From:                                         Lucarelli, Zachary <Zachary.Lucarelli@skanska.com>

Sent:                                           Wednesday, November 12, 2025 12:01 PM

To:                                               Pang, Jason (Consultant); Tu, Sammy; Pollack, Allie; Prendergast, Patrick

Cc:                                               Berriz, Sonia (Consultant); Kane, Betty (Consultant); Pao, Evelyn C.; Holmquist, Dan (Consultant); Wolf, Hayden; Gaffney, Erin; Snyder, Daniel; Barrios, Josh

Subject:                                     Re: [EXTERNAL] RE: I-405 Brickyard - NW-12 Load Rating & Inspection

 

Zach,

 

Our inspector can come at 9a tomorrow or later in the day if more time is needed to pump the vault. Please let me know what time is possible to gain access and what you find out today. Please let us know any other logistics to gain access. I am going to put Duncan in contact with Betty and can go from there.

 

Thanks

Jason

 

 

 

Jason,

 

WSDOT BPO visited the site and went inside the vault several months ago, is this inspection in addition to that visit that already happened? If my memory serves me correctly - I think this was in June/July of this year.

 

Thanks,

 

From: Pang, Jason (Consultant) <Jason.Pang@consultant.wsdot.wa.gov>
Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2025 9:07 AM
To: Tu, Sammy <sammy.tu@aecom.com>; Lucarelli, Zachary <Zachary.Lucarelli@skanska.com>; Pollack, Allie <Allie.Pollack@aecom.com>; Prendergast, Patrick <Patrick.Prendergast@skanska.com>
Cc: Berriz, Sonia (Consultant) <Sonia.Berriz@consultant.wsdot.wa.gov>; Kane, Betty (Consultant) <Betty.Kane@consultant.wsdot.wa.gov>; Pao, Evelyn C. <evelyn.pao@wsdot.wa.gov>; Holmquist, Dan (Consultant) <Dan.Holmquist@consultant.wsdot.wa.gov>; Wolf, Hayden <hayden.wolf@wsdot.wa.gov>
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] RE: I-405 Brickyard - NW-12 Load Rating & Inspection

 

WSDOT will be conducting their own inspection.

 

Thanks Sammy

 

 

 

Hi Jason,

The QA was completed yesterday, and the report is on its way to WSDOT. It has been sealed and is being submitted with electric files as requested.

The inspection was conducted by RHC in accordance with WSDOT BDM and NBI regulations. Please refer to PDF pages 147 through 158 of 215. Note that the inspection was performed by a WSDOT-certified inspector and the report was included in previous submittals.

I hope this helps facilitate WSDOT’s approval. Please don’t hesitate to reach out if you have any questions or need further information.

Best regards,
Sammy Tu, P.Eng, PE, SE
C: 510-410-9326

 

 

 

Sammy/Zach Are we getting the final load rating so I can send to the Bridge Office for their review and acceptance? We discussed receiving it last Friday. It would be sad to see further delay of switching traffic because of QA and submittal. 

 

Sammy/Zach

 

Are we getting the final load rating so I can send to the Bridge Office for their review and acceptance? We discussed receiving it last Friday.

 

It would be sad to see further delay of switching traffic because of QA and submittal. Reminder - Please be sure to send it signed and sealed, with electronic files, and following BDM 13.4.

 

The initial inspection (BDM 10.13) also needs to be completed. With the short notice of a target opening, hopefully they can get in there next week to inspect. I will hear back this week and then will need to coordinate with you on access.

 

Thanks

Jason

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Confirmed. Plates will be 1".

Hi Allie,

 

Jason confirmed closure of the OTS comments during this morning’s task force meeting — thanks to Jason for wrapping that up.

 

Please update page 166 with the following:

 

1. Rationale for traffic barrier in the middle span of the culvert:
   Simple hand calculations show that the decreased live load pressure and increased dead load pressure due to traffic barrier nearly cancel each other out. Therefore, the effect of the traffic barrier is minor and can be omitted for the middle span case.
2. 1” cover plate to be used for all openings.

 

This email serves as confirmation that the OTS comments have been closed, and please move forward the QA process

 

Regards,
Sammy Tu, P.Eng, PE, SE
C 510-410-9326

 

 

 

Sammy, I agree with you on the barrier that the load is minimal or negligible for the lane configuration shown. I thought there were different MOT switches or where the roadway starts to move back off the vault that the barrier was midspan and

Sammy,

I agree with you on the barrier that the load is minimal or negligible for the lane configuration shown. I thought there were different MOT switches or where the roadway starts to move back off the vault that the barrier was midspan and lane on each side. Someone had shared a figure. Perhaps it changed or I missed something?

 

I agree with your responses and will go take a look at Zach’s response for last bullet.  

 

Thanks

Jason

 

 

 

Hi Jason,

I’ve revised page 166 to specify a 1” cover plate for all openings.

 

Could you please provide your feedback to our responses, so we can proceed with Lead verification and the QA process for the submittal? If needed, we’re available for a coordination meeting tomorrow morning after TFM.

 

Thanks,

 

Sammy Tu, P.Eng, PE, SE

C 510-410-9326

 

 

 

Hi Jason,

Please see below for our responses to your comments.

 

Thanks,

Allie

 

Allie Pollack, EIT

Structural Bridge Engineer, US West Transportation
allie.pollack@aecom.com

AECOM

1111 3^rd Avenue

Suite 1600

Seattle, WA 98101, United States

aecom.com​

Delivering a better world
LinkedIn | Twitter | Facebook | Instagram

 

 

Jason,

 

That’s great news. We will revise the report and submit it asap.

 

Regards,

 

Sammy Tu, P.Eng, PE, SE

C 510-410-9326

 

 

 

Hi Sammy, No additional comments from the Project Office on the OTS. The Bridge Office will review the formal submittal to WSDOT and grant Final Approval as appropriate per BDM 15. 12. 1 Thanks Jason From: Tu, Sammy <sammy. tu@ aecom. com>

 

Hi Sammy,

 

No additional comments from the Project Office on the OTS. The Bridge Office will review the formal submittal to WSDOT and grant Final Approval as appropriate per BDM 15.12.1

 

Thanks

Jason

 

 

 

 

 

Hi Sonia,

As we continue working through the current set of comments, could you please check if we should expect any additional feedback from other WSDOT reviewers?

Thanks,

Sammy Tu, P.Eng, PE, SE

C 510-410-9326

 

 

 

Hi all, I wanted to keep everyone on the same page. Jason and Sammy spoke through the OTS comments on NW-12 load rating at their call yesterday and then Jason sent the following over. We are hoping these can be addressed prior to the formal

 

Hi all,

 

I wanted to keep everyone on the same page. Jason and Sammy spoke through the OTS comments on NW-12 load rating at their call yesterday and then Jason sent the following over. We are hoping these can be addressed prior to the formal submission.

 

• Weight of barrier needs to be included per BDM 13.2.1.
• Agreed, will add justification on page 166 of PDF – please see attached. The pressure due to the barrier is minor and is mostly outside the culvert. Additionally, the surcharge due to the barrier would benefit the evaluation.
• We discussed with 4M modeling the structure as a 3 sided box. The bottom slab properties were not field verified. Please revise. Understood the changes in demand may be small.
• Agreed, will revise the model to be a 3 sided box.
• MBE 6A.5.1.12.10.2 says a reduced earth pressure should be used when calculating maximum positive moment in the top slab. Please confirm this was done - We discussed on 10/30 that it was conservatively neglected for positive moment.
• Yes, we did use a reduced earth pressure. Please refer to maximum earth pressure on Page 10 of PDF.
•  Why is the area of steel being divided by 3 to convert to CSI (pp6)? – We discussed on 10/30 and it was done to relate the size and spacing of the reinforcement already entered in the CSI model.
• Area of steel is divided by three because in the CSi model, we defined our reinforcement as “User Defined” bar sizes by inputting the area of steel in the section.
• As you mentioned in your email on 10/27, 2 lanes were checked for all vehicles, and the rating factors were adjusted appropriately. Please submit.
• Will submit the report after addressing and closing out these comments.
• Please submit the report formally. The Bridge Office is reviewing the OTS but will require review of the final report (BDM 13.4). The project office is completing review of the files sent this Monday.
• Will submit the report after addressing and closing out these comments.
• Skanska installed ½” plates over the vault openings that were buried. When checked for HL-93 loading, their consultant determined that a 1” plate was needed. Shoring posts were added beneath the plate. We understood the same ½” plate was used to cover drainage structures and without additional support. Not sure those openings are smaller. Please propose how this will be addressed with either the plate replaced with a thicker plate or design provided for support.
• Zach’s email from 10/31.

 

I think Sammy is able to address most of the comments, I believe coordination is needed with Skanska on the last bullet.

 

-Sonia

 

Sonia Berriz, P.E.
berrizs@consultant.wsdot.wa.gov
(425) 876-6283 (cell)

 

 

 

Sonia,

 

Below is a link to an OTS of the NW-12 load rating performed by AECOM. Please let us know if you have any questions. I believe this is the right group, cc'd here.

 

Due to the file size, please confirm confirmation of receipt.

 

​I405-BRICKYARD-NW12 CULVERT LOAD RATING EVALUATION REPORT (draft).pdf​

 

Please ignore the previous messages, where this failed to send due to file size.

 

Thanks,