Attachment_3_-_Englewood_Insp_Rpt_2016.pdf

Englewood Bridge South Dakota Field Office FAMS Location #: L2003526 Inspection Date: 9/12/2016

1 | P a g e

IDENTIFICATION PHOTOGRAPH

Looking Ahead on Line (Englewood Bridge is on the right)

General Bridge Description:

Forest Road 227 turns into Peterson Road and runs from south to north. The route is 0.3 miles long and Englewood Bridge lies 0.2 miles along Peterson Road just before the intersection with George S. Mickelson Trail.

Abutment 1 is located on the south side (left side looking downstream) and Abutment 2 is located on the north side (right side looking downstream). The deck of the bridge is comprised of transverse 3x12” timber planks with two longitudinal 3x12” running planks for each wheel track. Each railing consists of one 3x12” rail member on 5”x6” (actual dim.) timber posts with 5”x6” (actual dim.) timber braces on slope at each post. The superstructure consists of four stringers that consist of two 9” deep, side by side, W shapes. The W shape doesn’t seem to match any current standard W shape. There is a ½”x17” cover plate on both sides of the W shapes splicing them together. On the top of each beam, there is timber member connected to the top cover plate and the deck is connected to this member over each beam. The superstructure beams are labeled looking from Abutment 1 toward Abutment 2 with Beam 1 on the left (downstream side) and Beam 4 on the right (upstream side).

Abutment 1 consists of stacked solid sawn timber members supported by a concrete footing. The stem wall consists of three 10x10” timber members which bear on a concrete footing. Abutment 2 consists of three 6x8” timber members which bear on two larger timber beams that act as footings.

There is a temporary bridge located approximately 20’ downstream of Englewood Bridge. The temporary bridge is a US Forrest Service bridge that was installed to access a timber sale since Englewood Bridge did not have enough structural capacity. This bridge inspection only covered the Englewood Bridge and not the temporary USFS bridge. There are currently questions regarding the true ownership and responsibility of Englewood Bridge.

2 | P a g e

STRUCTURE INVENTORY AND APPRAISAL SHEET

*BRIDGE SPANS LESS THAN 20’ THEREFORE THE BRIDGE IS NOT REPORTED TO THE NBI. ALL ITEMS

DO NOT NEED TO BE POPULATED

Note: Use the NBI Coding Guide for reference. Enter all measurement in English Units. When applicable, describe NBI code that is entered (e.g. 01-Slab, 1-Highway, 5-Poor, etc). Items 67, 68, and 69 are automatically calculated by FHWA and do not need to be populated.

IDENTIFICATION

1.State 468- SD 8.Struc. # NA 2.Hwy District 7.Facility

Carried Peterson Road

3.County Code

081- Lawrence

9.Location 2 miles south of Lead, SD

6.Feature Intersected Whitewood Creek 5A.On/Under 5B.Rte Sign.

5C.Lvl. Serv. 5D.Rte. # 5E.Directional Suffix

98A.Border State Code

98B.Border % Respons ble

99.Border Bridge #

4.Place Code 11.Mile Post 0.2 mi.

16.Latitude 44.32040 17.Longitude -103.76880

STRUCTURE TYPE AND MATERIALS

46.# Approach Spans

0 45.# of Spans Main Unit

43A.Structure Material 3- steel 43B.Structure Type of Design 02- girder 44A.Approach Material 0- NA 44B.Approach Type of Design 00- NA 107.Deck Type 8- timber 108A.Wearing Surface 7- timber 108B.Type of Membrane 0- NA 108C.Deck Protection 0- NA

AGE AND SERVICE

27.Year Built unknown 106.Year

Reconstructed

42A.Type of Service on 1- highway 42B.Type of Service under 5- waterway 28A.Lanes on 01 28B.Lanes Under 00 19.Detour Length mi. 29.ADT 109.Truck ADT % 30.Year of ADT

GEOMETRIC DATA

48.Length Max Span

17.55 ft. 49.Structure Length 19.85 ft.

50A.Curb/Sidewalk Width Left

0 ft. 50B. Curb/Sidewalk Width Right

0 ft.

51.Width curb-curb 11.5 ft. 52.Width Out-Out 12.2ft.

47.Route Total Horizontal Clearance 11.6 ft.

32.Approach Roadway Width (w/ Shoulders) 11.6 ft.

33.Median 0- none 34.Skew 00 35.Structure Flared 0-no 10.Route Min. Vertical Clearance 53.Min. Vertical Clearance Over Bridge 54A.Min. Vertical Underclearance Reference 54B.Min. Vertical Underclearance 55A.Min. Lateral Underclearance Reference 55B.Min. Lateral Underclearance Right 56.Min. Lateral Underclearance Left

NAVIGATION DATA

38.Navigation Control Not required 39.Vertical Clearance

40.Horizontal Clearance

111.Pier Protection

116.Lift Bridge Vertical Clearance

INSPECTION

91.Frequency 24 mos. 90.Insp. Date 0916 92A.Fracture Critical Frequency

N 93A.Fracture Critical Date

92B.Under Water Frequency

N 93B.Under Water Date

92C.Special Inspection Freq.

N 93C.Special Inspection Date

CLASSIFICATION

12.Base Hwy Network

13B.Subroute #

13A.LRS Inventory Route 100.Defense Highway

101.Parallel Structure

N

102.Direction of Traffic

3- 1 lane both direc

103.Temporary Structure

104.Highway System

112.NBIS

Length

N

105.Federal Lands Hwy

110. National Truck Network

20.Toll Facility

3- free 26.Functional Class

37.Historical Significance 5- not eligible 22.Owner 68- BLM 21.Maintenance Respons bility 68- BLM

CONDITION

58.Deck 6 59.Super 5 60.Sub 3 62.Culvert N 61.Channel/Channel Protection 5

LOAD RATING AND POSTING

65.Inventory Rating Method

63.Operating Rating Method

66.Inventory Rating

64.Operating Rating

31.Design Load 70.Posting 41.Posting Status

APPRAISAL

36A.Bridge Rail 0 36B.Transition N 36C.Approach Rail

N 36D.Approach Rail Ends

N

71.Waterway Adequacy

6 72.Approach Alignment

113.Scour Critical 3-Scour Critical

PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS

94.Bridge Cost 95.Roadway Cost

76.Length of Improvement

96.Total Cost 114.Future

ADT

97.Year of Cost Estimate

115.Year of Future ADT

75A.Type of Work 75B.Work Done By

3 | P a g e

CRITICAL FINDINGS

Were any Critical Findings identified?: Yes If Yes, provide detailed explanation:

The substructure is at risk of failure due to undermining of both abutments from scour and instability in the timber stem wall cribbing. Additionally, there is substantial crushing of the timber bearing seat at Abutment 1 due to the advanced decay in the timber stem wall members.

FOLLOW-UP PLAN

If a Critical Finding was identified, what is the recommended Follow-Up Plan?:

This bridge is structurally deficient and at risk of failure. Englewood Bridge should be closed. There is a temporary US Forest Service bridge just downstream that the public could use. The closure of Englewood Bridge will require coordination with the USFS to determine if the bridge downstream can remain in place as a permanent installation.

The BLM needs to determine if there is a real need for the vehicular bridge. The road turns into George S.

Mickelson Trail beyond the bridge according to Google Earth. The bridge does provide access to a couple nearby residences but there appears to be an alternative route that provides access to that infrastructure.

STRUCTURE EVALUATION SUMMARY

The deck and superstructure remain in overall fair condition, but the substructure deterioration has progressed and was rated as serious condition. Undermining of both abutments has increased since the last inspection. There is now 1’ of scour under Abutment 1 and 0.5’ of scour under Abutment 2.

In addition, the top timber stem wall member at Abutment 1 is crushing under the load of the beams. This condition is progressing slowly, but remains a serious concern.

The stem walls of both abutments are also showing signs of instability. The timber crib members are gradually receding back. Normally the backfill soil behind the stem wall helps stabilize the movement however the soil has eroded from behind the stem walls.

The structural capacity of the superstructure is also questionable due to missing connections, rusting and pitting. The built-up girders were also found to be a third full of soil. There are holes in the sides of the built-up girders that have allowed soil to enter and get trapped inside of the girder. This condition increases the dead load of the structure and increases the rate of corrosion of the steel.

In summary, this bridge is in serious condition. In the short term, we recommend closing the bridge. In the long term, the BLM needs to determine ownership and responsibility of the bridge. If the bridge is determined to be BLM responsibility, the BLM needs to determine the best course of action; removing Englewood Bridge and making the temporary US Forest Service bridge a permanent bridge, replacing Englewood Bridge, or closing the route to all traffic. A rough estimate for the removal and replacement of Englewood Bridge including design and administrative fees is If the replacement option is chosen as the best course of action, then the NOC can prepare a more detailed cost estimate.

The NOC provides bridge inspection services upon request for bridges under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The bridge inspections services provided are in compliance with the National Bridge Inspection Standards (NBIS). As a minimum, any BLM owned, public vehicular structures having an overall length of 20 feet or greater should be inspected in accordance with the NBIS. Tunnels, trail bridges, major culverts and other significant structures may be inspected upon request.

4 | P a g e

FIELD INSPECTION REPORT

CONDITION RATING CODES FOR ITEMS 58 - 62

N NOT APPLICABLE

9 EXCELLENT CONDITION

8 VERY GOOD CONDITION - no problems noted.

7 GOOD CONDITION - some minor problems.

6 SATISFACTORY CONDITION - structural elements show some minor deterioration.

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

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

3 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.

2 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.

1 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.

0 FAILED CONDITION - out of service; beyond corrective ac ion.

CONDITION RATING CODE EQUIVALENTS FOR SUB-ELEMENTS

G = GOOD (CODES 7 - 9)

F = FAIR (CODES 5 - 6)

P = POOR (CODES 0 - 4)

58 Deck Condition 6‐Satisfactory

1. DECK SLAB F‐G Notes (w/item reference):

58.1 – Some rot and decay was found in the top of the deck boards. Plus, the deck is covered with 2 to 3” of soil between the running planks which increases decay.

58.3 – The running planks are deteriorating.

58.4 – The roadway approach at abutment 2 is 4” lower than the running planks on the bridge which causes a bump onto and off of the bridge. Also, a hole was found at the end of the deck at A2 which is causing soil to fall on to the bearing areas.

58.6 – There are some splits and checks in the railing. Railing is only 24” tall.

2. EXPANSION JOINTS N

3. WEARING SURFACE F

4. RIDEABILITY P

5. CURBS, SIDEWALK AND MEDIAN N

6. PARAPETS AND/OR RAILINGS F

7. DRAINS AND DRAINAGE N

8. UTILITIES N

9. DEFLECTION AND/OR VIBRATION G

10. OTHER

59 Superstructure Condition 5‐Fair

1. BEARING DEVICES N Notes (w/item reference):

59.1 – There are no bearing devices. The beams bear directly on the timber stem walls.

59.2 – The beams have very questionable capacity due to questionable built‐up beams with missing bolts as well as rusting and pitting. Plus, the built‐up girders are 1/3 full of soil which increases dead load and increases corrosion on the inside which cannot be inspected.

59.8 – There are some missing rivets in the built‐up members.

2. GIRDERS OR BEAMS P‐F

3. ARCHES OR SLABS N

4. FLOOR BEAMS AND STRINGERS N

5. TRUSSES N

6. DIAPHRAGMS AND BRACING N

7. PAINT N

8. CONNECTIONS/WELDS P‐F

9. DEFLECTION AND/OR VIBRATION G

10. ALIGNMENT G

11. OTHER

60 Substructure Condition 3‐Serious

Abutments Notes (w/item reference):

60.1 – The stacked timber stem wall members are unstable and losing backfill soil from behind. This has caused a void in the approach roadway. Also, the timber members show significant decay and deterioration.

60.3 – There is significant crushing occurring of the bearing seat at Abutment 1 due to the decay of the timber. The decay is so severe the timber can be scraped away like soil. The crushing is most severe under Beam 1.

60.5 – There is 1’ of undermining under A1 for a 2’ length and 0.5’ of undermining at A2. There was no scour under A1 in 2014 and 0.3’ of undermining at A2 so the scour is progressing.

1. BREASTWALLS OR COLUMNS P

2. PILE BENTS N

3. CAPS AND/OR BEARING SEATS P

4. BACKWALLS AND/OR BULKHEADS F

5. FOUNDATIONS P‐F

6. WINGWALLS F

7. WEEP HOLES N

8. EXPANSION JOINTS N

5 | P a g e

Substructure Condition, con’t.

9. EROSION AND/OR SCOUR P 60.9 – The repaired left embankment is well stabilized with boulders but there is still scour occurring under both abutments. 10. SETTLEMENT OR DEFLECTION P

11. SLOPE PROTECTION N

12. OTHER

Piers Notes (w/item reference):

NA 13. WALLS AND/OR COLUMNS

14. PILE BENTS

15. CAPS AND/OR BEARING SEATS

16. FOUNDATIONS

17. EROSION AND/OR SCOUR

18. SETTLEMENT OR DEFLECTION

19. OTHER

61 Channel and Channel Protection Condition 5‐Fair

1. ALIGNMENT F Notes (w/item reference):

61.1 –The thalweg of the channel is along A1 and there have been erosion concerns in this area, but the reinforced embankment is adequate.

61.5 – There is only 3.7’ of vertical clearance between channel bottom and the bottom of the beams (was 4.2’ in 2012, aggradation of 0.5’). Seems to have stabilized since the 2014 inspection.

2. EROSION AND/OR SCOUR F

3. CHANNEL PROTECTION F

4. WATERWAY OBSTRUCTIONS F

5. ADEQUACY OF OPENING P

6. STREAMBED COMPOSITION G

7. OTHER

62 Culverts NA

1. BARREL(S) Notes (w/item reference):

2. FOOTINGS

3. HEADWALLS

4. WINGWALLS

5. DEBRIS AND/OR SILT

6. EROSION AND/OR SCOUR

7. SETTLEMENT AND/OR

DEFLECTION

8. ADEQUACY OF COVER

9. PARAPETS AND/OR RAILINGS

10. ROADWAY SURFACE

11. RIDEABILITY

12. OTHER

ASSESSMENT

71 Waterway Adequacy 6

72 Approach Roadway Alignment (3, 6 or 8) 3

113 Scour Critical Bridges (0‐9, T, U, N) 3

36A Safety Features – Railing (0‐Doesn’t meet Standards, 1‐Meets Standards, N‐NA) 0

36B Safety Features – Transitions Railing (0‐Doesn’t meet Standards, 1‐Meets Standards, N‐NA) N

36C Safety Features – Approach Railing (0‐Doesn’t meet Standards, 1‐Meets Standards, N‐NA) N

36D Safety Features – Terminal Railing (0‐Doesn’t meet Standards, 1‐Meets Standards, N‐NA) N

6 | P a g e

STRUCTURE LOAD RATING

Truck Type Inventory Rating Operating Rating

HL-93

Type 3 Type 3S2 Type 3-3 Design Loading Level:

Place X next to appropriate load rating description:

Original Design Load Valid Original Design Load Not Valid Original Load Rating Calculation Valid Original Load Rating Calculation Revise Date of Load Rating Calculation:

Load Rating Controlled By:

*Note* - If the Rating Factor (RF) for the HL-93 loading is > 1.00, then the legal loads (3, 3S2, 3-3) do not need to be calculated.

Load Rating Remarks:

Englewood Bridge is not reported to the NBI. No load rating has been performed.

Detailed Deficiency Descriptions:

The running planks are in fair condition because of damage caused by weathering and abrasion. Splits, checks, and brooming at the ends of the planks were found.

The deck planks are in fair condition with some splits and checks caused by weathering. Random spot checks of the deck planks revealed some decay and soft wood in some planks. There is a buildup of sandy gravel on the deck surface measuring 2 to 3” deep.

The railing is in fair condition with some splitting and checking. The railing height is 24” and is inadequate for vehicular collisions.

The approach roadway signs that were identified in 2012 were removed prior to the 2014 inspection.

There is a sharp curve onto the bridge so the approach roadway rating was reduced to a 3.

The steel superstructure is very questionable. It is apparent that the built-up beams were put together using random steel scrap metal. The cover plates are missing bolts and there is general rusting and pitting in the steel. The steel beams and cover plates show rusting and pitting with minimal section loss (0.05” section loss).

The cover plates connecting the steel stringers are bolted to each flange every 6” (there are four bolts in the top cover plate every 6” and four bolts in the bottom cover plate every 6”). Many of these bolts are missing.

Between 2010 and 2012, the upstream left embankment was repaired and reinforced using large boulders. There is 1’ of undermining under A1 for a 2’ length and 0.5’ of undermining at A2. There was no scour under A1 in 2014 and 0.3’ of undermining at A2 so the scour is progressing. The bridge is considered scour critical. The width of the footing is unknown.

Both abutments have very questionable stability. The timber stem wall members are no longer stacked vertically and out of plumb. The top timber member exhibits crushing damage in multiple locations under each beam, instigated by the advanced rot and decay in the timber members. The timber stem wall at Abutment 2 has a visible void behind the ends of the members. Also, there is no concrete footing at Abutment 2 and the larger timber footings are being undermined by scour.

The hydraulic capacity is limited with only 3.7’ of vertical clearance from the streambed to the bottom of the beams on the upstream side. This measurement was 4.2’ in 2012 which indicates about 0.5’ of aggradation has occurred between 2012 and 2014. Streambed elevation has stabilized since 2014.

The stream was flowing during the inspection had a water depth of 7”.

7 | P a g e

RECOMMENDED WORK AND ESTIMATED COSTS

ESTIMATED REMAINING LIFE (YEARS)? < 5 years (At current load limits without major repairs or rehabilitation.)

IMPROVEMENTS RECOMMENDED? Yes

PURPOSE OF RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENT? 2

1 - Maintenance 2 - Rehabilitation and/or Reconstruction 3 – Construction

PRIORITY OF IMPROVEMENT? B

A - Structure is closed, in imminent danger of collapse, presents a critical safety hazard, or meets all three of the following criteria:

1) Has a severe structural inadequacy; 2) Has a high traffic volume; 3) Is of vital importance to the community or area.

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

C - Structure is deficient, functionally obsolete, or requires a high degree of maintenance.

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

E - Structure is under construction or reconstruction.

REF.

NO.

ITEM

NO.

RECOMMENDATIONS

ESTIMATED COSTS

MAINT.

REHAB.

CONSTR.

Replace Bridge

TOTAL ESTIMATED COSTS:

Costs estimated above are for labor and materials only, and do not reflect additional costs associated with a construction contract, including equipment mobilization, traffic control, contract administration, roadway related construction, and overhead.

COST ESTIMATES

is the rough estimate for removal and replacement of the bridge including design and administrative costs. A more detailed cost estimate can be provided if requested.

8 | P a g e

ADDITIONAL PHOTOGRAPHS

Caption 1: Heavy decay in the bearing seat on the downstream side of A1. The top timber stem wall member is crushing under the load of the bridge.

Caption 2: Instability of the timber stem wall on the downstream side of A2.

Caption 3: Instability of A1 on the downstream side.

Timber stem wall members are no longer plumb.

Caption 4: Void behind the backwall on the upstream side of A1 due to loss of soil through the unstable crib members.

9 | P a g e

ADDITIONAL PHOTOGRAPHS

Caption 5: 1’ of lateral undermining of A1. No undermining in 2014 indicates scour is progressing.

Caption 6: 0.5’ of lateral undermining occurring under timber footing at A2. A2 footing was undermined 0.3’ in 2014.

Caption 7: Heavy soil accumulation of the deck instigates additional decay.

Caption 8: Girders exhibit substantial corrosion but minimal section loss. Some of the members are missing bolts or rivets.