MEMO
TO:

Thomas Andres

CC:

Geoffrey Parker

FROM:

Todd Mitchell

SUBJECT: Flagler Memorial Bridge Site Visit
DATE:

May 4, 2018

On April 24, 2018, WSP USA, at the request of the Department, met FDOT CEI Geoffrey Parker
to perform a site visit at the Flagler Memorial Bridge. It is our understanding, on December 2016,
the bridge was opened to 2 lanes of traffic, and later to 4 lanes of traffic in August 2017. Once 4
lanes of traffic were operating on the bridge, the FDOT CEI became aware of operational issues
on the bridge starting in September 2017. Therefore, at the Departments request, we performed a
visual site review of the bridge under operational conditions looking for any indications as to the
cause of the malfunctions.
Mike Elza, Grace Patino, and Todd Mitchell, observed the major mechanical/electrical
components and general condition of the structure. Prior to the review, WSP was provided with a
list of 16 malfunctions, however two additional malfunctions were added when we arrived at the
CEI’s office. Upon review of the list; the nature of the malfunctions appeared to vary in time of
the day, equipment, and location. It was noted by the WSP team that the list provided noting the
malfunctions was not specific to what caused the malfunction or what bridge operation or alarm
preceded the malfunction. The list was also lacking on how the bridge operation was resumed after
the malfunction.
During one test operation, it was noted that the tail locks were cycled several times. The bridge
tender indicated that the cycling of the tail locks was at the request of the Contractor for greasing
purposes. It was observed that nothing was noted in the current logs regarding the cycling of the
tail locks. It is not clear if the operating logs are complete with regards to the malfunctions. It is
unknown if all malfunctions are being reported, or only malfunctions that create traffic delays, etc.
During the review, the bridge had several full openings. The bridge was carefully observed during
each operation, no malfunctions were observed during our site visit. Mechanically speaking, the
contact pattern in the grease on the racks was consistent with the balance condition documented in
the reports. Greasing activities were ongoing during our site visit. All mechanical elements had
recent ample application of lubrication. Contact patterns on the sockets and pintles on the tracks
were consistent with what would be expected.
Electrically, while the bridges operated, it was noted that bridge control system appeared to
function without issues. However, the PLC alarm monitoring system reflected a host of errors
ranging from oil temperature to lock malfunctions. The HMI display for this system is located on a
floor below the control room in the control house. During the visit, a PCL foremen informed WSP

WSP USA
wsp.com

 

Paqez

Ihal a appeared cerraln nperauunal lssues occurred nheh rhe render nllempled ro proceed 
rhe next srep mrhnur for rhe compleuoh nl'rhe prevrous acrloh l-lrmerer arrempuhg 
operare Lhe budge our of sequence should hm all'eer rhe perl'ornrahee oflhe budge or cause
There should he a serres nl'sal'ery lnlerlucks rhar prerenr rhe upemmr from
rhe next srep

The leaves appeared have very llule mmemem when rral lc rraveled across rhe budge -

-- There 

some speculaunn rhar small movenrehrs In rhe srrucrure eould he creallng rhe
mechamcal 

Ghen rhe cohrracr end dare and rhe hurnher nfadjuslmenls (such as [mung adjustmenn
rhe overall operaung system] slnce mo years rhe Deparunenr ma) 
repelform cennln pomons nl'rhe eheclrour before final acceprance m'rhe nork
rhe PLC alarm system should be checked .l'rhe alarms
being generared are valld H'st lurrher mresugauon nl'rhe causes for rhese alarms should mke
place Gauges could he lnslalled ro mohaor any pmehual rnmernenr nl'rhe plers Whlle a ls
unllkel). that rhe plers are moving, a rs a relallvel). Inexpemlve check rule om one porennal
cause oflhe operaunnal lssues

Thank you,
Todd Mnehell