5570-101P-2022.pdf
PDF 4 MB Posted
- Solicitation number
- 693C73-24-R-000004
About this file
This bridge inspection report details the condition of Bridge #2 over Middle Byway Creek on the Natchez Trace Parkway in Mississippi. The 32-foot long concrete slab bridge was last inspected on March 10, 2022 and found to have minor deficiencies. Recommended repairs include replacing expansion joint material in railings, repairing erosion at piers and abutments with riprap, and cleaning and sealing exposed rebar on the north pier. Estimated rehabilitation costs range from $60,000 to $80,000. The related federal contract opportunity is for drainage improvements along the Natchez Trace Parkway and represents an opportunity for contractors to bid on repairing the deficiencies identified in this bridge inspection report.
View the file
Other files
Show 40 more
Latest 50 of 59 listed here. See the rest on GovTribe.
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
BRIDGE INSPECTION REPORT
MIDDLE BYWAY CREEK BRIDGE #2
NATCHEZ TRACE PARKWAY OVER MIDDLE BYWAY CREEK
NATCHEZ TRACE PARKWAY
LS
STRUCTURE NO. 5570-101P
INSPECTION TYPE: ROUTINE
INSPECTION DATE: 3/10/2022
WD
Report prepared by:
Federal Highway Administration Federal Lands Bridge Office Bridge Inspection and Management Program 21400 Ridgetop Circle Sterling, Virginia 20166 https://bridge.flhd.fhwa.dot.gov
MILE POINT: 193.80
KILOMETER POINT: 59.07
RECOMMENDATIONS AND ESTIMATED COSTS STRUCTURE NO. 5570-101P
MIDDLE BYWAY CREEK BRIDGE #2 INSPECTION DATE : 03/10/2022
226 PRIORITY OF IMPROVEMENT D
A (Critical) - Structure is closed, in immediate damage of collapse, or presents a critical safety danger.
B (Major) - Structure is seriously deficient or presents a safety hazard, but can remain open 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. Preventive maintenance may be required.
E (Special) - Structure is under construction or reconstruction.
Item No.
Maintenance Recommendations
(GENERALLY NOT FLHP ELIGIBLE)
QTY. UNIT UNIT
COST
PRELIM.
COST
ESTIMATE
222.5
FILL EROSION HOLE AT NORTH END OF EAST PARAPET.
60.19
REMOVE TREES FROM PIER ENDS.
PRELIM. MAINTENANCE TOTAL :
Item REHABILITATION/RECONSTRUCTION
UNIT
UNIT PRELIM. COST ESTIMATES
No. (TYPICALLY NEEDED WITHIN 5 YEARS)
QTY. COST
REHAB RECONSTR
58.2,58.6 REPLACE EXPANSION JOINT MATERIAL IN
RAILINGS.
60.9,60.
REPAIR EROSION AT PIERS AND ABUTMENTS
WITH ENGINEERED RIPRAP.
60.13 CLEAN AND SEAL EXPOSED REBAR ON NORTH
PIER WITH APPROVED PROTECTIVE COATING
AND PATCH SPALLS.
CONTRACT COSTS FOR MOBILIZATION,
TRAFFIC CONTROL, AND CONTINGENCIES.
PRELIM. REHABILITATION/RECONSTRUCTION TOTAL :
RECOMMENDATIONS AND ESTIMATED COSTS STRUCTURE NO. 5570-101P
MIDDLE BYWAY CREEK BRIDGE #2 INSPECTION DATE : 03/10/2022
226 PRIORITY OF IMPROVEMENT D
A (Critical) - Structure is closed, in immediate damage of collapse, or presents a critical safety danger.
B (Major) - Structure is seriously deficient or presents a safety hazard, but can remain open 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. Preventive maintenance may be required.
E (Special) - Structure is under construction or reconstruction.
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 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.
58.3 MINOR LONGITUDINAL CRACKS OVER STRUCTURE IN NORTHBOUND AND SOUTHBOUND LANES. MINOR FULL LENGTH LONGITUDINAL CRACK IN CENTERLINE OVER STRUCTURE AND AT APPROACHES. MINOR LANE WIDTH TRANSVERSE CRACKS AT
222.4 APPROACHES.
STRUCTURE LOAD RATING STRUCTURE NO. 5570-101P
MIDDLE BYWAY CREEK BRIDGE #2 INSPECTION DATE: 03/09/2022
TRUCK TYPE
INVENTORY RATING (NORMAL TRAFFIC) OPERATING RATING (MAXIMUM LOAD)
TONS METRIC TONS TONS METRIC TONS
H 17 15 28 25
HS 29 26 48 44
TYPE 3 25 23 42 38
TYPE 3S2 30 27 50 45
TYPE 3-3 38 34 63 57
DESIGN LOADING: 2 - H 15
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: 06/30/2015
LOAD RATING CONTROLLED BY: TOP SLAB - MOMENT
REMARKS: SEE BRIDGE FILE FOR LOAD RATING CALCULATIONS.
STRUCTURE INVENTORY AND APPRAISAL STRUCTURE NO. 5570-101P
STRUCTURE IDENTIFICATION
(201) PARK: NATCHEZ TRACE PARKWAY
(202) STRUCTURE NAME:..............MIDDLE BYWAY CREEK BRIDGE #2
(203) STRUCTURE KIND:............... 1 - BRIDGE
(204) STRUCTURE NUMBER:.........5570-101 P
4 - SOUTHEAST(205) NPS REGION:
(206) ROUTE CODE NUMBER:
(207) ROAD SECTION NO:
(208) NPS ROAD CLASS:............... 1 - PRINCIPAL PARK ROAD
(209) WITHIN NPS BNDRY?:.......... Yes
(210) OPERATING UNIT:.................DANCY
(211) PROJECT NO(S):................... 3H8
(212) DRAWING NUMBERS:...........2354A
(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) HISTORIC DESIGNATION:
284 - MISSISSIPPI
28019 CHOCTAW
00000
1 6 1 00001 0
MIDDLE BYWAY CREEK
NATCHEZ TRACE PARKWAY
5570101P0000000
1.7 MILES SOUTH OF MS ROUTE 9
99.99 FT ( 99.99 M)
193.8 (KM PT: 59.07)
3 - ON FREE ROAD
5 - NOT ELIGIBLE
STRUCTURE DESCRIPTION, FOUNDATION, AND DECK TYPE
(43A) MAIN STR. MATERIAL:..........2 - CONCRETE CONTINUOUS (44A) APPR. STR. MATERIAL:............ 0 - Other
(43B) MAIN STR. TYPE:.................. 01 - SLAB (44B) APPR. STR. TYPE:.................... 00 - OTHER
(45) NO. OF MAIN SPANS:..............003 (46) NO OF APPROACH SPANS:
(48) MAX. SPAN LENGTH:..............32 FT ( 9.8 M)
(49) STRUCTURE LENGTH:........... 87.0 FT ( 26.5 M) (108) WEAR SURFACE/PROTECT SYSTEM:
(216A) ABUTMENT #1 FDN:........... 3 - SPREAD FOOTING ON PILES A) TYPE WEARING SURFACE:.. 6 - BITUMINOUS
(216B) ABUTMENT #2 FDN:........... 3 - SPREAD FOOTING ON PILES B) TYPE MEMBRANE:................. 0 - NONE
(217A) PREDOM. PIER FDN:.......... 3 - SPREAD FOOTING ON PILES C) TYPE PROTECTION:.............. 0 - NONE
(217B) SECOND. PIER FDN:.......... 3 - SPREAD FOOTING ON PILES (218) IS SALT USED?.......................... NO
(107) DECK TYPE:.......................... 1 - CONCRETE CAST-IN-PLACE
LOAD RATING AND POSTING
(31) DESIGN LOAD:.........................2 - H 15 (41) LOAD RESTRICTION:.................. R - POSTED FOR OTHER LOAD-
CAPACITY RESTRICTION
(66) INVENTORY RATING:..............29 TONS ( 26.3 METRIC TONS) (70) BRIDGE POSTING:...................... 5 - EQUAL TO OR ABOVE LEGAL
LOADS
(64) OPERATING RATING:..............48 TONS ( 43.5 METRIC TONS)
INSPECTION DATES
(90) INSPECTION DATE: 03/10/2022 (91) FREQ. OF INSP: 48 MONTHS (92 / 93) CRITICAL FEATURE INSPECTION (CFI):
(219) ADD. STUDIES NEEDED: N - 0 - NONE (A) FRACTURE CRITICAL:.......... N
(220) SPECIAL STUDY TYPE: 0 - NONE INSP. EVERY MONTHS - LAST INSP:
(221) SPECIAL STUDY DATE: (B) UNDERWATER:..................... N
INSP. EVERY MONTHS - LAST INSP:
(C) SPECIAL INSPECTION:........ N
INSP. EVERY MONTHS - LAST INSP:
STRUCTURE INVENTORY AND APPRAISAL STRUCTURE NO. 5570-101P
GEOMETRY, TRAFFIC, AND NAVIGATIONAL DATA
(16) LATITUDE:................................ 33° 25'26 20" (51) CURB TO CURB WIDTH:............ 28.0 FT ( 8.5 M)
(17) LONGITUDE:............................ 89°15 '46 30" (52) DECK WIDTH:.......................... 32.3 FT ( 9.8 M)
(19) DETOUR LENGTH:.................. 25 MI ( 40 KM) (32) APPR. ROADWAY WIDTH:...... 32.0 FT ( 9.8 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:.......... 5 0 FT ( 1.5 M)
(42B) SERVICE UNDER:................. 5 - WATERWAY (33) BRIDGE MEDIAN:.................... 0 - NO MEDIAN
(29) AVG DAILY TRAFFIC:..............1230 (34) SKEW ANGLE:......................... 0 °
(30) YEAR OF ADT:......................... 2012 (35) STRUCTURE FLARED:............ 0 - NO FLARE
(114) FUTURE ADT:.........................1353 (47) TOTAL HORIZ. CLEARANCE:.. 28 FT ( 8.5 M)
(115) YEAR OF FUTURE ADT:........2032 (50) SIDEWALKS
(101) PARALLEL STRUCTURE:......N - NO PARALLEL STRUCTURE LEFT:.................................... 0 0 FT ( 0 M)
(38) NAVIGATION CONTROL:.........0 - NO NAVIGATION CONTROL ON RIGHT:.................................. 0 0 FT ( 0 M)
WATERWAY (BRIDGE PERMIT NOT
REQUIRED)
(39) VERTICAL CLEARANCE:.........0 FT ( 0 M) (214) BRIDGE RAIL TYPE
1 - FULL HEIGHT (NO PARAPET)(40) HORIZ. CLEARANCE:..............0 FT ( 0 M) RAIL CONFIGURATION:
(111) ABUT OR PIER PROT:........... MATERIAL:........................... 1 - CONCRETE
LATERAL UNDERCLEARANCE: DESIGN TYPE:..................... 1 - CONTINUOUS RAIL
(55) RIGHT:...............................00 FT ( 0 M) (215) BRIDGE RAIL HEIGHT:.......... 2 50 FT ( 0.76 M)
(56) LEFT:................................ 0 FT ( 0 M) (53) MIN. VRT. CLR. OVER DECK: 99.99 FT ( 99.99 M)
(54) MIN. VRT. UNDRCLRANCE:... .00 FT ( 0 M)
CONDITION AND APPRAISAL DATA, PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS, AND COST
(58) DECK:....................................... 6 (67) STRUCTURAL EVALUATION:
(59) SUPERSTRUCTURE:...............6 (68) DECK GEOMETRY:
(60) SUBSTRUCTURE:.......... 7 (69) UNDERCLEARANCES:................ N
(61) CHANNEL:................................6 (71) WATERWAY ADEQUACY:
(62) CULVERT:.................................N (72) APPROACH ALIGNMENT:
(222) APPROACHES:...................... 7 (113) SCOUR CRITICAL:.................... 5 - SCOUR WITHIN LIMITS OF
FOOTING OR PILES
(223) RETAINING WALL:.................N (225) PURPOSE OF IMPROVEMENT: 2 - REHAB/RECONSTRUCTION
(36) TRAFFIC SAFETY FEAT: 1 N N N (226) PRIORITY OF IMPROVEMENT: D - MINOR
(75A) TYPE OF WORK:................... (227) MAINTENANCE COST:
(75B) WORK DONE BY:.................. (228) REHAB / RECNSTR COST:
(76) IMPROVEMENT LENGTH:....... FT ( 0 M) (229) CONSTRUCTION COST:
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
(230) STRUCTURE HISTORY:
1982-JOINT REPAIR. 2007-NEW PAVEMENT. 2012 - ROADWAY CURRENTLY BEING RESURFACED.
(231) ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS:
(330) ADDITIONAL CONFIGURATION INFORMATION:
Inspector: Killian Baptiste Structure Number: 5570101P0000000
Inspection Date: 03/10/2022 Facility Carried: NATCHEZ TRACE PAR
Bridge Inspection Report
Pictures
PHOTO 3
Description LOOKING NORTH TOWARD TUPELO
PHOTO 4
Description EAST (UPSTREAM) SIDE
Bridge Inspection Report
Pictures
PHOTO 5
Description GENERAL TOPSIDE VIEW LOOKING NORTH
PHOTO 6
Description GENERAL UNDERSIDE VIEW OF SOUTH SPAN LOOKING SOUTH
Bridge Inspection Report
Pictures
PHOTO 7
Description GENERAL UNDERSIDE VIEW OF CENTER SPAN LOOKING NORTH
PHOTO 8
Description GENERAL UNDERSIDE VIEW OF NORTH SPAN LOOKING NORTH
Bridge Inspection Report
Pictures
PHOTO 9
Description TYPICAL MISSING FILLER MATERIAL IN RAILING EXPANSION JOINT, EAST RAILING OVER
SOUTH ABUTMENT SHOWN
PHOTO 10
Description TYPICAL CRACKING WITH EFFLORESCENCE ON WEST CURB NEAR NORTH PIER SHOWN
Bridge Inspection Report
Pictures
PHOTO 11
Description TYPICAL TRANSVERSE CRACKING OF RAILINGS, WEST RAILING NEAR NORTH PIER
SHOWN
PHOTO 12
Description TYPICAL LONGITUDINAL CRACKING OF WEARING SURFACE
Bridge Inspection Report
Pictures
PHOTO 13
Description LONGITUDINAL CRACKING WITH EFFLORESCENCE OF DECK UNDERSIDE ON WEST SIDE
OF SOUTH SPAN
PHOTO 14
Description TYPICAL FULL WIDTH CRACKS UNDERSIDE OF RAILINGS
Bridge Inspection Report
Pictures
PHOTO 15
Description DIAGONAL AND LONGITUDINAL CRACKS WITH EFFLORESCENCE ON WEST END OF
CENTER SPAN
PHOTO 16
Description TYPICAL DIAGONAL CRACKS WITH EFFLORESCENCE AT CORNERS OF CENTER SPAN
Bridge Inspection Report
Pictures
PHOTO 17
Description TYPICAL SCALING AROUND SCUPPERS IN NORTH SPAN
PHOTO 18
Description EROSION ON WEST END OF NORTH ABUTMENT
Bridge Inspection Report
Pictures
PHOTO 19
Description GENERAL VIEW OF SOUTH FACE OF NORTH PIER
PHOTO 20
Description SPALLS WITH EXPOSED REBAR ON WEST FACE OF NORTH PIER
Bridge Inspection Report
Pictures
PHOTO 21
Description GENERAL VIEW OF NORTH FACE OF SOUTH PIER
PHOTO 22
Description TYPICAL VERTICAL CRACKS IN PIER, NORTH FACE OF SOUTH PIER NEAR CENTERLINE
SHOWN
Bridge Inspection Report
Pictures
PHOTO 23
Description EROSION AT EAST SIDE OF SOUTH PIER
PHOTO 24
Description GENERAL VIEW OF SOUTH ABUTMENT; NOTE EROSION CHANNEL
Bridge Inspection Report
Pictures
PHOTO 25
Description TYPICAL EDGE SPALLING AT ENDS OF DECK, SOUTHWEST CORNER SHOWN
PHOTO 26
Description EROSION HOLE AT NORTH END OF EAST PARAPET; NOTE UNDERMINING PRESENT
Bridge Inspection Report
Pictures
PHOTO 27
Description LOOKING UPSTREAM FROM DECK
PHOTO 28
Description LOOKING DOWNSTREAM FROM DECK
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .