|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
8/10/2026 3:21:59 PM
|
|
Spec 412.03 Section (s) Item 1 (Page 571) states “The design calculations shall be performed in accordance with the current AASHTO and ACI speci?cations and guidelines for FRP systems.” Sheet 6 of 10 specifically calls out PRN ACI 440.2.23 for the verification of the strain limits. Can VDot clarify the controlling document for the design of the FRP system?
If PRN ACI 440.2.23 is the governing design document, How does VDOT wish to have the Delegated Engineer utilize the Load Factors and Strength Factors? That is, do you desire the Delegated Engineer to stay consistent with the ACI factors of mix in the AASHTO factors? Additionally ACI and AASHTO have different calculations for many variables (dv for example). How does VDot want the Delegated Engineer to address these differences?
|
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
8/9/2026 6:09:27 PM
|
|
Can VDOT confirm that the numbers of layers shown for the CFRP bidding purposes meets all the requirements of PRN ACI 440.2.23 including the minimum strength requirements and the minimum strain of 0.013 listed in the CFRP notes on sheet 6 of 10?
|
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
8/10/2026 3:16:54 PM
|
|
For portions of the concrete beams where the existing EP-3T coating is sound, properly bonded, and free of delamination or other defects, please clarify whether complete removal of the existing EP-3 coating down to bare concrete is required prior to recoating.
Specifically, would it be acceptable to:
1. Verify that the existing EP-3 coating is sound and properly bonded
2. Remove any loose, deteriorated, delaminated, or otherwise unsound coating
3. Mechanically abrade/scuff the remaining sound EP-3T surface to remove the gloss and establish an appropriate surface profile
4. Clean the prepared surface of all dust and contaminants
5. Apply the new EP-3 coating directly over the properly prepared existing EP-3
Please confirm whether the above surface preparation and recoating procedure is acceptable in lieu of complete removal of sound, properly bonded existing EP-3T from areas that are not receiving CFRP.
|
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
8/9/2026 6:18:02 PM
|
|
Will VDOT be responsible that all repairs to the AASHTO Girder detailed on their drawing have sufficient capacity to allow for the transfer of forces from the longitudinal reinforcement?
|
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
8/9/2026 6:16:51 PM
|
|
Per VDOT requirements the Delegated Engineer shall confirm a minimum strain of 0.013 on the extreme tensile prestressing steel at nominal strength as listed in the CFRP notes on sheet 6 of 10. Additionally, sheet 8 of 10 shows typical concrete repair. The “Beam Repair Design” table on sheet 6 of 10 lists a range of lost strands. The pattern of strand loss is critical for the confirmation of the minimum strand that is assuming 10 stands lost it is a different calculation if all 10 strands are lost in the bottom layer versus 6 strands on the bottom and 4 or the second layer or any other combination totaling 10. Secondarily, the repaired area with the SCC will not be stressed. This changes the properties of the prestressed section. Will the Delegated Engineer be expected to address bot of these conditions after the Strand Loss Report?
|
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
8/9/2026 6:15:38 PM
|
|
VDot response to Question dated 7/29/2026 11:26:38 AM utilizes Engineer in several instances. Please clarify if this refers to the VDot Engineer or to the Delegated Engineer?
If this refers to the VDOT engineer, what is the timeline that the contractor can expect for a response and will the Delegated Engineer have to verify that the repair meets all the parameters specified in the drawings per PRN ACI 440.2.23?
|
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
8/9/2026 6:14:15 PM
|
|
Experience with installing U-wrap on AASHTO girders has that providing a complete bond at the rounded corners between the bottom corner and the first turn at the angled return to the flange as the distance between the two is relatively short (in our case 8”) and the flexibility of the fabric. All of our wraps involve a “single thick” material. We can only speculate that the “double thick” material specified will be difficult to bond completely if even possible. Can VDot consider using the same 0.04 inch material for both the U-wraps and the longitudinal reinforcement specified on sheet 6 of 10 (noting that 2 layers will be required for the U-wraps)?
|
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
8/9/2026 6:13:12 PM
|
|
What is the purpose of specifying the material design properties for the U-wrap as a “double” thick material with a significantly higher Modulus of Elasticity than the “single” layer material? Note that PRN ACI 440.2.23 does not provide design guidance for the U-Wrap anchorage system but rather states that the system should be substantiated through representative testing. Has VDot performed this testing or can they direct the Delegated Engineer to the method they utilized in designing the Anchor U-wraps?
|
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
8/9/2026 6:12:18 PM
|
|
It is understood that the design is to use PRN ACI 440.2.23. How does VDOT wish to have the Delegated Engineer utilize the Load Factors and Strength Factors? That is, do you desire the Delegated Engineer to stay consistent with the ACI factors of mix in the AASHTO factors? Additionally ACI and AASHTO have different calculations for many variables (dv for example). How does VDot want the Delegated Engineer to address these differences?
|
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
8/9/2026 6:12:08 PM
|
|
It is understood that the design is to use PRN ACI 440.2.23. How does VDOT wish to have the Delegated Engineer utilize the Load Factors and Strength Factors? That is, do you desire the Delegated Engineer to stay consistent with the ACI factors of mix in the AASHTO factors? Additionally ACI and AASHTO have different calculations for many variables (dv for example). How does VDot want the Delegated Engineer to address these differences?
|
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
8/9/2026 6:10:30 PM
|
|
The supplied as-built drawings do not show the AASHTO girder configuration shown on VDot Sheet 7 of 10. It is noted that the suppled as-built drawings include file 0170461_RI23508_21_0___ with the title “PRESTRESSED BEAM SHEET 1 OF 2”. There appears to be no sheet 2 of 2 included. Can VDot supply the source for the AASHTO Girder shown on sheet 7 of 10?
|
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
8/10/2026 9:58:16 AM
|
|
The referenced file 0170461_RI23508_21_0 is titled “Deck Reinforcement Plans”, DWG. NO. S-12. The supplied files in the same as-built drawing set titled “Prestressed Beams” are 00170461_RI23508_19_0 (Sheet 1 of 2, DWG. NO. S-10) and 0170461_RI23508_20_0 (Sheet 2 of 2, DWG. NO. S-11).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Question
|
|
Date:
|
8/6/2026 8:08:39 AM
|
|
For beam repair locations where the Beam Repair Design Table specifies two or three layers of longitudinal CFRP reinforcement, if the Contractor elects to use an Engineer-approved double-thickness (2X) or other higher-capacity CFRP material that provides the equivalent design strength with a single installed layer, how will the Contractor be compensated?
Specifically, will payment be based on:
• The design quantity represented by the required number of layers (e.g., payment for two times the surface area where one 2X-thickness layer replaces two specified layers, or three times the surface area where one higher-capacity layer replaces three specified layers); or
• Only the actual installed surface area of the single thicker CFRP layer?
Please clarify the Department's intended method of measurement and payment for approved alternate CFRP systems that satisfy the required design criteria with fewer physical layers than those shown in the Beam Repair Design Table. This clarification is requested so all bidders may interpret the basis of payment consistently.
|
|
Answer
|
Date:
|
8/7/2026 8:19:27 AM
|
|
For an Engineer-approved alternate CFRP system with different material properties that requires fewer layers than estimated in the Beam Repair Design Table, Fiber Reinforced Polymer Wrap will be measured and paid based on the actual quantity installed, per square foot of each layer. Payment will not be based on the estimated number of layers shown in the Beam Repair Design Table. Additionally, Section 104.02(b)2 of the VDOT Road and Bridge Specifications, governing overruns and underruns of major items of work, will not apply when the quantity variation results from the Contractor’s selection of an alternate CFRP system. This includes systems requiring more or fewer layers than estimated in the Beam Repair Design Table on Sheet 6 of the contract plans. A revision to the Special Provision Copied Note (SPCN) titled “Section 412 – Widening, Repairing, and Reconstructing Existing Structures,” a new SPCN titled “Section 104.02(b)2 – Major Item of Work,” and a revision to Sheet 6 of the contract plans are forthcoming.
|
|
|
|
|
Displaying questions 1 - 10 (of 36)
Page:
1 2 3 4 First Previous Next Last
|