Correct, and you should. Connections with stiffeners have proven to be fatigue-prone details.
Get a copy of the latest LRFD Specifications for Structural Supports for Highway Signs, Luminaires, and Traffic Signals. Look carefully at Section 11.
Yes, if it's posted, it's been inspected and load rated by someone; most likely the state DOT, or a firm they contracted to do it. Either way, those records should be available, if you can figure out who to ask.
For designs, which are typically an Excel file, I print to .pdf, apply my stamp with signature, add the date, and then print that to a .pdf. That makes the stamp and date not editable components.
I think your manager should tell the architect that they are the one who wants the restraint beams, rather than trying to get you to lie and say you made an error and the restraint beams are needed, after all. The manager pushing it off on you not only shifts the responsibility for the change to...
Definitely clean the holes thoroughly, and mix the components thoroughly. I would say clean using water with the brush and then blow the water out. We've had so many failures in the field, even when a brush was used, we no longer use adhesive (epoxy) anchors in tension applications.
I would start by contacting the state DOT bridge department. Even privately-owned bridges that are open to the public are typically subject to inspection, load rating, and if necessary load posting. I suggest at least checking to see what info they have available.
I'd say you being able to do...
Depending on the particular directionality/path of the wind, which is near impossible to predict, you may get uplift or downforce at any given time. It would not be surprising to me that uplift (usually combined with lateral) would produce a critical load case.
We've used a similar detail to hinge columns at an abutment cap, except that in our detail, there was only a small area of concrete contact at the center, and the remaining width had a gap filled with sponge rubber. We didn't need a waterstop.
In the US, load ratings are very specific in their process and how the results are defined and reported to the feds. Structural evaluations in some ways have more latitude.
That's the typical limit where the loading/design is independent. They can be closer than that; they just need to be designed considering that they interact. A proper design can account for any distance between the walls. It may require more extensive excavation for some configurations.
If that turns out to be the case, I would say the only concern is hitting concrete that flowed out into a void outside the shaft. Other than that, the existing shafts will react as a pillar of really stiff soil adjacent to your new shafts.
Multiple units to get the 10m width would be fine, but the 6m height would likely put it out of the range of sizes for a precast section, at least in most or all of the US. Casting concrete walls that high would be a significant challenge, as well.
Our preferred option for something with the...
If you can excavate behind the wall, the geofoam option can probably be made to work, but you consider reinforcing the soil mass - creating a mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) wall behind the block wall, also. We typically have the internal design done by the geogrid supplier, so we only deal...
I agree this is impractical to do as box culvert. Concrete arch, steel arch, or a bridge would be the more economically feasible options.
I see you list your job as "Student". If this is a school project, it should be posted in the Student section.
How the sag is measured does not change regardless of the percentage. It's a function of how the analysis is performed.
The percentage of sag is a design parameter chosen to meet the limitations and goals of the installation (clearances required vs. capacities of the components).
To be consistent with the typical analysis of a catenary span, I think the 6% should be measured as S3. Could use S1.
That said, in a typical analysis, the dead load is a small component of the total, with the design wind load being 80% or more. Given the very approximate nature of estimating...
Like jhnblgr, I'm not understanding the issue here. At the load position, the moment is zero, and increases linearly to the support location. The capacity of the bar with partial development can likewise be assumed to increase linearly from the face of the concrete (the increase in development...