FY13_Kaweah_Flume_Bridge_Inspection_Report.pdf

Kaweah Flume Bridge Bakersfield Field Office FAMS Location #: L59109 Inspection Date: 9/12/2013

1 | P a g e

IDENTIFICATION PHOTOGRAPH

Elevation view looking down flume

General Bridge Description:

The bridge does not appear to lie within the path between the beginning and end latitude and longitude for the route designated as the parent of the bridge in FAMS. RCA labels the road the bridge is on as 16026: Cinnamon Gap/ Chase Mt/ Oak Grove which appears to start at the junction with Mineral King Rd 0.25 miles north-west of the bridge. The route direction heads south in the vicinity of the bridge. The bridge components are labeled accordingly with Abutment 1 on the north side and Abutment 2 on the south. The stringers are labeled looking from Abutment 1 towards Abutment 2 with Stringer 1 on the left and Stringer 5 on the far right.

The structure crosses a steel flume used to transport water. The superstructure consists of five W12x72 steel stringers that bear on a steel bearing plate that extends the entire length of the abutments. The bridge is skewed approximately 45 degrees. The deck is comprised of transverse 3x12” timber planks with longitudinal 4x12” planks to serve as the wearing surface.

The abutments are constructed from standard concrete masonry units with rock wingwalls and a timber backwall. Object markers are in place at all four corners of the structure and there are 10-ton weight limit signs at both bridge approaches.

2 | P a g e

STRUCTURE INVENTORY AND APPRAISAL SHEET

Sufficiency Rating:

*Kaweah Flume Bridge spans less than 20’ and is not reported to the NBI. Not all fields have 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 069- CA 8.Struc. # 2.Hwy District 00 7.Facility

Carried BLM 16026: Case Mountain Road

3.County Code

107-Tulare 9.Location 10 mi NW of Kaweah Rsvr

6.Feature Intersected Kaweah Flume 5A.On/Under 1- On 5B.Rte Sign. 6- Federal 5C.Lvl. Serv. 1-Mainline 5D.Rte. # 16026 5E.Directional Suffix

0 98A.Border State Code

98B.Border % Responsible

99.Border Bridge #

4.Place Code 00000 11.Mile Post 0.25 mi.

16.Latitude 36.449060° 17.Longitude -118.791620°

STRUCTURE TYPE AND MATERIALS

46.# Approach Spans

0000 45.# of Spans Main Unit

43A.Structure Material 3- Steel 43B.Structure Type of Design 02- Stringers 44A.Approach Material 0- No approach spans 44B.Approach Type of Design 00- No approach spans 107.Deck Type 8- Timber 108A.Wearing Surface 7- Timber 108B.Type of Membrane 0- None 108C.Deck Protection 0- None

AGE AND SERVICE

27.Year Built 1967 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 199 mi. 29.ADT 75 109.Truck ADT % 30.Year of ADT 2013

GEOMETRIC DATA

48.Length Max Span

15 ft. 49.Structure Length 16 ft.

50A.Curb/Sidewalk Width Left

0 ft. 50B. Curb/Sidewalk Width Right

0 ft.

51.Width curb-curb 10.16 ft. 52.Width Out-Out 11.16 ft.

47.Route Total Horizontal Clearance 10.16 ft.

32.Approach Roadway Width (w/ Shoulders) 11 ft.

33.Median 0- None 34.Skew 45 35.Structure Flared 0- No 10.Route Min. Vertical Clearance 99.99 ft.

53.Min. Vertical Clearance Over Bridge 99.99 ft.

54A.Min. Vertical Underclearance Reference N 54B.Min. Vertical Underclearance 0000 55A.Min. Lateral Underclearance Reference N 55B.Min. Lateral Underclearance Right 000 56.Min. Lateral Underclearance Left 000

NAVIGATION DATA

38.Navigation Control 0- No permit required 39.Vertical Clearance

0000 40.Horizontal Clearance

111.Pier Protection

116.Lift Bridge Vertical Clearance

INSPECTION

91.Frequency 24 mos. 90.Insp. Date 0913 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

0 13B.Subroute #

13A.LRS Inventory Route 100.Defense Highway

0 101.Parallel Structure

N

102.Direction of Traffic

3- 1 lane, both direc

103.Temporary Structure

104.Highway System

0 112.NBIS

Length

Y

105.Federal Lands Hwy

0 110. National Truck Network

20.Toll Facility

3- Free 26.Functional Class

09- Local, rural

37.Historical Significance 5- Not eligible 22.Owner 68- BLM 21.Maintenance Responsibility 68- BLM

CONDITION

58.Deck 5 59.Super 6 60.Sub 7 62.Culvert N 61.Channel/Channel Protection N

LOAD RATING AND POSTING

65.Inventory Rating Method

2- Allowable Stress

63.Operating Rating Method

2- Allowable stress

66.Inventory Rating

36 tons 64.Operating Rating

48 tons

31.Design Load 0- Unknown 70.Posting 5 41.Posting Status A- Open, no restrictions

APPRAISAL

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

N 36D.Approach Rail Ends

N

71.Waterway Adequacy

9 72.Approach Alignment

113.Scour Critical 9- Foundations are stable

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?: No If Yes, provide detailed explanation:

FOLLOW-UP PLAN

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

STRUCTURE EVALUATION SUMMARY

This structure is in fair overall condition. The main concern pertains to the rot and decay in the timber deck. The decay has instigated additional checks/ splits in the members and should be replaced in the next five years. The timber wearing surface is in better condition but does exhibit some splits. The possibility of replacing the running planks should be re-evaluated at the time of the deck replacement.

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 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 Condition 5‐ Fair

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

58.1‐ Substantial decay, splits and checks were found in the timber deck planks.

58.4‐ A 3” bump onto the wearing surface at Abutment 1 hinders the rideability.

2. EXPANSION JOINTS N

3. WEARING SURFACE G

4. RIDEABILITY P‐F

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 6‐ Satisfactory

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

59.2‐ Some of the beams are not anchored to the substructure.

59.7‐ Intermittent paint failure has allowed corrosion to initiate on the steel stringers.

2. GIRDERS OR BEAMS F

3. ARCHES OR SLABS N

4. FLOOR BEAMS AND STRINGERS N

5. TRUSSES N

6. DIAPHRAGMS AND BRACING N

7. PAINT F

8. CONNECTIONS/WELDS F

9. DEFLECTION AND/OR VIBRATION G

10. ALIGNMENT G

11. OTHER

60 Substructure Condition 7‐ Good

Abutments Notes (w/item reference):

60.3‐ Debris accumulation on the bearing seat.

60.6‐ Rock wingwalls appear unstable but are succeeding in holding embankment soil away from the flume.

1. BREASTWALLS OR COLUMNS G

2. PILE BENTS N

3. CAPS AND/OR BEARING SEATS G

4. BACKWALLS AND/OR BULKHEADS G

5. FOUNDATIONS G

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 G

10. SETTLEMENT OR DEFLECTION G

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 NA

1. ALIGNMENT Notes (w/item reference):

Kaweah Flume Bridge spans a man‐made flume and not a natural channel. No channel rating was established.

2. EROSION AND/OR SCOUR

3. CHANNEL PROTECTION

4. WATERWAY OBSTRUCTIONS

5. ADEQUACY OF OPENING

6. STREAMBED COMPOSITION

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 9‐ Excellent

72 Approach Roadway Alignment 6‐ Satisfactory

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

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 (RF) Operating Rating (RF) H 17.5 tons 23.3 tons HS 36.3 tons 48.3 tons Legal Rating Rating (RF) Type 3 35.5 tons Type 3S2 54.2 tons Type 3-3 59 tons Notational Rating Load (NRL)

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:

The load ratings for this bridge were calculated on 11/24/1999 by Keith Christiansen.

Detailed Notes/Deficiency Descriptions:

The timber wearing surface is in fair-good condition with occasional splits and checks but the underlying deck members are in poor condition exhibiting substantial decay, splits and checks. The timber deck should be replaced in the next 5 years with a re-evaluation for the replacement of the wearing surface at that time.

A 3” lip onto the wearing surface at Abutment 1 hinders the rideability of the bridge.

Pipe railing remains in good condition for pedestrian traffic but not strong enough to resist vehicular loading. Railing acts more as a guide rail than a guard rail.

Some corrosion near the bearings where soil and debris collects on the bearing plate.

Otherwise the bearing plates are in good condition.

The CMU abutments are in good condition and the timber backwall is keeping the bearing areas fairly clean. The rock wingwalls have allowed some erosion of the approach roadway but the embankment is relatively stable.

Failed paint has spawned intermittent corrosion on the steel stringers.

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? D

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 timber deck $8,000

TOTAL ESTIMATED COSTS: $8,000

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

8 | P a g e

ADDITIONAL PHOTOGRAPHS

Caption 1: 3” lip onto the timber wearing surface at Abutment 1 hinders the approach rating and the rideability of the bridge. .

Caption 2: Split in the upstream wearing surface plank near Abutment 2.

Caption 3: Erosion of the approach roadway embankment on the downstream side of Abutment 1.

Caption 4: Rodent hole could instigate additional erosion 6’ from Abutment 1.

9 | P a g e

ADDITIONAL PHOTOGRAPHS

Caption 5: The deck exhibits substantial decay, splits and checks throughout all the planks.

Caption 6: General view of Abutment 2. The stem walls are built with CMU blocks and the backwall consists of timber planks. The timber deck planks are bolted to the top flange of the steel stringers.

Caption 7: Rot and decay very prevalent in the timber deck members.

Caption 8: 1.5” wide split in a timber deck plank on the upstream side, near Abutment 2. The split extends beyond the exterior, supporting stringer.