Bridge_Inspection_Report_5460-025P_Laurel_Culvert__3.pdf

CULVERT INSPECTION REPORT

LAUREL CREEK CULVERT #3

LAUREL CREEK ROAD OVER LAUREL CREEK

GREAT SMOKY MOUNTAINS NATIONAL PARK

LN

STRUCTURE NO. 5460-025P

INSPECTION TYPE: ROUTINE

INSPECTION DATE: 5/10/14

Report prepared by: WU

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. 5460-025P

LAUREL CREEK CULVERT #3 INSPECTION DATE: 5/10/14

CULVERT IDENTIFICATION AND DESCRIPTION

MAIN SPAN MATERIAL: ........ CONCRETE NO. OF BARRELS:

FOUNDATION: ....................... SILL BARREL LENGTH: ............... 45 FT (14 M)

STRUCT. TOTAL LENGTH: ... 20.0 FT (6.1 M) SKEW ANGLE: ..................... 0 °

MAX. SPAN LENGTH: ............ 20.0 FT (6.1 M) YEAR BUILT:

PROJ./PLAN REF. NO: .......... 000000000000 / NONE YEAR RECONSTRUCTED: .. N/A

NPS ROAD CLASS: ............... 1 - PRINCIPAL PARK ROAD

STRUCTURE HISTORY: ....... 2005-WEARING SURFACE REPAVED.

LOCATION

GREAT SMOKY MOUNTAINS NATIONAL PARK MILE POINT: ..................... 5.37 (KM PT 8.64)

STATE: .................................. TENNESSEE LOCATION: 2.6 MI TO N.P.S. ROUTE 50

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

FEATURE INTERSECTED: ... LAUREL CREEK

STRUCTURE EVALUATION SUMMARY

This single cell concrete culvert is in fair condition. Problems include vegetation growth and deterioration of the mortar joints of the headwalls, scour with undermining along the west side of the north channel bank and exposed rebar on the slab underside. Other problems include soil accumulation on the west side of the barrel, and a lack of headwall markers. 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. 5460-025P

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.

62.3 REMOVE VEGETATION FROM HEADWALLS AND REPOINT DETERIORATED

MORTAR JOINTS AS NEEDED.

40 LF

61.2 REPAIR SCOUR AND UNDERMINING ALONG WEST SIDE OF NORTH CHANNEL

BANK WITH ENGINEERED RIPRAP.

10 CY

62.6 REPAIR SCOUR ALONG WEST SIDE OF NORTH END WALL WITH ENGINEERED

RIPRAP.

3 CY

62.1 CLEAN AND SEAL EXPOSED REBAR ON SLAB UNDERSIDE WITH APPROVED

PROTECTIVE SEALANT.

1 LS

61.1 REMOVE SOIL ACCUMULATION ON WEST SIDE TO REDIRECT FLOW AWAY FROM

NORTH END WALL.

1 LS

222.7 INSTALL HEADWALL MARKERS. 2 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.

160 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. 5460-025P

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

N

NOT APPLICABLE

EXCELLENT CONDITION

VERY GOOD CONDITION - no problems noted.

GOOD CONDITION - some minor problems.

SATISFACTORY CONDITION - structural elements show some minor deterioration.

FAIR CONDITION - all primary structural elements are sound but may have minor section loss, cracking, spalling, or scour.

POOR CONDITION - advanced section loss, deterioration, spalling, or scour.

SERIOUS CONDITION - loss of section, deterioration, spalling, or scour have seriously affected primary structural components. Local failures are possible.

Fatigue cracks in steel or shear cracks in concrete may be present.

CRITICAL CONDITION - advanced deterioration of primary structural elements. Fatigue cracks in steel or shear cracks in concrete may be present or scour may have removed substructure support. Unless closely monitored it may be necessary to close the structure until corrective action can be taken.

“IMMINENT” FAILURE CONDITION - major deterioration or section loss present in critical structural components or obvious vertical or horizontal movement affecting structure stability. Structure is closed to traffic but corrective action may return structure to light service.

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)

STREAM BED COMPOSITION : 9.

AVG. CLEAR OPENING 8.

NORMAL VELOCITY 7.

ADEQUACY OF OPENING 6.

OTHER 5.

WATERWAY OBSTRUCTIONS 4.

CHANNEL PROTECTION3.

EROSION AND/OR SCOUR2.

ALIGNMENT1.

61. CHANNEL 5

F F F F

8 FT.

MED

SUFF

N

ITEM REFERENCE AND REMARKS

62. CULVERT 6

PARAPETS AND/OR RAILINGS9.

ADEQUACY OF COVER8.

SETTLEMENT AND/OR DEFLECTION7.

EROSION AND/OR SCOUR6.

DEBRIS AND/OR SILT 5.

WINGWALLS4.

3. HEADWALLS

FOOTINGS2.

BARREL(S)1.

ROADWAY SURFACE10.

11. RIDEABILITY

OTHER 12.

F N F G F F G G N G G N

222. APPROACHES 7

OTHER 9.

ALIGNMENT 8.

SIGNS7.

SETTLEMENT 6.

EROSION5.

SURFACING4.

APPROACH GUARDRAIL 3.

RELIEF JOINTS2.

APPROACH SLABS1.

(PAVEMENT MARKINGS)

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 GUARDRAILS C.

TRANSITIONSB.

A. BRIDGE RAILINGS

APPROACH GUARDRAIL ENDSD.

N N N N

STONES, SILT

61.1,4 MODERATE SEDIMENT ACCUMULATION ON WEST SIDE OF

CULVERT DUE TO NORTHWARD MIGRATION OF CHANNEL. STREAM

FLOW DIRECTED AGAINST WEST SIDE OF NORTH SIDEWALL AND

EAST SIDE OF SOUTH SIDEWALL.

61.2 MINOR EMBANKMENT EROSION ADJACENT TO SOUTHEAST

WINGWALL ON EAST SIDE OF CULVERT. MODERATE EMBANKMENT

EROSION AT NORTHWEST CORNER, WITH UP TO 2' OF

UNDERMINING OF CHANNEL BANK.

61.2,3 EROSION AND LOSS OF RIPRAP AT NORTHWEST CORNER OF

STRUCTURE.

61.4 LARGE FALLEN TREE ACROSS UPSTREAM CHANNEL

APPROXIMATELY 50' FROM STRUCTURE.

62.1 EXPOSED REBAR DUE TO INSUFFICIENT CONCRETE COVER IN

UNDERSIDE OF BARREL AT WEST SIDE NEAR SOUTH SIDEWALL.

MODERATE LONGITUDINAL CRACKING WITH EFFLORESCENCE AND

LEAKAGE ON UNDERSIDE OF TOP SLAB AT ONE-THIRD POINTS.

62.3 MODERATE DETERIORATION OF HEADWALL MASONRY MORTAR

JOINTS WITH VEGETATION GROWTH PRESENT. HEAVY

EFFLORESCENCE ON FASCIA RING STONES. MODERATE

EFFLORESCENCE ON ENDS OF BARREL WALLS AND ISOLATED

LOCATIONS THROUGHOUT. MODERATE HORIZONTAL CRACKING

WITH EFFLORESCENCE ON EAST HEADWALL ALONG MORTAR

JOINT.

62.5 MINOR ACCUMULATION OF SILT, GRAVEL, AND STONES IN BARREL.

TRAFFIC SAFETY RATING CODES

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

1 - Meets currently acceptable standards.

N - Not applicable or a safety feature is not required. 3 OF 17

FIELD INSPECTION REPORT STRUCTURE NO. 5460-025P

ADDITIONAL ITEM REFERENCE AND REMARKS

62.6 SCOUR UP TO 2' DEEP ALONG WEST SIDE OF NORTH END WALL.

222.4 ASPHALT APPROACH PAVEMENT IN GOOD CONDITION.

222.9 DETERIORATED PAVEMENT MARKINGS.

STRUCTURE LOAD RATING STRUCTURE NO. 5460-025P

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 71 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. 5460-025P

STRUCTURE IDENTIFICATION

(201) PARK: GREAT SMOKY MOUNTAINS NATIONAL PARK

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

(203) STRUCTURE KIND: ............ 2 - CULVERT

(204) STRUCTURE NUMBER: ..... 5460-025P

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

(206) ROUTE CODE NUMBER: ... 15

(207) ROAD SECTION NO: .......... 025P

(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

5460025P0000000

2.6 MI TO N.P.S. ROUTE 50

99.99 FT (99.99 M)

5.37 (KM PT 8.64)

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

19 - CULVERT

20.0 FT (6.1 M)

20.0 FT (6.1 M)

1 - SILL

1 - SILL

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: ................. N - NOT APPLICABLE

C) TYPE PROTECTION: .............. N - NOT APPLICABLE

(218) IS SALT USED?: ..................... NO

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. 5460-025P

GEOMETRY, TRAFFIC, AND NAVIGATIONAL DATA

(16) LATITUDE: ............................. 35°36'41.40" (51) CURB TO CURB WIDTH: ........... 0.0 FT (0.0 M)

(17) LONGITUDE: ......................... 83°44'43.50" (52) DECK WIDTH: ............................ 0.0 FT (0.0 M)

(19) DETOUR LENGTH: ............... 50 MI (80 KM) (32) APPR. ROADWAY WIDTH: ........ 20.0 FT (6.1 M)

(28A) LANES ON STRUCT: .......... 02 (213) APPR. PAVEMENT WIDTH: ..... 20.0 FT (6.1 M)

(28B) LANES UNDER STRUCT: ... 00 LEFT SHOULDER: .................. 4.0 FT (1.2 M)

(42A) SERVICE ON: ..................... 1 - HIGHWAY RIGHT SHOULDER: ................ 4.0 FT (1.2 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: .... 45.0 FT (13.7 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: ................................. N

(59) SUPERSTRUCTURE: ......... N

(60) SUBSTRUCTURE: .............. N

(61) CHANNEL:

(62) CULVERT:

(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:

2005-WEARING SURFACE REPAVED.

(231) ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS:

(330) ADDITIONAL CONFIG. INFO.:

http:83�44'43.50 http:35�36'41.40

APPENDIX STRUCTURE NO. 5460-025P

PHOTOGRAPHS STRUCTURE NO. 5460-025P

PHOTO #1 - LOOKING SOUTH

FLOW

PHOTO #2 - EAST (DOWNSTREAM) SIDE

PHOTO #3 - GENERAL TOPSIDE VIEW LOOKING NORTH

PHOTO #4 - GENERAL UNDERSIDE VIEW LOOKING EAST

PHOTO #5 - CRACKING WITH

EFFLORESCENCE ON UNDERSIDE OF TOP

SLAB OF BARREL

PHOTO #6 - EFFLORESCENCE ON RING

STONES, EAST SIDE

PHOTO #7 - GENERAL VIEW OF EXPOSED REBAR ON SLAB UNDERSIDE

AT WEST HEADWALL, SOUTH END

PHOTO #8 - EXPOSED REBAR ON UNDERSIDE OF SLAB AT HEADWALL

ON WEST SIDE, SOUTH END

PHOTO #9 - TYPICAL DETERIORATION OF MORTAR JOINTS AND

VEGETATION GROWTH ON HEADWALLS, WEST SIDE SHOWN

PHOTO #10 - TYPICAL DETERIORATION OF MASONRY MORTAR JOINTS

AND VEGETATION GROWTH ALONG HEADWALLS, EAST SIDE SHOWN

PHOTO #11 - GENERAL VIEW OF NORTH SIDEWALL; NOTE

EFFLORESCENCE

PHOTO #12 - EFFLORESCENCE ALONG SIDE WALLS, WEST SIDE OF

SOUTH SIDEWALL

PHOTO #13 - UNDERMINING ALONG WEST SIDE OF NORTH CHANNEL

BANK

PHOTO #14 - SLOUGHING ALONG WEST SIDE OF NORTH CHANNEL

PHOTO #15 - SLOUGHING ALONG WEST SIDE OF NORTH CHANNEL

PHOTO #16 - LOOKING UPSTREAM THROUGH STRUCTURE

PHOTO #17 - LOOKING DOWNSTREAM THROUGH STRUCTURE