20240726_RFI_1-12_604.pdf

RFI Response – Upgrade of Central Power Plant 604.

31 July 2024

John Duncombe/Ranee Perricone – PM

RFI: Upgrade of Central Power Plant 604.

Questions:

1. I would like to request Manufacturer Details for the Skylight window.

Response: The basis of design manufacturer details are publicly available at the following location: https://www.structuresunlimitedinc.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/8.14RMABLECTRSKYLIGHT-SHT8.14.pdf Per the basis of design manufacturer’s detail, the skylight will anchor directly to the 12x26 steel indicated on the structural drawings.

2. Section 2.4.5 States the use of line reactors. This is very old technology and the new modern VFD drives no longer require these line reactors. Please clarify as this seems to be boiler plate copy and paste language.

Response: This response assumes that the RFI is based on section 41 22

13.14. VFDs with solid state protection are acceptable in lieu of line reactors.

3. Section 1.6.1 Does the PE stamp require an New York State PE or can this be based upon where the cranes manufacture is state of origin is located?

13.14. The PE stamp is not required to be New York State.

4. There is a statement on page # 509 ABOUT FALL PROTECTION CODE

ASSP Z359. Is there to be a tether track hung below off on either of the girders A or B and or will the deck hoist & trolley require OSHA tie off points?

Response: This response assumes that the RFI is based on section 41 22

13.14. Provide (4) fixed OSHA fall protection tie-off anchors, one on each corner of the bridge. No tether track is required.

5. Section 1.6.2.2 Page 517. What one of the two mentioned methods will suffice? NDT with a crack developer powder or does it need to be magnetic-particle tested?

13.14. Non-destructive testing with magnetic-particle testing is required.

https://www.structuresunlimitedinc.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/8.14RMABLECTRSKYLIGHT-SHT8.14.pdf https://www.structuresunlimitedinc.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/8.14RMABLECTRSKYLIGHT-SHT8.14.pdf

6. Section 1.6.5 page 518. Will this crane require specific seismic design requirements? And what will be the standard required if so?

Response: This response assumes that the RFI is based on section 41 22

13.14. Specific seismic design requirements are only required for seismic design category D and above which do not apply to this project.

7. Section 2.1.2 Name plates and 2.6 ID Plates. Our standard is vinyl lettered placards placed on both girders suffice? Std is US rated tonnage. The cranes will have ID tags that show manufacture – serial # - model and capacity.

13.14. Provide name plates per the specifications.

8. Section 2.1.4 Safety warnings. A standard ANSI tag for the pendant and the radio transmitters has this information and is affixed via an attachment cable or clear cover sleeve to the said devices. Will this suffice or is this to be a large sign on the crane?

13.14. This approach is acceptable.

9. Section 2.2.3 bridge trolley rails. Normal practice is the weld on square bar onto the tops of the two torsion girders as the hoist decks trolley wheels are designed for sq. bar and have the correct rail height and profile for the trolley wheels. ASCE type rail bar will raise the height and reduce the clearance overhead of the deck hoist, thus headroom above will become too tight to meet OSHA requirements to the house steel.

Response: This response assumes that the RFI is based on section 41 22

13.14. ASCE rail is not required for the bridge trolly rails only for the runway rails. Provide the head heights and clearances as indicated on the drawings.

10. Section 2.4.5 this is antiquated language from what VFD drives used to require 20-25 years ago. The new drives are all solid state and internally buffered. Is this just old boiler plate? Same as 2.4.5 A.

13.14. Solid state drives meeting the design intent are acceptable.

11. Section 2.4.10 Enclosures A & B. A. Will IP 66 be acceptable? B. The cranes hoist & trolley has on board diagnostics located within the main enclosure panel. It is equipped with a down load port for the pick counts and the usage data logging in hours. So will the visible hour meter standard still be required?

13.14. A. IP 66 is acceptable. B. Provide a visible meter in addition to the download port.

12. Section 3.4.5 Load test here show 100% of capacity which agrees with ASME which OSHA and CMAA differ to but there are sections such as 2.3.3 that state 125% capacity. Also section 3.4.2 Operational tests states to provide solid test weights. The crane area floor is only rated at 110 PSF so 40000# of test weight will not be able to placed safely on this floor. The conversations during development was to provide water weight test bags and use the large main water source to fill the bags and then the drained water would be handled by the building in house water drains.

Response: This response assumes that the RFI is based on section 41 22

13.14. The design intent is to test to 100% of capacity with water weight test bags. Provide shoring if the load capacity of the floor is expected to be exceeded.