Bridge_Inspection_Report_5460-018P_Laurel_Creek_Bridge__1.pdf

BRIDGE INSPECTION REPORT

LAUREL CREEK BRIDGE #1

LAUREL CREEK ROAD OVER LAUREL CREEK

GREAT SMOKY MOUNTAINS NATIONAL PARK

LS

STRUCTURE NO. 5460-018P

INSPECTION TYPE: ROUTINE

INSPECTION DATE: 5/12/14

Report prepared by: EU

Federal Highway Administration Federal Lands Bridge Office Bridge Inspection and Management Program 21400 Ridgetop Circle Sterling, Virginia 20166 http://www.efl.fhwa.dot.gov/FLHBO/BIP http://www.efl.fhwa.dot.gov/FLHBO/BIP

STRUCTURE SUMMARY STRUCTURE NO. 5460-018P

LAUREL CREEK BRIDGE #1 INSPECTION DATE: 5/12/14

BRIDGE IDENTIFICATION AND DESCRIPTION

MAIN SPAN MATERIAL:

MAIN SPAN TYPE:

# OF BEAMS, MAIN SPAN: ..

DECK TYPE:

WEARING SURFACE:

ABUT. FOUNDATIONS:

PIER FOUNDATION(S):

ABUTMENT / PIER MAT'L: ...

PROJ./PLAN REF. NO:

NPS ROAD CLASS:

STRUCTURE HISTORY:

CONCRETE

ARCH - DECK

NOT APPLICABLE

NOT APPLICABLE

UNKNOWN / SPREAD FTG ON BEARING

N/A

CONCRETE

3B1 / 1572

1 - PRINCIPAL PARK ROAD

LOCATION

NO. OF MAIN SPANS:

NO. OF APPR. SPANS:

STRUCT. TOTAL LENGTH: ..

MAX. SPAN LENGTH:

DECK WIDTH:

CURB TO CURB WIDTH:

YEAR BUILT:

YEAR RECONSTRUCTED: ..

SKEW ANGLE:

FRACTURE CRITICAL:

50.0 FT (15.2 M)

50.0 FT (15.2 M)

36.3 FT (11.1 M)

21.5 FT (6.6 M)

N/A

25 °

NO

GREAT SMOKY MOUNTAINS NATIONAL PARK MILE POINT: ..................... 2.20 (KM PT 3.54)

STATE: ................................. TENNESSEE LOCATION: 2.2 MI TO NPS RTE. 16

FACILITY CARRIED: ............ LAUREL CREEK ROAD

FEATURE INTERSECTED: .. LAUREL CREEK

STRUCTURE EVALUATION SUMMARY

This concrete arch bridge is in good condition overall. The main problem noted was a lack of object markers at the bridge corners.

Corrective measures should be taken as outlined in this report to prevent the possible development of more serious or costly problems in the future.

INSPECTION TEAM: W. ROBIN, B. CARPER (GANNETT FLEMING).

CONDITION ASSESSMENT:

WIL ROBIN, P.E., FIELD TEAM LEADER

REPORT REVIEW :

MARCUS MILLER, P.E., SENIOR INSPECTION ENGINEER 703-404-6252

REPORT APPROVAL: DATE: 9/30/14

JORGOMAI CEESAY, PH.D., P.E., BIP SUPERVISORY ENGINEER 703-404-6244

RECOMMENDATIONS AND ESTIMATED COSTS STRUCTURE NO. 5460-018P

A (Critical) - Structure is closed, in imminent danger of collapse, or presents a critical safety hazard.

B (Major) - Structure is seriously deficient or presents a safety hazard, but can remain in service at reduced loads or with frequent inspections.

C (Moderate) - Structure is deficient, functionally obsolete, or requires substantial repairs to prevent a serious deficiency or unsafe condition.

D (Minor) - Structure is generally in good condition. Preventative maintenance may be required.

E (Special) - Structure is under construction or reconstruction.

D226 PRIORITY OF IMPROVEMENT

ITEM

NO.

MAINTENANCE RECOMMENDATIONS

(GENERALLY NOT FLHP ELIGIBLE)

QTY. UNIT COST

UNIT

ESTIMATE

COST

PRELIM.

222.7 INSTALL OBJECT MARKERS AT PARAPET ENDS. 4 EA

PRELIM. MAINTENANCE TOTAL :

ITEM

NO.

REHABILITATION/RECONSTRUCTION

(TYPICALLY NEEDED WITHIN 5 YEARS)

QTY. UNIT

UNIT

COST ESTIMATES

PRELIM. COST

REHAB. RECONSTR.

PRELIM. REHABILITATION/RECONSTRUCTION TOTAL :

COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY

PRELIM. MAINTENANCE TOTAL:

PRELIM. REHABILITATION TOTAL:

PRELIM. RECONSTRUCTION TOTAL: ..

TOTAL ITEMIZED COSTS:

PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE TOTAL* :

(*Includes typical contract costs for mobilization, traffic control, and design/construction engineering; but does not include detour bridges, work beyond the bridge limits, or work not listed above. Estimates are approximate and are for preliminary planning purposes only; they should not be used as a complete or final engineers estimate.)

REMARKS: Cost estimates assume that recommended actions will be combined with similar work being performed on other structures.

FIELD INSPECTION REPORT STRUCTURE NO. 5460-018P

CONDITION RATING CODES FOR ITEMS 58 - 62, 222, 223

N NOT APPLICABLE 3 SERIOUS CONDITION - loss of section, deterioration, spalling, or scour have seriously affected primary structural components. Local failures are possible.

9 EXCELLENT CONDITION Fatigue cracks in steel or shear cracks in concrete may be present.

8 VERY GOOD CONDITION - no problems noted. 2 CRITICAL CONDITION - advanced deterioration of primary structural elements. Fatigue cracks in steel or shear cracks in concrete may be present

7 GOOD CONDITION - some minor problems. or scour may have removed substructure support. Unless closely monitored it may be necessary to close the structure until corrective action can be taken.

6 SATISFACTORY CONDITION - structural elements show some minor deterioration. 1 “IMMINENT” FAILURE CONDITION - major deterioration or section loss present in critical structural components or obvious vertical or horizontal

5 FAIR CONDITION - all primary structural elements are sound but may have movement affecting structure stability. Structure is closed to traffic but minor section loss, cracking, spalling, or scour. corrective action may return structure to light service.

4 POOR CONDITION - advanced section loss, deterioration, spalling, or scour. 0 FAILED CONDITION - out of service; beyond corrective action.

CONDITION RATING CODE EQUIVALENTS FOR SUB-ELEMENTS

G = GOOD (CODES 7 - 9) F = FAIR (CODES 5 - 6) P = POOR (CODES 0 - 4)

58. DECK N ITEM REFERENCE AND REMARKS

N1. DECK SLAB

N2. EXPANSION JOINTS

G3. WEARING SURFACE

G4. RIDEABILITY

N5. CURBS, SIDEWALKS, AND MEDIAN

G6. PARAPETS AND/OR RAILINGS

G7. DRAINS AND DRAINAGE

N8. UTILITIES

N9. DEFLECTION AND/OR VIBRATION

N10. OTHER

59. SUPERSTRUCTURE 7

N1. BEARING DEVICES

N2. GIRDERS OR BEAMS

G3. ARCH(ES) OR SLAB(S)

N4. FLOOR BEAMS AND STRINGERS

N5. TRUSSES

N6. DIAPHRAGMS AND BRACING

N7. PAINT

G8. FASCIA(E)

G9. DEFLECTION AND/OR VIBRATION

G10. ALIGNMENT

N11. OTHER

58.6 MINOR DETERIORATION OF PARAPET MASONRY MORTAR JOINTS

WITH MOSS GROWTH PRESENT. MODERATE DETERIORATION IN

SEVERAL LOCATIONS.

59.3,8 MINOR LONGITUDINAL AND MAP CRACKING OF ARCH UNDERSIDE

AND MODERATE EFFLORESCENCE ON FASCIA RING STONES.

60.1 MINOR SCALING TO LOWER 1' ALONG FULL LENGTH OF NORTH

ABUTMENT.

60.6 MODERATE EFFLORESCENCE AND MOSS GROWTH ON

WINGWALLS. MINOR VINE GROWTH ON NORTHWEST WINGWALL.

MODERATE MORTAR JOINT DETERIORATION IN SEVERAL

LOCATIONS.

60.9, 61.1 STREAM HAS SHIFTED NORTH AND FLOWS ALONG NORTH

ABUTMENT. LARGE ROCK OUTCROPPING UPSTREAM OF BRIDGE

PROTECTS NORTH ABUTMENT IN STORM FLOWS. NO SCOUR AT

NORTH ABUTMENT NOTED.

60. SUBSTRUCTURE 7

ABUTMENTS

BREASTWALLS OR COLUMNS1. G

PILE BENTS2. N

CAPS AND/OR BEARING SEATS3. G

BACKWALLS AND/OR BULKHEADS4. N

FOUNDATIONS5. G

WINGWALLS6. F

WEEP HOLES7. N

EXPANSION JOINTS8. N

EROSION AND/OR SCOUR9. G

SETTLEMENT OR DEFLECTION10. G

SLOPE PROTECTION11. N

OTHER 12. N

PIER(S)

WALLS AND/OR COLUMNS 13. N

PILE BENTS14. N

CAPS AND/OR BEARING SEATS15. N

FOUNDATIONS16. N

EROSION AND/OR SCOUR17. N

SETTLEMENT OR DEFLECTION18. N

OTHER 19. N

INSPECTION DATE: 5/12/14

STRUCTURE NO. 5460-018P FIELD INSPECTION REPORT

LAUREL CREEK BRIDGE #1

ITEM REFERENCE AND REMARKS

AVERAGE CLEAR OPENING 8.

7. NORMAL VELOCITY

ADEQUACY OF OPENING 6.

5. OTHER

4. WATERWAY OBSTRUCTIONS

CHANNEL PROTECTION3.

EROSION AND/OR SCOUR2.

ALIGNMENT1.

61. CHANNEL 6

F F G G

G(TREE)

MED

SUFF

7 FT.

9. STREAM BED COMPOSITION :

222. APPROACHES 8

OTHER 9.

ALIGNMENT 8.

SIGNS7.

SETTLEMENT 6.

EROSION5.

SURFACING4.

APPROACH GUARDRAIL 3.

2. RELIEF JOINTS

APPROACH SLABS1. N

N N G G G N G N

223. RETAINING WALL N

OTHER 6.

SETTLEMENT OR DEFLECTION5.

EROSION AND/OR SCOUR4.

FOUNDATION3.

WEEP HOLES2.

1. WALL

36. TRAFFIC AND SAFETY FEATURES

APPROACH GUARDRAIL ENDSD.

APPROACH GUARDRAILSC.

TRANSITIONSB.

BRIDGE RAILINGSA. 0

N N N

61.1,4 MODERATE SILT AND GRAVEL BUILDUP AGAINST SOUTH

ABUTMENT; CHANNEL FLOWS AGAINST NORTH ABUTMENT. MINOR

DEBRIS IN UPSTREAM CHANNEL AND NEAR NORTHWEST SIDE OF

ABUTMENT.

61.2 MINOR EROSION ALONG NORTHEAST, SOUTHWEST, AND

NORTHWEST WINGWALLS. MINOR UNDERMINING OF NORTH

DOWNSTREAM CHANNEL BANK HAS STABILIZED. SCOUR HOLE, UP

TO 3' DEEP, AT UPSTREAM END ADJACENT TO ROCK OUTCROP.

61.5 LARGE TREE LEANING TOWARD BRIDGE AT NORTHEAST CORNER.

36A PARAPET DOES NOT MEET CURRENT AASHTO HEIGHT

SPECIFICATIONS; EXISTING HEIGHTS ARE 2'-0" ES AND 1'-6" WS.

TRAFFIC SAFETY RATING CODES

N

Does not meet standards or a safety feature is required and none is provided.

Meets currently acceptable standards.

Not applicable or a safety feature is not required.

STRUCTURE LOAD RATING STRUCTURE NO. 5460-018P

TRUCK TYPE

INVENTORY RATING (NORMAL TRAFFIC) OPERATING RATING (MAXIMUM LOAD)

TONS METRIC TONS TONS METRIC TONS

H 15 14 20 18

HS 19 17 32 29

TYPE 3 18 16 30 27

TYPE 3S2 27 24 46 42

TYPE 3-3 34 31 56 51

DESIGN LOADING: H15 (M13.5)

X CAPACITY MEETS OR EXCEEDS DESIGN LOAD

CAPACITY IS LESS THAN DESIGN LOAD

ORIGINAL LOAD RATING CALCULATION APPLICABLE

ORIGINAL LOAD RATING CALCULATION REVISED

DATE OF LOAD RATING CALCULATION:

LOAD RATING CONTROLLED BY:

REMARKS: RATING IS BASED ON DESIGN LOAD OF STRUCTURE.

STRUCTURE INVENTORY AND APPRAISAL STRUCTURE NO. 5460-018P

STRUCTURE IDENTIFICATION

(201) PARK: GREAT SMOKY MOUNTAINS NATIONAL PARK

(202) STRUCTURE NAME: .......... LAUREL CREEK BRIDGE #1

(203) STRUCTURE KIND: ............ 1 - BRIDGE

(204) STRUCTURE NUMBER: ..... 5460-018P

(205) NPS REGION: .................... 4 - SOUTHEAST

(206) ROUTE CODE NUMBER: ... 15

(207) ROAD SECTION NO: .......... 018P

(208) NPS ROAD CLASS: ............ 1 - PRINCIPAL PARK ROAD

(209) WITHIN NPS BNDRY?: ....... YES

(210) OPERATING UNIT: ............. N. DIST.

(211) PROJECT NO(S): ................ 3B1

(212) DRAWING NUMBERS:

(21) MAINTAINED BY: ................. 66 - NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

(22) OWNER: ............................... 66 - NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

(1) STATE:

(2) STATE HWY. AGENCY DIST:

(3) COUNTY CODE:

(4) CITY/PLACE CODE:

(5) INVENTORY ROUTE:

(6) FEATURES INTERSECTED:

(7) FACILITY CARRIED:

(8) STATE STRUCTURE NO:

(9) LOCATION:

(10) INV. RTE. - MIN. VERT. CLR: ..

(11) MILE POINT:

(27) YEAR BUILT:

(106) YEAR RECONSTRUCTED:

(20) TOLL:

(37) HISTORICAL DESIGNATION: ..

474 - TENNESSEE (TN)

155 - SEVIER

164000150

LAUREL CREEK

LAUREL CREEK ROAD

5460018P0000000

2.2 MI TO NPS RTE. 16

99.99 FT (99.99 M)

2.20 (KM PT 3.54)

N/A

3 - FREE ROAD

3 - POSSIBLY ELIGIBLE

STRUCTURE DESCRIPTION, FOUNDATION, AND DECK TYPE

(43A) MAIN STR. MATERIAL: ..

(43B) MAIN STR. TYPE:

(45) NO. OF MAIN SPANS:

(48) MAX. SPAN LENGTH:

(49) STRUCTURE LENGTH:

(216A) ABUTMENT #1 FDN:

(216B) ABUTMENT #2 FDN:

(217A) PREDOM. PIER FDN.: ..

(217B) SECOND. PIER FDN: ...

(107) DECK TYPE:

1 - CONCRETE

11 - ARCH - DECK

50.0 FT (15.2 M)

50.0 FT (15.2 M)

0 - UNKNOWN

2 - SPREAD FTG ON BEARING MAT'L

6 - N/A

6 - N/A

N - NOT APPLICABLE

(44A) APPR. STR. MATERIAL: ........ 0 - OTHER

(44B) APPR. STR. TYPE: ................ 00 - OTHER

(46) NO. OF APPROACH SPANS: .. 0

(108) WEAR SURFACE/PROTECT SYSTEM:

A) TYPE WEARING SURFACE: .. N - NOT APPLICABLE

B) TYPE MEMBRANE: ................. 0 - NONE

C) TYPE PROTECTION: .............. 0 - NONE

(218) IS SALT USED?: ..................... YES

LOAD RATING AND POSTING

(31) DESIGN LOAD: ................. 2 - H15 (M13.5) (41) LOAD RESTRICTION: ......... A - OPEN, NO RESTRICTION

(66) INVENTORY RATING: ...... 19.0 TONS (17.0 METRIC TONS) (70) BRIDGE POSTING: .............. 5 - NO POSTING REQUIRED

(64) OPERATING RATING: ...... 32.0 TONS (29.0 METRIC TONS)

INSPECTION DATES

(90) INSPECTION DATE: 5/14 (91) FREQ. OF INSP: 48 MONTHS (92 / 93) CRITICAL FEATURE INSPECTION (CFI):

(219) ADD. STUDIES NEEDED: N - 0 - NONE (A) FRACTURE CRITICAL: ... NO

INSP. EVERY: MONTHS - LAST INSP. : (220) SPECIAL STUDY TYPE: 0 - NONE

(B) UNDERWATER: .............. NO

(221) SPECIAL STUDY DATE: INSP. EVERY: MONTHS - LAST INSP. :

(C) SPECIAL INSPECTION: .. NO

INSP. EVERY: MONTHS - LAST INSP. :

STRUCTURE INVENTORY AND APPRAISAL STRUCTURE NO. 5460-018P

GEOMETRY, TRAFFIC, AND NAVIGATIONAL DATA

(16) LATITUDE: ............................. 35°38'23.10" (51) CURB TO CURB WIDTH: ........... 21.5 FT (6.6 M)

(17) LONGITUDE: ......................... 83°42'59.10" (52) DECK WIDTH: ............................ 36.3 FT (11.1 M)

(19) DETOUR LENGTH: ............... 5 MI (8 KM) (32) APPR. ROADWAY WIDTH: ........ 34.0 FT (10.4 M)

(28A) LANES ON STRUCT: .......... 02 (213) APPR. PAVEMENT WIDTH: ..... 22.0 FT (6.7 M)

(28B) LANES UNDER STRUCT: ... 00 LEFT SHOULDER: .................. 5.0 FT (1.5 M)

(42A) SERVICE ON: ..................... 1 - HIGHWAY RIGHT SHOULDER: ................ 7.0 FT (2.1 M)

(42B) SERVICE UNDER: .............. 5 - WATERWAY (33) BRIDGE MEDIAN: ....................... 0 - NO MEDIAN

(29) AVG. DAILY TRAFFIC: .......... 3060 (34) SKEW ANGLE: ............................ 25 °

(30) YEAR OF ADT: ...................... 2010 (35) DECK FLARE?: ........................... NO

(114) FUTURE ADT: ..................... 3366 (47) TOTAL HORIZ. CLEARANCE: .... 32.3 FT (9.8 M)

(115) YEAR OF FUTURE ADT: ..... 2030 (50) SIDEWALKS:

(101) PARALLEL STRUCTURE: ... N - NONE LEFT : ...................................... 0.0 FT (0.0 M)

(38) NAVIGATION CONTROL?: ... 0 RIGHT : ................................... 0.0 FT (0.0 M)

(39) VERTICAL CLEARANCE: ...... 0.0 FT (0.0 M) (214) BRIDGE RAIL TYPE:

(40) HORIZ. CLEARANCE: ........... 0.0 FT (0.0 M) RAIL CONFIGURATION: ......... 3 - PARAPET ONLY

(111) ABUT. OR PIER PROT: ....... MATERIAL: .............................. 9 - OTHER

DESIGN TYPE: ........................ 1 - CONTINUOUS RAIL

LATERAL UNDERCLEARANCE:

(55) RIGHT: ....................... 99.9 FT (99.9 M) (215) BRIDGE RAIL HEIGHT: ............ 1.50 FT (0.46 M)

(56) LEFT: ......................... 0.0 FT (0.0 M) (53) MIN. VRT. CLEAR. OVER DECK: 99.99 FT (99.99 M)

(54) MIN. VRT. UNDERCLEARANCE: 0.00 FT (0.00 M)

CONDITION AND APPRAISAL DATA, PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS, AND COST

(58) DECK: ................................. N

(59) SUPERSTRUCTURE:

(60) SUBSTRUCTURE:

(61) CHANNEL:

(62) CULVERT: ........................... N

(222) APPROACHES:

(223) RETAINING WALL: ........... N

(36) TRAFFIC SAFETY FEAT: ... 0NNN

(75A) TYPE OF WORK:

(75B) WORK DONE BY:

(76) IMPROVEMENT LENGTH: ..

(67) STRUCTURAL EVALUATION:

(68) DECK GEOMETRY:

(69) UNDERCLEARANCES:

(71) WATERWAY ADEQUACY:

(72) APPROACH ALIGNMENT:

(113) SCOUR CRITICAL:

(225) PURPOSE OF IMPROVEMENT:

(226) PRIORITY OF IMPROVEMENT:

(227) MAINTENANCE COST:

(228) REHAB./RECONSTR. COST: ...

(229) CONSTRUCTION COST:

N

8 - Stable; scour above top of fo

1 - MAINTENANCE

D - MINOR

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

(230) STRUCTURE HISTORY:

(231) ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS:

(330) ADDITIONAL CONFIG. INFO.:

http:83�42'59.10 http:35�38'23.10

APPENDIX STRUCTURE NO. 5460-018P

PHOTOGRAPHS STRUCTURE NO. 5460-018P

PHOTO #1 - LOOKING NORTH TOWARD GATLINBURG

FLOW

PHOTO #2 - WEST (DOWNSTREAM) SIDE

PHOTO #3 - GENERAL TOPSIDE VIEW LOOKING NORTH

PHOTO #4 - GENERAL UNDERSIDE VIEW LOOKING NORTH

PHOTO #5 - TYPICAL EFFLORESCENCE ON

RING STONES, NORTH SIDE SHOWN

PHOTO #6 - LONGITUDINAL CRACKING IN

UNDERSIDE OF ARCH ALONG CENTERLINE

PHOTO #7 - GENERAL VIEW OF NORTH ABUTMENT; NOTE DEBRIS

PHOTO #8 - LOOKING UPSTREAM THROUGH STRUCTURE; NOTE

TREES IN CHANNEL

PHOTO #9 - DOWNSTREAM CHANNEL