ACEC/MaineDOT Bridge Design Subcommittee
MEETING MINUTES
December 1, 2015
________________________________________________________________________
Attendees:
Location: MDOT Conf. Rm. #317 A/B
Wayne Frankhauser
MaineDOT
Rich Myers
MaineDOT
Time: 1:30 to 3:00 PM
Jeff Folsom
MaineDOT
Laura Krusinski
MaineDOT
Jack Burgess
Becker
Steve Hodgdon
VHB
Keith Donington
PB
Tom Kendrick
MJ
Christopher Snow
GZA
Notes Taken By: Keith Donington
________________________________________________________________________
This was the fourth quarter ACEC/MaineDOT Bridge Design Subcommittee meeting for
this year.
 Introductions
o September 15th Meeting Minutes accepted
 Information from MaineDOT (Jeff Folsom)
Contracting/GCA Processing Update:
o Kathy Parlin has taken over from Marie Malloy
o Regarding workload, MaineDOT trying to spread work evenly to all GCA
contract holders. Some firms have not received assignments yet but they
should be issued shortly.
2015-2016-2017 Work Plan Update:
o The Work Plan is undergoing some final tuning. The funding will be
$105M/yr. The plan is scheduled to be published in January. Then kick-off
meetings will be arranged.
o The work will focus heavily on bridge preservation – painting and rehab.
o Very few big bridges – mainly smaller bridges
ACEC/MaineDOT Bridge Design Subcommittee
Meeting Minutes
December 1, 2015
Page 2 of 4
Workload/Staffing Update:
o
o
o
o
A PM 1 position has been posted
Nate Sherwood has filled the previously vacated geotechnical position.
Continuing to post for 3 assistant engineers
Jerry Quirion in the Team South Utility/RR section is retiring at end of
December after 46 years of service. A replacement is being sought.
 Designers Meetings (Rich Myers/Wayne Frankhauser)
Load Posting Meeting:
o Load Posting Meeting held to discuss steel beams with no shear connectors.
o U Maine to do a lot more full scale bridge testing to get a greater sample
o Rating policy is to rate and report bridges as non-composite but to also
include in the report summary the composite rating with the computed
horizontal shear strength required to achieve a rating factor of 1.0.
Composite Action in Negative Moment Regions:
o The BDG is to be revised to permit using deck rebar in the deck slab as part of
the composite action. Currently rebar must be ignored.
Bridge Decks:
o Maine DOT is considering going to bare decks with integral wearing surface,
and grinding down to provide good ride characteristics to correct typically
poor concrete finishing.
o Rebar systems may need to change with integral wearing surfaces
o It is claimed that light weight concrete is less rigid than regular HPC concrete.
Due to the increased flexibility there will be less cracking in a light weight
decks.
o MaineDOT’s experience with HPC is that the concrete is inherently brittle,
and they are considering extending the curing period to 14 days.
o Bituminous overlays tend to rut in heavily truck trafficked areas such as the
bridges in the Portland.
Topics for Future Designer Meetings:
o Being more consistent with bridge expansion joint pay items and limiting the
number of joint options
ACEC/MaineDOT Bridge Design Subcommittee
Meeting Minutes
December 1, 2015
Page 3 of 4
PCINE Committee:
o For NEXT D beams, the Committee is having discussions on increasing the
cover, especially when Ultra High Performance Concrete (UPC) is being used.
A new detail is being issued by PCINE
o For Deck Bulb Tees, a partial depth panel guide is being developed
o Camber management guidelines are in development
o Maine has their first full depth job going out and mockups are being done with
UPC joints. (i.e. Western Ave. over I-95 in Fairfield.)
o FHWA is pushing their “Every Day Counts” program and they are allowing
waivers on UHC not being American made.
 General Topics of Discussion
o Blue Beam Program is an alternate to Adobe. Apparently, the program is
particularly good for design engineers when marking up shop drawings with
their review comments. Refer to program website for details.
o David Sullivan at MaineDOT should be consulted if consultants have any
issues with Micro station
o Cadd Technician training is being carried out internally to Maine DOT
o In the AASHTO 2015 and 2016 Interims the rebar development length
requirements have been changed (lengthened). The BDG may need to be
updated to accommodate.
o Since we are moving into more bridge rehab, Steve Hodgdon suggested Maine
DOT share Lessons Learned of both good details and those that do not work
with design consultants
o Tom Kendrick suggested adding Life Cycle Cost Analysis to the decision
making process to determine the feasibility of reusing old substructures,
o Drilled shafts – there are two MaineDOT projects currently in construction.
Except in special cases, most likely the smaller diameter 3 or 4 ft. diameter
sizes will be more widely used in the future. It should be noted that driven
piles remain the contractor preference in Maine.
 Training Agenda (Jeff Folsom)
Committee will be meeting soon to decide on new training agenda. Topic for
consideration include:
o Hydraulics -was done in 2015 and was fully attended. May repeat this training
o Substructure Design - Laura Krusinski is preparing material for a class
o Cadd training
o NHI Course – Drilled shafts and Micropiles
ACEC/MaineDOT Bridge Design Subcommittee
Meeting Minutes
December 1, 2015
Page 4 of 4
 Subcommittee Rotation for Consultants ( Tom Kendrick)
(2-year rotations for new members joining 2014 and later)
Steve Hodgson and Chris Snow are now retiring from the committee and were thanked
for their service. They are being replaced by Tim Merritt and Mike St. Pierre.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
Steve Hodgdon
Chris Snow
Keith Donington
Tom Kendrick
Jack Burgess
Tim Merritt
Mike St. Pierre (Geotech)
Vacant
Q1 2013 thru Q4 2015
Q1 2013 thru Q4 2015
Q4 2013 thru Q3 2016
Q3 2014 thru Q2 2016
Q2 2015 thru Q1 2017
Q1 2016 thru Q4 2017
Q1 2016 thru Q4 2017
Q4 2016 thru Q3 2018
 Next Meeting Date
o Tuesday March 8, 2016 from 1.00 to 2.30 pm
Attachments: Designer Meeting Minutes from September 16, 2015 and October 28, 2015
I have attempted to summarize discussions held during this meeting as accurately as possible. If there are any items discussed herein
that are misrepresented in any way, please contact me within ten working days. In the absence of any corrections or clarifications, it
will be understood that these minutes accurately summarize the discussions at the meeting.
Respectfully Submitted,
Keith Donington, P.E.
DesignersMeetingMinutes
September16,2015
ConferenceRoom317A&B
1:00‐2:00PM
Attendees: Garrett Gustafson, Joe Stilwell, Brandon Slaven, Tyler Hjelm, Josh Hasbrouck, Kendra Nash, Roger Naous, Mark Parlin, Jeff Folsom, Rich Myers, Brian Reeves, Devan Eaton 1. Non‐Composite Steel Load Ratings Rich Myers 5 minutes The April 2015 update to the Bridge Load Rating Guide, section 3.6.2, has a provision that states that for steel bridges without shear connectors with cast‐in‐place concrete decks with a direct bond with the beams, the horizontal shear should be checked to determine if the bridge system will act compositely or not. If the horizontal shear is less than or equal to a threshold τ, then the beam and deck act compositely, if greater than τ the posting load shall be determined as what vehicle weight will cause the bond to break. It is not stated whether this should be checked for service or strength loading. To obtain more physical data and to further explore this topic, the University of Maine has been brought on board to perform bond shear strength tests. For the time being, Designers should load rate for a fully composite section, a non‐composite section, and provide the calculated horizontal shear stress required to get a rating factor of 1.0 for the controlling legal load combination. These values will be presented to the Load Posting committee to decide the appropriate rating factor for use. 2. Composite Action in negative moment sections Jeff Folsom 15 minutes The Bridge Design Guide (BDG) states in section 7.1.2 that negative moment regions of beam and slab bridges should be designed as non‐composite. However, recent designs from the program have been incorporating the reinforcing steel in these regions as part of the non‐composite section properties. In actual loading conditions, negative moment regions will act more similar to a composite section, than a non‐composite section, due to tensile forces in the reinforcing steel. If the intent of the program is to use the reinforcing as part of design calculations we should be rewriting the BDG to reflect the appropriate direction. Jeff Folsom will be taking this topic to the Bridge Committee for discussion. 3. Summary of Existing Upstream and Downstream bridges in PDR Rich Myers 5 minutes The data presented in the Summary of Upstream and Downstream Bridges form of the Preliminary Design Report (PDR) package is not always relevant to the project under consideration. It was determined that this form should be removed from the PDR form package and the data from the form be included in the Hydrology/Hydraulics report in the PDR on an as needed basis. The BDG will require language that will still require the data from the Summary of Existing Upstream and Downstream Bridges form, if pertinent to the project, be included in the Hydraulic Report section of the PDR. The BDG will need to be updated accordingly. DesignersMeetingMinutes
October28,2015
ConferenceRoom317A&B
1:00‐2:00PM
Attendees: Garrett Gustafson, Mark Parlin, Joel Kitteridge, Roger Naous, Jeff Folsom, Rich Myers, Brian Reeves, Josh Hasbrouck, Joe Stilwell, Devan Eaton 1. Relabeling for Bridge Joint Modification Types Josh Hasbrouck 20 minutes There are inconsistencies in recent plan sets in regards to the labeling of joint modifications. The Bridge Design Guide (BDG) has a table that defines recommendations for the item numbers, modification type, as well as the scope of work for joint modifications. This table is vague which has led to joint modification numbering systems changing on a project specific basis. This renumbering of the joint modifications for each project has made the collected bid history for the item numbers difficult to sort through as the numbering does not match up from project to project. To alleviate this issue, it is proposed to update the table in the BDG to clarify the modification scopes and groupings. This clarification would limit the modifications to 5 groups in which multiple joint modifications could be differentiated with an A‐Z lettering system. The A‐Z modifications would be detailed in the project plans, notes and special provisions which would define which group the A‐Z modification are lumped into for payment. Josh Hasbrouck will be working on updating the BDG, please contact Josh if you would like any further information on this topic. A preliminary update to the table can be found below. 2. Review of latest PCINE meeting Brian Reeves 10 minutes The following was discussed at the last PCINE meeting: NEXT Beams: There have been discussions to increase the top cover of NEXT D beams to 2.5 inches as a way to alleviate issues caused by differential camber as the differential camber between beams has led to hoop bars in the closure pours protruding above the top of adjacent beams. This change is currently being examined and may result changes to some of the PCI NEXT beam details. The design span charts for NEXT D beams are being updated to account for more realistic dead load. The updated span charts will be distributed once finalized Bulb Tees: Deck bulb tees beams only requiring closure pours between the beam flanges as opposed to a full cast in place deck are currently being explored. More information on these beams will be available in the as more information and details are completed. Stay‐in‐place forms/partial depth deck panels: An updated design and detailing guide for stay‐in‐place forms/partial depth deck panels is currently being reviewed by PCINE. These updates may affect MaineDOT standard details for deck panels so when the design and detailing guide is published, the standard details should be reviewed. Repair guide for non‐prestressed precast concrete units: A repair guide for non‐prestressed precast concrete units is being drafted in an effort to increase the consistency in the procedures and methods of repairs done during fabrication. This document will be available on the PCINE website when completed. Camber management guidelines: A camber management guidelines document is currently being drafted to provide some guidance for the design of camber for precast concrete beams. These guidelines provide recommendations for the process of documenting camber during the design, fabrication and installation of beams. This document is still being reviewed and will be distributed upon its completion. 3. New Minutes taker for Designers Meeting Kendra Nash will be taking over as the minute taker for the Designer’s Meeting minutes. DESIGNERS MEETING
2015-10-28
Current classifications:
Item
Modification Seal Type
Scope of Examples of Work Scope
Number
Work
520.241 Type I
Compression Minor
 Raising profile grade by
or Gland
adding bar or plate
 Adding retention bars to
existing joint armor
520.242 Type II
Compression Minor
 Cutting/modifying existing
steel plate
 Welding retention bars to
existing steel plates
520.243 Type III
Compression Major
Concrete removal on one or
both sides of the joint.
520.244 Type IV
Gland
Minor
 Cutting/modifying existing
steel plate
 Welding extrusions to
existing steel plates
520.245 Type V
Gland
Major
Concrete removal on one or
both sides of the joint.
Proposed new classifications:
Item
Modification Scope of
Number
Work
520.241 Type I
Minor
Examples of Work Scope
520.242
Type II
Minor
520.243
Type III
Major





520.244
Type IV
Major

520.245
Type V
Replacement 
Replace seal
Minor steel work
Significant repairs to existing steel
Replace top 3″ of header
Concrete removal and modification to
similar joint type
Concrete removal and modification to
new joint type
Full joint removal and replacement