FINAL Long Hollow Road Bridge Geotechnical Engineering Report 25-09-25_signed (1).pdf

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT

LONG HOLLOW ROAD BRIDGE DR-4832-TN

CARTER COUNTY, TENNESSEE

Bridge ID No. 100A2990001

Prepared for

Prepared by

RUMMEL, KLEPPER & KAHL, LLP

September 25, 2025

565 Marriott Drive, Suite 650 | Nashville, TN 37214 | P 615.866.1050 | www.rkk.com

565 Marriott Drive, Suite 650 | Nashville, TN 37214 | P 615.866.1050 | www.rkk.com

September 25, 2025

Project: LONG HOLLOW ROAD BRIDGE DR-4832-TN

Bridge ID No.: 100A2990001

Geotechnical Services, Contract DR-4832-TN

County: Carter

Subject: Bridge Foundation Report

RK&K is pleased to submit the Geotechnical Engineering Report for the above referenced project.

This report presents a review of the site conditions, subsurface exploration, geotechnical recommendations, and geotechnical plan sheets for the Long Hollow Road Bridge (DR-4832-TN) in

Carter County, Tennessee.

If you have any questions regarding this report, please contact us at 615-866-1050.

Prepared by, Simone Metzger, P.E.

Project Manager, Geotechnical

Registered, Tennessee

Caden Bryan, EI

Engineer, Geotechnical

Michelle Lisi, P.E. (NC)

Project Engineer, Geotechnical

Michelle Lisi

Simone Metzger

Caaden Bryan

Bridge Foundation Report

Long Hollow Road Bridge DR-4832-TN Bridge ID No. 100A2990001

Page i

Table of Contents List of Tables ii

Appendices ii

Executive Summary 1

1 Introduction 2

1.1 Project Description 2

1.2 Bridge Structural Details 3

1.3 Traffic Data 4

1.4 Objectives 4

2 Site Conditions, Geology, and Soils 4

2.1 Site Conditions 4

2.1.1 Topography 5

2.1.2 Artificial Fills 5

2.1.3 Alluvial Soils 5

2.1.4 Springs and Wetlands 5

2.1.5 Acid Producing Material 5

2.2 General Site Geology 5

2.3 Area Well Information 6

2.4 Historic Bridge Plan Review – Geotechnical Sheets and Bridge Inspection Reports 6

2.5 Hydrology Findings 7

3 Surface and Subsurface Exploration 7

3.1 Geotechnical Field Exploration 7

3.2 Soil and Rock Sampling 8

3.3 Summary of Field Exploration 9

3.4 Geotechnical Laboratory Testing 10

3.5 Subsurface Conditions 10

3.5.1 Roadway Embankment (Fill) 11

3.5.2 Alluvium 11

3.5.3 Residuum 11

3.5.4 Weathered Rock 12

3.5.5 Bedrock 12

3.5.6 Surface Water and Groundwater 12

3.6 Assessment of Subsurface Conditions and Historic Design Information 13

4 Evaluations and Recommendations 13

4.1 Bridge 13

4.1.1 Abutment Supported on Micropiles 14

4.2 Stability 15

4.3 Pavement 15

4.4 Seismic Site Classification 16

5 Site Preparation and Construction Considerations 16

5.1 Site Preparation 16

5.2 Structural Fill 16

5.3 Excavations 16

5.4 Sinkholes 16

6 Limitations 17

Page ii

List of Tables

Table 1- Bridge Abutment and Bent Location Features

Table 2- Summary of Provided Micropile Pile Foundation Information

Table 3- Historic Design Information

Table 4– Classification of Rock Mass Rating

Table 5- Test Boring Summary

Table 6- Laboratory Test Soil Samples Summary

Table 7- Subsurface Stratification

Table 8- Groundwater Conditions Table

Table 9- General Design Information

Table 10- Soil Parameters for Abutment 2 Foundation

Table 11- Pavement Design (Less than 200,000 ESAL)

Appendices

Appendix A: Geotechnical Sheet

Appendix B: Provided Information

B-1) Select Historic Bridge Plans

B-2) Select Pages from TDOT Bridge Inspection Report

Appendix C: Site Photos

Appendix D: UES Data Report

Appendix E: Calculations and Analyses

E-1) Abutment 2 Micropile Calculations

Executive Summary

This executive summary is provided solely for the purpose of overview. Any party that relies on this memorandum must read the full memorandum, including the appendices. This executive summary necessarily omits several details, any one of which could be important to the proper interpretation of the memorandum.

RK&K is providing geotechnical services to Carter County for the repair of Bridge ID No.

100A2990001 on Long Hollow Road over the Doe River due to damage that occurred as a result of flooding during Tropical Storm Helene. The project location begins at the east abutment, Abutment

2, of the Long Hollow Road bridge and continues along Long Hollow Road for about 55 feet towards the intersection of River Bottom Road. Improvements along River Bottom Road are also proposed for about 85 feet north of the intersection with Long Hollow Road and about 85 feet south along the alignment from the intersection. Planned construction includes foundation improvements to

Abutment 2 and pavement improvements along River Bottom Road. New fills on the order of 8 feet are proposed surrounding Long Hollow Road and River Bottom Road at a grade of 7:1 (H:V) or flatter.

Five major strata were encountered in the borings performed at the project site and are listed as follows: Stratum I-Fill, Stratum II- Alluvium, Stratum III- Residuum, Stratum IV-Weathered Rock, and Stratum V-Bedrock. The underlying geology includes siltstone, limestone, and dolomite bedrocks, and it may be susceptible to typical hazards of karst topography.

1 Introduction

1.1 Project Description

RK&K is providing geotechnical services to Carter County for the proposed bridge repair along

Long Hollow Road over the Doe River. Damages to the bridge occurred as a result of flooding from

Tropical Storm Helene flooding in Carter County, Tennessee. Figure 1-1 shows the site location mapA.

Figure 1-1

The following information was provided by TDOT:

• Damage Inspection Report: 100A2990001_Oct_2024 Damage.pdf

• Routine Inspection Report: 100A2990001AUGNGOOD.pdf

• Damage Inspection Report: 100A2990001DEC24NPOOR.pdf

• Bridge Plans: 100A2990001_PLANS.pdf

The RK&K structural team of professionals visited the site on March 20, 2024, reviewed the information provided by TDOT, and determined the damage to the bridge is mostly at the pavement near the east end of the bridge. The pavement construction at the bridge approaches consists of a concrete slab supported by the roadway bracket on the abutment and an inverted tee foundation bearing on fill, as shown in TDOT Standard Drawing K-86-144. Based on our site visit and review

A U.S. Geological Survey. Iron Mountain Gap, TN. 2022. TopoView, https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/topoview/viewer/ of the plans, the foundation at the east end of the bridge washed out and collapsed during the flood event.

The improvements for the Long Hollow Road Bridge will consist of repairing the east abutment and replacing the pavement section at the intersection of Long Hollow Road and River Bottom Road.

Options to replace the superstructure were considered, but not utilized. Based on our understanding of the proposed construction and the provided plans, the limits of construction are within the proposed

ROW.

1.2 Bridge Structural Details

The proposed repair to the structure will be designed according to TDOT Standard Design

Guidelines, TDOT Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction and the 9th Edition

(2020) AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications and the 2nd Edition (2011) AASHTO Guide

Specifications for LRFD Seismic Bridge Design with Interims.

The Bridge Plan and Profile is provided in Appendix A. The proposed bridge repair consists of improving the east abutment foundation by installing micropiles along the bridge approach beneath the existing wingwalls. The adjacent substructures along the bridge, including Abutment 1, Pier 1, and Pier 2, will not be improved. Original bridge plans show all substructures of this bridge were installed on spread footings. Elevations, stations, and foundation type are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1- Bridge Abutment and Bent Location Features

Location Station

Bottom of Foundation

Elevation *

(ft-MSL)

Ground

Elevation

(ft-MSL)

Foundation

Type

Beginning of

Bridge

(Abutment 1)

Outside of

Project

Alignment

1622.8 1628.5 Shallow

Pier 1

Outside of

Project

Alignment

1604.9 1627.3 Shallow

Pier 2

Outside of

Project

Alignment

1607.8 1626.1 Shallow

End of Bridge

(Abutment 2) 4+79.25 1617.8 1624.9 Shallow

*Estimated from Original Bridge Plans

One row of five plumb micropiles with a 9.625-in outside diameter and a 0.471-in wall thickness are planned for Abutment 2. The details are summarized in Table 2. Lateral loads are not planned.

Based on the proposed plan sheets, underground utilities do not appear to be an obstacle to repair of the existing location of Abutment 2. However, an overhead line is present across Abutment 2 and along the north side of the bridge.

Table 2- Summary of Provided Micropile Pile Foundation Information

Location

Factored Axial

Resistance

(Strength)

Bottom of Footing

Elevation Spacing

Abutment 2 33.2-kips EL 1615.85 ft-MSL 7-ft and 12-ft

1.3 Traffic Data

The following design parameters were developed for the flexible pavement section. Information is based on the December 16, 2024 Bridge Inspection Report, the May 2025 TDOT Pavement Design

Guide, and our laboratory analysis.

Average Daily Traffic (2002) 980

Truck Traffic (2002) 2-percent

Reliability 80-percent

Overall Deviation 0.45

Pavement Initial Serviceability 4.2

Pavement Final Serviceability 2.5

Pavement Design Life 20-years

1.4 Objectives

The purpose of this study is to determine general subsurface conditions at the project site and to evaluate those conditions with respect to geotechnical engineering considerations for the proposed bridge construction and repair of the intersection of Long Hollow Road and River Bottom Road. The specific scope of our services on this project consisted of reviewing the subsurface conditions shown in the 1979 plan set from the original bridge construction, exploring the subsurface conditions of accessible areas using soil test borings and rock coring, performing laboratory testing of selected soil and rock samples, evaluating the subsurface conditions encountered in the test borings, developing geotechnical recommendations for design and construction, and submitting our findings in the current report.

2 Site Conditions, Geology, and Soils

2.1 Site Conditions

The project is located along Long Hollow Road west of the intersection with River Bottom Road in Carter County, Tennessee. The site consists of the existing two-lane Long Hollow Road bridge over the Doe River. The surface is relatively flat near the project area. At the time of the exploration, the surrounding ground surface primarily consists of grass and topsoil, with small areas of exposed soil. Overhead power lines are present along the alignment. Underground utilities at the project location consist of water lines, both municipal and private. Existing guardrails are present along each side of the bridge and along the adjacent roadway on each end of the bridge.

2.1.1 Topography

The project area is located in a valley (~1620 ft-MSL) shaped by the Doe River. The area is relatively flat along the banks of the river consisting of the valley and sloping up towards the surrounding ridges (~1800-2000 ft-MSL) outside of the project area. Based on mapsB from USGS, there is roughly 15 ft of topographic relief across the project area. The site slopes downward to the east from Abutment 1 to Abutment 2 crossing the Doe River.

2.1.2 Artificial Fills

Fill and possible fill areas were encountered throughout and generally appeared to be associated with the construction of the existing alignment. These fill areas are generally composed of visually similar material as the underlying residual soils and are difficult to distinguish from the aforementioned residual soils.

2.1.3 Alluvial Soils

Alluvial soils and alluvial boulders and cobbles were encountered throughout the project area.

Alluvial materials are generally encountered in and surrounding rivers and streams. These materials are typically composed of wet and soft or loose soils that were deposited by water over time. Alluvial materials may overlay residual soils, weathered rock, or bedrock.

2.1.4 Springs and Wetlands

No springs or wetlands were encountered during the geotechnical investigation of this project.

2.1.5 Acid Producing Material

No acid producing rock or soil units were encountered during the geotechnical investigation of this project. Additionally, the underlying bedrock unit for this project consisted of carbonate rock and should act as a natural acid neutralizer. The drilled borings indicate deep rock and therefore low potential for rock exposures during excavation activities.

2.2 General Site Geology

The project area is part of the Valley and Ridge Province of the Appalachian Mountains of

Tennessee, situated between Long Hollow, Valley Forge, and Jenkins Hollow. This geologically dynamic region is defined by the contacts between the Rome FormationC and the Shady Dolomite, where abrupt transitions in rock types suggest the presence of thrust faults. These faults, formed by compressional tectonic forces, have likely displaced older, erosion resistant carbonate rocks of the

Shady Dolomite over younger, softer formations of the Rome Formation, composed of shale, B U.S. Geological Survey. Iron Mountain Gap, TN. 2022. TopoView, https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/topoview/viewer/

C King, P. B., Ferguson, H. W., and Hamilton, W. Geology of Northeasternmost Tennessee, with a Section on the

Description of the Basement Rocks. U.S. Geological Survey, 1960. Professional Paper 311, https://pubs.usgs.gov/publication/pp311.

siltstone, and sandstone. This tectonic activity has created sharp lithological contrasts that influence the local topography, drainage patterns, and the development of valleys such as Jenkins Hollow and

Long Hollow. The structural complexity introduced by faults and folds further weaken the rock, directing erosion and shaping the landscape.

The carbonate-rich Shady Dolomite underlying the project area contributes to Elizabethton, Tennessee’s susceptibility to sinkhole formations. As groundwater dissolves these soluble rocks over time, voids and cavities develop beneath the surface, creating karst landscape prone to collapse. This phenomenon is particularly evident in areas where structural features, such as thrust faults, have weakened the rock, further accelerating the process. Risk related to the formation and associated subsidence of sinkholes and caves should be considered when working on projects underlain by rock susceptible to dissolution. No sinkholes were observed near the proposed project.

2.3 Area Well Information

The project site is located within half a mile north of a residential well at 105 Long Hollow Road in Elizabethton, Tennessee, which provides insight into local groundwater conditions. The well reportD formation log for this property indicates clay was encountered to a depth of 9 feet underlain by rock consisting of red shale, limestone, and a variation of the two was encountered to a termination depth of 365 feet. These formations align with regional geology dominated by the Rome Formation and Shady Dolomite, both of which influence groundwater flow and storage.

Water bearing zones were identified at depths of 170 and 325 feet, yielding 1 to 2 gallons per minute (GPM) with good water quality and a clear appearance. The proximity of this well to the project site underscores the influence of carbonate rock on groundwater movement and karst processes, which contribute to sinkholes and groundwater variability.

2.4 Historic Bridge Plan Review – Geotechnical Sheets and Bridge Inspection Reports

The geotechnical sheets indicate the existing foundations are shallow spread footings bearing on rock, river sediment, and boulders. The boring profile indicates large cavities or mud seams at Pier 2, which is consistent with the published geology for this area. The historic design information from the provided plans is outlined in Table 3.

D Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation. Water Wells Information Portal. ArcGIS Web

Application, https://tdeconline.tn.gov/tdecwaterwells/

Table 3- Historic Design Information

Bent ID Station** Foundation

Type

Foundation

Dimensions

(L x W x H)

(ft)

Top of

Footing

Elevation

(ft)

Bottom of

Footing

Elevation

(ft)

Bearing

Surface

Beginning of

Bridge

(Abutment 1)

29+46.0

Shallow

Spread

Footing

* x 6.5 x 3.5 1626.3 1622.8

Clay and

Siltstone

Pier 1 30+00.9

Shallow

15 x 12 x 2.5 1607.4 1604.9

Siltstone and

Shale

Pier 2 30+55.1

Shallow

24 x 24 x 2.5

1610.3 1607.8

River

Sediment and

Boulders

End of Bridge

(Abutment 2) 31+10.0

Shallow

* x 6.5 x 3.5 1621.3 1617.8

Clay with

Boulders

*Continuous footing

**Based on Stations from the original project alignment

2.5 Hydrology Findings

Hydraulic and scour analysis were performed for the Long Hollow Road Bridge over the Doe River.

Total scour at the pier locations were recorded to be between 5.5 ft and 6.0 ft for 10 to 500 year scour scenarios, or approximately 1608 ft-MSL +/-1. Total scour at abutments ranged from 18 ft to about

30 ft between 100 year and 500 year scour scenarios or approximately 1586.02 ft-MSL for the 100 year and 1583.35 ft-MSL for the 500 year. Scour information was considered in the abutment improvement and micropile design at Abutment 2.

3 Surface and Subsurface Exploration

3.1 Geotechnical Field Exploration

A total of 10 Standard Penetration Test (SPT) borings were drilled across the proposed project to characterize the subsurface throughout the project area. The boring location plan and the boring logs are included in Appendix D. Boring locations are referenced to the Tennessee State Plane coordinate system (zone 4100) based on the North American Datum of 1983. Boring elevations were determined by taking the elevations on site with a survey grade GPS unit.

Borings were advanced by a rubber track Mobile B51 drill rig using 3.25-in hollow-stem augers.

Soil samples were obtained in accordance with ASTM D1586, Standard Test Method for Standard

Penetration Tests and Split-Barrel Sampling of Soils. In general, the SPT consists of advancing a 2-in outside diameter sampling spoon by driving it with a 140-lb hammer falling 30-in. The values reported on the boring logs are the blows required to advance three successive 6-in increments. The first 6-in increment is considered as seating. The sum of the number of blows for the second and third increments is the “SPT-N” value.

SPTs were conducted with a split spoon sampler at 1-ft, 3.5-ft, 6-ft (where possible), and at every

5-ft interval starting at 8.5-ft. Soil boring depths range from 5.5-ft to 38.2-ft below the ground surface.

Additionally, after encountering auger and SPT refusal, six borings were advanced by wash rotary with a diamond-bit NQ barrel to collect up to 40-ft of rock core. Auger and SPT refusal are defined as when either material could not be penetrated with the soil drilling method employed or when the penetration resistance was 50 blows per one inch or less. All ten borings were completed in March of

2025.

After completing drilling of each boring, the depth to groundwater was measured. Table 8 in

Section 3.5.6 summarizes the results of groundwater recordings.

3.2 Soil and Rock Sampling

Soil samples were collected via split spoon sampler from each SPT test for field visual identification. Recovered material was visually described and classified by UES. The soil samples were classified in general accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS), using visual-manual identification procedures (ASTM D 2488).

Rock coring began at auger or SPT refusal at selected locations, when materials either could not be penetrated with the soil drilling method employed or when the penetration resistance was 50 blows for one inch or less penetration. Core drilling/rock sampling procedures were required to penetrate refusal materials and determine their character and continuity.

A diamond-bit NQ barrel was advanced by wash rotary method through bedrock to obtain continuous rock core samples. Rock coring was conducted according to ASTM D 2113-08. Coring was accomplished by advancing an outer steel casing with a rock carbide or diamond bit, and an inner sample core barrel that was locked into the drill string annulus. Appendix D includes the rock core photos for this project. The core description, core recovery, the Rock Quality Designation (RQD), and other pertinent information were recorded on the Test Boring Logs, the Rock Core Description

Sheet, and on the Summary of Boring Data. The RQD value reflects the quality and fracture spacing of the rock and is defined as the sum of the length of rock pieces greater than 4-inches divided by the total core run length. The percentage of core recovery and RQD values provide an understanding of the physical and engineering properties of the rock.

Rock Mass Rating (RMR) and Geological Strength Index (GSI) were used to estimate the strength and deformation of the parent bedrock. RMR values were assigned based on criteria set in ASTM D

5878-19. The percentage of core recovery, RQD, and RMR value, and GSI value are index parameters that provide a general understanding of the physical and engineering properties of the rock.

The RMR depends upon the unconfined compressive strength of the intact rock; orientation, frequency and condition of discontinuities in the rock mass. Since oriented borings were not drilled, we assumed that the discontinuities were generally unfavorable. Based on guidance in Table 7.12 in the Tunnel Engineering Handbook, this is not an unreasonable assumption. Table 4E provides a description of the ratings.

E ASTM International. Standard Guides for Using Rock-Mass Classification Systems for Engineering Purposes.

ASTM D5878-19, ASTM International, 2019.

Table 4– Classification of Rock Mass Rating

Classification of Rock Mass Rating

Class Number Description

I Very Good Rock

II Good Rock

III Fair Rock

IV Poor Rock

V Very Poor Rock

RMR values from the project area ranged from 2-56 classifying the rock in the area as very poor to fair rock. The very poor rock was only encountered at B-8 over a three-foot interval of weathered dolostone. All other rock classified as either poor or fair.

GSI values were determined based on the qualitative chart for estimation of GSIF. The chart considers surface condition of the rock, the degree of weathering, and the structure of the rock. These are all visual classifications made based on the severity of each category. Based on the visual indicators, the rock can be assigned a value range that is representative of the strength of the rock.

The GSI values observed from the field investigation ranged from 20-70 across the area. Similar to the RMR, the lowest GSI value was observed in the three-foot interval of heavily weathered dolostone at boring B-8, all other values ranged from 30-70.

Samples were collected and transported to the UES office for use in the quality control check of the field logs. Selected samples were sent to the laboratory for testing as described in Section 3.4.

3.3 Summary of Field Exploration

Table 5 presents a summary of the soil test borings from field explorations. The boring location plan, included in Appendix D, shows all the borings. Locations of the borings were determined by

RK&K personnel by utilizing existing land features and provided plans.

Table 5- Test Boring Summary

Boring

No Test Boring

Type

Station Offset

Ground

Elevation

(ft-MSL)

Depth*

(ft BGS)

B-1 Abutment 1 Located Outside Project Alignment 1628.6 6.0

B-2 Abutment 1 Located Outside Project Alignment 1628.5 19.5

B-3 Interior Bent 1 Located Outside Project Alignment 1628.8 31.0

B-4 Interior Bent 1 Located Outside Project Alignment 1627.3 65.7

B-5 Interior Bent 2 Located Outside Project Alignment 1625.6 61.0

B-6 Interior Bent 2 Located Outside Project Alignment 1626.1 50.3

B-7 Abutment 2 4+79 31’ RT 1618.8 5.5

F Marinos, Paul, and Evert Hoek. “GSI: A Geological Friendly Tool for Rock Mass Strength Estimation.”

Proceedings of the GeoEng 2000 International Conference on Geotechnical and Geological Engineering, Melbourne, 19–24 Nov. 2000, pp. 1422–1446.

Boring

No Test Boring

Type

Station Offset

Ground

Elevation

(ft-MSL)

Depth*

(ft BGS)

B-8 Abutment 2 4+75 47’ LT 1621.7 70.0

B-9 Roadway 5+16 8’ RT 1618.2 6.2

B-10 Roadway 5+21 4’ LT 1617.5 8.4

*Boring Depth is taken from ground surface

3.4 Geotechnical Laboratory Testing

A total of 6 SPT samples, 1 bulk sample, and 2 core samples were submitted for laboratory testing to verify the field observations and determine engineering qualities of the soils and rock encountered within the project area. All 7 soil samples were submitted for testing of their natural moisture content, grain size distribution, Atterberg limits, USCS and AASHTO Classification. In addition, standard compaction testing and California bearing ratio testing were performed on the bulk sample. The rock core samples were selected for unconfined compressive strength testing. Summary tables of the tested samples and results of the laboratory testing are included in Appendix D. Photos of the untested rock core samples are included in the appendix as well. Table 6 lists the soil samples that were tested.

Table 6- Laboratory Test Soil Samples Summary

Boring Sample

No.

Alignment Station Offset

Depth (feet

BGS)*

B-8 SS-1 -LH- 4+75 47’ LT 1.0-2.5

B-8 SS-7 -LH- 4+75 47’ LT 23.5-25.0

B-8 SS-8 -LH- 4+75 47’ LT 28.5-30.0

B-8 SS-9 -LH- 4+75 47’ LT 33.5-35.0

B-9 SS-2 -LH- 5+16 8’ RT 3.5-5.0

B-9 Bulk -LH- 5+16 8’ RT 1.0-6.0

B-10 SS-1 -LH- 5+21 4’ LT 1.0-2.5

*All depths are referenced to the top of ground surface

3.5 Subsurface Conditions

During the subsurface exploration, four major strata were encountered in the borings performed at the project site and are listed as follows: Stratum I-Roadway Embankment (Fill), Stratum II-

Alluvium, Stratum III-Residuum, Stratum IV-Weathered Rock, and Stratum V-Bedrock. According to the Earthwork Considerations in the TDOT Roadway Design Guidelines, Strata I, II, and III are classified as Material A. Soil Material. Strata IV and V are classified as D. Transitional Material.

Table 7 summarizes the subsurface stratum information based on results of the subsurface exploration. It should be noted that the actual thickness and depths of each stratum in the field might vary across the site.

Table 7- Subsurface Stratification

Geologic Formation

Maximum

Elevation for top of layer (ft-

MSL)

Minimum

Elevation for bottom of layer (ft-

MSL)

Depth for top of layer

(feet

BGS)

Depth for bottom of layer (feet

BGS)

USCS Soil/Rock

Type

SPT-N

Values

(bpf)

Roadway

Embankment

1627.5 1614.5 0.0 to 1.0 3.0 to 3.5 GP, CL

7 -

100+

Alluvium 1621.0 1599.7 0.7 22.3

Boulders and

Cobbles, CL, SC, SP, SW

0 -

100+

Residuum 1599.7 1583.5 22.0 38.2 CL 24-30

Weathered Rock 1625.1 1622.6 3.5 6.0 Weathered

Siltstone 100+

Bedrock 1624.0 1551.7*

4.5 to

38.2 19.5* to 70.0*

Limestone, Siltstone, Shale, Shaly Dolomite

100+

*Boring terminated

The following descriptions of the strata provide details of the material classifications and depths.

3.5.1 Roadway Embankment (Fill)

Roadway embankment material was encountered in borings B-1, B-9, and B-10. These materials typically consist of medium stiff to hard Sandy LEAN CLAY (CL) and very dense Poorly Graded

GRAVEL (GP) with varying amounts of sand and mica. Encountered fill and roadway embankment material were primarily encountered near the proposed abutments, ranging from about 2.0 to 3.5 feet in thickness.

3.5.2 Alluvium

Alluvial soils were encountered at the ground surface in and surrounding the Doe River. Alluvial soils encountered on site primarily consist of very soft to hard Sandy LEAN CLAY (CL) and very loose to very dense Clayey SAND (SC), Poorly Graded SAND (SP), and Well Graded SAND (SW) with varying amounts of rounded rock fragments and mica. These soil materials were primarily encountered on the east side of the Doe River at B-7, B-8, B-9, and B-10.

Alluvial Boulders and Cobbles were also encountered on site surrounding and in the Doe River at B-3, B-4, B-6, B-7, and B-8. The maximum thickness of alluvial material encountered on site was

22.0 feet at B-8. The bottom of the stratum was encountered at approximately 5.5 to 22.3 feet BGS and from elevation 1599.7 to 1621.0 ft-MSL.

3.5.3 Residuum

Residual soils were encountered below alluvium at B-8. Residual soils primarily consist of very stiff Sandy LEAN CLAY (CL) with varying amounts of rock fragments. The stratum, which had a thickness of 16.2 feet, was encountered at approximately 22.0 feet BGS and ranged from elevation

1599.7 to 1583.5 ft-MSL.

3.5.4 Weathered Rock

Weathered rock was encountered below the fill at B-1 and underlaying bedrock at B-5. Weathered rock encountered consists of siltstone rock fragments at B-1. No recovery was encountered at the weathered rock layer in B-5. The thickness of this stratum ranges between approximately 2.5 to 5 feet. The stratum was encountered at approximately 3.5 feet BGS and ranged from elevation 1625.1 to 1622.6 ft-MSL in B-1. Weathered rock was encountered during Core Run 3 at B-5, ranging from elevation 1594.5 to 1589.5 ft-MSL.

3.5.5 Bedrock

Bedrock was primarily encountered below alluvial or residual materials. Bedrock was generally sampled as limestone, siltstone, shale, and shaly dolomite. Top of rock was encountered at approximately 4.5 to 38.2 feet BGS and from elevation 1624.0 to 1583.5 ft-MSL. The deepest rock was sampled at 70.0 feet BGS at B-8, and maximum sampled thickness was 40.0 feet at B-5. Recovery of core samples ranged from 4% to 100%, with values typically ranging from 50% to 100%. RQD of the sampled core samples ranged from 0% to 90%, with typical values at 0% or between 40% to 90%.

3.5.6 Surface Water and Groundwater

Table 8 summarizes the groundwater conditions based on results of the subsurface exploration.

All borings, with exception to B-7, were backfilled immediately after drilling. A 24-hour water level reading could not be collected once a boring was backfilled. The 24-hour water level at B-7 was recorded as dry, despite its proximity to the Doe River.

Table 8- Groundwater Conditions Table

Boring

Ground

Elevation

(ft-MSL)

Groundwater

Depth At The

Time of Drilling*

(ft)

Groundwater

Elevation At The

Time of Drilling*

(ft-MSL)

24-hr

Groundwater

Depth*

(ft)

24-hr

Groundwater

Elevation*

(ft-MSL)

B-1 1628.6 Dry N/A TNP TNP

B-2 1628.5 Dry N/A TNP TNP

B-3 1628.8 11.8 1617.0 TNP TNP

B-4 1627.3 12.3 1615.0 TNP TNP

B-5 1625.6 10.6 1615.0 TNP TNP

B-6 1626.1 11.1 1615.0 TNP TNP

B-7 1618.8 3.0 1615.8 Dry N/A

B-8 1621.7 TNP TNP TNP TNP

B-9 1618.2 Dry N/A TNP TNP

B-10 1617.5 2.0 1615.2 TNP TNP

*TNP = Test Not Performed

It should be noted that the groundwater level observation is only a general indication of conditions in the vicinity of the corresponding borings. Fluctuation within the project site and variations in the long-term groundwater levels should be expected to occur because of changes in precipitation, evaporation, surface water runoff, construction activities, and other factors.

3.6 Assessment of Subsurface Conditions and Historic Design Information

Based on the provided plans, it was anticipated to encounter concrete footings at the Pier 1 and

Pier 2 boring locations. Borings B-3 and B-4 were drilled at Pier 1 where 3.0-ft of concrete was encountered at B-4. The foundation was not encountered at boring B-3. The borings at Pier 2 consisted of B-5 and B-6, which both encountered the existing foundation at thicknesses of 2.5-ft and

3.0-ft respectively. Based on the Pier 1 and 2 Details provided, the thickness of the footing placed suggests that a minimum of 2.5 feet of concrete should have been encountered in our borings. With exception to B-3, where the footing was not encountered, our borings at the Pier 1 and Pier 2 substructures are relatively consistent with the plans. At Pier 2, the bottom of foundation was encountered at a lower elevation in our field exploration than was indicated on the plans. With the footing width of 24 feet at each pier, it is possible drilling at boring B-3 was performed outside of the existing foundation footprint. Based on our borings, the footings were installed on siltstone bedrock with RQD values of 56% to 57% at Pier 1. At Pier 2, the foundation bearing material consists of a combination of siltstone and dolomite bedrock with RQD values of 0% and 19%.

4 Evaluations and Recommendations

4.1 Bridge

Geotechnical evaluations were performed based on the results of subsurface investigations, project site conditions, and in accordance with the AASHTO LRFD Design Specifications 9th Edition

(2020) and FHWA Micropile Design & Construction Manual NHI-05-039 (2005). Any significant deviation from the current site conditions or the results of the subsurface investigation shall be evaluated by the geotechnical engineer of the project. The following sections summarize the results of our evaluation.

Table 9- General Design Information

Bent ID Station Recommended

Foundation Type

Estimated Top of Weathered

Rock Elev. (ft)

Estimated Top of Competent

Rock* Elev. (ft)

Beginning of Bridge

(Abutment 1)

Located Outside

Project Alignment

Located Outside

Project Alignment

1625 (RT)

1624 (LT)

1622 ½ (RT)

Bent 1 Located Outside

Project Alignment

Located Outside

Project Alignment

NE

1601 ½ (LT)

1605 (RT)

Bent 2 Located Outside

Project Alignment

Located Outside

Project Alignment

NE

1604 (LT)

1604 ½ (RT)

End of Bridge

(Abutment 2) 4+79.25 Micropiles NE 1583 ½ (LT)**

*Competent rock elevations are based on observance of weathering and fracturing of the rock core, resulting in deeper rock elevations than indicated in the bore logs.

**Boring B-7, located on the right side of Abutment 2, was terminated in alluvial clayey sand.

Auger refusal materials encountered at EL 1613.3 ft-MSL were not verified.

Minor repairs are anticipated for Abutment 1 and bridge spans as needed; however, modifications to the foundations are not planned. Repair of Abutment 2 is planned to be underpinning the exposed foundation with micropiles due to the site conditions and accessibility of construction equipment.

Micropiles are small diameter piles with the capability to withstand high tensile and compressible loads. The drilling equipment and method of installation allows micropiles to be drilled though virtually any ground condition, including obstructions, in low headroom areas, and restricted access with acceptable levels of vibrations minimizing the risk of damage to the existing structures and utilities. This is appropriate given the boulders encountered during the field exploration, overhead powerlines at Abutment 2, and nearby utilities.

The equipment can be very small and therefore may be removed easily at the end of every shift.

Pipe casing can be installed in lengths of 5 to 20-ft and is light enough to be placed without large cranes. The structural loads are mainly transferred by the steel pipe piles to the surrounding rock or soil through grout. The construction of a micropile foundation will require a specialty contractor.

Detailed geotechnical recommendations related to the micropile design are included in Section 4.1.1 of this report.

4.1.1 Abutment Supported on Micropiles

Based on the site constraints and existing conditions of the undermined Abutment 2, it is recommended that Abutment 2 be supported on a micropile foundation. Soil materials encountered in our borings at Abutment 2 are listed in Table 10 with estimated strength parameters recommended for design of the abutment foundation.

Table 10- Soil Parameters for Abutment 2 Foundation

Soil Classification

Unit Weight

(pcf)

Friction Angle

(degrees)

Undrained Shear

Strength (psf)

Fill 120 30 --

Alluvial Sandy Lean Clay 115 -- 900

Alluvial Boulders and

Cobbles

125 34 --

Alluvial Poorly-Graded Sand 120 32 --

Residual Sandy Lean Clay 115 -- 800

Micropiles should be bonded a minimum of 10-feet into competent bedrock. A preliminary nominal grout-to-ground bond resistance of 15 ksf based on encountered subsurface conditions and table C10.9.3.5.2-1 from the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, 9th Edition, 2020 was used to confirm a minimum bonded length into rock. The specialty contractor may elect to use a higher value for the nominal grout-to-ground bond resistance for preliminary design, but should not exceed 40 ksf without first contacting the geotechnical engineer. The actual depth of penetration and grout-to-ground bond nominal resistance should be determined by load testing.

The final design of the micropiles should be developed by the Contractor’s Engineer licensed in the State of Tennessee that has demonstrated the successful completion of at least five projects of similar scope and magnitude within the last three years and approved by the Engineer. The final design should be in accordance with AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, 9th Edition, 2020 and meet any additional criteria determined by the structural engineer, such as tolerable movement, the ability to support the required loads, etc.

The design for the bond length and construction procedures should be verified by a minimum of one verification load tests. Resistance factor no larger than 0.70 for compression and 0.60 for tension may be used. A static quick load test in accordance with ASTM D1143 (compression) or ASTM

D3689 (tension) should be performed. A minimum of 5-percent of production micropiles should be proof tested.

The Contractor should maintain complete records of all micropile installations. The construction record for each micropile should include the pile designation number and date of installation; top of pile elevation immediately after installation; tip elevation as installed; deviation from specified plan location in inches to the nearest 1-in; pile length immediately after installation to the nearest 0.1-ft;

bottom elevation of drill casing upon completion of drilling and bottom elevation of steel core reinforcing; description of any deviations from the design location and batter or from the approved pile design; and installation procedures and description of any unusual occurrences during drilling, installation, and grouting; and grout take volumes.

4.2 Stability

Maximum fills on the order of 8 feet are proposed surrounding Long Hollow Road and River

Bottom Road at a grade of 7:1 (H:V) or flatter. Based on the flatness of the proposed embankment slopes and the shape of the fills to replace the previously eroded soil material, the embankment slopes should be stable.

4.3 Pavement

The recommended pavement design for River Bottom Road was performed based on assumptions that the subgrade within the areas to be paved will be prepared in accordance with the site preparation and construction considerations contained in Section 5 of this report and in accordance with the

TDOT specifications. The pavement design should include proper surface drainage as well as soil subgrade drainage. Based on our laboratory results, a minimum CBR of 5 is recommended for the pavement subgrade.

The thickness analysis for flexible pavements was performed in general accordance with

AASHTO 1993 procedures. Structural layer coefficients are based on the TDOT Pavement Design

Guidelines from May of 2025. The recommended pavement design thickness provided in Table 11 is based on a maximum estimated ESAL of 200,000, a 20-year service life, reliability of 95%, standard deviation of 0.45, and a delta serviceability of 1.7.

Table 11- Pavement Design (Less than 200,000 ESAL)

Pavement Layer Thickness (inches) for Typical Section

Surface Layer 1.5

Binder Layer 3

Aggregate Base - Type A 8

The above pavement thickness sections are not suitable for heavy construction equipment loads.

The overall life of the pavement system will be shortened, or significant pavement distress may occur if the mineral aggregate base or asphalt base course are left in place for an extended period, exposed to wet weather or freeze/thaw conditions, and/or subjected to heavy construction equipment loads.

4.4 Seismic Site Classification

In accordance with the AASHTO 3.10.3.1, a Seismic Site Class of D may be used for design of the bridge based on the subsurface conditions encountered during our exploration, our familiarity with the area geology, and understanding of the project. The encountered subsurface profile indicates liquefaction is not expected.

5 Site Preparation and Construction Considerations

5.1 Site Preparation

Site preparation and construction activities should be performed in accordance with Part 2 and

Section 606 of the TDOT Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction, 2021 Edition.

5.2 Structural Fill

Borrow excavation and materials selected for use as compacted fill should conform to the provisions set forth in the TDOT Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction.

Similarly, the placement and compaction methods of structural fill should conform to these specifications. We recommend a shrink/swell factor of 20% for excavated Type A Soil Material.

5.3 Excavations

The Contractor is fully responsible for the design, construction, and maintenance of safe temporary shoring and slopes in accordance with OSHA trench protection guidelines.

If weak in-place soils deposited by the river are encountered, local undercutting and replacement of these soils may be necessary to allow adequate compaction of new embankment fill.

5.4 Sinkholes

Since the proposed project is underlain by carbonate bedrock, it is susceptible to typical hazards of karst topography, including sinkholes and caves. Surface features were not observed during our exploration. We do not recommend mitigation at this time; however, risk related to the formation and associated subsidence of sinkholes should be considered. If sinkholes are observed during construction, the geotechnical engineer should be notified. Contingency quantities for deeper micropiles and material loss during micropile construction should be considered for this project.

6 Limitations

This report has been prepared to present the geotechnical conditions at the site and the recommended method of founding the proposed construction. Adequate recommendations have been provided to serve as a basis for design and preparation of plans and specifications. The opinions, conclusions and recommendations contained in this report are based upon our professional judgment and generally accepted principles of geotechnical engineering. Inherent to these are the assumptions that the earthwork and foundation construction should be monitored and tested by an engineering technician acting under the guidance of a geotechnical engineer licensed in the state of Tennessee.

These analyses and recommendations are, of necessity, based on the information available at the time of the actual writing of the report and on the site conditions, surface and subsurface, that existed at the time the exploratory borings were drilled. Further, assumptions have been made regarding the limited exploratory borings, in relation to both the lateral extent of the site conditions and to the depth.

The nature and extent of variations between borings may not become evident until construction. If variations from the anticipated conditions are encountered, it may be necessary to revise the recommendations in this report.

Our professional services have been performed in accordance with generally accepted engineering principles and practices; no other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. RK&K assumes no responsibility for interpretations made by others on the work performed by RK&K.

Appendix A: Geotechnical Sheet

54'-10•" 54'-3" 54'-10•"

DATUM EL. 1615.00

F F

I

LEGEND:

ABUTMENT 1

ABUTMENT 2

LIST OF DRAWINGS

GRADE SKETCH

S T

A

P I

S T

A

F

G

E L

-5.66%

EXISTING BRIDGE TOTAL LENGTH = 164'-0"

RIP-RAP

EXISTING

-DENOTES FIXED

-DENOTES INTEGRALI

F

SEE DWG NO.5

PABE TO BE REMOVED,

ELEVATION VIEW

REPAIR DETAILS

FOR ABUTMENT NO.2

SEE DWG NO.6 & 7

SEE TDOT STD-1-5

BRIDGE ENDS (TYP.)

PAVEMENT AT

BILL OF STEEL

FINAL FOUNDATION REPAIR DATA

BRIDGE REPAIR DETAILS

ABUTMENT NO. 2 REPAIR DETAILS

ABUTMENT NO. 2 REPAIR

SUPERSTRUCTURE REPAIR

BRIDGE DEMOLITION

FOUNDATION DATA

GENERAL NOTES & ESTIMATED QUANTITIES

LAYOUT OF BRIDGE TO BE REPAIRED

EXISTING GROUNDLINE

APPROXIMATE

37'-0"

(5180 SQ FT)

FLEXAMAT 10 NW

OF UNDERMINING

APPROXIMATE LIMITS

F.G. EL. 1631.39

STA. 3+15.24

BEG. OF BRIDGE

F.G. EL. 1630.31

STA. 3+70.12

{ PIER 1

F.G. EL. 1628.83

STA. 4+24.37

{ PIER 2

F.G. EL. 1626.33

STA. 4+79.25

END OF BRIDGE

c

A c c 1/S/F

E n g in e e rs

C o n s tr u c ti o n M a n a g e rs

P la n n e rs

S c ie n ti s ts

D A

T E

J O

B

EXISTING GROUNDLINE

APPROXIMATE

(5180 SQ FT)

FLEXAMAT 10 NW

OF UNDERMINING

APPROXIMATE LIMITS

REPAIR DETAILS

FOR ABUTMENT NO.2

SEE DWG NO.6 & 7

OF UNDERMINING

APPROXIMATE LIMITS

REPAIR DETAILS

FOR ABUTMENT NO.2

SEE DWG NO.6 & 7

N

A P

S N

S N

L

A N R

E V

IS

IO

N S

R U

M M

E L

K L E

P P

E R K

A H

L L L P

L

E V

D

G N

D

G N

L E

V

R

E F

(P

-1

N A

S H

V

IL

L E T

N

M

A R

R

IO

T T D

R

IV

E S

U

IT

E

G

IN

E E

R

C H

E C

K E

D

O V

R

E

R I

V E

R L

O

H

L L

O W

R

O A

D

C A

R T

R

C

U N

T Y

T N

D W

S T

R E

A M

F L

O W

LIST OF REFERENCE DRAWINGS

PLAN VIEW

RIP-RAP

EXISTING

ELEVATION VIEW

REPAIR DETAILS

FOR ABUTMENT NO.2

SEE DWG NO.6 & 7

LIST OF STANDARD DRAWINGS

STA. 3+15.24

BEG. OF BRIDGE

STA. 4+79.25

END OF BRIDGE

B-2

B-1

6.0'

B-4

B-5

B-6

5.5'

B-7

19.5'

4.5'

B-3 6.2' B-9

8.4' B-10

70.3'

24.5'

BOTTOM OF HOLE (BELOW LINE)

BORING LOCATION. DEPTH TO REFUSAL (ABOVE LINE),

BORING LOCATION WITH DEPTH TO REFUSAL

B-1

B-1 24.5'

LEGEND

N

70.0'

38.2'

B-8

/1

/2

D C

B

S S

M

ELEVATION VIEW

ABUTMENT 2

WEATHERED ROCK

LIMESTONE

DOLOMITE

SHALE

SILTSTONE

CONCRETE

CLAY

SAND (SW)

SAND (SP)

CLAYEY SAND (SC)

TOPSOIL

BOULDERS AND COBBLES

0' 30'

SOIL AND ROCK LEGEND

1628.6'

ELE.

B-1

1628.5'

ELE.

B-2

1617.5'

ELE.

B-10

1618.2'

ELE.

B-9

65.7'

50.3'

31.0'

61.0'

F O

U N

D A

T I

T A

GRAVEL

AND WATER SURFACE

GAP BETWEEN BRIDGE DECK WATER

SHALY DOLOMITE

50/4"

50/2"

50/3"

AR @ 6.0'

50/4"

50/2"

RQD:56%

RQD:69%

RQD:84%

BT @ 19.5'

RQD:57%

RQD:58%

RQD:90%

RQD:64%

RQD:48%

RQD:62%

RQD:82%

RQD:89%

BT @ 65.7'

RQD:56%

RQD:76%

BT @ 31.0'

RQD:12%

RQD:80%

RQD:75%

RQD:84%

RQD:72%

RQD:0%

RQD:0%

RQD:0%

BT @ 61.0'

BT @ 50.3'

RQD:0%

RQD:0%

RQD:19%

RQD:0%

RQD:0%

RQD:0%

RQD:33%

RQD:78%

RQD:44%

RQD:48%

RQD:64%

RQD:28%

RQD:64%

BT @ 70.0'

AR @ 5.5'

50/3"

AR @ 6.2'

50/3"

AR @ 8.4'

S T -3

N

FLEXAMAT

I

DATUM EL. 1615.00

3+00 3+50 4+00 4+50 5+00 5+50

ELE.1627.3'

B-4

ELE.1626.8'

B-3

ELE.1626.1'

B-6

ELE.1625.6'

B-5

1618.8'

ELE.

B-7

1621.7'

ELE.

B-8

F F

I

LEGEND:

ABUTMENT 1

RIP-RAP

EXISTING

-DENOTES FIXED

-DENOTES INTEGRALI

F

RQD:56% RQD:0%

RQD:19%

AR @ 5.5'

50/3"

I

DATUM EL. 1615.00

RQD:56% RQD:0%

RQD:19%

AR @ 5.5'

50/3"

I

DATUM EL. 1615.00

54'-3"54'-3"54'-10•"54'-10•" 54'-10•"54'-10•"

EXISTING BRIDGE TOTAL LENGTH = 164'-0"EXISTING BRIDGE TOTAL LENGTH = 164'-0"

SEE DWG NO.5

PABE TO BE REMOVED,

SEE TDOT STD-1-5

BRIDGE ENDS (TYP.)

PAVEMENT AT

F.G. EL. 1626.33

STA. 4+79.25

END OF BRIDGE

F.G. EL. 1631.39

STA. 3+15.24

BEG. OF BRIDGE

F.G. EL. 1630.31

STA. 3+70.12

{ PIER 1

F.G. EL. 1628.83

STA. 4+24.37

{ PIER 2

F.G. EL. 1631.39

STA. 3+15.24

BEG. OF BRIDGE

F.G. EL. 1630.31

STA. 3+70.12

{ PIER 1

F.G. EL. 1628.83

STA. 4+24.37

{ PIER 2

Appendix B: Provided Information

B-1) Select Historic Bridge Plans

B-2) Select Pages from TDOT Bridge Inspection Report

Appendix B-1:

Select Historic Bridge Plans

Appendix B-2:

Select Pages from TDOT Bridge Inspection Report

IDENTIFICATION

(1) State Names 47 - Tennessee

(8) Structure Number 100A2990001

(5) Inventory Route 1

(2) Highway Agency District Region 1

(3) County Code 10 - Carter

(4) Place Code 00000

(6) Features Intersected DOE RIVER

(7) Facility Carried NFA A299

(9) Location W OF SR37-N OF HAMPTON

(11) Mile Point 0.016 mi

(12) Base Highway Network No

(13) LRS Inventory Rte & Subrte

(16) Latitude 36.306750

(17) Longitude -82.196200

(98) Border Bridge State Code

(99) Border Bridge Structure No.

(43) Main Structure Type 62 Material 6 - Prestressed concrete continuous *

Type 2 - Stringer/Multi-beam or girder

(44) Approach Structure Type 00

Material 0 - Other / None Type 0 - Other / None

(45) No. of Spans in Main Unit 3

(46) No. of Approach Spans 0

(107) Deck Structure Type 2 - Concrete Precast Panels

(108) Wearing Surface/Protective System

Type of Wearing Surface 6 - Bituminous Type of Membrane 0 - None

STRUCTURE TYPE AND MATERIAL

0 - NoneType of Deck Protection

AGE AND SERVICE

(27) Year Built 1980

(106) Year Reconstructed 0

(42) Type of Service 15

On 1 - Highway Under 5 - Waterway

(28) Lane On 2

Under 0

(29) Average Daily Traffic 980

(30) Year of ADT 2002

(109) Truck ADT 2 %

(19) Bypass, Detour Length 3 mi

CLASSIFICATION

(112) NBIS Bridge Length Y

(104) Highway System 0

(26) Functional Class 19 - Urban Local

(100) Defense Highway 0 - The inventory route is not

(101) Parallel Structure N - No parallel structure exis

(102) Direction of Traffic 2 - way traffic

(103) Temporary Structure

(105) Federal Lands Highways 0 - N/A

(110) Designated National Network 0 - The inventory route is not

(20) Toll 3 - On free road. The structu

(21) Maintain 2 - County Highway Agency

(22) Owner 2 - County Highway Agency

(37) Historical Significance 4 - Historical significance is

GEOMETRIC DATA

(48) Length of Maximum Span 54.8 ft

(49) Structure Length 166.3 ft

(50) Curb or Sidewalk Width

Left 0.0 ft Right 0.0 ft

(51) Bridge Roadway Width Curb to Curb 23.6 ft

(52) Deck Width Out to Out 32.6 ft

(32) Approach Roadway Width (W/Shoulders) 20.0 ft

(33) Bridge Median 0 - No median

(34) Skew 90 Deg

(35) Structure Flared 0 - No flare

(10) Inventory Route Min Vert Clear 99.99 ft

(47) Inventory Route Total Horiz Clear 23.6 ft

(53) Min Vert Clear Over Bridge Rdwy 99.99 ft

(54) Min Vert Underclear 0.00 ft Ref:

(55) Min Lat Underclear RT

0.0 ft

0.0 ft Ref:

(56) Min Lat Underclear LT

NAVIGATION DATA

(40) Navigation Horizontal Clearance ft(116) Vert-Lift Bridge Nav Min Vert Clear

0.0 ft(39) Navigation Vertical Clearance

(111) Pier Protection

0 - No navigation control on w(38) Navigation Control

0.0 ft

LOAD RATING AND POSTING

(31) Design Load 5 - MS 18 / HS 20

(63) Operating Rating Method 0

(64) Operating Rating

Type 0 - Field evaluation and documented engine Rating 0.00

(65) Inventory Rating Method 0 - Field evaluation and docum

(66) Inventory Rating

Type Rating 0.00

(70) Bridge Posting

(41) Structure Open/Posted/Closed B - Open, posting recommended

0 - > 39.9% below

APPRAISAL

(67) Structural Evaluation 7

(68) Deck Geometry 4

(69) Clearances, Vertical/Horizontal N

(71) Waterway Adequacy 7

(72) Approach Roadway Alignment 8 (36A) Bridge Railings (36B) Transitions 0 - Inspected feature does not meet (36C) Approach Guardrail 1 - Inspected feature meets current (36D) Approach Guardrail Ends

(113) Scour Critical Bridges 0 - Bridge is scour critical. Bridg

0 - Inspected feature does not meet

0 - Inspected feature does not meet

PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS

(75) Type of Work 33 - Widening of existing brid

(76) Length of Structure Improvement 166.3 ft

(94) Bridge Improvement Cost $ 45

(95) Roadway Improvement Cost $ 5

(96) Total Project Cost $ 68

(97) Year of Improvement Cost Estimate 2021

(114) Future ADT 1568

(115) Year of Future ADT 2041

CONDITION

(62) Culverts 0(61) Channel & Channel Protection 0(60) Substructure 0(59) Superstructure 0(58) Deck

N

INSPECTIONS *

(90) Inspection Date

(91) Frequency

(92) Critical Feature Inspection A: Fracture Critical Detail B: Underwater Inspection C: Other Special…