FY13_Kaweah_River_Bridge_Inspection_Report.pdf

Kaweah River Bridge Bakersfield Field Office FAMS Location #: L59108 Inspection Date: 9/13/2013

1 | P a g e

IDENTIFICATION PHOTOGRAPH

Elevation view looking upstream

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 Road 0.1 miles west of the bridge. Abutment 1 is on the west side (right side looking downstream) and Abutment 2 is on the east side.

The deck is comprised of three layers of timber deck planks. The bottom layer consists of transverse 3x8” planks, then longitudinal 3x12” planks with 3x12” planks making up the top layer of the deck. Four, 3x12” running planks for each wheel path provide a wearing surface for traffic. There are 6x6” wheel guards along the outside edges of the running planks to guide traffic onto the running planks otherwise traffic loads placed outside the wheel guards would be on the cantilever ends of the top layer of transverse deck planks. The railing is built with steel pipe and does not meet AASHTO standards to resist vehicle collisions. The superstructure is comprised of an old railroad car. The bridge has no bearing devices, the railroad car bears directly on the concrete abutments which are anchored into bedrock. Stone masonry wingwalls stabilize the approach roadway embankment.

2 | P a g e

STRUCTURE INVENTORY AND APPRAISAL SHEET

Sufficiency Rating:

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. # 000000000L59108 2.Hwy District 00 7.Facility

Carried BLM 16026: Case Mtn Rd

3.County Code

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

6.Feature Intersected East Fork Kaweah River 5A.On/Under 1- On 5B.Rte Sign. 6- Federal 5C.Lvl. Serv. 1-Mainline 5D.Rte. # 00000 5E.Directional Suffix

0 98A.Border State Code

98B.Border % Responsible

99.Border Bridge #

4.Place Code 00000 11.Mile Post 0.15 mi.

16.Latitude 36.449857° 17.Longitude -118.791310°

STRUCTURE TYPE AND MATERIALS

46.# Approach Spans

0000 45.# of Spans Main Unit

43A.Structure Material 3- Steel 43B.Structure Type of Design 00- Other (rail road car) 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 00- None

AGE AND SERVICE

27.Year Built 1967 106.Year

Reconstructed

42A.Type of Service on 01- Highway 42B.Type of Service under 05- Waterway 28A.Lanes on 01 28B.Lanes Under 00 19.Detour Length 199 mi. 29.ADT 50 109.Truck ADT % 30.Year of ADT 2013

GEOMETRIC DATA

48.Length Max Span

42.5 ft. 49.Structure Length 49.58 ft.

50A.Curb/Sidewalk Width Left

2 ft. 50B. Curb/Sidewalk Width Right

2 ft.

51.Width curb-curb 10.2 ft. 52.Width Out-Out 14.1 ft.

47.Route Total Horizontal Clearance 10.2 ft.

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

33.Median 0- None 34.Skew 00 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 4 59.Super 6 60.Sub 6 62.Culvert N 61.Channel/Channel Protection 9

LOAD RATING AND POSTING

65.Inventory Rating Method

5- No rating performed

63.Operating Rating Method

5- No rating performed

66.Inventory Rating

64.Operating Rating

31.Design Load 0- Unknown 70.Posting 5 41.Posting Status P- Posted for load

APPRAISAL

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

N 36D.Approach Rail Ends

N

71.Waterway Adequacy

8 72.Approach Alignment

113.Scour Critical 8- Stable foundations

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

The bridge is in poor overall condition. The condition of the top layer of transverse deck planks and the running planks on the downstream side of the deck is the biggest concern. However, since two other layers of decking exist beneath the top layer, the condition of the deck planks is not critical as long as traffic does not drive outside of the wheelguards on the cantilever portion of the deck.

Case Mountain Road Bridge is a vehicular bridge and has a span length greater than 20’.

Bridges with these criteria are required to be reported to the NBI. One of the requirements of being reported to the NBI is an up-to-date load rating which is very difficult for these types of structures. In addition, railroad superstructures are in violation of BLM Bridge Manual 9112.

The bridge is funded for replacement in FY2014. Once the new structure is built, it will be added to the NBI inventory.

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 4‐ Poor

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

58.1‐ Top deck planks are in poor condition exhibiting splits and brooming. Soil accumulation on the deck has instigated decay which was verified with a hammer sounding test. The bottom layer of deck planks are in fair condition.

58.3‐ Extensive abrasion damage to the wearing surface planks.

2. EXPANSION JOINTS N

3. WEARING SURFACE P

4. RIDEABILITY F

5. CURBS, SIDEWALK AND MEDIAN F

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 N Notes (w/item reference):

59.1‐ No separate bearing device, the railroad car bears directly on the concrete substructure.

59.2‐ The steel railroad car is in fair condition. The crack noted in previous inspection reports could not be found.

2. GIRDERS OR BEAMS F

3. ARCHES OR SLABS N

4. FLOOR BEAMS AND STRINGERS N

5. TRUSSES N

6. DIAPHRAGMS AND BRACING F

7. PAINT F

8. CONNECTIONS/WELDS F

9. DEFLECTION AND/OR VIBRATION G

10. ALIGNMENT G

11. OTHER

60 Substructure Condition 6‐ Satisfactory

Abutments Notes (w/item reference):

60.3‐ The railroad car is welded to a steel plate that was cast into the concrete abutment. The design is unconventional and the adequacy of the anchorage is questionable.

60.5‐ Concrete abutments were cast directly on native bedrock.

1. BREASTWALLS OR COLUMNS F

2. PILE BENTS N

3. CAPS AND/OR BEARING SEATS G

4. BACKWALLS AND/OR BULKHEADS F

5. FOUNDATIONS G

6. WINGWALLS N

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 9‐ Excellent

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

61.5‐ Over 25’ of hydraulic clearance between the bottom of the bridge to the streambed.

61.6‐ Rock and boulders.

2. EROSION AND/OR SCOUR G

3. CHANNEL PROTECTION G

4. WATERWAY OBSTRUCTIONS G

5. ADEQUACY OF OPENING G

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 8‐ Very Good

72 Approach Roadway Alignment 4‐ Poor

113 Scour Critical Bridges (0‐9, T, U, N) 8‐ 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

Design Rating Inventory Rating (RF) Operating Rating (RF)

HL-93

Legal Rating Rating (RF) Type 3 Type 3S2 Type 3-3 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:

Case Mountain Road Bridge is vehicular and over 20’ long. Bridges with this criteria are required to be reported to the NBI. One of the requirements for the NBI is that the bridge has a current load rating associated with the structure. This can be the design load if there is no significant structural damage or design changes otherwise the bridge needs to be re-evaluated. Given the superstructure of this bridge is a railroad car, there is no design load and an accurate load rating would be very difficult. Kaweah River Bridge is funded for replacement in 2014. The design load will be reported to the NBI upon completion of the new structure.

Detailed Notes/Deficiency Descriptions:

The running planks on the upstream side of the bridge are newer than those on the downstream side and are in fair condition with some splits and checks. The running planks on the downstream side are in poor condition with additional damage due to brooming, splitting, checking, broken members, and decay.

The top layer of 3x12” transverse deck planks are in poor condition with numerous members exhibiting decay, splits and checks. The members for the two lower deck layers are in fair condition. The extensive accumulation of soil on the deck can be attributed to the decay found in the top members but not those below.

Wheelguards along the edge of the running planks are in poor condition with many members damaged from splits, checks and brooming.

The 6x6” curbs under the railing are generally in good condition. The steel pipe railing remains in good condition but does not have the structural capacity to resist vehicle collisions.

Cracks in the railroad car superstructure that were mentioned in previous inspection reports were not found. The two minor cracks had occurred in the inside face of the railroad car on the upstream side of the bridge at the left abutment.

The concrete abutments and the stone masonry wingwalls are generally in fair condition.

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? C

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 $370,000

TOTAL ESTIMATED COSTS: $370,000

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

Cost was developed by John Treacy on 3/22/2013 using RS Means and Davis Bacon wage determination. The Bridge was funded for $495,000 in the FY14 5 year plan Deferred Maintenance allocation.

8 | P a g e

ADDITIONAL PHOTOGRAPHS

Caption 1: The wearing surface is in poor condition with extensive abrasion damage, splitting and brooming.

Caption 2: The top timber deck planks cantilever 2’3” beyond the supporting members. Curbs deter traffic from venturing too close to the edge and no damage has been sustained. Note the weak railing connections that do not meet AASHTO standards.

Caption 3: Substantial accumulation of soil and debris on the bridge deck holds moisture against the timber members which has instigated rot and decay. Note the loose wearing surface plank that is a tripping hazard for pedestrian users.

Caption 4: The bearing design is unconventional and the anchorage is questionable. The railroad car is welded to a steel plate that was cast into the concrete.

9 | P a g e

ADDITIONAL PHOTOGRAPHS

Caption 5: The railroad car superstructure is cantilevered ~5’ beyond the bearing area of the northwest abutment. No deficiencies noted.

Caption 6: The exterior sides of the railroad car has been repainted since installation but the interior sides show substantial corrosion.

Caption 7: Old abutment footings at the face of the existing abutments indicate there was another bridge installation before the current railroad car.

Caption 8: The approach alignment is poor with a substantial drop off the sides of the bridge. The structure would benefit from an AASHTO approved railing and approach railing installation. Note the 10 ton weight limit posting.

10 | P a g e

PROJECT COST ESTIMATE

Project: Case Mountain Road Bridge Removal & Replacement Date: 3/22/2012 Location: Approx. 70 Miles South East of Fresno, CA Prepared By: John Treacy

1. Estimated Construction Cost (TECC) Unit Quantity Unit Cost Total Cost

1. Remove Wood Deck (Haul Off Site) CY 30.00 112.02 3,360.57

2. Remove & Dispose Rail Car Steel LS 1.00 7,059.14 7,059.14

3. Demo. Abutments & Salavge for Reuse CY 80.00 67.85 5,427.68

4. Structure Excavation (Stockpile On Site) CY 344.00 16.00 5,505.11

5. Structure Backfill (Use On Site Mat'l) CY 344.00 42.01 14,451.07

6. Concrete - (Forms, Conc., Rebar & Finish) CY 80.00 942.32 75,385.90

7. F. & I. Pre-Engineered Bridge w/ Rail LS 1.00 109,012.98 109,012.98

8. Mobilization/Demobilization/Bond/Misc. LS 1.00 39,497.12 39,497.12

Total Estimated Construction Cost $ 259,699

2. Construction Administration Cost

1. Inspection, QA, COR applied to TECC 10% 0.10 259,699.57 25,969.96

2. Contingency Cost 15% 0.15 259,699.57 38,954.93

3. Survey/Design & Miscellaneous Costs and Services

1. Site Engineering and Design 15% 0.10 259,699.57 25,969.96

2. Bid & Solicitation Documents 2% 0.02 259,699.57 5,193.99

3. Geotech Site Evaluation & Report LS 1.00 12,000.00 12,000.00

Total Estimate of Probable Cost (2012 Dollars) $ 367,788