FY17_SanVicenteCreekBridge1_InspRpt.pdf

Form Revised Dec. 2013

San Vicente Creek Bridge 1

BRIDGE INSPECTION REPORT

INSPECTION TYPE: Routine

San Vicente Creek Road over San Vicente Creek

Central California District

Central Coast Field Office

FAMS Location #: L2016097

FHWA Structure #: 0000000L2016097

Date of Inspection: 7/27/2017

Date of Previous Inspection: 10/3/2016

MILEPOST: 0.5 MI

No cadastral survey of this area.

Time: 2:40 p.m. Temperature: 71°F

Weather: Sunny

Inspection Team: Andrew Moss, Ryan Swanier

Team Leader:

Print: Andrew Moss Signature Date Report Reviewed By:

Print: Dana Cork Signature Date Report Approval:

Print: Dana Cork Signature Date

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

BRIDGE INSPECTION PROGRAM

12/22/2017

1/2/2018

1/2/2018

San Vicente Creek Bridge 1 Central Coast Field Office FAMS Location #: L2016097 Inspection Date: 7/27/2017

1 | P a g e

IDENTIFICATION PHOTOGRAPH

Looking Ahead On Line

General Bridge Description:

San Vicente Creek Bridge 1 is located in the Coast Dairies area. To get to the bridge turn off of Highway 1 onto Davenport Ave. Then take a right onto Old Coast Road and the first left onto San Vicente Creek Road. Take the road east for 0.5 miles to the first locked gate. This represents the start of the BLM road.

San Vicente Creek Bridge 1 is located 0.5 miles from the locked gate.

The creek flows from the north to the south. Abutment 1 is located on the west side (right side looking downstream) and Abutment 2 is located on the east side. The superstructure consists of four W12x65 steel girders. The girders are labeled looking from A1 towards A2 with G1 on the left and G4 on the right.

The girder spacing is 2’-1” between G1 and G2, 4’-7 ½” between G2 and G3, and 2’-3/4” between G3 and G4. There are longitudinal 4x12” timber nailing boards bolted to the top flange of each girder. There is an average of five bolts on each side of the web with an average spacing of approximately 5’-6”. The deck consists of transverse 4x12” timber boards that are connected to the nailing board above each girder. The wearing surface consists of three 2x12” running planks per wheel line. There are 8x8” timber curbs on 8x8” by 2.5 ft. long curb blocks.

The substructure consists of cast in place concrete abutments. Abutment 1 has a soil foundation with a concrete footing. Abutment 2 has a bedrock foundation that the concrete stem wall is anchored into.

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, 4-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. # 0000000L2016097 2.Hwy District 00 7.Facility

Carried San Vicente Creek Rd.

3.County Code

087-Santa Cruz

9.Location 1 mi N of Davenport, CA

6.Feature Intersected San Vicente Creek 5A.On/Under 1 – On 5B.Rte Sign. 6 – Federal 5C.Lvl. Serv. 1-mainline 5D.Rte. # 5E.Directional Suffix

1 98A.Border State Code

98B.Border % Responsible

99.Border Bridge #

4.Place Code 00000 11.Mile Post 0.5 mi.

16.Latitude 37.02410° 17.Longitude -122.18606

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 – None 44B.Approach Type of Design 00 – None 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 ~1970 106.Year

Reconstructed Unknown

42A.Type of Service on 1 – Highway 42B.Type of Service under 5 – Waterway 28A.Lanes on 01 28B.Lanes

Under

19.Detour Length 5 mi. 29.ADT 10 109.Truck ADT % 30.Year of ADT 2015

GEOMETRIC DATA

48.Length Max Span 27.3 ft. 49.Structure Length 28.8 ft.

50A.Curb/Sidewalk Width Left

0.67 ft. 50B. Curb/Sidewalk Width Right

0.67 ft.

51.Width curb-curb 10.83 ft. 52.Width Out-Out 12 ft.

47.Route Total Horizontal Clearance 10.83ft.

32.Approach Roadway Width (w/ Shoulders) 8 ft.

33.Median 0 – None 34.Skew 00 35.Structure Flared 0 – No 10.Route Min. Vertical Clearance 99.99 53.Min. Vertical Clearance Over Bridge 99.99 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 39.Vertical Clearance

0000 40.Horizontal Clearance

111.Pier Protection

116.Lift Bridge Vertical Clearance

INSPECTION

91.Frequency 12 mos. 90.Insp. Date 0717 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 for 2 way

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 3 60.Sub 5 62.Culvert N 61.Channel/Channel Protection 5

LOAD RATING AND POSTING

65.Inventory Rating Method

8 – LRFR

by RF

63.Operating Rating Method

8 – LRFR by

RF

66.Inventory Rating

0.14 64.Operating Rating

0.18

31.Design Load 0-Unknown 70.Posting 0- <39.9% below

41.Posting Status P- Posted at 3 tons

APPRAISAL

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

N 36D.Approach Rail Ends

N

71.Waterway Adequacy

7 72.Approach Alignment

113.Scour Critical U- unknown foundation

PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS

94.Bridge Cost $285,000 95.Roadway Cost

$0 76.Length of Improvement

28.8

96.Total Cost $371,000 114.Future

ADT

97.Year of Cost Estimate

2015 115.Year of Future ADT

75A.Type of Work 31-Bridge replacement due to low rating 75B.Work Done By 1-Contract

3 | P a g e

CRITICAL FINDINGS

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

The superstructure was found to be in serious condition due to extensive corrosion with areas of up to 50% section loss.

Previous to the 2016 inspection a tree fell onto the upstream side of the bridge. The tree broke three 4x12” transverse deck planks, one 2x12” running plank and the 8x8” timber curb. The timber curb was replaced since the last inspection but a void in the deck remains where the transverse deck planks failed.

FOLLOW-UP PLAN

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

The local field office is aware of the section loss of the girders and the broken deck members. The bridge remains behind a locked gate, closed to public traffic. The bridge is on a 12 month inspection frequency until the structure can be replaced.

STRUCTURE EVALUATION SUMMARY

San Vicente Creek Bridge 1 is in serious condition. The steel superstructure is estimated to be at least 45 years old. The bridge is only a couple miles from the coast which means that steel is much more susceptible to corrosion. The remaining steel thickness was measured in various locations on Girder 4. The worst areas of corrosion were found to have nearly 50% section loss.

The bridge was re-load rated this inspection cycle using less conservative assumptions than the previous load rating (see load rating section for details). The load rating determined the bridge does not have adequate capacity for all legal loads and needs to be posted. The bridge is currently posted with 3 ton weight limit signs. The revised load rating dictates that the bridge can be posted at 18 tons according to the Safe Posing Load Equation in the Manual for Bridge Evaluation. The local field office has the option to keep the 3 ton sign in place to minimize loads crossing the bridge. Otherwise the 3 ton signs can be replaced with 18 ton weight limit signs.

Long term plans for the bridge should still include replacement. The steel stringers will continue to deteriorate relatively quickly in the humid environment this close to the coast. The bridge remains behind a locked gate that restricts access to the general public. The 2017 estimated cost to replace the bridge with a pre-stressed concrete structure is $386,000. This includes a 12% BLM administrative allocation, 15% design/survey cost and 3% to account for overhead. A breakdown of the cost is included at the end of this report. The full cost estimate is available upon request.

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 Notes (w/item reference):

58.1 – A large 30” diameter tree fell onto the upstream side of the bridge prior to the 2016 inspection. The tree broke 3 transverse deck planks, 1 wearing surface running plank and the upstream curb. The curb has since been replaced but there is still a void in the deck where the transverse planks failed. Additionally, there is 3” of soil accumulation in the middle of the bridge and 6” on the sides. Some decay was found on the underside of the timber deck.

2. EXPANSION JOINTS N

3. WEARING SURFACE F

4. RIDEABILITY F

5. CURBS, SIDEWALK AND MEDIAN F

6. PARAPETS AND/OR RAILINGS N

7. DRAINS AND DRAINAGE N

8. UTILITIES N

9. DEFLECTION AND/OR VIBRATION G

10. OTHER

59 Superstructure Condition 3 – Serious

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

59.2 – There is heavy corrosion on the girders. The worst is on the exterior of G4 where there is up to 50% section loss in the web of G4, 4’‐4” from A2. G1 also exhibits substantial corrosion yielding section loss.

59.8‐ The bolts connecting the nailing plank to the top flange are sporadic with large spaces in between. The top flange cannot be considered continuously braced.

2. GIRDERS OR BEAMS P

3. ARCHES OR SLABS N

4. FLOOR BEAMS AND STRINGERS N

5. TRUSSES N

6. DIAPHRAGMS AND BRACING N

7. PAINT P

8. CONNECTIONS/WELDS P

9. DEFLECTION AND/OR VIBRATION F

10. ALIGNMENT F

11. OTHER

60 Substructure Condition 5 – Fair

Abutments Notes (w/item reference):

60.3 – There is no apparent connection between the abutment and the girders.

Some crushing of the bearing plate under G1 at A2 was observed. The deficiency likely occurred when the tree fell onto the upstream side of the bridge. There is heavy corrosion on the steel bearing plates and there is heavy soil accumulation.

60.6 – The u/s edge of the A2 wingwall is parallel to the flow with scour occurring behind the wingwall.

1. BREASTWALLS OR COLUMNS G

2. PILE BENTS N

3. CAPS AND/OR BEARING SEATS F

4. BACKWALLS AND/OR BULKHEADS F

5. FOUNDATIONS 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 F 60.9 – Previous inspections noted the top of the footing at A1 was exposed 10”.

This inspection determined aggradation from the slower stream velocity behind a tree stump caught under the bridge has raised the channel bottom above the footing.

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 5 – Fair

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

61.1 – The channel curves sharply u/s of the bridge.

61.3 – There is natural bedrock along the left bank and dumped concrete u/s of A1.

61.4 – Large tree stump was caught under the bridge creating a waterway obstruction.

61.5 – Logs caught under the bridge indicate that the bridge was overtopped since the last inspection.

2. EROSION AND/OR SCOUR F

3. CHANNEL PROTECTION F

4. WATERWAY OBSTRUCTIONS F

5. ADEQUACY OF OPENING F

6. STREAMBED COMPOSITION F

7. OTHER

62 Culverts N – 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 7

72 Approach Roadway Alignment 3

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

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 0.40 0.53

Legal Rating Rating (RF) Type 3 0.83 Type 3S2 0.86 Type 3-3 1.01 Notional Rating Load (NRL)

0.57

SU4 0.69

SU5 0.64

SU6 0.59

SU7 0.58

EV2 0.71

EV3 0.45

Design Loading Level: Unknown Place X next to appropriate load rating description:

Original Design Load Valid X Original Design Load Not Valid Original Load Rating Calculation Valid X Original Load Rating Calculation Revised Date of Load Rating Calculation: 10/23/2017 Load Rating Controlled By: Strength I – Interior Girder - Flexure

*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:

A new load rating was conducted this year to satisfy the requirements set forth in FHWA Memorandum HIBT-10; NBI bridges are required to be load rated for Special Hauling Vehicles.

In the previous load rating the deck controlled the worst load conditions. The bridge was modeled so that a wheel line could be placed at the centerline of the interior girder bay which was much wider than the exterior bays. The revised load rating determined the geometry of the bridge only allows the wheel lines to be in the exterior bays that are 2’-1” wide when considering the vehicle placement rules in article 6A.2.3.2 of the Manual for Bridge Evaluation.

The commentary notes that some agencies were placing wheel loads as little as 1’-0” from the edge of the roadway, but in most applications it is too conservative. The previous rating accounts for a tire placed against the face of the curb so that the other wheel line is in the interior bay. In this configuration, the wheel line is positioned 1’-6” from center in the bay.

Under this load configuration the deck no longer controls the load rating; instead the load rating is controlled by the interior girders.

The lowest capacity of all the legal loads was for the Type 3 truck which had a RF of 0.83. This correlates to a weight of 20 tons. The Manual for Bridge Evaluation recommends posting the bridge at a lower level based on the Safe Posting Load equation. Bridge should be posted at 18 tons. Currently the bridge is conservatively posted at 3 tons.

7 | P a g e

Detailed Notes/Deficiency Descriptions:

59.2- An ultrasonic depth gauge was used to measure the thickness of the girders. The girder web measured 0.5” thick at locations with minimal corrosion. The worst area of corrosion measured 0.28” thick which is almost 50% section loss.

61.5- Channel depth measurements between the bottom of G1 and the channel:

Location Depth Notes At the face of A1 6’-5” 6.5’ from A1 6’-1” Edge of concrete slope stabilization 7’ from A1 7’-8” Drop off from edge of concrete slope stabilization Mid-span 6’-7” 16’ from A1 7’-6” At the face of A2 4’-4” Bedrock

Abbreviation Descriptions:

A1 = Abutment 1 d/s = Downstream

A2= Abutment 2 u/s = upstream

G# = Girder # NBI = National Bridge Inventory

8 | 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? 3

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.

58, 59 & 60

Replace Bridge

$386,000

TOTAL ESTIMATED COSTS:

$386,190

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

Replacement cost was developed in 2015 by John Treacy at the NOC in reference to RS Means Standards. Price has been adjusted for inflation.

Remove existing bridge (29'L x 12'W) superstructure consisting of: timber deck (curb, running and transverse boards) over 4 each x 29' (W 12x65) steel beams; substructure consisting of:

CIP concrete abutments and footing. Replacement bridge (40'L x 16'W) with superstructure consisting of pre-stressed concrete box girders with bridge rail; substructure consisting of CIP concrete abutments. Miscellaneous items: minor structure excavation/backfill, clear & grub, riprap, aggregate surfacing, site restoration.

9 | P a g e

ADDITIONAL PHOTOGRAPHS

Caption 1: 6” of soil accumulation on deck on the D/S side. Probing of the timber deck yielded minimal decay.

Caption 2: The exterior of G4 has heavy corrosion with spots of nearly 50% section loss. The paint has failed and flakes off.

Caption 3: Girder 2 has an additional steel bearing plate to compensate for the additional timber runner between the top of the beam and deck.

Caption 4: Additional timber runner between G1 and the bottom of the deck.

10 | P a g e

ADDITIONAL PHOTOGRAPHS

Caption 5: Large tree stump directly under the bridge is a waterway obstruction.

Caption 6: General view of A1. Failed timber backwall was replaced with cement bags.

Caption 7: Upstream wingwall of A2 is parallel with the creek flow which has caused 9” of scour to occur behind the wingwall during flood events.

Caption 8: Void in the deck remains where a large tree fell and broke 3 transverse planks. Timber curb was replaced.

11 | P a g e

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

CONTRACT ESTIMATE SUMMARY

Contract/Project Name Estimator Date

San Vicente Creek Bridge #1

JJT 11/23/2015

Project Location

Contract Number

Near Davenport, CA - Santa Cruz County - approx. 15 miles North of Santa Cruz NA

Project Description

Remove existing bridge (29'L x 12'W) superstructure consisting of: timber deck (curb, running and transverse boards) over 4 each x 29' (W 12x65) steel beams; substructure consisiting of: CIP concrete abutments and footing. Replacement bridge (40'L x 16'W) with superstructure consisting of prestressed concrete box girders with bridge rail; substructure consisitng of CIP concrete abutments. Miscellaneous items: minor structure excavation/backfill, clear & grub, riprap, aggregate surfacing, site restoration.

Item

Spec.

Bid No. Description Unit Quantity Unit Price

Cost Amount

1 Mobilization/Demobilization LS 1.00 $23,308.00 $23,308.00

2 Clearing & Grubbing LS 1.00 $6,951.00 $6,951.00

3 Remove & Dispose of Existing Bridge LS 1.00 $20,349.00 $20,349.00

4 Structure Excavation CY 521.00 $32.00 $16,672.00

5 Structure Backfill (use excavated material) CY 521.00 $48.00 $25,008.00

6 Structural Concrete CY 43.00 $1,785.00 $76,755.00

Prestressed Concrete Box Girders w/W-Beam Bridge Rail LS 1.00 $100,663.00 $100,663.00

8 Riprap Ton 135.00 $90.00 $12,150.00

9 Aggregate Surfacing, 6" Thick Ton 54.00 $65.50 $3,537.00

Total Estimated Construction Cost $285,393.00

BLM Administrative Costs LS 12% $285,393.00 $34,247.16

Enginering Design Fees LS 15% $285,393.00 $42,808.95

Miscellaneous Costs - Reports & Investigations LS 3% $285,393.00 $8,561.79

Total Estimated Project Cost $371,010.90

Five Year Planning Costs based on annual inflation rate of 2%

Current Year Project Cost (2015) $371,010.90

Inflation Adjusted Project Cost (2016) $378,431.12

Inflation Adjusted Project Cost (2017) $385,999.74

Inflation Adjusted Project Cost (2018) $393,719.74

Inflation Adjusted Project Cost (2019) $401,594.13

Inflation Adjusted Project Cost (2020) $409,626.01