,122
Evaluate Abutments 2 8 10 $552 $1,647 $0 $1,647
5 95% Plans, Technical Specs, and Estimates
Design & Independent Check 42 46 $5,248 $15,658 $0 $15,658
Technical Specs 2 16 $1,244 $3,712 $0 $3,712
Estimates 4 4 $480 $1,432 $0 $1,432
Detailing Plans 40 $1,760 $5,251 $0 $5,251
QA/QC 95% PS&E 8 $496 $1,480 $1,480
6 100% Plans, Specifications, and Estimates
100% PS&E 2 4 4 4 2 $878 $2,620 $0 $2,620
Subtotal- Hours 16787444 2 0 12226 0
Other Direct Costs $0 0
Total Cost $1,248 $5,304 $3,848 $1,936 $66 $0 $744 $13,146 $13,146 $0 $15,500 $15,500 $54,723.46
EXHIBIT A
Item 9.k. - Page 12
Cost Proposal
Date: 5/24/2016
Quincy Engineering, Inc.
Direct Labor:$13,146.00
Escalation for Multi-Year Project (0.0%): $0.00
1.664 $21,874.94
A. Labor Subtotal $35,020.94
Subconsultant Costs:
McMillan Land Surveys $0.00
Fugro West $15,500.00
$0.00
B. Subconsultant Subtotal $15,500.00
Other Direct Costs:
Plotter/Computer hours @ $10.00 $0.00
Travel 0 miles @ $0.575 $0.00
Pier Diem/ Hotel 0 days @ $150.00 $0.00
Phone/Fax $0.00
Delivery 0 @ $25.00 $0.00
Flight 0 flights @ $250.00 $0.00
Vellum / Mylars 0 sheets @ $1.00 $0.00
Title Reports 0 @ $500.00 $0.00
11 X 17 Reproduction 0 @ $0.10 $0.00
Mounting Boards for Presentations 0 @ $100.00 $0.00
Newsletters (Translation and printing)
Mailings (6x)
C. Other Direct Cost Subtotal:$0.00
Labor Subtotal A. =$35,020.94
Fee (12.0%):$4,202.51
Subconsultant Subtotal B. =$15,500.00
Fee (0.0%):$0.00
Other Direct Cost Subtotal: C. =$0.00
Fee (0.0%):$0.00
TOTAL =$54,723.46
Arroyo Grande Swing Bridge Phase 2 - Final Design PS&E
Arroyo Grande Pedestrian Bridge Fee Proposal Phase 2 with PS&E_5-20-16.xlsm Fee 5/24/2016 Quincy Engineering, Inc.
EXHIBIT A
Item 9.k. - Page 13
5855 Capistrano Ave., Suite C
Atascadero, California 93422
Tel: (805) 468-6060
Fax: (805) 468-6059
A member of the Fugro group of companies with offices throughout the world
FUGRO CONSULTANTS, INC.
May 18, 2016
Proposal No. 04.61269014
Quincy Engineering Inc.
11017 Cobblerock Drive, Suite 100
Rancho Cordova, California 95670
Attention: Mr. Greg Young
Subject: Revised Proposal for Geotechnical Engineering Services, Swinging Bridge
Evaluation, Arroyo Grande, California
Dear Mr. Young:
Fugro is pleased to provide this proposal to Quincy Engineering for the proposed Swinging
Bridge Evaluation Project in Arroyo Grande, California. Quincy Engineering (Quincy) will lead the
project team and we anticipate that Fugro will provide geotechnical engineering services and input
for the structural evaluation of the existing pedestrian suspension bridge. This proposal
supersedes our proposed scope of services and fee estimate for services related to the Swinging
Bridge Evaluation Project outlined in our Statement of Qualifications (SOQ) dated January 29,
2016, and incorporates information regarding the work to be performed provided in your email to
Fugro dated May 12, 2016.
The revised work scope is generally similar to that provided in our January 29
th proposal
and will involve geotechnical engineering services. Base scope tasks are anticipated to consist
of data review and reconnaissance, subsurface exploration, laboratory testing, geotechnical
engineering analyses, and preparation of a geotechnical memorandum. However, some of the
optional tasks outlined in the SOQ are not required and as such are not considered in this revised
proposal. In addition, we understand that one of the retrofit measures will be to tie the abutment
towers back away from the creek. This approach will require four (4) new helical anchors (two on
each side of the bridge, behind each tower leg). The wind cables will also be replaced and four
(4) new helical anchors will be required at the wind cable anchorages. We understand that the
location of the wind anchor cables will likely change to allow the connection to be more horizontal
relative to the bridge. Therefore, this proposal incorporates a previous optional task (SOQ
Optional Task 3) to support the project team’s design of new helical anchors into the proposed
base scope of services.
SCOPE OF WORK
Fugro’s base scope of services will provide geotechnical support for the project team’s
evaluation of the bridge’s load capacity, and will focus on the evaluation of existing abutment walls
and providing input to the design of new helical anchors required for the possible retrofit options.
As discussed with Quincy Engineering, we have provided an optional scope for the City’s
consideration that would involve providing a limited environmental assessment of the bridge paint
materials.
EXHIBIT A
Item 9.k. - Page 14
Quincy Engineering
May 18, 2016 (Proposal No. 04.62169014)
M:\WP\2016\04.62169014\PROP 04.62169014_05.18.16.DOCX
2
A description of Fugro’s anticipated base scope tasks and associated costs are provided
herein. A generalized description of the optional task is provided herein; however costs for that
task are not included. Estimated costs for that task can be developed, if needed.
Base Scope
Fugro’s base scope of services will focus on the evaluation of existing abutment walls,
and will consist of project coordination, subsurface exploration, and preparation of a geotechnical
memorandum.
Task 1 - Project Coordination
Fugro will prepare a health and safety plan for the field work, visit the site and coordinate
with City staff by telephone or in-person regarding site access, logistics, and work schedule.
Proposed geotechnical exploration locations will be within the City’s Right-of-Way.
Underground Services Alert (USA) should be notified to review the locations’ proximity to
underground utilities. Fugro has assumed that USA notification will be performed by Fugro and
have included associated costs in the fee estimate presented below. Fugro will locate and mark
the proposed geotechnical exploration locations, and contact USA to notify them of the proposed
geotechnical exploration work. USA will notify member utility owners/agencies of the work and
request those agencies mark utilities in the work areas. Fugro will not be responsible for damage
to underground utilities that are not marked or are marked improperly. If the City prefers to
perform the USA notification and coordination as a potential cost saving measure, Fugro will
provide the City with an aerial image of the site that will delineate the area that should be marked
for USA by City staff.
For this proposal, Fugro has assumed that the City will help arrange site access, no
permits will be required for the work, and that the exploration sites are not environmentally or
culturally sensitive. However, we anticipate well permits for the hollow-stem auger borings will be
required from the County of San Luis Obispo.
Task 2 - Subsurface Exploration
Fugro’s subsurface exploration will involve supplementing the ESP boring log data by
advancing one hand-auger boring near each abutment (2 total hand auger borings). In addition,
we propose to provide a 1-day effort to advance two hollow-stem-auger borings near the existing
northern bridge abutments using a truck-mounted drill rig equipped for hollow-stem auger drilling.
We anticipate the proposed hollow-stem auger borings will be located in the parking lots or park
area adjacent to the northern abutment.
We will endeavor to advance hand-auger borings to approximately 15 to 20 feet below the
ground surface or effective refusal, whichever is shallower. We anticipate the hollow-stem auger
boring(s) will be advanced to depths of 25 to 40 feet. We will endeavor to obtain soil samples at
about 2- to 5-foot intervals at each hand-auger boring and hollow-stem auger borings. Samples
from the hand-auger borings will be collected using a driven modified California hand-sampler. A
Fugro field engineer or geologist will log the boring cuttings and samples, and measure the
groundwater level, if encountered. We have assumed the borings can be backfilled with native
material and borings in paved areas will be surface-patched with black-dyed quick-set concrete.
EXHIBIT A
Item 9.k. - Page 15
Quincy Engineering
May 18, 2016 (Proposal No. 04.62169014)
M:\WP\2016\04.62169014\PROP 04.62169014_05.18.16.DOCX
3
We have assumed the subsurface exploration will be completed in one eight-hour day,
including travel to and from the site, and that encroachment permits for the hollow-stem auger
drilling will be waived or not required for the work.
Task 3 – Laboratory Testing
Laboratory tests will be performed on selected samples obtained from the field exploration
program to assist in Fugro’s characterization of the geotechnical engineering properties of the
materials encountered. Fugro expects to perform tests for soil classification and shear strength.
Task 4 - Geotechnical Memorandum
Geotechnical characterization and reporting will be completed on the basis of Fugro’s
subsurface exploration. Fugro will prepare a geotechnical memorandum summarizing their
findings regarding the existing abutment wall foundations and helical anchors. Fugro’s
memorandum will include the following:
x Project description and work performed;
x Site map showing exploration locations;
x Summary of the soil and groundwater conditions encountered at boring locations, and
boring logs;
x Results of geotechnical laboratory tests;
x Estimated static wall foundation bearing capacity, static lateral earth pressures and
frictional resistance; and
x Geotechnical input for design of new helical anchors to replace existing bridge cable
and wind cable supports.
Fee Estimate
We will perform the proposed work scope on a time-and-expense basis in accordance
with our 2016 Fee Schedule. An estimate of our fee to provide geotechnical services consistent
with the above scope of work is provided in the table below.
Base Scope Tasks Estimated Fee
Task 1 - Project Coordination $700
Task 2 – Subsurface Exploration
$2,800 (hand auger borings)
$4,500 (hollow-stem auger
borings)
Task 3 – Laboratory Testing $2,500
Task 4 – Geotechnical Memorandum $5,000
Total Estimated Fee:$15,500
Optional Scope – Limited Environmental Assessment
This optional scope will provide a limited environmental assessment of the bridge’s
existing paint, and will consist of project coordination, limited environmental testing, and reporting
EXHIBIT A
Item 9.k. - Page 16
Quincy Engineering
May 18, 2016 (Proposal No. 04.62169014)
M:\WP\2016\04.62169014\PROP 04.62169014_05.18.16.DOCX
4
of test results. Fugro will subcontract with SCA LA Environmental to assess suspect painted
surfaces and perform limited environmental sampling and testing of the bridge’s existing paint.
The following scope items will be performed:
x Preparation of a health and safety plan for the field work, and coordinate with City staff
by telephone or in-person regarding site access, logistics, and work schedule;
x Up to 10 samples of paint from the abutment pipe posts will be sampled by SCA LA
Environmental and tested for total lead; and
x Test results will be reviewed by Fugro environmental staff and appended to Fugro’s
geotechnical memorandum.
CLOSURE
We look forward to the opportunity to continue our relationship with the City of Arroyo
Grande (City) and Quincy on bridge projects in the City of Arroyo Grande. Please call me at
(805)-616-0399 of Greg Denlinger at 805-289-3848 if you have questions on our proposal for
geotechnical services or if you need additional information.
Sincerely,
FUGRO CONSULTANTS, INC.
Gregory S. Denlinger, G.E. Gresham D. Eckrich P.E., C.E.G.
Principal Geotechnical Engineer Senior Project Engineer/Geologist
Copies Submitted: (PDF) Addressee
Enclosure: 2016 Southern California Fee Schedule
EXHIBIT A
Item 9.k. - Page 17
FUGRO CONSULTANTS, INC.
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA PROJECTS
PROFESSIONAL AND TECHNICAL FEES - 2016
1.0 Analysis, Consultation, and Report Preparation.Fees for Fugro professional services, including
project administration, are based on the time of professional, technical, and other support personnel directly
applied to the project. Personnel participating in judicial proceedings, whether it be expert or witness
testimony, delivery of depositions, consultation to legal counsel, or preparation for such, will be billed at
$400 per hour. Rates for overtime (other than as described below), weekend work, and emergency
response will be quoted on request.
PROFESSIONAL STAFF HOURLY RATE
Staff Professional................................................................................................................................. $ 125
Senior Staff Professional...................................................................................................................... 135
Project Professional ............................................................................................................................. 145
Senior Project Professional.................................................................................................................. 155
Senior Professional.............................................................................................................................. 170
Associate.............................................................................................................................................. 185
Principal................................................................................................................................................ 215
Senior Principal.................................................................................................................................... 240
TECHNICAL AND OFFICE STAFF
Field Technician/Inspector - Non-Prevailing Wage, Straight Time...................................................... 95
Field Technician/Inspector - Prevailing Wage, Straight Time ............................................................. 105
Construction Inspector ......................................................................................................................... 110
Construction Services Manager........................................................................................................... 150
Engineering Assistant .......................................................................................................................... 110
Office Assistant .................................................................................................................................... 70
Word Processor/Clerical ...................................................................................................................... 75
Laboratory Technician.......................................................................................................................... 75
Technical Assistant/Illustrator .............................................................................................................. 80
Illustrator II............................................................................................................................................ 85
CADD Operator.................................................................................................................................... 95
GIS Technician..................................................................................................................................... 95
HSE Manager....................................................................................................................................... 160
Overtime Rates for Technical and Office Staff:
a. Saturday or over 8 hours/day during weekdays ............................................................ 1.5 x straight time
b. Saturdays over 8 hours or Sundays/holidays ................................................................2.0 x straight time
c. Swing or graveyard shift premium ..................................................................................1.3 x straight time
Hardware/Software Interpretive Programs
SMT/Fledermaus ............................................................................................................................25/hr
GIS/ACAD.......................................................................................................................................25/hr
Finite Element/Finite Difference Packages.....................................................................................25/hr
OTHER DIRECT CHARGES
Field vehicle with sampling & logging equipment ............................................................................. 200/day
Basic staff vehicle .............................................................................................................................. 100/day
Fee Schedule is subject to periodic revision, typically at the first of the year.
LABORATORY AND SPECIALTY TESTING AND EQUIPMENT.........................See Separate Schedules
2.0 Reimbursable Expenses. Expenses, other than salary costs, that are directly attributable to the
performance of our professional services are billed either under separate fee schedules or as
follows:
2.1 Transportation in personal vehicles at Internal Revenue Service rates.
2.2 Authorized travel expenses at cost plus 10 percent.
2.3 Direct project expenses, other than travel, including, but not limited to, sample shipment,
subcontractors, and outside reproduction, cost plus 10 percent.
EXHIBIT A
Item 9.k. - Page 18
Fugro Consultants, Inc.
Fee Schedule 2016
Page 2 of 5 September 2014 FCL
2.4 Time of external personnel retained for the project is charged at an assigned billing rate
comparable to others in our company of corresponding expertise and experience.
3.0 Other Services.Projects may require other services, such as: field exploration, field or laboratory
testing, or specialized computer services, which are not covered by this schedule. Fee schedules
for other services can be provided upon request.
4.0 The above hourly rates apply for California, U.S.A. based projects.
EXHIBIT A
Item 9.k. - Page 19
FUGRO CONSULTANTS, INC.
2016 FEE SCHEDULE
LABORATORY AND MATERIALS TESTING
Page 3 of 5 September 2014 FCL
CLASSIFICATION TESTS
Moisture Content (ASTM D2216) .................... $ 25
Moisture and Density (ASTM D2937)............... $ 40
- add for shelby tube with above tests........... $ 25
Reaction with HCl (ASTM D2488).................... $ 10
Irregular Shape Density (USACE).................... $ 55
Plastic and Liquid Limits, wet prep, 3 point LL
(ASTM D4318) ................................................. $ 170
Specific Gravity (ASTM D854).......................... $ 120
Organic Content (ASTM D2974) ...................... $ 100
Sand Equivalent (ASTM D2419) ...................... $ 95
Sieve Analysis, up to 8 sieves (ASTM D422) . $ 120
- add for each additional sieve in stack........... 10
- add for coarse fraction (>#4 sieve) ............. $ 60
Percent Passing #200 Sieve (ASTM D1140)... $ 80
Hydrometer and Sieve (ASTM D422)............... $ 165
Processing Clay Shales (USACE).................... $ 75
Tests listed above include classification
(ASTM D2488 or D2487)
VOLUME CHANGE TESTS
Incremental Consolidation (ASTM D2435)
- up to 8 load increments............................... $ 300
- additional load increment............................ $ 30
Constant Rate of Strain Consolidation
- to 16 ksf max (ASTM D4186)...................... $ 425
- with intermediate rebound and reload......... $ 500
Expansion Index (ASTM D4829/UBC 29-1)..... $ 235
Swell and Collapse Tests
- wet after load, 4 point (ASTM D4546-A)..... $ 600
- wet after load, 1 point (ASTM D4546-B)..... $ 160
- load after wet, 1 point (ASTM D4546-C)..... $ 200
STATIC STRENGTH TESTS
Hand Penetrometer........................................... $ 15
Torvane............................................................. $ 25
Miniature Vane (ASTM D4648) ........................ $ 50
Miniature Vane with Residual........................... $ 55
Unconfined Compression
- Soil (ASTM D2166) .................................... $ 110
- Rock, excludes strain (ASTM D7012-C) ..... $ 140
- Rock, with axial strain (ASTM D7012-D) .... $ 210
- add for radial strain...................................... $ 125
Triaxial Compression
- Unconsolidated Undrained (ASTM D2850) $ 145
- add for back pressure saturation................. $ 90
- *Consolidated Undrained with pore pressure
measurements, per point (ASTM D4767)... $ 440
- *Consolidated Drained, per point (USACE) $ 650
Direct Shear, 3 points, (ASTM D3080)............. $ 435
- add for residual strength, per point ............. $ 50
Point Load Index (ASTM D5731)...................... $ 60
*Multiply single point rate by 2 for up to 3 stages of
consolidated, drained or undrained staged triaxial tests
HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY TESTS
Constant Head, 2-3” Dia. (ASTM D2434)......... $ 290
Constant Head, 6” Dia. Includes remolding
(ASTM D2434).................................................. $ 375
Flexible Wall (ASTM D5084) ............................ $ 290
- add for additional effective stress................ $ 100
CLAY PROPERTIES & CHEMISTRY TESTS
Double Hydrometer (ASTM D4221)................. $ 290
Pinhole Dispersion (ASTM D4647) .................. $ 270
Crumb Test (ASTM 6572)................................. $ 45
X-Ray Diffraction............................................... $ 300
Soil Chemistry For Corrosion
(pH, chloride, sulfate, resistivity).................... $ 250
pH (soil or water) ............................................ 30
EARTHWORK TESTS
Standard Proctor, 4 points (ASTM D698)
- 4-inch mold.................................................. $ 210
- 6-inch mold.................................................. $ 245
Modified Proctor, 4 points (ASTM D1557)
- 4-inch mold.................................................. $ 240
- 6-inch mold.................................................. $ 275
California Impact Compaction (Cal 216) ..... $ 250
Moisture - Density Check Point
- 4-inch mold.................................................. $ 80
- 6-inch mold.................................................. $ 105
- add for rock correction for above ................ $ 90
Cement/ Lime Treatment
- Moisture/Density Relation (ASTM D558).... $ 280
- Wet & Dry Cycles, 2 spec., (ASTM D559).. $ 510
- Strength, w/ molding, (ASTM D1633)......... $ 95
- Est. pH for Stabilization, (ASTM D6276)..... $ 210
Index Density and Unit Weight (ASTM D4253)
Maximum....................................................... $ 315
Minimum ........................................................ $ 135
R-Value (ASTM D2844/Cal 301)...................... $ 310
Treated Soil ................................................... $ 325
Aggregate Base............................................. $ 335
Base with Admixture...................................... $ 350
CBR, per point (ASTM D1883)......................... $ 340
Proctor Compaction with above CBR............... $ 210
Surcharge for Admixture................................... $ 50
Sample Preparation for Soil with PI>20............ $ 55
AGGREGATE TESTS
Sieve Analysis (ASTM C136/Cal202)
- Coarse Aggregate....................................... $ 70
- add for samples > 5000g............................. $ 30
- Fine Aggregate ........................................... $ 120
Sand Equivalent (ASTM D2419/Cal 217)......... $ 95
Cleanness Value (ASTM C142/Cal 227).......... $ 150
Durability Index (ASTM C3744/Cal 229)
- Coarse Fraction........................................... $ 140
- Fine Fraction................................................ $ 140
Specific Gravity & Absorption
- Coarse Aggregate (ASTM C127/Cal206) .. $ 80
- Fine Aggregate (ASTM C128/Cal 207) ...... $ 125
% Crushed Particles, per fraction
(ASTM D5821/Cal 205) .................................... $ 100
Flat & Elongated Particles (ASTM D4791)....... $ 180
Uncompacted Void Content of Fine Aggregate
(AASHTO T304)................................................ $ 200
Moisture Content (ASTM C566) ...................... $ 60
Sulfate Soundness, per fraction
(ASTM C88/Cal 214) .................................. $ 125
L.A. Abrasion 500 rev. (ASTM C131/Cal 211) $ 215
Percent Passing #200 Sieve (ASTM C117) .... $ 85
Unit Weight and Voids (ASTM C29/Cal 212)... $ 95
EXHIBIT A
Item 9.k. - Page 20
FUGRO CONSULTANTS, INC.
2016 FEE SCHEDULE
LABORATORY AND MATERIALS TESTING
Page 4 of 5 September 2014 FCL
Organic Impurities (ASTM C40) ....................... $ 50
ASPHALT CONCRETE TESTS
Stabilometer Value (ASTM D1560/Cal 366) .... $ 160
Lab Compacted Unit Weight
- each briquette (Cal 304/Cal 308) ................ $ 110
- surcharge for rubberized AC....................... $ 20
Unit Weight of AC Cores (Cal 308)................... $ 65
Theoretical Max. S.G. (Cal 309) ...................... $ 150
Extraction and Sieve (ASTM D2172/D5444).... $ 315
Asphalt Content by Ignition (Cal 382)............... $ 150
Calibration Curve for Ignition Test ................... $ 300
Slurry Wet Track Abrasion (ASTM D3910) ...... $ 70
CONCRETE, MASONRY, AND STEEL TESTS
Concrete Compression
- Each 6x12 or 4x8 Cylinder (ASTM C39)..... $ 30
- Add for Elastic Modulus (ASTM C469)....... $ 185
-Hold or Additional Test................................ $ 30
- Light Weight Concrete (CTM 548).............. $ 40
Cylinder Molds with Lids................................... $ 8
Compression of Core (ASTM C42) .................. $ 90
Shrinkage of Mortar and Concrete 3 Bars
(ASTM C157)................................................. $ 440
Unit Weight of Concrete Cylinders
- Air-Dried..................................................... $ 30
- Oven-Dried................................................. $ 40
Shotcrete Panel, Lab Coring & Compression
- 3 cores (ASTM C42).................................... $ 375
Grout and Mortar Compression (ASTM C39)
- Grout........................................................... $ 45
- Mortar .......................................................... $ 35
Composite Prism Compression (ASTM E447)
- 8x8 ................................................................ Quote
- 8x12............................................................... Quote
- 8x16............................................................... Quote
CMU Block Compression (ASTM C140)............ Quote
CMU Absorption & Moisture (ASTM C140)...... $ 95
Concrete Moisture Emission Test Kit, each ..... $ 60
Rebar - Tensile and Bend (ASTM A-370) .......... Quote
MISCELLANEOUS LABORATORY TESTS
AND CHARGES
Sample Remold Surcharge .............................. $ 50
Special Processing .................................... Hourly Rates
Extrude Tube Sample and Visually Classify..... $ 70
Sample Tube Cutting, each cut........................ $ 25
Sample Preparation - Non-Routine .................. $ 100
Steel Drum - 55 Gallon with Lid........................ $ 80
Gas Powered Generator................................... $ 80
Shelby Tube with Caps..................................... $ 45
Addition of Soil Admixtures and Curing............ $ 95
Capping of Strength Test.................................. $ 40
Weight of Roofing Materials (ASTM D2829).... $ 50
Density of Sprayed Fireproofing Materials....... $ 60
Static Friction Test
- Per Surface Location (ASTM C1028)... $ 375
Coring Equip/Bit Charge, per half day.......... $ 85
Bit Charge - Difficult Materials, per half day... $ 100
Specimen End Prep
- Less than 4” Diameter, per cut.................... $ 12
- 4” to 8” Diameter, per cut ............................ $ 18
Special Capping of Specimen .......................... $ 40
Patch or Grout Core Hole................................. $ 35
Photograph of Sample...................................... $ 40
Additional Copies of Photographs............... Cost + 15%
Local Site Pick up of Bulk or AC Sample
- within 30-mile radius, per sample................ $ 60
NOTES:
1) Fugro Consultants, Inc.’s laboratories are accredited
or validated by AASHTO (R-18), Caltrans, USACE,
DSA/(LEA).
2) The following are included at NO CHARGE:
a) Visual classification, natural water content and
density with all triaxial, direct shear, volume
change, and hydraulic conductivity tests.
b) Sample photographs for triaxial, hydraulic
conductivity, and PLI tests.
3) Rates for other tests and test variations, including
mix designs, can be furnished on request.
4) Rush assignments are subject to a 25% surcharge.
Weekend or Holiday test assignments are subject to
a 50% surcharge.
5) Testing for contaminated samples (EPA Level C &
D) will be invoiced at 1.5 times listed rates.
6) Shipping or other outside costs at cost +15%.
7) Reusable thin-walled tube shipping boxes (ASTM
D4220) can be provided at no cost (except for
shipping charges) for samples shipped to Fugro’s
laboratory for testing.
8)Please contact the laboratory prior to shipping
international soils to make proper arrangements and
obtain our foreign soil permit.
9) A surcharge of $1 per linear foot of test boring depth
will be added to cover the cost of standard
engineering field supplies including sample tubes
and caps, stakes, etc.
EXHIBIT A
Item 9.k. - Page 21
FUGRO CONSULTANTS, INC.
2016 FEE SCHEDULE
FIELD EQUIPMENT AND SUPPLIES
Page 5 of 5 September 2014 FCL
FIELD INSTRUMENTATION/EQUIPMENT
Mini RAE (PID/LEL/CO s ) Detector............. $ 150/day
Dynamic or Stainless Steel Penetrometer.. $ 50/day
Brass or Stainless Steel Sample Sleeves.. $ 8/each
Use of 10 Modified Cal. Sleeves................ $ 30/box
Keyed-Alike Locks...................................... $ 25/each
55-gallon Drum........................................... $ 80/each
Field Filter .................................................. $ 25/unit
Stainless Steel Hand-Auger Sampler......... $ 50/day
Teflon Tape - 4” roll.................................... $ 75/roll
Liquinox...................................................... $ 23/bottle
Tyvek ......................................................... $ 15/each
Nitrile Gloves.............................................. $ 20/box
Respirator Cartridges................................. $ 10/set
Inclinometer Probe and Readout Device.... $ 185/day
Rotary Hammer.......................................... $ 40/day
CPN Corp. Hydroprobe.............................. $ 75/day
Double-Ring Infiltrometer........................... $ 75/day
Downhole Soil Samplers............................ $ 75/day
(2½-inch California liner, SPT)
Kernlevel.................................................... $ 20/day
24-Channel Seismograph .......................... $ 1500/wk
Instantel Mini Mate Pro4 Vibration Monitor $ 150/day
Instantel Mini Mate Pro 6 Vibration Monitor $ 200/day
Larsen/Davis LXT Sound Monitor .............. $ 120/day
Nuclear Gauge........................................... $ 50/day
Manometer................................................. $ 55/day
Asphalt/Concrete Patch .............................Cost +15%
Baroid Drilling Fluid Test Kit..................... $ 30/day
Conductivity Probe (in situ)...................... $ 55/day
Fisher TW-6 Metal Detector..................... $ 50/day
Gas Powered 120v Generator.................. $ 80/day
Peristaltic Pump....................................... $ 50/day
Positive Displacement Pump ................... $ 25/day
Temperature-pH-Conductivity Meter........ $ 25/day
Pressure Transducer................................ $ 75/day
Water Level Indicator............................... $ 20/day
Water Sampling Pump............................. $ 200/day
(Bladder Pump or Electric Submersible)
Well Bailer - Standard.............................. $ 25/day
Well Bailer - Disposable........................... $ 15/each
2-inch Diameter Water Meter................... $ 20/day
4-inch Diameter Water Meter................... $ 40/day
Well Cap 2”.............................................. $ 22/each
Digital Camera ......................................... $ 25/day
Field Computer......................................... $ 30/day
Subcontracted Specialty Equipment ........Cost + 15%
EXHIBIT A
Item 9.k. - Page 22
May 16, 2016
Swinging Bridge Evaluation Report
for
City of Arroyo Grande
300 East Branch Street
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
Field Inspection Photos included in separate DVD
11017 Cobblerock Drive Suite 100
Rancho Cordova, CA 95670
May 16, 2016
Subject
Page
Executive Summary 1 - 4
Project History 5
General Plan 6
Field Inspection Report 7 - 14
Basis of Design 15
Loads 16 - 17
Modeling Notes 18 - 23
Modeling Results 24 - 31
Superstructure Capacity 32 - 38
Substructure Capacity 39 - 49
Bridge Inspection Field Notes 50 - 56
Bridge As-Built Plans 57 - 62
Attachment 1
Item 9.k. - Page 23
Project Name: Arroyo Grande Pedestrian Bridge
Project No. A03-300
Engineer: M.Pohll
Date: 5/16/2016
Subject: Executive Summary
Page: Page 1 of 4
100 psf 150 psf 50 psf
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The bridge was analyzed for a live load of 90 psf in accordance with the AASHTO Guide Specification for the
Design of Pedestrian Bridges. The photos below provide an illustration of the density of pedestrians at various
live loads.
The structural analysis indicates that there are several deficiencies which are summarized below. Until
permanent retrofit measures are implemented it is recommended to temporarily reduce the allowable live load
on the bridge such that no more than 15 evenly spaced people (one person per panel) are allowed on the bridge
at one time and that no people be allowed on the bridge when the wind speed exceeds 30 mph. The City should
supervise the bridge access to limit the people on the bridge. Without supervision, the bridge should be posted
to limit the number of persons on the bridge to no more than 5 people. The assessment indicates the following
vulnerabilities:
Hanger Rods
Bent Hanger Rods Deck Alignment Fractured Hanger Rods
The analysis indicates that the hanger rods are overstressed due to bending. Five hangers have fractured (at
locations indicated on the General Plan) and many other rods are bent. The fractured hanger rods have caused
the vertical alignment of the deck to lower at the fractured rod locations. The hanger rods are installed in drilled
holes through the floor beam which essentially fixes the base of the hangers and causes bending in the rods
Swinging Bridge Evaluation Report - Page 1 of 62
Attachment 1
Item 9.k. - Page 24
Project Name: Arroyo Grande Pedestrian Bridge
Project No. A03-300
Engineer: M.Pohll
Date: 5/16/2016
Subject: Executive Summary
Page: Page 2 of 4
when the base sways in relation to the top of the rod which is fixed in position by the two suspension cables.
With many cycles of bending the hangers have fractured due to fatigue and overstress. During Phase 2 of the
project a retrofit scheme will be developed to eliminate the bending of the rods and to adjust the hangers to
provide a smooth deck profile. The City of Arroyo Grande has repaired the fractured rods in the interim. The
repairs have made the hangers capable of conveying a limited level of live (pedestrian) loading.
Lower Main Cable Connection to Hanger Rod
The load transfer from lower cable to hanger rod relies on friction forces created by
clamping the lower cable to the hanger rod. The clamping system is not a reliable
method of transferring forces thus making the calculated distribution of forces to
each cable suspect and indeterminate. If the clamping system slips, all the
superstructure loads will be carried by the upper cable, rendering the lower cable
incapable of carrying any load.
During Phase 2 of the project a retrofit scheme will be developed to provide a
positive connection between the superstructure and the lower cable.
Guardrail (Handrail)
The guardrail components do not meet the design criteria of
AASHTO which prescribe minimum vertical and lateral design loads
to the railing. However, the guardrail components do meet the
design criteria of the California Building Code which has less
stringent load requirements. No retrofit measures are
recommended.
Towers
The tops of the towers have a permanent lean toward the creek and
move toward the creek when live load is applied causing the tower base
plates to rotate on the abutment. The lean also produces a thrust force on
the abutment which must be resisted by the anchor bolts, but with their
limited shear capacity the anchor bolts are overstressed. The towers as
constructed lack a reliable system to restrain the top of the tower from
longitudinal movement due to the rotation of the tower base.
During Phase 2 of the project, a retrofit scheme will be developed to
anchor the top of the tower and to add anchor bolts at the base plate.
Tower
Guardrail
Lower Cable
Connection
Swinging Bridge Evaluation Report - Page 2 of 62
Attachment 1
Item 9.k. - Page 25
Project Name: Arroyo Grande Pedestrian Bridge
Project No. A03-300
Engineer: M.Pohll
Date: 5/16/2016
Subject: Executive Summary
Page: Page 3 of 4
Base Plate Rotation Tower Base Plate Anchor Bolts
Stringer Anchorage
The as-built plans detail the connection of the stringer to the abutment
with a bolted connection. This restrained connection does not permit
longitudinal movement of the stringer with respect to the abutment
which induces a tension forces in the stringers. The analysis shows this
force causes an overstress in the stringers. During Phase 2 of the
project a retrofit measure will be developed to allow relative
movement by slotting the holes in the connection angle.
Wind Bracing System
The existing bridge was constructed with a horizontal
bracing system within the bridge deck consisting of
diagonal 2x6, 2x6 deck struts and 2-3x6 stringers. These
components are overstressed when lateral wind loads are
applied. The component capacity is limited by the
capacity of the fasteners between the components. The
existing bridge was analyzed without the horizontal
bracing system and the response was similar to the
braced system indicating that the horizontal bracing
system does not contribute significantly to the transverse
stiffness. The transverse wind displacement can be
reduced if the sag in the wind cables can be reduced. The
wind cables have a downward slope from the bridge to
the anchorage, so any increased tension in the cables will
induce a downward vertical load which would reduce the
amount of load available to carry pedestrians.
The wind cable anchorage is scheduled to be evaluated in Phase 2 of the project. With limited information
available on the wind cables construction, tests could be performed to verify the anchorage capacity. However,
the testing cost may be close to the replacement cost of the three remaining wind anchorages (the NE anchor
Wind Bracing System at Abutment
Stringer Angle Connection
Swinging Bridge Evaluation Report - Page 3 of 62
Attachment 1
Item 9.k. - Page 26
Project Name: Arroyo Grande Pedestrian Bridge
Project No. A03-300
Engineer: M.Pohll
Date: 5/16/2016
Subject: Executive Summary
Page: Page 4 of 4
was replaced in 1997). During Phase 2 of the project, the impact of reducing the cable sag will be studied and
recommendations will be provided for the wind cable anchorages.
Abutments
The abutment capacity was not evaluated during Phase 1 of the project but will be evaluated during Phase 2
with the aid of additional site investigation and geotechnical input.
Main Cables
Since the force distribution between the top and bottom
cables is not possible to determine, several models were
developed to envelope the worst case condition. The results
of the controlling model indicates that the forces in the lower
cable are greater than the upper cable and the lower cable is
overstressed. This deficiency has the biggest impact on the
load reduction recommendation. During Phase 2 of the
project recommendations will be provided with respect to
permanent load restrictions.
Main Cable Anchorage
The existing cable anchorage consists of a threaded rod
connected to a buried concrete pile and cap beam system. The
pile and cap beam system was evaluated using assumed soil
parameters derived from the adjacent Bridge Street Bridge
geotechnical report and found to be adequate, but the existing
threaded rod was found to be overstressed under design loads.
During Phase 2 of the project the soil parameters will be verified
and the anchorage assessed once again.
Main Cables at Tower
Main Cable Anchorage
Threaded Rod at Main Cable Anchorage
Swinging Bridge Evaluation Report - Page 4 of 62
Attachment 1
Item 9.k. - Page 27
Project Name: Arroyo Grande Pedestrian Bridge
Project No. A03-300
Engineer: M.Pohll
Date: 5/6/2016
Subject: Project History
Page: Page 1 of 1
PROJECT HISTORY
The original swinging bridge which was a rope bridge was
originally constructed in early 1875 by the Short family
who owned land adjacent to the Arroyo Grande Creek.
The current bridge is a cable supported structure which is
4 feet wide, spans 133 feet and is suspended 40 feet above
the creek. The bridge is owned and maintained by the City
of Arroyo Grande. The bridge was damaged by a falling
tree in March 1995 and its replacement was completed in
May 1995.
Fred H. Schott and Associates, Structural Engineer, of San
Luis Obispo, CA was involved in history of the bridge
from 1985 when his firm conducted an evaluation of the
bridge and in 1995 when his firm reviewed the bridge
damage, recommended replacement, and prepared
plans for its replacement.
The replacement bridge was constructed by Vernon Edwards Constructors, Inc. of Nipomo, CA.
Fred H. Schott and Associates was involved with the load testing of the bridge in May 1995 and conducted a
warranty inspection of the bridge in 1996.
In March 1997 Fred H. Schott and Associates was involved in replacement of the northeast wind cable
anchorage.
In early 2016, the City of Arroyo Grande noticed that some of the hanger rods were fractured and issued a
Request for Proposals to evaluate the bridge and subsequently closed the bridge pending the evaluation.
Ss
Swinging Bridge Evaluation Report - Page 5 of 62
Attachment 1
Item 9.k. - Page 28
Swinging Bridge Evaluation Report - Page 6 of 62
Attachment 1
Item 9.k. - Page 29
Field Inspection Report Page 1 of 8
INSPECTION SUMMARY
This report summarizes the findings of a field inspection performed on the pedestrian "Swinging Bridge" in the
Village of Arroyo Grande on March 2nd, 2016. This bridge is a single-span suspension bridge that carries pedestrians
over Arroyo Grande Creek. The bridge has a timber deck system supported by timber floorbeams suspended from
hanger rods attached the main suspension cable. The bridge has been closed to public traffic by the City due to
concerns over fractured hanger rods and the resulting reduction in load carrying capacity.
As a pedestrian bridge structure that does not carry vehicle traffic on a public road, the bridge is not part of the
National Bridge Inventory System and does not receive a biennial inspections from Caltrans or FHWA. The
inspection was performed in accordance with National Bridge Inspection Standards Code of Federal Regulation 23
CFR Part 650 and the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Official's Manual for Bridge
Evaluation. Field inspections consisted of a thorough arms-length visual inspection from the bridge deck and below
the bridge. In addition to visual inspection and non-destructive measurement, select timber members were probed
for soundness and "hammer ringing" was used to gauge integrity of concrete foundations.
Critical Findings
There were two critical findings as a result of this inspection. Pursuant to CFR 650.305, a critical finding is defined
as a structural or safety related deficiency that requires immediate follow-up inspection or action. These finding are
as follows:
x Several hanger rods are fractured (failed) or are missing. Remaining hangers are severely deformed. These are
primary load carrying members required for structural integrity of the bridge. The bridge should not be re-
opened until these members are adequately repaired.
x Both suspension towers are out of plumb and leaning towards the center of the bridge. This appears to be the
result of rotation at the base plate of the towers. This tower displacement could be a possible sign of overload
to the suspension system. Further investigation is required to determine whether is a new or pre-existing
condition and its impact to capacity of the suspension system.
General Findings
In general, other observed portions of the structure are in fair to adequate condition with respect to the bridges
location, materials, and age. The main cables and anchorages are in good condition. The timber floor beams and
stringers show signs of weathering and minor checking due to exposure but are in good overall structural condition.
The timber decking system has recently been replaced and is in good condition. The handrail system is distorted
along the length of the bridge, but is secure and provides resistance for fall protection.
Inspection Recommendations
The failed hanger rods must be replaced, repaired, or retrofitted adequately prior to opening the bridge. The
suspension system should be analyzed to verify adequate capacity and ensure the leaning towers do not adversely
affect the bridge's structural stability. The fractures of the existing hanger rods appear to be a result of the design
of their connections to the main cables. Replacement of the existing design will likely result in similar damage in
failure in the short term. Greater overall changes to the entire structural system may be required for a safe, reliable
long term solution.
Swinging Bridge Evaluation Report - Page 7 of 62
Attachment 1
Item 9.k. - Page 30
Field Inspection Report Page 2 of 8
BRIDGE ELEMENT CONDITIONS
Main Cables
The bridge main suspension cables are in good condition. All four cables are composed on 3/4" right hand ordinary
lay galvanized wire rope. There were no breaks or kinks in individual wires or strands observed. The ropes have
been painted and the coating is generally in good condition. Minor surface rust is present at some connection
locations but no section loss was noted. Sighting along the length of the bridge, the cables shapes appeared fairly
uniform and smooth with slight angle points at floorbeam locations. The cables are in good condition at the towers
and show no signs of slippage or abrasion wear.
Paint abrasion at vertical hanger connection Cables in good condition at towers
Cable paths appear uniform along bridge length Surface rust at floor beam connection
Cable Towers
The members of the tower are in good condition. The paint on the southern tower has failed and is peeling badly,
however, surface rust is only minimal and there is no section loss. Supplemental measurements of all tower
members and geometry were recorded on the as-built drawings. Globally, the posts of both towers lean inwards
towards the creek with slopes between 4.1% and 4.4% from vertical (longitunal). Rotation is visible at the southern
tower base plate connection. A gap has opened between the the base plate and concrete foundation on the
anchorage side of the base plate. The magnitude of the gap decreases further away from the tower post. The base
Swinging Bridge Evaluation Report - Page 8 of 62
Attachment 1
Item 9.k. - Page 31
Field Inspection Report Page 3 of 8
plates of the northern tower are not visible and have been convered by newer concrete walkways. Both towers are
plumb in the transverse direction.
Tower members with failed paint Both towers are out of plumb towards the creek
Gaps on anchorage side of base plate Magnitude of plate rotation is the greatest at the posts
Main Cable Anchorages
All four main cable anchorages are in good condition with no signs of slippage, overload, or deformation. All cables
were appropriatly secured to the ground anchors with thimbles, saddle clips, and hardware. All paint surfaces are
intact and in fair condition. One anchor at the southern end of the bridge was slightly exposed with hand digging.
No damage, corrosion, or signs of overloading were oberserved below the groundline.
Swinging Bridge Evaluation Report - Page 9 of 62
Attachment 1
Item 9.k. - Page 32
Field Inspection Report Page 4 of 8
Main cable connections at Anchor Rods in good condition 1 3/8" diameter Anchor Rod below ground
Tower Foundations
The visible portions of the tower foudations are in fair condition. The southern tower foundation has only minimal
surface cracking and no effloresence. There are exposed areas of concrete overpour that could indicate erosion of
slope materials from the constructed grade level. There is insufficient information on the as-built drawings to
determine if this erosion could affect the bearing capacity or stability of the foundations. The northern foundation
is obscured by landscape improvements.
Southern concrete foundations with exposed overpour and minor erosion
Vertical Suspender Rods
The vertical suspender rods are in a failed condition. Several rods have complete fractures and portions of some
rods are missing completely. Other intact rods exhibit severe, permanent deformations; primarily bending in the
longitudinal direction between cable clamp connections. There are more damaged rods on the southern end of
the bridge. The failure of these critical load carrying members represents a potential collapse mechanism for the
entire bridge and is the reason the bridge is currently closed. These members must be replaced prior to placing the
bridge back in service to the public.
Swinging Bridge Evaluation Report - Page 10 of 62
Attachment 1
Item 9.k. - Page 33
Field Inspection Report Page 5 of 8
The following is a brief summary of the damaged rods:
Repair attempts have been made at several of the broken rods, ranging from 1/4" to 1/2" galvanized wires looped
around the floorbeams and main cables and connected with various saddle clips and turnbuckles. In general, the
repairs are significantly undersized compared to the original design. These repairs do not appear to restore reliable
capacity and should not be considered effective.
Cable clamps and saddle brackets connecting the vertical suspenders to the main cables vary from satisfactory to
fair in condition and effectiveness. Some cable clamps have been modified and the main cables are no longer snug
in the milled grove of the connection plates. Lower cable saddle brackets show surface rust which may be a sign
on abrasion or increased stresses between the main cables and saddles. While the majority of connections are in
acceptable condition, the configuration of these connections appears to be causing damage to the hanger rods.
This may be a larger issue in the dynamic behavior of the bridge that requires correction for the long-term solution.
If hanger rods are simply replaced without addressing this larger issue, they should be expected to fail in a similar
mode and timeframe.
Fractured, missing, and deformed hanger rods with ineffective repairs
Connection design is binding and damaging rods. Some connections are poorly fit.
Deformed rods are binding against and damaging timber handrail components
Complete Fracture Severe Deformation Minor Deformation
WS #6 WS #5 & #10 WS #13 - #15
WS #9 ES #6 - #8 ES #2 - #5
WS #11 & #12 ES #11 - #13 ES #14 , #15
WS = indicates Westside, ES = indicates Eastside, #'s correspond to panel point locations starting at the north end
Swinging Bridge Evaluation Report - Page 11 of 62
Attachment 1
Item 9.k. - Page 34
Field Inspection Report Page 6 of 8
Lateral Stability Cables
Lateral wind cables are in good condition. The pipe anchorage system to the floorbeam is in good condition.
However the lateral cables appear to be relatively loose and may not be effective in limiting lateral deflections. The
north western ground anchor was very loose and could easily be moved by hand.
Lateral cable connection system to the bridge is in good condition
The northwestern lateral cable is slack and the ground anchor is loose
Floorbeams
The pressure treated dimensional lumber floorbeams are in fair to good condition. Some minor weathering and
moderate surface checks are present, primarly in the topside surfaces with greater exposure. No through-checks
(splitting) or end shakes were observed. No significant decay, deterioration, or destructive pest activity was noted.
Some connection hardware for the handrail and decking system has been replaced (lag bolts, bolts) and minor
surface rust in present on other hardware.
Swinging Bridge Evaluation Report - Page 12 of 62
Attachment 1
Item 9.k. - Page 35
Field Inspection Report Page 7 of 8
The floorbeams are in good condition Minor surface checks present
Timber Stringers:
All visible portions of the solid sawn, pressure treated stringers are in fair to good condition. Some minor surface
checks were noted. Floor system diagonals are in a similar condition as the longitudinal stringers. Accessible splice
connections were secure with all hardware intact. There were no visible signs of splitting, crushing, or other
overload for these members. Splice connection plates and hardware were in good condition with no visible
corrosion.
Stringers and diagonals members near southern abutment Stringer Splice in adequate condition
Timber Deck:
The pressure treated timber deck treads have been replaced recently and are in like new condition. The treads have
been connected to the floor system diagonals with less fasteners than the original design. A few treads were
missing fasteners and were loose.
Swinging Bridge Evaluation Report - Page 13 of 62
Attachment 1
Item 9.k. - Page 36
Field Inspection Report Page 8 of 8
The deck treads have recently been replaced and are in like new condition
Timber Handrail:
The pressure treated handrail is in fair condition. Some posts and diagonal bracings show wear from abrasion with
the main suspender cables. Some hardware has been replaced or is missing. The shape of the handrail varies
substantially along the length of the bridge and does not match the shape of the main cables. However, the
handrail overall is secure and provides good resistance. Portions of the coated chain link fencing system are missing
at the floorbeam locations and were removed to allow for previous repairs.
The handrail system is in fair to adequate condition. Several diagonal bracings have been replaced recently.
REFERENCES
A. Bridge Inspection Field Notes - Attached
B. Bridge As-Built Plans - Attached
Swinging Bridge Evaluation Report - Page 14 of 62
Attachment 1
Item 9.k. - Page 37
Project Name: Arroyo Grande Pedestrian Bridge
Project No. A03-300
Engineer: M.Pohll
Date: 5/6/2016
Subject: Basis of Design
Page: Page 1 of 1
BASIS OF DESIGN
Codes
ASCE 7-10 Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures
AASHTO LRFD 6th Edition 2012
AASHTO Guide Specification for the Design of Pedestrian Bridges, December 2009
ANSI/AWC NDS-2012, National Design Specification for Wood Construction, 2012
AISC 360-10, Specifications for Structural Steel Buildings, 2010
As-Built Plans
Replacement of Swinging Bridge, City of Arroyo Grande, sheets T-1, S1-S4 by Fred H. Schott and Associates
Structural Wood
Lumber:DF No. 1
Bolts, Screws and Lag Bolts: Stainless Steel 18-8
Structural Steel
Plates and Rods: ASTM A36
Pipe: ASTM A53 Grade B
Concrete
f’c = 3,000 psi
Reinforcing Steel FY = 60 ksi
Existing Cable Properties
¾ inch diameter 6x26 (WS) + IWRC
Wire Rope Users Manual
A = 0.4755(0.75)2 = 0.267 in2
E = 13,500 ksi for 0-20% and 15,000 for > 20% load
USS Wire Rope Handbook
A = 0.248(1.10 for IWRC) = 0.273 in2
E = 14,000 ksi
Use for Analysis
A =0.267 in2
E = 14,000 ksi
Weight = (0.267/144)490 = 0.91 plf
Breaking Strength Specified = 58.8 kips
Breaking Strength Tested = 62.916 kips
Ultimate Strength Cable Capacity = I(Ultimate Breaking Strength)
where I = 0.45 for factored DL+LL IPN = 0.45(58.8) = 26.5 kip
where I = 0.60 for factored DL+WL IPN = 0.60(58.8) = 35.3 kip
Swinging Bridge Evaluation Report - Page 15 of 62
Attachment 1
Item 9.k. - Page 38
Project Name: Arroyo Grande Pedestrian Bridge
Project No. A03-300
Engineer: M.Pohll
Date: 5/6/2016
Subject: Loads
Page: Page 1 of 2
LOADS
Dead Load
The weight of existing and new members and appurtenances are included in the analysis.
6DL = 8219 superstructure + (2)(123+122 cables) = 8709 lbs
Live Load Load
Pedestrian Live Load = 90 psf LRFD Guide Specification for the Design of Pedestrian Bridges Section 3.10
6LL = (4.0)(15)(8.859)(90) = 47,841 lbs
Guard Rail Loads
Guards rails shall be designed to resist a uniform load of 50 plf applied in any direction and a concentrated load of 200 lbs
applied in any direction as provided in AASHTO 13.8.2
Wind Load on Suspension Bridge
The structure will be evaluated for wind loads in accordance with ASCE/SEI 7-10
Wind Velocity = 110 mph Figure 26.5-1A for Risk Category II
Exposure = B Section 26.7
Risk Category = II Table 1.5-1
KZT= 1.0 Site conditions do not meet the conditions in Section 26.8
KZ =0.70 Table 27.3-1 for h=30 ft and Exposure B
KD = 0.85 Table 26.6-1
G = 1.0 Section 26.9 Gust Factor Flexible Structures for T=1.50 Seconds
Wind Force = qZGCFAF Eqn 29.5-1 Design Wind Loads on Other Structures
qZ = 0.00256KZKZTKDV2I Eqn 29.3-1
qZ = 0.00256(0.70)(1.0)(0.85)(110)2 = 18.4 psf
Round CF = 0.7 Figure 29.5-1 '¥TZ DQGh/D = 1.0
Flat CF = 2.0 Figure 29.5-1 h/D = 25
Round Lattice CF = 1.3 Figure 29.5-2 H = 0.10 to 0.29 '¥TZ AF
Projected area normal to the wind
Wind Force = (18.4)(1.0)(0.7) = 12.9 psf Use 13.0 psf for Round
Wind Force = (18.4)(1.0)(2.0) = 36.8 psf Use 38.0 psf for Flat Surfaces
Wind Force = (18.4)(1.0)(1.3) = 23.9 psf Use 24.0 psf for Round Lattice
Element
Dia or
Least Dim Height Spacing Pressure
Force along
Bridge Length
inch inch ft psf plf
Top Rails 5.0 Continuous 38.0 15.8
Chain Link 40.0 Continuous 24.0 80.0
4x4 Post 3.50 40.0 8.86 38.0 4.2
2-2x4 Brace 3.0 36.0 8.86 38.0 3.2
Deck/Stringer 7.0 Continuous 38.0 22.2
Floor Beam 3.5 7.25 8.86 38.0 2.50
Subtotal 127.9
Cable 0.75 Continuous 13.0 0.8
Hanger Rod 0.625 50.0 8.86 13.0 0.3
Tower 6.625 Continuous 13.0 7.2
Load Application
Top Rail = 15.8 + 80.0/2 + 4.2/2 = 58.0 plf includes chain link, posts and braces
Stringer = 22.2 + 80.0/2 + 4.2/2 + 3.2 + 2.5 = 70 plf includes deck, stringer, chain link, post and brace
Cable = 1.0 plf to each cable which will include force on hangers
Tower = 8.0 plf to face of tower
Swinging Bridge Evaluation Report - Page 16 of 62
Attachment 1
Item 9.k. - Page 39
Project Name: Arroyo Grande Pedestrian Bridge
Project No. A03-300
Engineer: M.Pohll
Date: 5/6/2016
Subject: Loads
Page: Page 2 of 2
6WL = (58+70)(15)(8.859) + (1.0 cable)(134.8+135.8) + (8.0 tower)(11)(2) = 17,456 lbs
Load Combinations
Combination Factored Loads Comments
Strength I 1.25DL + 1.75LL
Strength III 1.25DL + 1.0WL WL is ultimate load
Strength V None Not used as pedestrians would not use bridge in high wind
Swinging Bridge Evaluation Report - Page 17 of 62
Attachment 1
Item 9.k. - Page 40
Project Name: Arroyo Grande Pedestrian Bridge
Project No. A03-300
Engineer: J.Chou
Date: 5/6/2016
Subject: Modeling Notes
Page: Page 1 of 6
MODELING NOTES
Geometric modeling
The SAP model was generated based on as-built data, and then updated based on supplemental surveying data.
Geometrically, line elements were assigned three-dimensionally per the as-built. Then, with the supplemental
survey data Nodal elevations were shifted to reflect the true bridge elevations in its existing self-weight only
condition. Cable profiles (both top and bottom cables) were adjusted for the true cable geometry. Accurate
modeling of the cable geometry is especially important, because the cable stress is highly dependent on cable
drape.
Geometry is determined by field survey.
The top cable sag measured in the field is 11.9753 ft.
The top cable sag on the plan is 9.8021 ft.
The bottom cable sag measured in the field is 14.1793 ft.
The bottom cable sag on the plan is 12.0938 ft.
Suspension cable stress is highly dependent on sag. Survey information captures the actual sag, which is then
adjusted in the SAP model. This allows the model to accurately calculate the cable stress.
SAP 3D full length view
All elements were modeled explicitly except for the decking and miscellaneous metal components near the
wind cable.
Tower kickers are modeled as compression only elements to maximum axial demand in tower columns to
capture conservative overturning effects.
Swinging Bridge Evaluation Report - Page 18 of 62
Attachment 1
Item 9.k. - Page 41
Project Name: Arroyo Grande Pedestrian Bridge
Project No. A03-300
Engineer: J.Chou
Date: 5/6/2016
Subject: Modeling Notes
Page: Page 2 of 6
To capture the other differences between the field and survey information, the floor beam and deck elevations
were also updated to reflect the existing conditions. It should be noted that there were elevation differences
between the right side of the bridge and the left side of the bridge. For instance, the cable elevation difference
for a given panel were surveyed to be between 0.08" to 2.34". The deck elevation difference for given panel
were surveyed between 0.06" to 0.92". These elevation differences between left and right side of the bridge
were modeled explicitly.
Longitudinally, the existing bridge towers leans towards the creek at approximately 4.5 degrees. This initial lean
was models explicitly in SAP before live load is applied.
Due to field constraints, the south portion of the wind cables, the left panel 14, and the left panel 15 could not
be surveyed. The left panel 14 and the left panel 15 were interpolated with the left panel 13 and 16 geometry
with best fit. Three figures below shows the field survey data that was ultimately used in the final SAP model.
Swinging Bridge Evaluation Report - Page 19 of 62
Attachment 1
Item 9.k. - Page 42
Project Name: Arroyo Grande Pedestrian Bridge
Project No. A03-300
Engineer: J.Chou
Date: 5/6/2016
Subject: Modeling Notes
Page: Page 3 of 6
Initial Tensions
Initial tension in the main suspension cables was calculated from the field sag. In a separate standalone model,
a single cable was modeled. Uniform load on the single cable was calculated by hand to be 17.6 lbs./feet. This
uniform load includes weight from the superstructure, less the cable self-weight. With the known uniform load
and known surveyed sags (top and bottom cables), cable end tensions were obtained from the standalone cable
model. The top cable end tension was calculated to be 3.77 kips. The bottom cable end tension was calculated
to be 3.25 kips.
Swinging Bridge Evaluation Report - Page 20 of 62
Attachment 1
Item 9.k. - Page 43
Project Name: Arroyo Grande Pedestrian Bridge
Project No. A03-300
Engineer: J.Chou
Date: 5/6/2016
Subject: Modeling Notes
Page: Page 4 of 6
The initial tension in the wind suspension cables was also calculated from the field sag. Based on the
approximate mid-point field sag, the wind cable end tension was obtained. With these initial cable end
tensions, the main global model's individual cable elements were assigned for the final model.
Verifications
Dead load verification: The superstructure dead load check was independently calculated. These components
includes timber decking, floor beams, stringers, diagonals, rail posts, rail tops, rail sides, rail braces, chain link
fabric, cables, and various steel bracket components at panel 7, 8, 9, and 10. The SAP model weight was slightly
higher than the hand calculated weight. This is acceptable since the slightly higher SAP model weight will yield
mildly conservative results.
Main cable and wind cable tension verification: The end cable tensions were independently calculated by hand
and compared to the SAP reaction results. The verification indicates that the model was built accurately. Total
base reaction were independently calculated and verified.
Nonlinearity
The model analysis was performed with large displacement nonlinearity to capture the P-Delta secondary
effects. This is necessary because the cable behavior is highly nonlinear. Tower kickers were modeled as
compression only elements to maximum axial demand in tower columns to capture conservative overturning
effects.
Staging
Load Combinations were modeled using the "staging" method to capture the actual added stresses, as opposed
to the typical linear addition which would be unconservative for a nonlinear suspension bridge.
Swinging Bridge Evaluation Report - Page 21 of 62
Attachment 1
Item 9.k. - Page 44
Project Name: Arroyo Grande Pedestrian Bridge
Project No. A03-300
Engineer: J.Chou
Date: 5/6/2016
Subject: Modeling Notes
Page: Page 5 of 6
Loads
Dead Load are based on member self-weights as listed below:
Steel Tower Frame - columns, beam, kicker
Cables - top cable, bottom cable, and back cable
Hangers
Posts
Floor beams
Stringer
Horizontal Diagonal Truss
Hand Rails
Swinging Bridge Evaluation Report - Page 22 of 62
Attachment 1
Item 9.k. - Page 45
Project Name: Arroyo Grande Pedestrian Bridge
Project No. A03-300
Engineer: J.Chou
Date: 5/6/2016
Subject: Modeling Notes
Page: Page 6 of 6
Ped Live Load (90 psf)
90psf equates to 180 lb/ft applied at stringers
Wind Load
29 lb/ft applied at top rails (front and back)
35 lb/ft applied at each stringer (front and back)
1 lb/ft applied at all cable locations
8 lb/ft applied at tower columns
Swinging Bridge Evaluation Report - Page 23 of 62
Attachment 1
Item 9.k. - Page 46
Project Name: Arroyo Grande Pedestrian Bridge
Project No. A03-300
Engineer: J.Chou
Date: 5/6/2016
Subject: Modeling Results
Page: Page 1 of 8
MODELING RESULTS
SAP2000 Nonlinear Large Displacement Model Results
The governing member forces are summarized below.
SAP 3D bridge entrance view
Modal Results
Fundamental Period and Frequencies
Direction Period Frequency
Seconds hertz
Vertical 0.520 1.92
Transverse 0.626 1.60
AASHTO Guide Specification for the Design of Pedestrian Bridges require that the fundemental vertical
frequency be greater than 3.0 hertz to limit the discomfort of pedestrians on the bridge.
Swinging Bridge Evaluation Report - Page 24 of 62
Attachment 1
Item 9.k. - Page 47
Project Name: Arroyo Grande Pedestrian Bridge
Project No. A03-300
Engineer: J.Chou
Date: 5/6/2016
Subject: Modeling Results
Page: Page 2 of 8
SAP 3D vertically loaded deformed shape
Swinging Bridge Evaluation Report - Page 25 of 62
Attachment 1
Item 9.k. - Page 48
Project Name: Arroyo Grande Pedestrian Bridge
Project No. A03-300
Engineer: J.Chou
Date: 5/6/2016
Subject: Modeling Results
Page: Page 3 of 8
Service I - 1.0 DL + 1.0 LL
Elevation View
Displacements
Cable Forces
Element
Max
Tension
Breaking
Strength
Allowable
Force FS=3.0 D/C
kip kip kip
Upper Main Span
Cable 15.89 58.8 19.6 0.81
Lower Main Span
Cable 20.94 58.8 19.6 1.07
Two Back Span Cables 36.54 117.6 39.2 0.93
Location Longitudinal
Panel Point Side
Vertical
Displacement
Longitudinal
Displacement
Initial Lean plus
Displacement
inch inch inch
Floor Deck 9 East 18.5 0.69 0.69
Floor Deck 8 (Governing) East 19.8 0.72 0.72
Top of Tower 1 (North End) West 0.09 2.25 7.55
Top of Tower 1 (North End) East 0.13 2.28 8.06
Top of Tower 16 (South
End) West 0.05 2.37 8.17
Top of Tower 16 (South
End) East 0.05 2.38 8.18
Swinging Bridge Evaluation Report - Page 26 of 62
Attachment 1
Item 9.k. - Page 49
Project Name: Arroyo Grande Pedestrian Bridge
Project No. A03-300
Engineer: J.Chou
Date: 5/6/2016
Subject: Modeling Results
Page: Page 4 of 8
Member Forces
Strength I - 1.25 DL + 1.75 LL
Cable Forces
Element TU ITN D/C kip kip
Upper Main Span Cable 23.96 26.5 0.90
Lower Main Span Cable 32.36 26.5 1.22
Two Back Span Cables 55.69 52.9 1.05
Hanger Forces
Element PU VU 0U IPN IVN IMNX D/C kip kip in-kip kip kip in-kip
5/8”IHanger 3.8 6.2 19.1 10.81 5.07 0.79 24.18
Combined PU-MU 3.8 6.2 19.1 10.81 5.07 0.79 24.53
Combined PU-VU 3.8 6.2 19.1 10.81 5.07 0.79 1.57
Bearing Plate 3.8 N/A N/A 4.108 N/A N/A 0.93
Stringer and Floor Beam Forces
Element MUX VUY IMNX IVNY D/C in-kip kip in-kip kip
2-3x6 Stringers 40.7 1.8 48.10 5.54 0.85
4x8 Floor Beam 19.8 3.8 58.50 5.11 0.75
Column Reactions
Location Panel Point Side PU VERT VU HORZ IVN Anchor
Bolts D/C
kip kip kips
Bottom of Tower 1 (North End) West 31.68 1.68 0.84 2.0
Bottom of Tower 1 (North End) East 31.71 2.19 0.84 2.5
Bottom of Tower 16 (South End) West 29.78 1.01 0.84 1.2
Bottom of Tower 16 (South End) East 29.61 1.00 0.84 1.2
Abutment foundations will be evaluated in Phase 2
Swinging Bridge Evaluation Report - Page 27 of 62
Attachment 1
Item 9.k. - Page 50
Project Name: Arroyo Grande Pedestrian Bridge
Project No. A03-300
Engineer: J.Chou
Date: 5/6/2016
Subject: Modeling Results
Page: Page 5 of 8
Tower Forces
Location PU VU MUX IPN IVN IMN D/C kip kip in-kip kip kip in-kip
Tower Leg (6” Std Pipe) 32.18 0.99 61.41 155.5 49.46 334.4 0.21
Tower Leg Combined PU-MU 0.37
Tower Strut/Beam (6” Std Pipe) 1.69 37.38 52.61 164.9 49.46 334.4 0.76
Tower Strut Beam Combined PU-MU 0.16
Tower Beam Strut/Beam Connection 0.33
Tower Brace (2” Std Pipe) 5.45 0.04 1.73 19.2 9.48 22.5 0.28
Tower Brace Combined PU-MU 0.35
Cable Anchorage
Location Element PU VU MU IPN IVN IMN D/C
kip kip in-kip kip kip in-kip
Main Cable Threaded Rod 55.69 52.3 1.06
Main Cable Deadman Cap Beam 35.3 1,450 43.6 4,045 0.81
Main Cable Deadman Pile 26.8 1,450 33.7 1,575 0.92
Main Cable Pile Axial 32.5 56.5 0.58
Wind Cable Will be evaluated in Phase 2
Soil parameters for analysis to be verified in Phase 2
Strength I - 1.25 DL + 1.75 LL(Reduced)
A reduced live load is proposed until all retrofit measures can be implemented.
Consider reduced live load consisting of 20 people at 200 lbs/person placed over a length of two panels (17.7
feet) resulting in a uniform load of 110 plf applied to each stringer.
Loads are placed at three separate locations to envelope the maximum forces as follows:
4000 lb load centered on panel point 4
4000 lb load centered on panel point 7
4000 lb load centered on panel point 9
The analysis considers that only the lower cable will carry the applied loads.
Cable Forces
Element TU ITN D/C kip kip
Upper Main Span Cable NA NA NA
Lower Main Span Cable 12.8 26.5 0.48
Back Span Cables 12.7 26.5 0.48
The bridge was load tested in May 1995 by placing 29,000 lbs of sand bags along the length of the bridge
resulting in a live load of (29000)/(4.0)(132.89) = 55 psf.
Swinging Bridge Evaluation Report - Page 28 of 62
Attachment 1
Item 9.k. - Page 51
Project Name: Arroyo Grande Pedestrian Bridge
Project No. A03-300
Engineer: J.Chou
Date: 5/6/2016
Subject: Modeling Results
Page: Page 6 of 8
Service III - 1.0 DL + 1.0 WL
Displacements
Location Panel
Point
Transverse
Displacement
inch
Floor Deck 9 9.3
9
1
16
Swinging Bridge Evaluation Report - Page 29 of 62
Attachment 1
Item 9.k. - Page 52
Project Name: Arroyo Grande Pedestrian Bridge
Project No. A03-300
Engineer: J.Chou
Date: 5/6/2016
Subject: Modeling Results
Page: Page 7 of 8
Strength III - 1.25 DL + 1.0 WL
Cable Forces
Element TU ITN D/C kip kip
Upper Main Span Cable 4.57 35.3 0.13
Lower Main Span Cable 4.61 35.3 0.13
Two Back Span Cables 9.2 70.6 0.13
Wind Cable 4.2 35.3 0.12
Horizontal Truss
Horizontal Truss Forces
Element
PU IPN
D/C Tension Compression Tension Compression
kip kip kip kip
2-3x6 Stringers 36.5 37.0 26.1 25.7 1.44
2x6 Diagonal 8.0 -7.9 1.85 1.85 4.32
2x6 Strut 5.6 -5.6 1.85 1.85 3.03
Tower Reactions
Location Panel Point Side Vertical Horizontal
kip kip
Bottom of Tower 1 (North End) West 4.44 0.11
Bottom of Tower 1 (North End) East 3.61 0.15
Bottom of Tower 16 (South End) West 4.87 0.02
Bottom of Tower 16 (South End) East 2.51 0.11
Tower is stable for overturning
Swinging Bridge Evaluation Report - Page 30 of 62
Attachment 1
Item 9.k. - Page 53
Project Name: Arroyo Grande Pedestrian Bridge
Project No. A03-300
Engineer: J.Chou
Date: 5/6/2016
Subject: Modeling Results
Page: Page 8 of 8
Horizontal Diagonal Truss Removed Model Results
Because the connection capacity between decking and horizontal diagonal truss is small, an additional model
was developed to capture the effect of the existing bridge, less the horizontal diagonal truss.
Service III - 1.0 DL + 1.0 WL
Displacements
Location Panel
Point
Transverse
Displacement
inch
Floor Deck 9 9.95
Strength III - 1.25 DL + 1.0 WL
Cable Forces
Element TU ITN D/C kip kip
Upper Main Span Cable 4.86 35.3 0.14
Lower Main Span Cable 4.94 35.3 0.14
Two Back Span Cables 9.8 70.6 0.14
Wind Cable 6.24 35.3 0.19
Swinging Bridge Evaluation Report - Page 31 of 62
Attachment 1
Item 9.k. - Page 54
Project Name: Arroyo Grande Pedestrian Bridge
Project No. A03-300
Engineer: M.Pohll
Date: 5/6/2016
Subject: Superstructure Capacity
Page: Page 1 of 7
SUPERSTRUCTURE CAPACITY (LRFD)
Decking
2x6 pt DF No. 1
DL = 4.5 psf wU = 1.25(4.5) + 1.75(90) = 163 psf
LL = 90 psf
Span = 48.0 – 2.50 – 2.50 = 43.0 inch
MU = [(163)/12](43.0)2/8 = 3139 in-lb/ft
VU = [(163)/12](43.0)/2 = 292 lb/ft
A = (12)(1.5) = 18.0 in2/ft
S = 12(1.5)2/6 = 4.50 in3/ft
I = 12(1.5)3/12 = 3.375 in4/ft
fB = 3139/4.5 = 698 psi
IFB = (0.85)(1000 psi)(1.15 CFU)(1.3 CF)(0.85 CM)(2.54 KF)(0.80 O) = 2195 psi
fV = (292)(1.50)/18.0 = 24 psi
IFV = (0.75)(180)(0.97 CM)(2.88 KF)(0.80 O) = 302 psi
'LL = (5)(90/12)(43.0)4/(384)(1,700,000)(0.9 CM)(3.375) = 0.065 inch = L/665
Top Horizontal Rail
2x6 pt DF No. 1
Span = 106.31 inch
w = 50 plf and 200 lb Concentrated load Guardrail Load
w = (0.6)(58) = 34.8 plf Wind Load does not govern
A = (1.5)(5.5) = 8.25 in2
S = (1.5)(5.5)2/6 = 7.5625 in3
MU =1.75wL2/8 + 1.75PL/4= 1.75(50/12)(106.31)
2/8 + 1.75(200)(106.31)/4 = 10302 + 9302 = 19604 in-lb
VU = 1.75wL/2 + 1.75P = 1.75(50/12)(106.31)/2 + 1.75(200) = 387 + 350 = 737 lbs
fB = 19604/7.625 = 2571 psi
IFB = (0.85)(1000 psi)(1.3 CF)(0.85 CM)(2.54 KF)(1.0 O) = 2385 psi Braced by 2x4
fV = (737)(1.50)/8.25 = 134 psi
IFV = (0.75)(180)(0.97 CM)(2.88 KF)(1.0 O) = 377 psi
Top Vertical Rail
2x4 pt DF No. 1
Span = 106.31 inch
w = 50 plf and 200 lb Concentrated load Guardrail Load
A = (1.5)(3.5) = 5.25 in2
S = (1.5)(3.5)2/6 = 3.06 in3
MU = 1.75wL2/8 + 1.75PL/4= 1.75(50/12)(106.31)2/8 + 1.75(200)(106.31)/4 = 10302 + 9302 = 19604 in-lb
VU = 1.75wL/2 + 1.75P = 1.75(50/12)(106.31)/2 + 1.75(200) = 387 + 350 = 737 lbs
fB = 19604/3.06 = 6406 psi
IFB = (0.85)(1000 psi)(1.5 CF)(0.85 CM)(2.54 KF)(1.0 O) = 2753 psi Braced by 2x6
Decking is adequate
Top Horizontal Rail does not meet
AASHTO design criteria, but would
meet 2013 CBC design criteria
Top Vertical Rail does not meet
AASHTO design criteria, but would
meet 2013 CBC design criteria
Swinging Bridge Evaluation Report - Page 32 of 62
Attachment 1
Item 9.k. - Page 55
Project Name: Arroyo Grande Pedestrian Bridge
Project No. A03-300
Engineer: M.Pohll
Date: 5/6/2016
Subject: Superstructure Capacity
Page: Page 2 of 7
fV = (737)(1.50)/5.25 = 211 psi
IFV = (0.75)(180)(0.97 CM)(2.88 KF)(1.0 O) = 377 psi
Rail Connection
2#12x3 WS from 2x to 4x4 post
IV = (0.65)(147 lbs/screw)(2 screws)(3.32 KF)(1.0 O)(0.70 CM) = 444 lbs < 1.75[50(106.31/12)+200] = 1125 lbs
2#12x3 WS from 2x6 to 4x4 post and 2-#12x3 WS 2x4 to 4x4 Post
IV = (0.65)(147 lbs/screw)(2 screws) (0.7 CM)(3.32 KF)(1.0 O)(0.67 CEG)(1.5/2.16 Penetration) = 207 lbs
NDS 2012 Table 11L
Widthdrawal = (0.65)(154 lbs/inch)(1.5)(2 screws) (3.32 KF)(1.0 O)(0.7 CM)2 =489lbs NDS 2012 Table 11.2B
Total = 207 + 489 = 696 lbs < 1.75[50(106.31/12)+200] = 1125 lbs
Alternative Rail Analysis
Consider composite shape
MUX = 19604 in-lb
VUY = 737 lbs
MUY = 19604 in-lb
VUX = 737 lbs
fBX = 19604/9.812 = 1998 psi < 2385 psi
fBY = 19604/8.225 = 2383 psi < 2385 psi
VUYQ/IX = 737(8.021)/26.96 = 219 lb/in
VUXQ/IY = 737(6.417)/34.61 = 137 lb/in
#12x3 WS from 2x6 to 2x4
IV = (0.65)(147 lbs/screw)(3.32 KF)(1.0 O)(0.70 CM) = 222 lbs/screw
IV = 222/12 = 19 lb/in Can not develop composite section
Swinging Bridge Evaluation Report - Page 33 of 62
Attachment 1
Item 9.k. - Page 56
Project Name: Arroyo Grande Pedestrian Bridge
Project No. A03-300
Engineer: M.Pohll
Date: 5/6/2016
Subject: Superstructure Capacity
Page: Page 3 of 7
Post
4x4 pt DF No. 1
VU = 1.75(50/12)(106.31) + (1.75)(200) = 775 + 350 = 1125 lbs Guardrail Load
MU = (1125)(26) = 29,250 in-lbs
A = (3.5)(3.5) = 12.25 in2
S = (3.5)(3.5)2/6 = 7.146 in3
fB = 29250/7.146 = 4093 psi
IFB = (0.85)(1000 psi)(1.5 CF)(0.85 CM)(2.54 KF)(1.0 O) = 2753 psi
fV = (1125)(1.50)/7.25 = 233 psi
IFV = (0.75)(180)(0.97 CM)(2.88 KF)(1.0 O) = 377 psi
Brace
2-2x4 pt DF No. 1
Horz Component = (1125)(52)/26 = 2250 lbs Guardrail Load
Axial Load PU= 2250/cos(45) = 3182 lbs
A = (1.5)(3.5) = 5.25 in2 each
LU = 42.0 inch
L/d = 42/1.5 = 28
CP = 0.580
fC = 3182/(2)(5.25) = 303 psi
IFC = (0.9)(1500 psi)(1.15 CF)(0.80 CM)(2.40 KF)(1.0 O)(0.619 CP) = 1845 psi
Brace Bolts
2-½ inch bolts 18-8 Stainless Steel
Use FY = 30 ksi
IV = (0.65)(1006 lbs)(2 bolts)(3.32 KF)(1.0 O)(0.70 CM)(2.125/3.5 C') = 1845 lbs < 3182 lbs
TM = 3.50 inch Double Shear
TS = 1.50 inch
Angle to Grain T = 45 deg
Stringers
2-3x6 pt DF No. 1 with hinge splice located 18 inch from support in either inside or outside 3x6 at each interior span
wDL = [(4.5 psf)(2.0 trib W)]/2 stringers + 3.4 plf = 7.9 plf Use 8.0 plf each
wLL = [(90 psf)(2.0 trib W)]/2 stringers = 90 plf
wU = (1.25)(8) + 1.75(90) = 168 plf
VU = 0.62wL = (0.62)(168/12)(106.31) = 923 lbs AISC Steel Construction Manual Table 3-23 #40
MU =0.121wL2 = (0.121)(168/12)(106.31)
2 = 19,146 in-lbs
A = (2.5)(5.5) = 13.75 in2
S = (2.5)(5.5)2/6 = 12.604 in3
I = (2.5)(5.5)3/12 = 34.66 in4
fB = 19146/12.604 = 1519 psi
IFB = (0.85)(1000 psi)(1.3 CF)(0.85 CM)(2.54 KF)(0.8 O) = 1908 psi Braced by deck
fV = (538)(1.50)/13.75 = 58 psi
IFV = (0.75)(180)(0.97 CM)(2.88 KF)(0.8 O) = 302 psi
'LL = 0.0097wL
4/EI = 0.0097(90/12)(106.31)4/(1,700,000)(0.9 CM)(34.66) = 0.175 inch = L/607
Post does not meet AASHTO design
criteria, but would meet 2013 CBC
design criteria
Brace is adequate
Brace Bolts are not adequate
Stringers are adequate
Swinging Bridge Evaluation Report - Page 34 of 62
Attachment 1
Item 9.k. - Page 57
Project Name: Arroyo Grande Pedestrian Bridge
Project No. A03-300
Engineer: M.Pohll
Date: 5/6/2016
Subject: Superstructure Capacity
Page: Page 4 of 7
IMN = (12.604)(1908) = 24,048 in-lbs
IVN = (13.75)(302)(2/3) = 2,768 in-lbs
Floor Beam
4x8 pt DF No. 1
wDL = 6 plf
Rail Horizontal Load
VU = 2250 lbs
MU = (2250)(26.875) = 60,469 in-lbs
PU = 2250 lbs
A = (3.5)(7.25) = 25.375 in2
S = (3.5)(7.25)2/6 = 30.66 in
3
fA = 2250/25.375 = 89 psi
IFA = (0.80)(675 psi)(1.2 CF)(1.0 CM)(2.70 KF)(1.0 O) = 1750 psi tension
fB = 60469/30.66 = 1972 psi
IFB = (0.85)(1000 psi)(1.3 CF)(0.85 CM)(2.54 KF)(1.0 O)(0.993 CL) = 2370 psi LU = 38 inch
fV = (2250)(1.50)/25.375 = 133 psi
IFV = (0.75)(180)(0.97 CM)(2.88 KF)(1.0 O) = 377 psi
Combined Bending and Tension = 89/1750 + 1972/2370 = 0.883
DL+LL
Stringer Reaction RU = 1.22wL = 1.22(168/12)(106.31) = 1816 lbs
Post Reaction RU = 1.25(3.06 plf)(50.5/12) = 16 lbs each
Rail Reaction RU = 1.25(2.06 + 1.31 plf)(106.31/12) = 37 lbs ea side
Chain Link Reaction RU = 1.25(0.7 psf)(3.33)(106.31/12) = 26 lbs ea side
Brace Reaction RU = 1.25(51/12)(2)(1.31 plf)(2 brace) = 28 lbs
Beam Weight RU = 1.25(6 plf)(10) = 75 lbs
Support Reaction = [(1816)(4) + (16+37+26+28)(2) + 75]/2 = [7263 + 214 + 75]/2 = 3776 lbs
V = 3776 – 26 – 16 - 37 – 1.25(31.5/12)(6 plf) = 3677 lbs
M = (3677)(8.25) – (28)26.875 – 53(5.50) – 1816(2.50) – 1.25(6.0/12)(39.75)2/2 = 24257 in-lbs
fB = 24257/12.604 = 1925 psi
IFB = (0.85)(1000 psi)(1.3 CF)(0.85 CM)(2.54 KF)(0.8 O) = 1908 psi close enough
fV = (3677)(1.50)/25.375 = 217 psi
IFV = (0.75)(180)(0.97 CM)(2.88 KF)(0.8 O) = 302 psi
IMN = (30.66)(1908) = 58,502 in-lbs
IVN = (25.375)(302)(2/3) = 5,109 lbs
Floor Beam is adequate
Swinging Bridge Evaluation Report - Page 35 of 62
Attachment 1
Item 9.k. - Page 58
Project Name: Arroyo Grande Pedestrian Bridge
Project No. A03-300
Engineer: M.Pohll
Date: 5/6/2016
Subject: Superstructure Capacity
Page: Page 5 of 7
Diagonal Brace below Deck
2x6 DF No. 1
Area = (1.5)(5.5) = 8.25 in2
Compression Capacity
LU = 65.34 inch
Use depth = 3.0 for consideration of buckling as diagonal is braced by decking
IPN = (0.90)(1500)(1.3 CF)(0.80 CM)(0.568 CP)(2.40 KF)(1.0 O)(8.25) = 15,790 lbs
Tension Capacity
LU = 65.34 inch
Use depth = 3.0 for consideration of buckling as diagonal is braced by decking
IPN = (0.90)(675)(1.3 CF)(1.0 CM)(2.70 KF)(1.0 O)(8.25) = 17,590 lbs
Connection Capacity
4-#12x3 WS to each of 3-2x6 deck board
IV = (0.65)(147 lbs/screw)(12 screws)(3.32 KF)(1.0 O)(0.70 CM)(1.5/2.16 penetration) = 1850 lbs
Brace Angle = atan(38/(106.3125/2) = 35.6 deg
Parallel Force = Brace Force[cos(angle)] = 0.814 Brace Force
4-#12x3 WS from each of 3-2x6 deck board to 2-3x6
0.814 Brace Force = 1850
Brace Force = 2273 lbs does not govern
Perpendicular Force = Brace Force[sin(angle)] = 0.581 Brace Force
Compression Capacity based on bearing perpendicular to grain =
IFCP = (0.85)(625)(0.67 CM)(1.67 KF)(1.0 O) = 594 psi
Area = (1.5)(5.5/sinT) = 14.19 in2
IC PERP = 594(14.19) = 8429 lbs
0.581 Brace Force = 8429 lbs
Brace Force = 14508 lbs does not govern
Tension Capacity based on Screw Withdrawal
2-#12x8” and 1-3/8x6 lag screw with 2.5 inch penetration each
Withdrawal = (305 lb/in per lag)(2.5 inch penetration) + (154 lb/in per screw)(2.5 inch penetration)(2 screws) = 1533 lbs
Screws are about 27 degrees normal to 2-3x6
Widthdrawal = (1533)[cos(27)] = 1365 lbs
IT = (0.65)(1365)(3.32 KF)(1.0 O)(0.70 CM)2 = 1443 lbs
0.581 Brace Force = 1443 lbs
Brace Force = 2484 lbs does not govern
Brace Capacity = 1850 lbs
Swinging Bridge Evaluation Report - Page 36 of 62
Attachment 1
Item 9.k. - Page 59
Project Name: Arroyo Grande Pedestrian Bridge
Project No. A03-300
Engineer: M.Pohll
Date: 5/6/2016
Subject: Superstructure Capacity
Page: Page 6 of 7
Stringers Acting as Horizontal Truss Chords
2-3x6 DF No. 1 with staggered splices
Area = (2.5)(5.5) = 13.75 in
2
Compression Capacity
LU = 0.8(106.31) = 85 inch
Use depth = 3.0 for consideration of buckling as diagonal is braced by decking
IPN = (0.90)(1500)(1.1 CF)(0.80 CM)(0.693 CP)(2.40 KF)(1.0 O)(13.75) = 27,176 lbs
Tension Capacity
IPN = (0.80)(675)(1.3 CF)(1.0 CM)(2.70 KF)(1.0 O)(13.75) = 26,062 lbs
wUDL = 1.25(8) = 10 plf
MU = 0.121wL2 = (0.121)(10/12)(106.31)2 = 1,140 in-lbs
fB = 1140/12.604 = 90 psi
IFB = (0.85)(1000 psi)(1.3 CF)(0.85 CM)(2.54 KF)(1.0 O) = 2386 psi
Bending and Tension
TU/26062 + 90/2386 = 1.0
TU = 25,079 lbs
Bending and Compression
EMIN = 620,000(1.76 KF)(0.85 IE)(0.9 CM) = 834,768 ksi
LU/d = 0.8(106.31)/5.5 = 15.46
FCE = 0.822(834768)/(15.46)
2 = 2870 psi < FC = 2851 psi
[PU/27176]2 + 90/2386(1-PU/[(13.75)(2851)] = 1.0
PU = 25655 lbs
Deck Boards Acting as Horizontal Truss Struts
3-2x6 DF No. 1
Area = (3)(1.5)(5.5) = 24.75 in2
Compression Capacity
LU = 38 inch
IPN = (0.90)(1500)(1.1 CF)(0.80 CM)(0.34 CP)(2.40 KF)(1.0 O)(24.75) = 23,993 lbs
Tension Capacity
IPN = (0.90)(675)(1.3 CF)(1.0 CM)(2.70 KF)(1.0 O)(24.75) = 52,775 lbs
Connection Capacity
4-#12x3 WS to each of 3-2x6 deck board
IV = (0.65)(147 lbs/screw)(12 screws)(3.32 KF)(1.0 O)(0.70 CM)(1.5/2.16 penetration) = 1850 lbs
Swinging Bridge Evaluation Report - Page 37 of 62
Attachment 1
Item 9.k. - Page 60
Project Name: Arroyo Grande Pedestrian Bridge
Project No. A03-300
Engineer: M.Pohll
Date: 5/6/2016
Subject: Superstructure Capacity
Page: Page 7 of 7
Hanger Rod
5/8”IThreaded RodASTM A36
Area = (0.625)2S/4 = 0.3068 in2
Root Diameter = 0.527 inch
S =S(0.527)3/32 = 0.01437 in3
Z = (0.527)3/6 = 0.0244 in
3
ITN =I0.75FUA = (0.80)(0.76)(58 ksi)(0.3068) = 10.81 kip AASHTO LRFD Eqn 6.13.2.10.2-1
IVN =I0.75FUA = (0.75)(0.38)(58 ksi)(0.3068) = 5.07 kip AASHTO LRFD Eqn 6.13.2.7-2
IMN =IZFY = 0.90(0.0244)(36) = 0.79 in-kip AASHTO LRFD Eqn 6.12.2.2.7-1
IMN = 1.6(0.01437)(36) = 0.828 in-kip
Combined Axial and Moment
TU/ITN + 8MU/9IMN < 1.0 for TU/ITN > 0.2 AASHTO LRFD Eqn 6.8.2.3-1
Combined Tension and Shear
If TU/TN < 0.33 then AASHTO LRFD Eqn 6.13.2.11-2
ܶ =0.76ܣ ܨ௨ ඨ1 െ൬ ܲ௨
ܴ
൰
ଶ
Bearing at Hanger Rod
PL Washer 3x3x1/2
Area = (3)(3) – (0.6875 hole)2S/4 = 8.63 in2
fCP = 3776/8.63 = 438 psi
IFCP = (0.85)(625)(0.67 CM)(1.67 KF)(0.8 O) = 476 psi
IPN = 476(8.63) = 4108 lbs
Z = (3.00 – 0.6875)(0.50)3/4 = 0.1445 in3
IMN = (0.90)(0.1445)(36) = 4.683 in-kips
M = PL/4
IPN = (4)(4.683)/3 = 6.244 kips
Swinging Bridge Evaluation Report - Page 38 of 62
Attachment 1
Item 9.k. - Page 61
Project Name: Arroyo Grande Pedestrian Bridge
Project No. A03-300
Engineer: M.Pohll
Date: 5/6/2016
Subject: Superstructure Capacity CBC
Page: Page 1 of 3
SUPERSTRUCTURE CAPACITY (CBC)
Decking
2x6 pt DF No. 1
DL = 4.5 psf
LL = 90 psf
Span = 48.0 – 2.50 – 2.50 = 43.0 inch
M = [(4.5+90)/12](43.0)2/8 = 1820 in-lb/ft
V = [(4.5+90)/12](43.0)/2 = 169 lb/ft
A = (12)(1.5) = 18.0 in2/ft
S = 12(1.5)2/6 = 4.50 in3/ft
I = 12(1.5)3/12 = 3.375 in4/ft
fB = 1820/4.5 = 404 psi
FB = (1000 psi)(1.15 CFU)(1.3 CF)(0.85 CM)(1.00 CD) = 1271 psi
fV = (169)(1.50)/18.0 = 14.1 psi
FV = (180)(0.97 CM)(1.00 CD) = 175 psi
'LL = (5)(90/12)(43.0)4/(384)(1,700,000)(0.9 CM)(3.375) = 0.065 inch = L/665
Top Horizontal Rail
2x6 pt DF No. 1
Span = 106.31 inch
w = 50 plf Guardrail Load
w = (0.6)(58) = 34.8 plf Wind Load does not govern
A = (1.5)(5.5) = 8.25 in
2
S = (1.5)(5.5)2/6 = 7.5625 in3
M = wL2/8 = (50/12)(106.31)2/8 = 5887 in-lb
V = wL/2 = (50/12)(106.31)/2 = 221 lbs
fB = 5887/7.625 = 772 psi
FB = (1000 psi)(1.3 CF)(0.85 CM)(1.60 CD) = 1768 psi Braced by 2x4
fV = (221)(1.50)/8.25 = 40 psi
FV = (180)(0.97 CM)(1.60 CD) = 279 psi
Top Vertical Rail
2x4 pt DF No. 1
Span = 106.31 inch
w = 50 plf Guardrail Load
A = (1.5)(3.5) = 5.25 in2
S = (1.5)(3.5)2/6 = 3.06 in3
M = wL2/8 = (50/12)(106.31)2/8 = 5887 in-lb
V = wL/2 = (50/12)(106.31)/2 = 221 lbs
fB = 5887/3.06 = 1925 psi
FB = (1000 psi)(1.5 CF)(0.85 CM)(1.60 CD) = 2040 psi Braced by 2x6
Swinging Bridge Evaluation Report - Page 39 of 62
Attachment 1
Item 9.k. - Page 62
Project Name: Arroyo Grande Pedestrian Bridge
Project No. A03-300
Engineer: M.Pohll
Date: 5/6/2016
Subject: Superstructure Capacity CBC
Page: Page 2 of 3
fV = (221)(1.50)/5.25 = 63 psi
FV = (180)(0.97 CM)(1.60 CD) = 279 psi
Rail Connection
2#12x3 WS from 2x6 to 4x4 post and 2-#12x3 WS 2x4 to 4x4 Post
Shear = (147 lbs/screw)(2 screws)(1.6 CD)(0.70 CM)(0.67 CEG)(1.5/2.16 Penetration) = 153 lbs NDS 2012 Table 11L
Widthdrawal = (154 lbs/inch)(1.5)(2 screws)(1.6 CD)(0.7 CM)2 = 362 lbs NDS 2012 Table 11.2B
Total = 153 + 362 = 569 lbs > 50(106.31/12) = 443 lbs
Post
4x4 pt DF No. 1
V = (50/12)(106.31) = 443 lbs Guardrail Load
M = (443)(26) = 11,517 in-lbs
A = (3.5)(3.5) = 12.25 in2
S = (3.5)(3.5)2/6 = 7.146 in3
fB = 11517/7.146 = 1611 psi
FB = (1000 psi)(1.5 CF)(0.85 CM)(1.60 CD) = 2040 psi
fV = (443)(1.50)/7.25 = 92 psi
FV = (180)(0.97 CM)(1.60 CD) = 279 psi
Brace
2-2x4 pt DF No. 1
Horz Component = (443)(52)/26 = 886 lbs Guardrail Load
Axial Load = 886/cos(45) = 1253 lbs
A = (1.5)(3.5) = 5.25 in2 each
LU = 42.0 inch
L/d = 42/1.5 = 28
CP = 0.580
fC = 1253/(2)(5.25) = 119 psi
FC = (1500 psi)(1.15 CF)(0.80 CM)(1.60 CD) (0.580 CP) = 1280 psi
Brace Bolts
2-½ inch bolts 18-8 Stainless Steel
Use FY = 30 ksi
Allowable Shear = (1006 lbs)(2 bolts)(1.60 CD)(0.70 CM)(2.125/3.5 C') = 1368 lbs > 1253 lbs
TM = 3.50 inch Double Shear
TS = 1.50 inch
Angle to Grain T = 45 deg
Stringers
2-3x6 pt DF No. 1 with hinge splice located 18 inch from support in either inside or outside 3x6 at each interior span
wDL = [(4.5 psf)(2.0 trib W)]/2 stringers + 3.4 plf = 7.9 plf Use 8.0 plf each
wLL = [(90 psf)(2.0 trib W)]/2 stringers = 90 plf
V = 0.62wL = (0.62)(98/12)(106.31) = 538 lbs AISC Steel Construction Manual Table 3-23 #40
M = 0.121wL2 = (0.121)(98/12)(106.31)
2 = 11,169 in-lbs
A = (2.5)(5.5) = 13.75 in2
S = (2.5)(5.5)2/6 = 12.604 in3
I = (2.5)(5.5)3/12 = 34.66 in4
Swinging Bridge Evaluation Report - Page 40 of 62
Attachment 1
Item 9.k. - Page 63
Project Name: Arroyo Grande Pedestrian Bridge
Project No. A03-300
Engineer: M.Pohll
Date: 5/6/2016
Subject: Superstructure Capacity CBC
Page: Page 3 of 3
fB = 11619/12.604 = 886 psi
FB = (1000 psi)(1.3 CF)(0.85 CM)(1.00 CD) = 1105 psi Braced by deck
fV = (538)(1.50)/13.75 = 58 psi
FV = (180)(0.97 CM)(1.00 CD) = 175 psi
'LL = 0.0097wL
4/EI = 0.0097(90/12)(106.31)4/(1,700,000)(0.9 CM)(34.66) = 0.175 inch = L/607
Floor Beam
4x8 pt DF No. 1
wDL = 6 plf
Rail Horizontal Load
V = 886 lbs
M = (886)(26.875) = 23,811 in-lbs
P = 886 lbs
A = (3.5)(7.25) = 25.375 in2
S = (3.5)(7.25)2/6 = 30.66 in
3
fA = 886/25.375 = 35 psi
FA = (675 psi)(1.2 CF)(1.0 CM)(1.60 CD) = 1296 psi tension
fB = 23,811/30.66 = 777 psi
FB = (1000 psi)(1.3 CF)(0.85 CM)(1.60 CD)(0.993 CL) = 1756 psi LU = 38 inch
fV = (886)(1.50)/25.375 = 52 psi
FV = (180)(0.97 CM)(1.60 CD) = 279 psi
DL+LL
Stringer Reaction = 1.22wL = 1.22(98/12)(106.31) = 1059 lbs
Post Reaction = (3.06 plf)(50.5/12) = 13 lbs each
Rail Reaction = (2.06 + 1.31 plf)(106.31/12) = 30 lbs ea side
Chain Link Reaction = 0.7 psf (3.33)(106.31/12) = 21 lbs ea side
Brace Reaction = (51/12)(2)(1.31 plf)(2 brace) = 22 lbs
Beam Weight = (6 plf)(10) = 60 lbs
Support Reaction = [(1059)(4) + (13+30+21+22)(2) + 60]/2 = [4236 + 172 + 60]/2 = 2234 lbs
V = 2234 – 22 – 43 – (31.5/12)(6 plf) = 2153 lbs
M = (2234)(8.25) – (22)26.875 – 43(5.50) – 1059(2.50) – (6.0/12)(39.75)2/2 = 14560 in-lbs
fB = 14560/12.604 = 1155 psi
FB = (1000 psi)(1.3 CF)(0.85 CM)(1.00 CD) = 1105 psi
fV = (2153)(1.50)/25.375 = 127 psi
FV = (180)(0.97 CM)(1.00 CD) = 175 psi
Bearing at Hanger Rod
PL Washer 3x3x1/2
Area = (3)(3) – (0.6875 hole)2S/4 = 8.63 in2
fCP = 2234/8.63 = 259 psi
FCP = (625)(0.67 CM)(1.0 CD) = 419 psi
Swinging Bridge Evaluation Report - Page 41 of 62
Attachment 1
Item 9.k. - Page 64
Project Name: Arroyo Grande Pedestrian Bridge
Project No. A03-300
Engineer: M.Pohll
Date: 5/6/2016
Subject: Substructure Capacity
Page: Page 1 of 8
SUBSTRUCTURE CAPACITY (LRFD)
Main Cable Anchorage
Anchor Reactions
Cable Force = 55.69 kip
Horizontal = 53.65 kip 1.25DL+1.75LL
Vertical = 14.85 kip
Backspan Anchor Bar
1.375” inch diameter A36 Threaded Rod
Area = (1.375)2S/4 = 1.484 in
2
IRN = (0.80)(0.76)(1.484)(58) = 52.3 kips AASHTO LRFD Eqn 6.13.2.10.2-1
D/C = 1.06
Anchor Bar Bearing Plate
PL 6x6x3/4
Bearing Area = (6)2 – (1.50)2S/4 = 34.23 in
2
IPN =I0.85fCA1¥$2/A1 = 0.70(0.85)(3.0)(34.23)(2) = 122 kips AASHTO LRFD Eqn 5.7.5-1
D/C = 0.46
Pile Analysis
Use L-Pile to determine pile displacement and pile moments.
Soil data not available at site, but use soil data from Fugro Consultants, Inc. report for adjacent Bridge Street Bridge.
Use one layer of API Sand
J = 100 pcf
I = 35 deg
k = 0
Use 24 inch concrete pile (elastic) x 12 ft deep pile with fixed head and E = 3605 ksi for fc=3000 psi
Swinging Bridge Evaluation Report - Page 42 of 62
Attachment 1
Item 9.k. - Page 65
Project Name: Arroyo Grande Pedestrian Bridge
Project No. A03-300
Engineer: M.Pohll
Date: 5/6/2016
Subject: Substructure Capacity
Page: Page 2 of 8
Pile Capacity
Self Weight Cap = (15.0)(2.33)(2)(0.15) = 10.5 kip = 2.10 plf
Self Weight Pile = (12)(0.15)S(2)2/4 = 5.65 kip
Soil over Cap = (2.0)(2.33)(0.12)(15) = 8.4 kip = 0.56 plf
Pile Load Due to Overturning = 53.65(6.0 ft to zero moment)/12 = ± 26.8 kip
Pile Loads Due to Uplift Near Tower = (10/12)(14.85) = 12.4 kip
Pile Loads Due to Uplift Away from Tower = (2/12)(14.85) = 2.5 kip
Load Combinations
0.9DL + Anchorage Forces for Maximum Uplift
1.2DL + Anchorage Forces for Maximum Compression
PU Near Tower = 1.2(10.5/2 + 5.65 + 8.4/2) - 12.4 + 26.8 = 1.2(15.1) – 12.4 + 26.8 = 32.5 kips down
PU Away from Tower = 0.9(10.5/2 + 5.65 + 8.4/2) – 2.5 – 26.8 = 0.9(15.1) – 2.5 - 26.8 = 15.7 kips up
Swinging Bridge Evaluation Report - Page 43 of 62
Attachment 1
Item 9.k. - Page 66
Project Name: Arroyo Grande Pedestrian Bridge
Project No. A03-300
Engineer: M.Pohll
Date: 5/6/2016
Subject: Substructure Capacity
Page: Page 3 of 8
Pile Properties
FC = 3,000 psi
FY = 60,000 psi
#4 spiral at 6” pitch at 4” clearance
#9 total 4 plus 2-#10 at tension side
Bars 1-4 are #9
Bars 5-6 are #10
MU = 1450 in-kip
IMN =0.9(1750) = 1575 in-kip at PU = 15.7 kips tension D/C = 0.92
IMN = (0.9)(2000) = 1800 in-kip at PU = 32.5 kips compression
VU = 26.83 kip
IVC =I2(1-NU/500AG)¥ICbd = (0.75)(2)[1-24700/(500)(452)](¥3000)(24)(0.8)(24)/1000 =33.7 kip ACI 318 Eqn 11-8
D/C = 0.71
Pile Geotechnical Capacity
Assume ultimate skin friction = 750 psf CBC Section 1810.3.3.1.5
IPN = (2)(S)(12)(0.750) = 56.5 kip D/C = 32.5/56.5 = 0.58
Cap Beam
28”W x 24”D
#4 stirrups at 16” at 4” clear
2-#9 and 3-#8 bars
MU = 1450 in-kip
VU = 26.8 -2.47 – 1.2(5.25+4.2) + 1.2(2.10+0.56)10 = 26.8 -2.47 – 11.4 + 17.39 = 35.26 kip
AS = (2)(1.0) + 3(0.79) = 4.37 in
2
a = (60)(4.37)/(0.85)(3)(28) = 3.67 in
d1 = 24.0 – 4.0 – 0.5 – 0.5 = 19.0 inch
d2 = 24.0 – 4.0 – 0.5 – 1.128/2 = 18.94 inch
MN = (2.0)(60)(18.94-3.67/2) + (2.37)(60)(19.0-3.67/2) = 2053 + 2441 = 4494 in-kips
IMN = (0.90)(4494) = 4045 in-kip D/C = 1450/4045 = 0.36
IVN = (0.75)(2)(¥3000)(28)(18.94) = 43.57 kips D/C = 0.81
AVMIN = 50(28)(14)/60000 = 0.33 in2 < 0.40 in2
#9 Hook Embed = 17 inch
Swinging Bridge Evaluation Report - Page 44 of 62
Attachment 1
Item 9.k. - Page 67
Project Name: Arroyo Grande Pedestrian Bridge
Project No. A03-300
Engineer: M.Pohll
Date: 5/6/2016
Subject: Substructure Capacity
Page: Page 4 of 8
Epoxied Anchor Bolts at Tower
2-5/8 inch bolts set in epoxy
Assume 2 inch Grout
Analysis per Hilti Profis
Shear Capacity = 618 lbs
Swinging Bridge Evaluation Report - Page 45 of 62
Attachment 1
Item 9.k. - Page 68
Project Name: Arroyo Grande Pedestrian Bridge
Project No. A03-300
Engineer: M.Pohll
Date: 5/6/2016
Subject: Substructure Capacity
Page: Page 5 of 8
Swinging Bridge Evaluation Report - Page 46 of 62
Attachment 1
Item 9.k. - Page 69
Project Name: Arroyo Grande Pedestrian Bridge
Project No. A03-300
Engineer: M.Pohll
Date: 5/6/2016
Subject: Substructure Capacity
Page: Page 6 of 8
1/2” dia Anchor Bolts at Tower
Assume 5 inch embedment and 2 inch grout
Shear Capacity = 222 lbs
Swinging Bridge Evaluation Report - Page 47 of 62
Attachment 1
Item 9.k. - Page 70
Project Name: Arroyo Grande Pedestrian Bridge
Project No. A03-300
Engineer: M.Pohll
Date: 5/6/2016
Subject: Substructure Capacity
Page: Page 7 of 8
Swinging Bridge Evaluation Report - Page 48 of 62
Attachment 1
Item 9.k. - Page 71
Project Name: Arroyo Grande Pedestrian Bridge
Project No. A03-300
Engineer: M.Pohll
Date: 5/6/2016
Subject: Substructure Capacity
Page: Page 8 of 8
Tower Joint
Swinging Bridge Evaluation Report - Page 49 of 62
Attachment 1
Item 9.k. - Page 72
Swinging Bridge Evaluation Report - Page 50 of 62
Attachment 1
Arroyo Grande Swinging Bridge Inspection
Specific Elements to Inspect
tiP-FefZMW -3 I :z._ I { l
8v #-~r-r
I. Verify the number of Panels is what is shown in As-Built (16 total). (Detail NSl) /
~o~ec.J. p~l ::::-0'-~''t-all ~ters v""'
Q)-0 ¢'---"1
2. Locate broken/bent hanger rods on plan and which ones have retrofits?
0 Please compare notes with the Plan drawing provided in the Quincy Proposal Response. 1 f iC~ ~ \J e_~\ V}, -;lJe... @ -l>rJte"' 6> re j {J> -~.do«J llbtN~-~~@> fl,..tteJ.c -t1.ifJ... Vr'i\(f'l~e,
-r-epA",rctJ v.A t'c.-..(.,J. ,,.do.( ~~r e... N 'le'' Di~.
3. Can you tell if AB Chance Anchors (Detail E/S2) were used or Pile bent (G/S3 ) was used?
0 You might be able to see if the Chance Anchor Tripi eye Adapter on I 3/4" QS Shaft is used--see first
image below. OR, if the Alt detailed is used, then it might be a smaller eye nut--s ee second image
below.
~CHANCE ANCHOR ATTACHMENT
S2
CllA.'IC[ ANCHOR TRIPt E'IE
ADAPTI:R O~ t.\'4 " SQ. SIWl
Cl!l\'IC£ AllCHOR SS 175 v./
11,lo",12'" LEAO SECTION
<1nd A S!NGt.£ 14• urux
EXTF.t-;SICll w/ STRAIGttT
E:XTWSIOtlS f.S RF.QUIR£0
TO EXTEND A II.IN. OF 55'
L~TO THE GROUNO w/ A
\Wf. TORQUE: Cf 9.SOO lbs/r:
All £l£MENTS TO BE G,\l.VAMZEO
3/4"=1'-0"
@ lt>.•9c \;.c-_...wl 4-o ~o.,.\~
(@) l 4VZJ~ b~o~ ~1"J ~-·"'-l '7 @J
1i)'\ ~voc.b-cJ 0 ~-<>o ~ ~ 1·0J -t-\..ueo.Js . -.;\iC\V,~-L ,.J. 1 -.1 I / b 1 1 llY t / O<'. '10 SGV11I\ O ot.V". Ower-r-.:11-0·
I oouo retb\P_ bra c~t-{· b tv.,.,.,.; ''!) i"'k. v-"; \ pos+ -fo-•• + ~'~"r .,. p \rt-
fC:O?\i-r -l!: tvc·ft\ 'It/ a"'lv. rooe .. v/( k~d ~e.'-se -si:J/'" .f 1 1 11 I .:.J l ~ce.... . • tH>l()tJi.V e_-s:
@ _(>t"!.lc:\vr(J ju~l-!?dov.>· loWer 1•.v.;"" ce.k la. bfP.~.~#d·. f?e,,.,,,',,,'.~ ~ bcid -l~ '!>,
Pril\c:.J.. ko\e. \,,.._ f-'\S co .~tt\'.,.\rit .. I 11.•le 'o" . b 1· .J-L_ ' J .• I
• • !--· v>~er i'l<ciu;.1 f7£"'' ''.:;} fl'ow oh p os\
'2&7"l \~f Pf' ~pif~r Mtxl" ohlu_ b·~ ~-tw ~kll.kJ .fc -ll..c -;,ov.fk
·-1'J~-fil i c P"' :;ay r-ftJ~' I )). I I ·~\o"c1 ·llo••ber bchr /J t(I ()V~r lt>p 01-
1 ow t.r C ttble.
Cf) ~-l(I.«~(.(" f(J).. bow.e(l
-\°{} O f · r,,.J.. '.ttrox.. Item 9.k. - Page 73
Swinging Bridge Evaluation Report - Page 51 of 62
Attachment 1
2.
I'
I ti
:5ke!,-+ bo..J + .. $ < v-.~ ... l~ "'5k-rA~k-\1 --oM'fi!\ -z 1!/ ov~r-l/ _l/
'f~"~-\-uJea..--0 ..... \al... """--:sM./l-k-klt..er-FB ~<:> r-<1.~\ -!ep
ov-H-
ka,j b'j 01, f>s-{-"-'-').-))er V/f~r
V1'ckc.r
"-;;I• ~e t)t~
0c,f/h'•<Ut-l~d
L. b { / "ffef bekc•a:-"'-ca le r'clu>f> b>f-k h1&.£l1~-615 krJ. o"' f'ost roJ. ~ brj at\ tllUc
w / 1/t.r" 6i11.li1_ 1-"ft!.--sa.cld&s1 ....Jl...,.,._,{p&_s
:::-ov-f-\.... l:u~t(t?b!A ~~cla..{-s ~ ber bl"~ckef-bf!] ;t 11 /c,b../<Q.t.
C><b~-&,r~ o~ vppA?r /,,Jcke.---cv1-j 11
I\
0 ef-se..t--I 'ft(,,
Item 9.k. - Page 74
Swinging Bridge Evaluation Report - Page 52 of 62
Attachment 1
4.
b
I
<-<
Arroyo Grande Swinging Bridge Inspection
!:::§'.' ---------___________ !T=!l'. ___________________________ _
2~;9 l 3' ··••
"'---14 SP:ll!.L REJt;r.
PITCll = If vt/ ADO"L
f Yi' 11.JRNS 0 TOP
~ALTERNATE ANCHOR
S3 TYP, FRAME ELEV.
14 CM' IWiS
Al.T. HOO~ ~OES
?':_£___ __
-2--i~ TCP & 001.
(£00ES) 14'--4"
-------------, 1'-4~
@TYP. SECT. ALT. ANCHOR
S3 3/4-~ =1'-0"
Obtain yrilensions of steel frame tower (C/S3) sufficient to model, draw and/or calculate.
&f Verify As-Built dimensions. ~tain missing stiffener Plate thickness & its approx. weld size. ~ 11
v.1 / 11 '' l~s ~ c.opeo~ 0ao,ei---
W Obtain element sizes for the sign hanging strut and its connections. II ( A l I 1 2"---.. {-le, oc we, q l;..)
Item 9.k. - Page 75
Swinging Bridge Evaluation Report - Page 53 of 62
Attachment 1
---·--·-· , __ --1. ~'-----=-------~----·---··-· _,
/,5%
~__:.----___ _ __ , ___ , ____ .
k ; o.c;rC'
E
(J ;: 1-/, 3 <Yo i~
-6 ~ (),6% 1Zt-
Item 9.k. - Page 76
Swinging Bridge Evaluation Report - Page 54 of 62
Attachment 1
I
\.
I
Arroyo Grande Swinging Bridge Inspection
5. Observe the main cable integrity on top of the tower. Take photos at each four location for documentation.
c:?ouJ-4 -r;;VJe, -gd1 Ut:J ~:v,,,s ?I t/'~!J<t-
}/t>r.ff-{or.ve,r -So~
6. Measure main cable diameter, vertical rod dia)peter.
jlir<irA ata---3/lf /f fkd ,.,,1.e:· t'OfJ<!--IC./2-t--lr;..,/s+ -WI' &?flee..~
1ZoJ.5 --% (( t? ~«:Jd-.. &--'I ~~6 @ ~~
7. Measure retrofitted/repaired ve11ical connection and member sizes at the broken rod locations.
/l//ri r~ ~, 'f?er1~s lf"'e l/IV'e/,abfe_
8. How is C3x4. I connected to Pipe column (C/S3)? Take picture.
kx!Jt'A w{ '?'' ci/ f\f.e_~ -~e A~-a!JJ1° I+(:, /Jr Gie.ou..tA:J
9. Determine anchorage details for steel frame tower. Take pictures.
V.u°,,i;,,.,_,J J1r ~fie.Ar
11.6 rtJ>/J-01-, rCs1~.J~-w«:._
10. Verify dimensions and member sizes and connections of typical frame (B/S3).
11. Measure distance from centerline of hole in floor beam (B/S3) for rod to face of 4x4 post. Take picture with
measurement if possible.
\
\ lu '' fl /i I 4:-40 ro>f--fK~-
12. Determine interconnection of2-3x6 stringers so we can determine tensile strength of this chord element and
bending strength of spliced 2-3x6. How many W' bolts are there between splices. Lap splice seems
complicated. Take pictures. See if you can get pictures from below--suggest zooming in and/or using flash to
make connections at bottom view visible. ' ~"j<!f5 &~vhla~ Vf IV( -7.kffj!!rttd "f'/.-ce,s-
(2) Yz 11 p} ~[-b eu.L ~r'k ~· "'>fl1 i-e-
[1 ) ~ ~/bUf)t.._ 7fri~er 6,-1tt:fuf-eacL ~1ct.. cl -'?~/, t-e.--jf-
13. Verify number and size of fasteners at diagonal co1111ections (D/S2)
/?r'icjcvc~ CoKN:.e.AJ. ..fo ?/n~jer5
;A/tf(,... t~ ~
Item 9.k. - Page 77
Swinging Bridge Evaluation Report - Page 55 of 62
Attachment 1
Arroyo Grande Swinging Bridge Inspection
14. I created CAD detail of detail F/S2 and it seemed like there was not room to install all the plates and bolts in the
space provided between 4x4 rail post and centerline of rod. Is this the case? Was the rod bent to install all
these connections? Take picture. How close are cables to rail post brace? Take pictures with measuring tape.
15. Verify hanger spacings per A/S2
/
16. Can you get some pictures of abutments and try to decide where we can excavate to determine footing
dimensions. <;OJ~ sj,le ~ 1-e..-~o-~0 -~v-~f Mt;.
tMr-1'(,.. '7;k -k>o ov4r-~ vr /J..evet-lcpec:/
17. Measure height and slope of rail post brace vs floor beam, so we can draw it up and find interferences with
draped cable.
18. Has the cable cut any members when the hangers broke?
lfA---t~·y -h·._._.__&,,IU"" ir~--s ~l't--~-r-
19. Observe for any other deficiencies that might have been missed.
20. If time allows, please take photos of each connection and document it so that we can match the photo number to
the connection naming convention in As-Built sheet S2. Suggest starting from South end, with "Pl Lt" for
Panel 1 Left, up to Pl6 Rt for Panel Right.
Item 9.k. - Page 78
Swinging Bridge Evaluation Report - Page 56 of 62
Attachment 1
f :
j_o/J../cr c11bl-
@ -@ o~ f~1 "JC/ffc/.+ctJ .f!~, /r,,e(~c.v
11./ t~"'·'J. ?A-~U&_ -b!J C2ntne~fiO-,,t
Co(Yc-1:11~ O'A
each 5"1)~fe_
{N(..(:-'l.:V\. atbfe.. / c../,,,Pl/lft::.15
tcecr!la,
Item 9.k. - Page 79
Swinging Bridge Evaluation Report - Page 57 of 62
Attachment 1
Item 9.k. - Page 80
Swinging Bridge Evaluation Report - Page 58 of 62
Attachment 1
Item 9.k. - Page 81
Swinging Bridge Evaluation Report - Page 59 of 62
Attachment 1
Item 9.k. - Page 82
Swinging Bridge Evaluation Report - Page 60 of 62
Attachment 1
Item 9.k. - Page 83
Swinging Bridge Evaluation Report - Page 61 of 62
Attachment 1
Item 9.k. - Page 84
Swinging Bridge Evaluation Report - Page 62 of 62
Attachment 1
Item 9.k. - Page 85
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Item 9.k. - Page 86