Bridge #1
~ Tennessee Rocker bearings were used. The keeper plates were independent of the masonry plate.
~ A construction error resulted in low final elevations at one of the interior bents.
~ There was visible girder uplift at bearing at end bent #1. Design calculations predicted uplift during pours 1, 2 and 3, which raised concerns about the effects on the hardened concrete during pour 4.
~ FHWA expressed concerns about fogging concrete during the deck pour. It was noted that the Standard Specifications require wet burlap for maintaining moisture.
~ Excluder plates were not always flat on the stay-in-place forms.
Bridge #3
~ Modular joints with welded tabs for snow plow protection were used. If future traffic in one of the lanes is reversed the welded tabs will require replacement. Structure Design noted that they prefer using armored evazote joints whenever possible.
~ The two-lane two-way bridge was built with a bicycle rail on only one side.
~ The bridge seemed excessively long due to a wide 100 year floodway derived from the natural flood plain – a FEMA issue.
~ On the far end of the bridge there was a hazardous fill basin to capture outstanding resource water. The basin was negotiated for in 1996. There were questions on documenting reasons and purposes for commitments and agreements for future reference.
A/I ~ FHWA will initiate a process review for placing, pumping, and curing deck concrete.
A/I ~ FHWA will conduct a process review for FEMA issues and scour issues for uniformity of standards.
