Bridge_Inspection_Report_5460-020P_Laurel_Creek_Bridge__3.pdf

BRIDGE INSPECTION REPORT

LAUREL CREEK BRIDGE #3

LAUREL CREEK ROAD OVER LAUREL CREEK

GREAT SMOKY MOUNTAINS NATIONAL PARK

LS

STRUCTURE NO. 5460-020P

INSPECTION TYPE: ROUTINE

INSPECTION DATE: 5/11/14

Report prepared by: ED

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. 5460-020P

LAUREL CREEK BRIDGE #3 INSPECTION DATE: 5/11/14

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 CONTINUOUS

SLAB

CONCRETE CAST-IN-PLACE

BITUMINOUS

SPREAD FTG ON BEARING MAT'L

SPREAD FTG ON BEARING MAT'L

MASONRY

000000000000 / NONE

1 - PRINCIPAL PARK ROAD

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:

45.6 FT (13.9 M)

21.5 FT (6.6 M)

48.8 FT (14.9 M)

21.8 FT (6.6 M)

N/A

0 °

NO

LOCATION

GREAT SMOKY MOUNTAINS NATIONAL PARK MILE POINT: ..................... 3.11 (KM PT 5.01)

STATE: ................................. TENNESSEE LOCATION: ADJACENT TO 5460-019P

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

FEATURE INTERSECTED: .. LAUREL CREEK

STRUCTURE EVALUATION SUMMARY

This concrete slab bridge is in good condition overall, and has only minor problems at this time. The main problems are areas of exposed rebar in the north and south spans, and a lack of object markers at the bridge corners. In addition, consideration should be given to installing a traffic barrier system to improve motorist safety.

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. 5460-020P

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.

60.6,9 REPAIR ERODED SLOPE AT NORTHEAST WINGWALL WITH ENGINEERED RIPRAP. 10 CY

60.6 REPOINT DETERIORATED MORTAR JOINTS. 50 LF

58.1, 59.3 CLEAN AND SEAL EXPOSED REBAR IN NORTH AND SOUTH SPANS WITH

APPROVED PROTECTIVE COATING.

10 SF

222.7 INSTALL TYPE 3 OBJECT MARKERS AT BRIDGE CORNERS. 4 EA

PRELIM. MAINTENANCE TOTAL :

ITEM

NO.

REHABILITATION/RECONSTRUCTION

(TYPICALLY NEEDED WITHIN 5 YEARS)

QTY. UNIT

UNIT

COST ESTIMATES

PRELIM. COST

REHAB. RECONSTR.

36.A INSTALL GUARDRAIL SYSTEM OVER STRUCTURE AND AT

APPROACHES.

200 LF

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. 5460-020P

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 7 ITEM REFERENCE AND REMARKS

G1. DECK SLAB

N2. EXPANSION JOINTS

G3. WEARING SURFACE

G4. RIDEABILITY

N5. CURBS, SIDEWALKS, AND MEDIAN

N6. PARAPETS AND/OR RAILINGS

G7. DRAINS AND DRAINAGE

N8. UTILITIES

G9. 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

58.1, 59.3,8 MINOR SPALLING AND CRACKING OF DECK UNDERSIDE WITH

EFFLORESCENCE, ESPECIALLY ALONG CONSTRUCTION JOINTS

AND MASONRY FASCIA. MODERATE CRACKING OF FASCIA MORTAR

JOINTS WITH EFFLORESCENCE ON FASCIA RING STONES. WATER

LEAKAGE AT CONSTRUCTION JOINT. SEVERAL SPALLS WITH

EXPOSED REBAR IN NORTH AND SOUTH SPANS.

60.6 MODERATE EFFLORESCENCE AND MOSS GROWTH ON

WINGWALLS.

60.9, 61.1,2 CHANNEL HAS SHIFTED AGAINST NORTH ABUTMENT CAUSING

MODERATE SCOUR ESPECIALLY AT DOWNSTREAM SIDE; UP TO 3'.

STRUCTURE APPEARS TO REST ON BEDROCK. MINOR TO

MODERATE EROSION OF NORTHEAST WINGWALL SLOPE.

N6. DIAPHRAGMS AND BRACING

N7. PAINT

F8. FASCIA(E)

G9. DEFLECTION AND/OR VIBRATION

G10. ALIGNMENT

N11. OTHER

60. SUBSTRUCTURE 7

ABUTMENTS

BREASTWALLS OR COLUMNS1. G

PILE BENTS2. N

CAPS AND/OR BEARING SEATS3. G

BACKWALLS AND/OR BULKHEADS4. N

FOUNDATIONS5. N

WINGWALLS6. G

WEEP HOLES7. G

EXPANSION JOINTS8. N

EROSION AND/OR SCOUR9. F

SETTLEMENT OR DEFLECTION10. G

SLOPE PROTECTION11. N

OTHER 12. N

PIER(S)

WALLS AND/OR COLUMNS 13. G

PILE BENTS14. N

CAPS AND/OR BEARING SEATS15. G

FOUNDATIONS16. N

EROSION AND/OR SCOUR17. G

SETTLEMENT OR DEFLECTION18. G

OTHER 19. N

INSPECTION DATE: 5/11/14

STRUCTURE NO. 5460-020P FIELD INSPECTION REPORT

LAUREL CREEK BRIDGE #3

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 P N

MED

SUFF

5 FT.

9. STREAM BED COMPOSITION :

STONES, SILT

222. APPROACHES 7

OTHER 9.

ALIGNMENT 8.

SIGNS7.

SETTLEMENT 6.

EROSION5.

SURFACING4.

APPROACH GUARDRAIL 3.

2. RELIEF JOINTS

APPROACH SLABS1. N

N N G G G N F 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. N

N N N

61.4 HEAVY SEDIMENT ACCUMULATION IN SOUTH SPAN UP TO 4'.

222.8 STRUCTURE ON MINOR HORIZONTAL CURVE.

36.A GUARDRAIL IS RECOMMENDED FOR INSTALLATION.

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. 5460-020P

TRUCK TYPE

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

TONS METRIC TONS TONS METRIC TONS

H 15 14 25 23

HS 27 24 45 41

TYPE 3 22 20 36 33

TYPE 3S2 34 31 57 52

TYPE 3-3 42 38 70 64

DESIGN LOADING: UNKNOWN (H15 ASSUMED - SEE REMARKS)

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: DESIGN LOADING ASSUMPTION IS BASED ON STRUCTURE TYPE, LOCATION, AGE, AND CONDITION.

STRUCTURE INVENTORY AND APPRAISAL STRUCTURE NO. 5460-020P

STRUCTURE IDENTIFICATION

(201) PARK: GREAT SMOKY MOUNTAINS NATIONAL PARK

(202) STRUCTURE NAME: .......... LAUREL CREEK BRIDGE #3

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

(204) STRUCTURE NUMBER: ..... 5460-020P

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

(206) ROUTE CODE NUMBER: ... 15

(207) ROAD SECTION NO: .......... 020P

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

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

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

(211) PROJECT NO(S):

(212) DRAWING NUMBERS: ....... NONE

(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

5460020P0000000

ADJACENT TO 5460-019P

99.99 FT (99.99 M)

3.11 (KM PT 5.01)

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:

2 - CONCRETE CONTINUOUS

01 - SLAB

21.5 FT (6.6 M)

45.6 FT (13.9 M)

2 - SPREAD FTG ON BEARING MAT'L

2 - SPREAD FTG ON BEARING MAT'L

2 - SPREAD FTG ON BEARING MAT'L

2 - SPREAD FTG ON BEARING MAT'L

1 - CONCRETE CAST-IN-PLACE

(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: .. 6 - BITUMINOUS

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

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

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

LOAD RATING AND POSTING

(31) DESIGN LOAD: ................. 0 - UNKNOWN (41) LOAD RESTRICTION: ......... A - OPEN, NO RESTRICTION

(66) INVENTORY RATING: ...... 27.0 TONS (24.0 METRIC TONS) (70) BRIDGE POSTING: .............. 5 - NO POSTING REQUIRED

(64) OPERATING RATING: ...... 45.0 TONS (40.8 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. 5460-020P

GEOMETRY, TRAFFIC, AND NAVIGATIONAL DATA

(16) LATITUDE: ............................. 35°37'59.90" (51) CURB TO CURB WIDTH: ........... 21.8 FT (6.6 M)

(17) LONGITUDE: ......................... 83°43'31.80" (52) DECK WIDTH: ............................ 48.8 FT (14.9 M)

(19) DETOUR LENGTH: ............... 50 MI (80 KM) (32) APPR. ROADWAY WIDTH: ........ 31.0 FT (9.4 M)

(28A) LANES ON STRUCT: .......... 02 (213) APPR. PAVEMENT WIDTH: ..... 21.0 FT (6.4 M)

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

(42A) SERVICE ON: ..................... 1 - HIGHWAY RIGHT SHOULDER: ................ 5.0 FT (1.5 M)

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

(29) AVG. DAILY TRAFFIC: .......... 3060 (34) SKEW ANGLE: ............................ 0 °

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

(114) FUTURE ADT: ..................... 3366 (47) TOTAL HORIZ. CLEARANCE: .... 48.8 FT (14.9 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: ......... 0 - N/A

(111) ABUT. OR PIER PROT: ....... MATERIAL: .............................. 0 - N/A

DESIGN TYPE: ........................ 0 - N/A

LATERAL UNDERCLEARANCE:

(55) RIGHT: ....................... 99.9 FT (99.9 M) (215) BRIDGE RAIL HEIGHT: ............ 0.00 FT (0.00 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:

(59) SUPERSTRUCTURE:

(60) SUBSTRUCTURE:

(61) CHANNEL:

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

(222) APPROACHES:

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

(36) TRAFFIC SAFETY FEAT: ... NNNN

(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

2 - REHAB/RECONSTRUCTION

D - MINOR

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

(230) STRUCTURE HISTORY:

(231) ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS:

(330) ADDITIONAL CONFIG. INFO.:

http:83�43'31.80 http:35�37'59.90

APPENDIX STRUCTURE NO. 5460-020P

PHOTOGRAPHS STRUCTURE NO. 5460-020P

PHOTO #1 - LOOKING NORTH TOWARD TOWNSEND WYE

FLOW

PHOTO #2 - WEST (UPSTREAM) SIDE

PHOTO #3 - GENERAL TOPSIDE VIEW LOOKING SOUTHEAST

PHOTO #4 - GENERAL UNDERSIDE VIEW OF NORTH SPAN LOOKING

WEST

PHOTO #5 - CONSTRUCTION JOINT WITH

LEAKAGE AT CENTERLINE OF NORTH SPAN

PHOTO #6 - SPALLS WITH EXPOSED REBAR

ON UNDERSIDE OF NORTH SPAN

PHOTO #7 - SPALLS WITH EXPOSED REBAR ON UNDERSIDE OF NORTH

SPAN

PHOTO #8 - SPALL WITH EXPOSED REBAR ON UNDERSIDE OF NORTH

SPAN

PHOTO #9 - CRACKING WITH

EFFLORESCENCE ON UNDERSIDE OF DECK IN

NORTH SPAN AT NORTHWEST CORNER

PHOTO #10 - TYPICAL EFFLORESCENCE ON

RING STONES, NORTH SPAN WEST SIDE

SHOWN

PHOTO #11 - GENERAL VIEW OF NORTH ABUTMENT

PHOTO #12 - PREVIOUSLY REPORTED EROSION AT NORTHEAST

WINGWALL APPEARS TO HAVE STABILIZED

PHOTO #13 - TREE AT NORTHEAST WINGWALL HAS BEEN CUT

PHOTO #14 - UPSTREAM CHANNEL

PHOTO #15 - DOWNSTREAM CHANNEL