KYTC Divisions of Construction/Structural Design/Quality Assurance and 

ACEC Bridges, Inspection & Design Sub‐Committee  Partnering Meeting 

 

Monday, December 7, 2015, 10:00 AM – 12:00 PM  

Minutes  

These minutes provide an outline of discussions at the Division of Construction, Structural Design, Quality Assurance Branch, and ACEC Bridge Sub‐Committee partnering meeting held at the Transportation Cabinet Office Building.  Those in attendance were:  

Mark Walls    Division of Construction (DoC) Vibert Forsythe  Division of Construction Austin Shields    Division of Construction Ryan Gossom    Division of Construction Brent Sweger    Quality Assurance Branch (QAB) Shawn Russell   Quality Assurance Branch Mark Hite    Division of Structural Design (DoSD) Joseph Van Zee  Division of Structural Design John Broadus    HDR Steve Goodpaster  American Engineers, Inc. Wendy Harper   Parsons Brinckerhoff Scott Ribble    Burgess & Niple 

 Discussion topics included:  1. Purpose – This meeting was requested by the Sub‐Committee to continue the dialog with 

the Division of Construction,  the Quality Assurance Branch, and  the Division of Structural Design.   The goal  is to exchange feedback on design and construction  issues that could be addressed or avoided  in future projects, resulting  in more economical, easier to construct, and longer lasting bridges.  

2. Division of Construction Discussion Topics  

a. Mark Walls stressed the importance of providing sufficient clearance between centerline of rail and edges of footings on railroad overpass structures to ensure there is adequate room for temporary shoring, clearance for existing wings, etc. 

b. Mark Walls indicated that some Districts would like to increase the use of architectural treatments in urban settings.  District 11 has made use of concrete stains in concert with form liners in lieu of masonry coating; the District has prepared notes that could potentially be used on other projects.  On recent projects where aesthetic features were requested by the District, HDR has used a sealant in the locations where a formliner is used instead of the masonry coating. 

c. The group discussed whether there could be cost savings by using single‐slope barrier walls.  The general consensus was the cost savings would not be significant if the barriers are slip‐formed. 

d. After a recent incident, concern was expressed for construction and maintenance work done on bridge decks with standard 34” tall barrier walls.  OSHA requirements for fall hazards require railings to be 42” +/‐ 3” tall.  As such, workers should rely on another form of fall protection when working near bridge railings to comply with OSHA regulations. 

3. Follow‐up topics from the previous meeting 

a) As‐built plans – The group revisited the discussion of the process by which as‐built plans are prepared, delivered, and stored.  KYTC Resident Engineers currently are responsible for preparing as‐built plans and delivering them to Central Office.   Mark Hite  indicated that  as‐builts  rarely make  their way  to  his  office.    It was  noted  that while  it  is  not particularly  necessary  to  document  every  time  a  piece  of  reinforcing  steel  is moved during construction, critical information such as changes to footing sizes and elevations can have a significant impact on future widenings or adjacent construction.  Accurate as‐built plans are also necessary  to prepare  load  ratings.   The group discussed  requiring contractors  to prepare as‐built plans on a  few  trial projects.   The Sub‐Committee will provide  a  draft  Special Note  to  this  effect  along with  these minutes  to  the meeting attendees. 

Additionally,  the  group  discussed  storage  of  as‐built  plans.    It  was  suggested  that storage on  the  same  server  as  the design drawings would provide  access by drawing number  to  those who needed  them.   The Division of Maintenance could also add  the plans to the BrM server if they desired. 

b) Masonry  coating  study  –  Mark  Walls  will  contact  KTC  to  check  the  status  of  the proposed study of various masonry coatings, sealants, etc.  

c) Post‐construction services by the design consultant – Currently there is no procedure for consultants to get paid for post‐design services after a bridge design contract has been closed, and it is generally not desirable to leave a contract open potentially for several years between completion of design and construction.  Mark Hite commented that it is ideal for the original consultant to make revisions that are required based on unforeseen field conditions (e.g. changing the elevation of a footing due to subsurface 

conditions; consultants are not requesting a mechanism to get compensated for addressing errors and omissions).  Since most of the times this occurs the schedule is tight, the original consultant will be able to make the changes in the least amount of time.  Utilizing a different consultant to make changes during constructions also raises various liability issues.  The group discussed possibly requiring contractors to utilize the original consultant when changes are necessary during construction, though there was concern about having prepare subcontracts between contractors and consultants.  Mark Hite indicated that although there are a large number of prequalified consultants, approximately ten to fifteen firms have frequent design projects.  Mark Walls stated that he would explore potential solutions with Eric Pelfrey. 

4. X dimensions for hybrid beams 

a. KYTC does not have a desired tolerance for X dimensions.  Joe Van Zee noted that in‐house designs typically use ¾” to 1” at the edge of the flange.  He also stated that they are using camber values at erection without additional multipliers.  The Division of Construction has not been made aware of any issues with camber on hybrid beams. 

b. With the particularly wide top flanges on hybrid beams, contractors need to be aware that there could be a significant difference in X dimensions measured at centerline versus edge of beams, particularly on structures with large cross slopes.  Some contractors have complained about the additional concrete required in haunches.  Mark Hite noted that concrete quantities should include the volume of the haunches and that the quantities are typically conservative as no deductions are taken for the volume of reinforcing steel.  Brent Sweger suggested that some projects with hybrid beam structures would be good candidates for post‐construction reviews. 

5. Constructability of Excavations – Consultant have been designing retaining walls in accordance with KYTC specifications for required cut slopes.  During construction, these walls have been often value engineered by contractors who are taking greater risks regarding cut slopes.  The sub‐committee questioned if it would be a better value to KYTC to have retaining walls be design‐build components of a project.  KYTC has concerns that the wall designs performed by the contactor would not be as well thought out as those designed by consultant.  After some issues with contractor designed walls, some districts require that all walls, including sound walls, be designed by consultants.  Mark Walls stated that he doesn’t recall any contractors claiming that consultant designed walls were not constructible.  However, he reiterated the importance of providing sufficient horizontal clearance to railroad tracks.  It was also noted that modifications to standard gravity walls may be necessary when the assumed backfill geometry and loading conditions are not met. 

6. Consistency Across Plan Sets 

a. The group discussed the inconsistent treatment of some items such as geotextile fabric with it showing as incidental on some plan sets and as a pay item on others.  An example was one project had four bridges designed by three different consultants.  

Each plan set treated geotextile fabric differently, which led to confusion by the contractor.  Ryan Gossom suggested that if it was included as a pay item, it was more likely to be included; some contractors might be more inclined to omit the fabric if it was considered incidental if an inspector was not present. 

b. The group discussed whether an item should be designated as a pay item or incidental on general notes or plan notes.  In general, the group expressed a preference to use general notes, however it was noted that supplemental plan notes have been requested at times to address specific problems that have arisen on other projects. 

7. Constructability Reviews – The sub‐committee  inquired  if  it would be  feasible to conduct constructability reviews on Stage 1 Final submittals rather than Stage 2 Final.   This would allow  time  to  address  concerns  raised  during  the  constructability  review  and  would eliminate the need to make an additional submittal following Stage 2 Final.   Brent Sweger indicated  that he would  like  to be able  to conduct constructability reviews all on projects once he has  sufficient  review  staff.   He  stated  that he was willing  to perform  reviews on Stage 1 Final submittals if there was sufficient time between the submittal and letting. 

8. ORB Lessons Learned – The sub‐committee inquired if there were any lessons learned from the ORB project that could be shared at that time.  It was noted that Jeremiah Littleton had intended on attending the meeting but was unable to due to the opening of the downtown river crossing.  As a result of issues that arose during the course of the project, Section 607 of  the  specifications  (Structural  Steel  Bridges) will  be  revised  during  the  next  spec  book update.  Most of the updates will account for modern fabrication technologies that are not included in the current specs. 

9. Future or New Changes in Procedures/Closing Thoughts 

a. Mark Walls noted that he was aware of multiple bridges built recently without concrete diaphragms at the piers.  Mark Hite stated that his office has been experimenting with the concept of simple spans for live load by using a “link slab” over the pier.  The group discussed several ways of managing  transverse cracks  that  tend  to  form  in  link slabs.  John  Broadus  noted  that  they  have made  use  of  a  Texas DOT  detail  that  utilized  a preformed  joint  filler  over  piers;  he  indicated  he would  forward  the  detail  to Mark Walls for review.  Some contractors have expressed a preference for sawcutting the link slab. 

b. On phased construction projects there seems to be inconsistency in the use of an epoxy bonded construction joint.  Mark Hite stated that this is covered in the notes and specifications. 

c. Mark Hite reminded the consultants that KYTC has several precast beams that are available for use on projects.  The replacement span on the Eggners Ferry Bridge will also soon be available for reuse (320’ long by 22’ wide).  Information on the beams and truss will be included with these minutes for distribution. 

10. Future  Meetings  –  The  next  meeting  would  be  in  Spring  2016  with  the  Division  of Maintenance, which will be followed by the annual meetings with the Division of Structural Design and the Division of Construction.   

Surplus Bridge Beams

Original Bridge Location Beam Type Beam Length (ft) Number of Beams Available PSI Job Number PSI Beam Mark Date Produced

Pike County Drawing No 25271 PCI Type 7 (72" Depth) 85.083333 3 L8265 MK 529 2009 ‐ 2010PCI Type 7 (72" Depth) 134.10417 3 L8265 MK 535 2009 ‐ 2010

Pike County Drawing No 25072 PCI Type 8 (78" Depth) 91.38021 1 L4228 MK 510 2004PCI Type 8 (78" Depth) 91.38021 1 L4228 MK 518 2004PCI Type 8 (78" Depth) 96.58333 1 L4228 MK 511 2004PCI Type 8 (78" Depth) 96.58333 1 L4228 MK 519 2004PCI Type 8 (78" Depth) 101.78125 1 L4228 MK 512 2004PCI Type 8 (78" Depth) 101.78125 1 L4228 MK 520 2004PCI Type 8 (78" Depth) 106.98958 1 L4228 MK 513 2004PCI Type 8 (78" Depth) 106.98958 1 L4228 MK 521 2004PCI Type 8 (78" Depth) 112.25 1 L4228 MK 514 2004PCI Type 8 (78" Depth) 112.25 1 L4228 MK 522 2004PCI Type 8 (78" Depth) 139.10938 1 L4228 MK 504 2004PCI Type 8 (78" Depth) 139.10938 3 L4228 MK 504 2004PCI Type 8 (78" Depth) 139.10938 1 L4228 MK 506 2004

Pike County Drawing No 24814 Type 4 PCI (54" Depth) 79.69271 1 L2248 MK 401 2002Type 4 PCI (54" Depth) 79.69271 8 L2248 MK 402 2002Type 4 PCI (54" Depth) 79.69271 1 L2248 MK 403 2002Type 4 PCI (54" Depth) 79.69271 1 L2248 MK 404 2002Type 4 PCI (54" Depth) 79.69271 1 L2248 MK 405 2002

425

400

375

350

325

300

275

250

225

ST

A. 62

+88.50

!

PIE

R #5

ST

A. 66

+11.00

!

PIE

R #6

EXIST. PIER #6EXIST. PIER #5

ELEV. 359.00

NORMAL POOL

EXISTING GROUND

APPROXIMATE

EXISTING SPAN D EXISTING SPAN F322’-6" (REPLACEMENT SPAN E)

1" = 15’1’-0"

ELEV. 370.00

HIGH WATER

LOUISVILLE, KY 402239750 ORMSBY STATION ROAD, SUITE 210MICHAEL BAKER JR., INC.

REPLACEMENT SPAN E ELEVATION

! FIXED BEARING ! EXPANSION BEARING

EXISTING (COLLAPSED) SPAN STEEL

BOTTOM OF STEEL TO BE ABOVE

FABRICATED STEEL TRUSS: 10 PANELS @ 32’-0" = 320’-0" ALONG PROFILE GRADE

319’-9�"1’-8�"

E-S

HE

ET

NA

ME:

Micro

Statio

n v8.11.7.469

ITEM NUMBER

DRAWING NO.

SHEET NO.

Commonwealth of Kentucky

DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYSCOUNTY

ROUTE CROSSING

PREPARED BY

DETAILED BY:

DESIGNED BY:

DATE: CHECKED BY

REVISION DATE

TJT DMB

MDM DMB

TRIGG & MARSHALL

US68 EGGNER’S FERRY BRIDGE / KY LAKE

REPLACEMENT SPAN E LAYOUT

S01

26841

APRIL 17, 2012

April 17, 2012

DA

TE P

LO

TT

ED:

CWethin

gto

nU

SE

R:

C:\

PW

V8I-

LO

CA

L\

BA

KE

R_P

ROJ

EC

TS\

CW

ET

HIN

GT

ON\

D018

9679\

REP

LA

CE

ME

NT

SP

AN

E

LA

YO

UT.

DG

NFIL

E

NA

ME:

SHEETS OFINDEX

NO.SHEET DESCRIPTION

S01 LAYOUT E SPANREPLACEMENT

S02 NOTESGENERAL

S03 PLANFRAMING

S04 JOINTS CHORDUPPER

S05 JOINTS CHORDLOWER

S06 DEFLECTIONS VERTICALDL

S07 SECTION DECKTYPICAL

S08 PLAN SLABDECK

S09 RAILINGBRIDGE

S10 CONNECTORSHEAR

S11 JOINTSEXPANSION

S12 2) OF (1 ELEVATIONSCONSTRUCTION

S13 2) OF (2 ELEVATIONSCONSTRUCTION

S14 PEDESTAL 5PIER

S15 PEDESTAL 6PIER

S16 REPAIRS CAP 6PIER

S17 RETROFIT BEARING F SPAN 6PIER

DENNIS M.

7231

ST

AT

EOF KENT

UC

KY

PR

OFE

SSIONAL EN

G

IN

EE

R

LICENSE

D

BARON

DATE:

-2.75%}

-3.39%}

-3.80%}

-2.54%}

-3.39%}

-4.15%}

! BRIDGE PROFILE (CROWN)

LT & RT GUTTER PROFILE

V.P.I. 62

+86.50

V.P.I. 63

+11.50

V.P.I. 65

+91.

29

V.P.I. 66

+11.29

EL. 116.43EL. 115.80

EL. 116.36EL. 115.67

EL. 106.31

EL. 105.43EL. 106.19

EL. 105.49

-2.13%}

-2.1%}

-4.2%}

-4.2%}

LOUISVILLE, KY 402239750 ORMSBY STATION ROAD, SUITE 210MICHAEL BAKER JR., INC.

1" = 1’GENERAL NOTES

FRICTION COEFFICIENT AT 68F BETWEEN THE SLIDING SURFACES.

TO THE EXISTING PIER 6. SELECT A BEARING WITH A 4% MAX.

SLIDING TYPE TO MINIMIZE THE LONGITUDINAL FORCE TRANSFERRED

THE NEW TRUSS EXPANSION BEARINGS SHALL BE A LOW FRICTION

(KIPS)

LONGITUDINAL

(KIPS)

TRANSVERSE

MAXIMUM UNFACTORED LOADS PER BEARING

DL / LL+I

ROTATION (RADIANS)

DL / LL+I

VERTICAL (KIPS)

350 / 150 40 15 0.0159 / 0.0176

EXPANSION: UNI-DIRECTIONAL VERSIFLEX HLMR BEARING PMG-550

FIXED: FIXED VERSIFLEX HLMR BEARING PF-550

THE NEW TRUSS BEARINGS SHALL BE POT BEARINGS MANUFACTURED BY DS BROWN.

NEW TRUSS BEARINGS

E-S

HE

ET

NA

ME:

Micro

Statio

n v8.11.7.469

ITEM NUMBER

DRAWING NO.

SHEET NO.

Commonwealth of Kentucky

DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYSCOUNTY

ROUTE CROSSING

PREPARED BY

DETAILED BY:

DESIGNED BY:

DATE: CHECKED BY

REVISION DATE

DMB TJT

MDM DMB

TRIGG & MARSHALL

US68 EGGNER’S FERRY BRIDGE / KY LAKE

GENERAL NOTES

S02

26841

APRIL 17, 2012

April 17, 2012

DA

TE P

LO

TT

ED:

CWethin

gto

nU

SE

R:

C:\

PW

V8I-

LO

CA

L\

BA

KE

R_P

ROJ

EC

TS\

CW

ET

HIN

GT

ON\

D018

9679\

GE

NE

RA

L

NO

TES.

DG

NFIL

E

NA

ME:

TO BE DETERMINED BY CONTRACTOR.

PROVIDE 3" DIAMETER PIPE DRAINS AT MID-PANEL ALONG EACH GUTTER LINE. MATERIAL

SCUPPERS

BILLET-STEEL BARS (ASTM A615) OR LOW ALLOY DEFORMED BARS (ASTM A706).

PROVIDE GRADE 60 REINFORCEMENT BARS THAT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF DEFORMED

EPOXY COAT ALL REINFORCEMENT BARS.

REINFORCEMENT BARS

ALL DIMENSIONS ARE HORIZONTAL EXCEPT AS NOTED.

SUPERSTRUCTURE DIMENSIONS ARE FOR A NORMAL TEMPERATURE OF 60°F.

DEFORMATION TO PERMANENT BRIDGE MEMBERS.

DO NOT USE FORM SUPPORT SYSTEMS THAT WILL CAUSE UNACCEPTABLE OVERSTRESS

ASTM A108.

PROVIDE WELDED STUD SHEAR CONNECTORS MANUFACTURED FROM STEEL CONFORMING TO

(AASHTO M270) FOR ZONE 2.

SUPPLEMENTAL REQUIREMENTS FOR NON-FRACTURE CRITICAL MEMBERS IN TABLE 10

ALL REMAINING STRUCURAL STEEL EXCEPT FOR CONNECTION ANGLES SHALL MEET THE

FOR FRACTURE CRITICAL MEMBERS IN TABLE II (AASHTO M270) FOR ZONE 2.

AND ALL FLOOR BEAM ROLLED SHAPES, SHALL MEET THE SUPPLEMENTAL REQUIREMENTS

TRUSS MEMBERS IDENTIFIED AS FCM, ALL MAIN GUSSET PLATES, ALL SPLICE PLATES,

STRENGTH BOLTS, NUTS AND WASHERS UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE.

BOLTED CONNECTIONS SHALL BE 1" DIA. MECHANICALLY GALVANIZED ASTM A325 HIGH

GALVANIZED.

STEEL THRIE BEAM RAIL, POST, CRUSH TUBES, AND HARDWARE SHALL BE HOT-DIPPED

TO SHIPPING.

ALL STRUCTURAL STEEL IS TO RECEIVE A PRIME COAT OF PAINT IN THE SHOP PRIOR

STRUCTURAL STEEL SHALL BE AASHTO M270 GRADE 50.

EXISTING PIERS 5 AND 6.

CLASS "A" CONCRETE TO BE USED FOR BEARING PEDESTALS AND REPAIR WORK ON

CLASS "AA" CONCRETE TO BE USED IN SUPERSTRUCTURE DECK SLAB AND CURB.

ACCORDANCE WITH THE CURRENT AASHTO SPECIFICATIONS.

SLIP-CRITICAL CONNECTIONS ARE DESIGNED FOR CLASS B SURFACE CONDITIONS IN

SPECIFICATIONS USING ARTICLES FOR LOAD FACTOR DESIGN.

OTHER STEEL COMPONENTS ARE DESIGNED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CURRENT AASHTO

WITH THE INTERIM GUIDE SPECIFICATION 1986.

WITH AASHTO GUIDE SPECIFICATIONS FOR STRENGTH DESIGN OF TRUSS BRIDGES, 1985

STEEL TRUSS MEMBERS ARE DESIGNED BY THE LOAD FACTOR METHOD IN ACCORDANCE

AS SPECIFIED IN THE CURRENT AASHTO SPECIFICATIONS.

ALL REINFORCED CONCRETE MEMBERS ARE DESIGNED BY THE LOAD FACTOR METHOD

THIS BRIDGE IS DESIGNED FOR A WIND LOAD BASED ON A WIND VELOCITY OF 100 MPH.

THE DESIGN DOES NOT PROVIDE FOR AN ADDITIONAL FUTURE WEARING SURFACE.

METAL DECK FORMS.

THIS BRIDGE IS DESIGNED FOR AN ADDITIONAL 10 PSF DEAD LOAD FOR PERMANENT

THIS BRIDGE IS DESIGNED FOR HS20 LIVE LOAD.

DESIGN), 1985, WITH INTERIM GUIDE SPECIFICATION 1986.

AASHTO GUIDE SPECIFICATIONS FOR STRENGTH DESIGN OF TRUSS BRIDGES (LOAD FACTOR

THE AASHTO STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR HIGHWAY BRIDGES, WITH INTERIMS; AND

ALL REFERENCES TO THE AASHTO SPECIFICATIONS ARE TO THE CURRENT EDITION OF

BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION WITH CURRENT SUPPLEMENTAL SPECIFICATIONS.

OF THE KENTUCKY DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR ROAD AND

ALL REFERENCES TO THE STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS ARE TO THE CURRENT EDITION

1" = 15’

LOUISVILLE, KY 402239750 ORMSBY STATION ROAD, SUITE 210MICHAEL BAKER JR., INC.

10 PANELS @ 32’-0" = 320’-0"

(!

BO

TT. C

HO

RD

32’-

0"

TO !

TO

P

CH

OR

D)

TRUSS ELEVATION

18’-

0"

@ 6’-

0"

=

32’-

0"

OF

TR

US

S)

OF

TR

US

S)

3 SPA. @ 6’-0" = 18’-0"

TOP BRACING PLAN

FRAMING PLAN

L0 L1 L2 L3 L4 L5 L6 L7 L8 L9 L10

U1 U2 U3 U4 U5 U6 U7 U8 U9 U10

3 S

PA.

9 PANELS @ 32’-0" = 288’-0"

U1 U2 U3 U4 U5 U6 U7 U8 U9 U10

BRACING (TYP.)

W12x40 TOP

STRUT (TYP.)

W12x40 TOP

L0 L1 L2 L3 L4 L5 L6 L7 L8 L9 L10

10 PANELS @ 32’-0" = 320’-0"

W18x86 STRINGER

BRACING (TYP.)

L5x5x� BOTTOM

(TYP.)

W24x103 FLOORBEAM

15 Scale under Text / Size setting was used for this drawing since drawing is a 15 scale.

If you have questions feel free to call Michelle Mayhew @ 919-481-5712.

The spreadsheet is also in the Repair folder "Truss Member Section Table (2).xlsx".

The "ini" file is in PW in the Repair folder "office_ky.ini".

The charts above were linked using Axiom.

Note:

(!

TO !

23’-

8"

2’-

10"

2’-

10"

(!

TO !

23’-

8"

23’-8"

2’-10"2’-10"

CHORDSUPPER

MEMBER FCM (ksi)Fy SECTION (ft)LENGTH

U2 -U1 NO 50 HP16X183 32

U3 -U2 NO 50 HP16X183 32

U4 -U3 NO 50 HP16X183 32

U5 -U4 NO 50 HP16X183 32

U6 -U5 NO 50 HP16X183 32

U7 -U6 NO 50 HP16X183 32

U8 -U7 NO 50 HP16X183 32

U9 -U8 NO 50 HP16X183 32

U10 -U9 NO 50 HP16X183 32

CHORDSLOWER

MEMBER FCM (ksi)Fy SECTION (ft)LENGTH

L1 -L0 YES 50 HP16X121 32

L2 -L1 YES 50 HP16X121 32

L3 -L2 YES 50 HP16X121 32

L4 -L3 YES 50 HP16X121 32

L5 -L4 YES 50 HP16X121 32

L6 -L5 YES 50 HP16X121 32

L7 -L6 YES 50 HP16X121 32

L8 -L7 YES 50 HP16X121 32

L9 -L8 YES 50 HP16X121 32

L10 -L9 YES 50 HP16X121 32

DIAGONALS

MEMBER FCM (ksi)Fy SECTION (ft)LENGTH

U1 -L0 NO 50 HP16X183 35.8

U1 -L1 YES 50 HP16X88 35.8

U2 -L1 NO 50 HP16X88 35.8

U2 -L2 YES 50 HP16X88 35.8

U3 -L2 NO 50 HP16X88 35.8

U3 -L3 YES 50 HP16X88 35.8

U4 -L3 NO 50 HP16X88 35.8

U4 -L4 YES 50 HP16X88 35.8

U5 -L4 YES 50 HP16X88 35.8

U5 -L5 YES 50 HP16X88 35.8

U6 -L5 YES 50 HP16X88 35.8

U6 -L6 YES 50 HP16X88 35.8

U7 -L6 YES 50 HP16X88 35.8

U7 -L7 NO 50 HP16X88 35.8

U8 -L7 YES 50 HP16X88 35.8

U8 -L8 NO 50 HP16X88 35.8

U9 -L8 YES 50 HP16X88 35.8

U9 -L9 NO 50 HP16X88 35.8

U10 -L9 YES 50 HP16X88 35.8

U10 -L10 NO 50 HP16X183 35.8

TRUSS HP MEMBER

BRACING

W12x40 PORTAL NOTES

S1

S4

S3

S2

TYPICAL SECTION

DIAGONALS)

(TOP CHORDS, BOTTOM CHORDS,

PORTAL SECTION

23’-8"

3 SPA. @ 6’-0" = 18’-0" 2’-10"2’-10"

12’-

4"

19’-

8"

32’-

0"

C

LE

AR

AN

CE

@ !

BRID

GE

17’-

0" M

INI

MU

M

VE

RTIC

AL

(VERTICAL PROJECTION)

TO WORKPOINT.

2. THE LENGTH SHOWN IN THE TABLES IS FROM WORKPOINT

1. FOR GENERAL NOTES, SEE "GENERAL NOTES", SHEET S02.

19’-10"

E-S

HE

ET

NA

ME:

Micro

Statio

n v8.11.7.469

ITEM NUMBER

DRAWING NO.

SHEET NO.

Commonwealth of Kentucky

DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYSCOUNTY

ROUTE CROSSING

PREPARED BY

DETAILED BY:

DESIGNED BY:

DATE: CHECKED BY

REVISION DATE

CYY/JCS LEV

MDM DMB

TRIGG & MARSHALL

US68 EGGNER’S FERRY BRIDGE / KY LAKE

FRAMING PLAN

S03

26841

APRIL 17, 2012

April 17, 2012

DA

TE P

LO

TT

ED:

CWethin

gto

nU

SE

R:

C:\

PW

V8I-

LO

CA

L\

BA

KE

R_P

ROJ

EC

TS\

CW

ET

HIN

GT

ON\

D018

9679\

FR

AMIN

G

PL

AN.

DG

NFIL

E

NA

ME: