Project Documents and Archives
As materials and exhibits are available for the Austin Avenue Improvements Project, they will be added here. Check back throughout the project for updates.
- Frequently Asked Questions Feb 2016
- Public Involvement Plan
- Austin Avenue Bridge Forensic Report
- Forensic Evaluation Executive Summary
- Supplemental Forensic Report on Steel Yield Strength (Steel Testing)
The City is sending project updates via email as new information is available on this project. Below is an archive of updates.
- Update – February 19, 2016
- Update – March 4, 2016
- Update – April 4, 2016
- Update – April 20, 2016
- Update – June 3, 2016
- Update – June 23, 2016
- Update – June 28, 2016
- Update – July 8, 2016
- Update – August 1, 2016
- Update – August 26, 2016
- Update – September 20, 2016
- Update – April 13, 2017
- Update – May 4, 2017
- Update – May 12, 2017
- Update – May 25, 2017
- Update – October 25, 2017
In May 2016, the City hired the engineering firms AECOM and LAN to provide additional structural and forensic reviews of the Austin Ave bridge effort from 2014 to present. The scope of these reviews was focused on the analysis completed to date and to identify the possible remediation strategies for the load posting on the bridges.
Those additional reviews evaluated the December 2013 TxDOT bridge inspection report and January 2016 “Condition Assessment and Evaluation” documents prepared by WJE and Aguirre & Fields. Both reviews generally agreed with 2013 and 2016 documents, their findings and application of engineering procedures and methods. One review also-re-evaluated the load rating for the bridges. Both additional engineering firms confirmed that repair and rehabilitation options, similar to those in a previous report (Aguirre & Fields, June 2014), could include:
- Strengthening girders
- Replacement of bridge decks and bearings
- Sealing expansion joints
- Substructure concrete repair
Reviews also provided information on a bridge replacement option, with both additional reviews supporting rehabilitation of the structure only if it will result in removal of load postings. Both reports discussed the carbonation progression of concrete deck and acceleration of spalls if enhanced maintenance is not scheduled promptly. In any repair, rehabilitation or replacement option, planning and execution of frequent maintenance operations was recommended.
Areas of difference between the reports primarily focuses on three primary issues:
- LAN recommends load rating can be increased based on the concrete strength if the original mill reports were obtained or used in the calculations. While the other firms believe the deck is notcomposite with the girders, so concrete strength does not play a role in the controlling load rating. Staff and LAN requested the original mill reports from TxDOT. TxDOT was unable to locate anyreports from the original construction of the bridges.
- LAN recommended obtaining steel samples and additional testing to be used in the load calculations. Those tests are being completed through a modification of our existing contract with Aguirre & Fields and results should be obtained by the end of the summer 2016.
- The scope of the reviews did not include the evaluation of life cycle cost nor an analysis of the environmental clearances needed to conduct strengthening, widening or replacement options for the bridges. Part of the scope of the original Aguirre & Fields Task Order is to complete this analysis including life cycle cost analysis of the alternatives identified for the bridges, documentation of environmental clearances necessary in each alternative, documentation of AASHTO compliance necessary concerning the bridge railing in each alternative, and documentation of ADA compliance necessary with each alternative.