General: Some of these…

General:

Some of these drawings are to be modified and drawn to scale based on project-specific geometries. It is requested that .DWG files also be uploaded to the MTO Technical Consultations Portal once these drawings are finalized and posted.

MTOD 3960.200:

1. Under "Extent of Control Joint" at bottom left, the vertical dimension of 40mm is shown on both interior and exterior face of the barrier. Should the interior vertical dimension not be 50mm (matching the two details to the right)?

2. The use of the three sections at the bottom is confusing. The left shows a full height parapet on a wingwall where asphalt does not extend to the face of the wall, but the title is very generic: "Extent of Control Joint". The middle shows a short parapet wall on a paved deck and is specifically titled as "Extent of Control Joint in Parapet Wall". The rightmost shows a full height barrier wall on a paved deck and is specifically titled as "Extent of Control Joint in Barrier Wall". e.g. why is full height parapet on wingwall shown but not the full height barrier on wingwall? Why is full height parapet on wingwall titled generically but shows only one type of wall on, specifically, a wingwall? It is suggested that these be reviewed and consideration be provided to either add more sections encompassing different situations or making the sections more generic to universally apply to different types of walls at different locations.

3. The arrow cut "1" in plan is facing right, but the cut sections at the bottom of the drawing seem to be facing left. This is assuming that the long horizontal rectangle at the bottom of the plan view is intended to show the sloped vertical interior face of a jersey style barrier.

4. The "Extent of Control Joint in Barrier Wall" does not show the angle of the sloped cut at the deck interface. Both other details to the left show 30 degrees.

5. Chase detail "B" is called up on the "Extent of Control Joint in Barrier Wall" detail, but is not called up on the detail to the left where a chase is also shown.

SS110-4720:

1. Note 14 seems to prohibit the contractor from casting the moment slab in one single pour if it is longer then 12m. What is the intent behind this requirement?

2. A drip channel is shown at the underside of the concrete component overhanging the RSS panels, but no geometry is provided. It is suggested that the geometry from OPSD 3390.100 is included on this drawing as a typical detail.

3. The typical section "1" showing reinforcement details has the top transverse bars of the slab called up as "G15"; should be "15M".

4. On Note 4, there seems to be a period missing between "..each reinforcement strip" and "For barriers shorter than…".

5. "Detail depends on supplier of RSS wall system". Suggest changing RSS to MSE to ensure that the terminology is consistent.

6. On Notes to Designer #4, there seems to be a period missing between "... larger than 25mm" and "For such cases…".

7. Some of the above comments may also apply to other drawings in this package (e.g. SS110-4710).

SS110-5110:

1. The end walls without railing (Sections 1, 4, and 5) are of uniform width and have truly vertical inside and outside faces. When railings are present (Sections 2 and 3) the walls have a truly vertical outside face and a sloped inside face (25mm wider at asphalt elevation than at the top of the wall). From this, it is understood that the outside face of all walls (Sections 1 through 5) will be perfectly aligned along the full length in plan view, whereas the inside face alignment will transition at the end walls (over 380mm in a triangular shape) from Section 1 to Section 2. Sections 1, 4 and 5 show the wingwall inside face in the same vertical plane as the inside face of the end wall. Section 2 also shows the inside face of the wingwall in the same vertical plane as the inside face of the end wall. Sections 1, 4, and 5 should be revised to show the inside face of wingwall 25mm wider than the inside face of end wall (similar to how it is shown in Section 3 of SS110-4410).

SS110-5120:

1. Is this intended to replace SS110-95?

2. A previous draft version of SS110-510 appears to have been accidentally uploaded instead of the intended stainless steel SS110-5120.

SS110-5510:

1. Is this intended to replace SS110-96?

2. The CJ on Section 1 is show to meet the top of asphalt. This is not consistent with the CJs shown on SS110-5110 which show the CJ brought to the top of deck / underside of asphalt.

3. The "Applicable Standard Drawings" should be revised to include SS110-5120 (stainless steel).

SS110-4410:

1. Are there plans to include a two-tube TL-4 barrier for stainless rebar or will this detail only be for GFRP bar?

2. There is a missing word in Note 10: "…hardware not TO be left in place".

3. Note 12 should reference MTOD 3960.200 not OPSD.

4. Section 1 should reference OPSD 3390.100 not MTOD.

5. The "Applicable Standard Drawings" should be revised to include OPSD 3390.100.

SS110-5810:

1. The "Applicable Standard Drawings" should be revised to include OPSD 911.381 and OPSD 911.382.

SS110-6210:

1. The "Applicable Standard Drawings" should be revised to include OPSD 911.382.

2. Suggest adding a leader and calling up OPSD 3390.100 for the drip channel.

3. Section 1 (reinforcing), suggest adding a tolerance (+/-) to the 40mm cover.