RBI-HUA-11-13599.pdf

RBI-HUA-11-13599

Routine Bridge Inspection Report Facility Number: 13599 Fort Huachuca, Arizona

José A. Albarran-Garcia Inspection Date: 16 March 2011 Report Date: June 2011

Geotechnical and Structures Laboratory

Distribution authorized to U.S. Government Agencies only. Other requests for this document shall be referred to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Engineer Research and Development Center (CEERD-GS-S), 3909 Halls Ferry Road, Vicksburg, MS 39180.

DISCLAIMER: The contents of this report are not to be used for advertising, publication, or promotional purposes.

Citation of trade names does not constitute an official endorsement or approval of the use of such commercial products.

All product names and trademarks cited are the property of their respective owners. The findings of this report are not to be construed as an official Department of the Army position unless so designated by other authorized documents.

PREFACE

This report presents a routine inspection for facility number 13599 at Fort Huachuca, Arizona and satisfies requirements for routine inspection as specified in Army Regulation (AR) 420-1 “Army Facility Management”, Chapter 7 “Transportation Infrastructure and Dams.”

The Army Bridge Inspection Program is sponsored by the Army Transportation Infrastructure Program (ATIP) of the Headquarters Installation Management Command (IMCOM), San Antonio, TX. The IMCOM provided funding for this investigation.

Questions shall be directed to Ali A. Achmar, IMCOM ATIP Program Manager, ali.achmar@us.army.mil.

Personnel of the U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center (ERDC), Geotechnical and Structures Laboratory (GSL), Vicksburg, MS, prepared this publication. The required field inspection was conducted in March 2011. The evaluation team consisted of José A. Albarran-Garcia, Team Leader, Laura Hyde, and Rudolph Andreatta, Structural Engineering Branch (StEB), GSL. Mr. Gerardo I. Velázquez, StEB- GSL, was the Project Lead under the supervision of Mr. Terry R. Stanton, Chief, StEB;

Mr. Bartley P. Durst, Chief, Geosciences and Structures Division; Dr. William P. Grogan, Deputy Director, GSL; and Dr. David W. Pittman, Director, GSL.

COL Kevin J. Wilson was the Commander and Executive Director of ERDC, and Dr.

Jeffery P. Holland was the Director.

The Installation POC is Carl Aufdenkampe, (520) 533-3411, carl.aufdenkampe@us.army.mil

TABLE OF CONTENTS

BRIDGE ID & DESCRIPTION .......................................................................... 13599-1

SKETCHES ...................................................................................................... 13599-5

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ............................................................................... 13599-6

NBI FORM ....................................................................................................... 13599-9

DEFICIENCIES AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................. 13599-10

INSPECTION RECORD .................................................................................. 13599-17

CHANNEL PROFILE ...................................................................................... 13599-33

13599-1

BRIDGE ID & DESCRIPTION

1-Span R/C Beam Bridge

BRIDGE LOCATION MAP

NOT TO SCALE

SATELLITE VIEW

31°34'1.88" N / 110°23'44.92" W

13599-2

Figure 1. Elevation view

Figure 2. Roadway Approach

13599-3

Figure 3. Underside View

Figure 4. Upstream View

13599-4

Figure 5. Downstream View (picture from 2009 report)

13599-5

SKETCHES

13599-6

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

Installation Status Report (ISR): Facility Number 13599 has a recommended Mission-Functional

ISR of 2.00, AMBER and a recommended Quality ISR rating of

3.00, RED due to bridge approach curvature (NBI Item 72).

Table 1: ISR Mission Functional

Green Amber Red N/A

BRIDGE RESTRICTIONS (10pts):

Bridge capacity is sufficient for current mobilization requirements.

BRIDGE RESTRICTIONS:

Bridge can be strengthened to meet current requirements with minimal rehabilitation

BRIDGE RESTRICTIONS:

Bridge capacity is insufficient or unable to be rehabilitated to meet current requirements.

0 [ ]

BRIDGE SAFETY FEATURES

(10pts): All safety features are rated 1 or N per FHWA requirements (Approach guardrails, Bridge end treatments, Bridge transitions, Bridge guardrails).

BRIDGE SAFETY FEATURES:

Any safety features rated 0 with a plan of action available to address deficiencies and deficiencies scheduled for upgrade.

BRIDGE SAFETY FEATURES:

Any safety features rated at 0, with no upgrade actions planned, or rating is unknown. 10 [ ]

BRIDGE INSPECTIONS (10pts):

•The responsible engineer (e.g., DPW) has inspected bridge in last 2 Years •Routine and special inspections are conducted within the required frequency •Records are maintained •MACOM engineer has conducted an on-site review of bridge inspections within the last 3 years

BRIDGE INSPECTIONS::

•Bridge inspection over 2 years old •At least one routine and special inspection has been completed and •Inspections recorded, and an inspection scheduled within one year •MACOM engineer has conducted an on-site inspection within the last 5 years

BRIDGE INSPECTIONS::

•Bridge not on Installation inventory, or •No routine or special inspections have been conducted, or •No records are available, or •MACOM engineer has not inspected bridges on-site in over 5 years

0 [ ]

MILITARY LOAD

CLASSIFICATION (MLC) (10pts):

• MLC is posted with:

− Weight limit − Overhead clearance − Minimum lane widths − Speed & traffic markers

MILITARY LOAD

CLASSIFICATION (MLC):

N/A [No Amber Condition]

MILITARY LOAD

CLASSIFICATION (MLC):

• MLC is not posted

0 [ X ]

BRIDGE MARKINGS (10pts):

• Bridge and underpass is marked for weight, height, speed, and width restrictions

BRIDGE MARKINGS:

• Bridge is marked for weight, height, speed, and width restrictions Underpass is not marked

BRIDGE MARKINGS:

• No bridge or underpass markings

10 [ ]

PEDESTRIANS (6pts):

• Bridge has a separated pedestrian walkway where required

PEDESTRIANS:

• Roadway is used by pedestrians; walkway could be built to accommodate pedestrians

PEDESTRIANS:

• Roadway is used by pedestrians; walkway cannot be built to accommodate pedestrians

0 [ X ]

SPECIAL TRANSPORT (6pts):

• Bridge will accommodate special transport requirements

SPECIAL TRANSPORT:

• Bridge is unable to accommodate special transport, but an alternate route is available

SPECIAL TRANSPORT:

• Bridge is unable to accommodate special transport requirements; no alternate route is available

0 [ X ]

Totals Points (62 Max): 20 0 20

Component Rating: 2.00 AMBER 1.00-1.66: Green 1.67-2.33: Amber 2.34-3.00: Red

13599-7

Table 2: ISR Quality

Green Amber Red N/A

BRIDGE CONDITION (10pts):

• Federal Highway

Administration (FHWA) condition rate in good or better at 7, 8, 9, or N for the:

− Bridge deck − Superstructure − Substructure − Culverts − Channel − Approach roadway

BRIDGE CONDITION:

• FHWA requirements rate bridge in FAIR condition at an inspection rating of 5, or − If BRIDGE CONDITION is RED but there is a project shown during the inspection that addresses the deficiencies with funding being requested

BRIDGE CONDITION:

• FHWA requirements rate bridge in fair condition at an inspection rating of 0, 1, 2, 3, or 4

10 [ ]

Totals Points (10 Max): 0 0 10

Component Rating: 3.00 RED 1.00-1.66: Green 1.67-2.33: Amber 2.34-3.00: Red

Condition: Overall, Facility Number 13599 is in FAIR condition (NBI Rating = 6) due to girder deterioration (shear and moment cracks) and deck deterioration.

Structure Capacity:

Table 3: Civilian Capacity

Civilian Posted Loads LR State Legal Loads Load Rating Document LR Date

N/A N/A None N/A

Table 4: Military Load Classification

Posted

MLC

1-way Wheel

Calc

MLC

1-way Wheel

Posted

MLC

2-way Wheel

Calc

MLC

2-way Wheel

Posted

MLC

1-way Track

Calc

MLC

1-way Track

Posted

MLC

2-way Track

Calc

MLC

2-way Track

None Unknown None Unknown None Unknown None Unknown

Channel Scour:

Channel profile comparison reveals the movement of channel bed material and how the flow concentrates towards abutment 2.

Table 5: Channel Scour

Scour Screening (Level 1/2)

Low Risk (Y/N)

Priority (Low/High) Document

Document Date

(MM/YY)

Channel Profile

Significant Change (>1m)

Profile Base Year

1 Y Low RBI-HUA-11-13599 06/11 N 2009

13599-8

Traffic Safety: The traffic safety features of Facility Number 13599 do not meet current standards. Rail post spacing is inadequate for traffic volume and speed and an end treatment is missing.

Table 6

NBI Item 36A Bridge Rails

NBI Item 36B Transition

NBI Item 36C Approach Rails

NBI Item 36D End Treatments

0 N N 0

Prior Report: The 2009 Inspection Report was on file and consulted or reviewed for comparison purposes.

Table 7: Critical Findings

Critical Findings from Previous Report (NBI item < 4 or load restriction)

New Critical Findings Description

CF

Inspection Frequency (months)

Recommended Action

None N/A N/A None

Table 8: Actions since Last Inspection

Deficiency Resolution Date

Collision damage to end treatment. Fixed. Unknown

Erosion hole DS. Must have been filled by stream deposits. Unknown

Various None N/A

13599-9

NBI FORM

All measurements are in metric units

(202) Army Bridge Inventory Structure Number: DAPTRAHUA013599

(8) NBI Structure Number: DAPTRAHUA013599

(1) State Arizona (54) Min Vert Underclearance N 0.00

(2) District 00 (55) Min Lat Underclrnc-Right 99.9

(3) County Cochise (56) Min Lat Underclrnc-Left 0.0

(4) Place Fort Huachuca (58) Deck 6

(5) Inventory Route 180000000 (59) Superstructure 5

(6) Features Intrsct SLAUGHTERHOUSE WASH (60) Substructure 7

(7) Facility Carried CANELO RD (61) Chn & Chn Protection 7

(8) Structure Number DAPTRAHUA013599 (62) Culverts N

(9) Location DEAD MANS CURVE (63) Method to det. Operating Rating 5

(10) Min Vert Clrnc 99.99 (64) Operating Rating 36.3

(11) Kilometer Point 0.000 (65) Method to det. Inventory Rating 5

(12) Highway Network 0 (66) Inventory Rating 32.4

(13) LRS Inventory Rt (67) Structural Evaluation 5

(16) Latitude 31ø 34' 01.88" (68) Deck Geometry

(17) Longitude 110ø 23' 44.92" (69) Underclrnc Vert/Horz

(19) Bypass, Detour Length 001 (70) Bridge Posting 5

(20) Toll 3 (71) Waterway Adequacy 7

(21) Custodian 74 (72) Approach Rdwy Align 3

(22) Owner 74 (75) Type of Work 381

(26) Functional Classification 09 (76) Length of Improvement 15.1

(27) Year Built 1960 (90) Inspection Date 0311

(28) Lanes On/Under 0200 (91) Inspection Frequency (Mo) 24

(29) ADT 001000 (92) Critical Feature Insp. N N N

(30) Year of ADT 2011 (93) Critical Insp. Date

(31) Design Load 5 (94) Bridge Impvmnt Cost 000107

(32) App Rdwy Width 7.3 (95) Roadway Impvmnt Cost 000011

(33) Bridge Median 0 (96) Total Project Cost 000118

(34) Skew Degree 00 (97) Yr of Impvmnt Cost Est 2011

(35) Stru Flared 0 (98) Border Bridge

(36) Safety Features 0NN0 (99) Border Bridge Str No

(37) Historical Significance 5 (100) Defense Hwy Designation 0

(38) Navigation Ctrl 0 (101) Parallel Stru Designtn N

(39) Navigation Vertical Clearance 0.0 (102) Direction of Traffic 2

(40) Navigation Horizontal Clearance 0.0 (103) Stru Designation

(41) Stru. Open/Post/Close A (104) Hwy Sys of Inventory Rt 0

(42) Type of Service 15 (105) Federal Lands Highways 0

(43) Stru Type Main 102 (106) Year Reconstructed 0000

(44) Stru Type-App Spans 000 (107) Deck Structure Type 1

(45) No. Spans-Main 001 (108) Wearing Surf Protective 688

(46) No. Approach Spans 0000 (109) Ave Daily Truck Traffic 10

(47) Total Horz Clearance 7.3 (110) Designated Natl Network 0

(48) Length of Max Span 8.5 (111) Pier/Abutment Protection

(49) Structure Length 8.5 (112) NBIS Bridge Length Y

(50) Curb/Sidewalk Width L 0.0, R 0.0 (113) Scour Critical Bridge 8

(51) Bridge Rdwy Width C-C 7.3 (114) Future ADT 001000

(52) Deck Width O-O 8.1 (115) Year of Future ADT 2028

(53) Vert Clrnc over Rdwy 99.99 (116) Min Nav Vert Clearance 0.0

Army Bridge Inventory 200 Items

(200) COE Division

(201) COE District

(202) ABI Structure Number DAPTRAHUA013599

(203) Inspection Office ERDC

(204) Inspector J. GARCIA

(205) Inspection Cost 003000

(206) Cooper's Loading

(207) Railroad Stru Number

(208) Name of Railroad

(209) Recommended Speed Limit

(210) Posted Speed Limit (KPH)

(211) MACOM W-TRADOC

(212) Installation Name FORT HUACHUCA

(213) MLC 1-Way Wheel N

(214) MLC 1-Way Track N

(215) Installation Number 04005

(216) Seismic Category B

(217) Acceleration Coefficient 0.07

(218) Soil Site Coefficient 1.2

(222) ISR Qual. R Mission-Func A

(223) MLC 2-way Wheel

(224) MLC 2-way Track

Sufficiency Rating = 066.9 Functionally Obsolete

13599-10

DEFICIENCIES AND RECOMMENDATIONS

All cost data are based on the California Department of Transportation’s report

“2009 Contract Cost Data- A Summary of Cost by Items for Highway Construction Projects.”

The estimated repair costs in this section are for the recommended repairs and improvements that should be completed over the next two years, or for larger rehabilitation or replacement projects where planning and design should begin. The estimated costs are approximate costs based on the cost of material and labor required to complete the recommended repair, in U.S. dollars. These approximate costs should only be used as a reference and for project planning purposes. Although they represent the costs for individual repair activities, they may not represent the total cost of a complete repair/rehabilitation project. Costs such as Engineers’ Office, Submittal Reviews, Mobilization and Demobilization, Maintenance of Traffic, Stream Diversion, Contractor's bond etc. would have to be added to the costs provided to develop a complete project cost.

-11

Maintenance & Repairs Items

Table 9: Recommendations

PHOTO PROBLEM RECOMMENDATION REPEAT

DEFICIENCY QTY AMOUNT

1 Inadequate bridge rail post and deteriorated post. Replace bridge railing posts at 10-ft spacing or less. Yes 60 LF $ 2,400

2 Erosion hole near US approach 2 behind US WW undermining bridge rail post on US. Replace eroded material. No 3 CY $ 300

3 End treatment missing on approach 2, US. Install end treatment. No 1 EA $ 3,000

4 DS Utilities are catching debris. Remove debris. No 1 CY $ 100

5 Deck honeycombing/spalls exposing rebar with section loss. Remove unsound concrete, clean rebar, and patch with appropriate material. Yes 3 SF $ 1,500

6 & 7

Shear (near abutments) and moment (near middle span) cracks in all girders. Monitor Yes N/A $ 0

Due to signs of overstress, load rating and posting is recommended.

Load rate or test load structure, depending on availability of drawings. Yes 1 EA $ 5,000

8 Vertical crack at the US WW/back wall interference. Monitor Yes N/A $ 0

9 10-in scour hole near abutment 2 (DS), exposing toe of abutment footing. Backfill with adequate material. Yes 2 CY $ 200

10 As much as 2-ft of aggradation under bridge. Remove material. No 50 CY $ 4,000

TOTAL : $ 16,500

13599-12

PHOTO #1

PHOTO #2

13599-13

PHOTO #3

PHOTO #4

13599-14

PHOTO #5

PHOTO #6

13599-15

PHOTO #7

PHOTO #8

13599-16

PHOTO #9

PHOTO #10

13599-17

INSPECTION RECORD

ITEM # 72: APPROACH FEATURES

Rating Guidelines

CODE DESCRIPTION

8 Speed reduction is NOT required.

6 A VERY MINOR speed reduction is required.

3 A SUBSTANTIAL speed reduction is required.

Components Rating

Rating Component Remarks

3 1. Horizontal Alignment Sharp horizontal curve on both approaches – known as dead man’s curve.

3 2. Vertical Alignment Significant grade on both approaches.

3 General Rating Condition (NBI ITEM #72)

13599-18

ITEM # 72: APPROACH FEATURES (CONTINUED)

Approach Structural Rating Guidelines

Code Description

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.

SERIOUS CONDITION: Loss of section, deterioration, spalling or scour has seriously affected primary structural components. Local failures are possible. Fatigue cracks in steel or shear cracks in concrete may be present.

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 bridge until corrective action is taken.

IMMINENT FAILURE CONDITION: Major deterioration or section loss present in critical structural components or obvious vertical or horizontal movement affecting structure stability. Bridge is closed to traffic but corrective action may put back in light service.

0 FAILED CONDITION: Out of service – beyond corrective action.

Approach Structural Components Rating

Rating Component Unit Amt Remarks

N 1. Relief Joints LF N/A Seem to have been covered by overlay

N 2. Approach:

a) Guardrail LF N/A N/A

7 b) Pavement SF 1,380 None

6 c) Embankment EA 4 2-ft erosion hole near approach 2, US side. The erosion is caused by surface runoff and it is undermining railing post.

DS WWs are buried.

N 3. Load Posting Sign EA N/A Recommend to load rate structure.

7 4. Hazard Markers EA 4 None

13599-19

ITEM #36: TRAFFIC SAFETY FEATURES

CODE DESCRIPTION

1 Inspected feature MEETS currently acceptable standards.

0 Inspected feature DOES NOT currently meet acceptable standards or a safety feature is required and NONE

IS PROVIDED.

0 1. Bridge Rails LF 106 12-ft 6-in spacing is inadequate for the speed and traffic demands.

N 2. Transition EA N/A N/A

N 3. Approach Rails LF N/A N/A

0 4. End Treatments EA 3 End treatment missing on Approach 1, US side.

13599-20

ITEM #58: DECK FEATURES

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 has seriously affected primary structural components. Local failures are possible. Fatigue cracks in steel or shear cracks in concrete may be present.

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 bridge until corrective action is taken.

IMMINENT FAILURE CONDITION: Major deterioration or section loss present in critical structural components or obvious vertical or horizontal movement affecting structure stability. Bridge is closed to traffic but corrective action may put back in light service.

7 1. Wearing Surface SF 810 Asphalt. Transverse crack on traffic lane (DS side.)

6 2. Deck Structural Condition SF 810

2-ft x 2-ft honeycombing on bay 2, about 2-in deep with exposed rebar – no significant section loss.

Full length longitudinal crack (0.050-in) on center of bay 2 with efflorescence.

1-ft x 2-ft honeycombing on bay 3 with exposed rebar.

Spall (2-ft x 2-ft) on DS overhang, with efflorescence and exposed rebar – no section loss.

N 3. Curbs LF N/A N/A

N 4. Median SF N/A N/A

N 5. Sidewalk SF N/A N/A

N 6. Parapet LF N/A N/A

5 7. Railing LF 106 Missingend treatment.

Mid post is heavily rusted and perforated.

N 8. Drains EA N/A Original drains were plugged by overlays.

N 9. Lighting EA N/A N/A

7 10. Utilities EA 2 DS utility pipes are catching surface debris.

N 11. Expansion Joints LF N/A Covered by overlay

6 General Rating Condition (NBI ITEM # 58)

13599-21

ITEM # 59: SUPERSTRUCTURE FEATURES

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 has seriously affected primary structural components. Local failures are possible. Fatigue cracks in steel or shear cracks in concrete may be present.

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 bridge until corrective action is taken.

IMMINENT FAILURE CONDITION: Major deterioration or section loss present in critical structural components or obvious vertical or horizontal movement affecting structure stability. Bridge is closed to traffic but corrective action may put back in

N 1. Bearing Devices EA N/A N/A

5 2. Girders/Beams A. General EA 4

Shear cracks (0.005-in) in all girders – near abutments.

Stress cracks (0.130-in) at center span of all girders. Cracks propagate towards abutments.

Honeycombing on girder 3 near abutment 1, exposed rebar – no section loss.

N B. Cross Frame EA N/A N/A

N C. Bracing EA N/A N/A

N 3. Floor Beams EA N/A N/A

N 4. Paint SF N/A N/A

5 General Rating Condition (NBI ITEM # 59)

13599-22

ITEM #60: SUBSTRUCTURE FEATURES

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 has seriously affected primary structural components. Local failures are possible. Fatigue cracks in steel or shear cracks in concrete may be present.

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 bridge until corrective action is taken.

IMMINENT FAILURE CONDITION: Major deterioration or section loss present in critical structural components or obvious vertical or horizontal movement affecting structure stability. Bridge is closed to traffic but corrective action may put back in

7 1. Abutments

a) Wings EA 4

- DS: mostly covered with embankment material

- US: partially covered, vertical cracks at the WW/back wall interference.

7 b) Backwall EA 2 Vertical hair line cracks throughout.

7 c) Bearing Seats EA 8 None

7 d) Breast Wall / Bulkhead SF 240

Some honeycombing at both abutments.

Efflorescence can be seen full length at abutment 1, near bottom.

N e) Footing SF N/A N/A

N f) Piles EA N/A N/A

N g) Bracing LF N/A N/A

7 h) Scour / Erosion N/A 10-in scour hole DS side, exposing toe of abutment 2.

7 i) Settlement N/A None

13599-23

ITEM #60: SUBSTRUCTURE FEATURES (CONTINUED)

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 has seriously affected primary structural components. Local failures are possible. Fatigue cracks in steel or shear cracks in concrete may be present.

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 bridge until corrective action is taken.

IMMINENT FAILURE CONDITION: Major deterioration or section loss present in critical structural components or obvious vertical or horizontal movement affecting structure stability. Bridge is closed to traffic but corrective action may put back in

N 2. Piers / Bents / Piles

a) Caps EA N/A Simple Span

N b) Bearing Seats EA N/A Simple Span

N c) Column, Stem, Wall SF N/A Simple Span

N d) Footing SF N/A Simple Span

N e) Piles EA N/A Simple Span

N f) Bracing EA N/A Simple Span

N g) Scour / Erosion N/A Simple Span

N h) Settlement N/A Simple Span

7 General Rating Condition (NBI ITEM # 60)

13599-24

ITEM # 61: CHANNEL / CHANNEL PROTECTION

N Not applicable. Use when bridge is not over a waterway (channel).

9 There are no noticeable or noteworthy deficiencies which affect the condition of the channel.

8 Banks are protected or well vegetated. River control devices such as spur dikes and embankment protection are not required or are in a stable condition.

7 Bank protection is in need of minor repairs. River control devices and embankment protection have a little minor damage. Banks and/or channel have minor amounts of drift.

6 Bank is beginning to slump. River control devices and embankment protection have widespread minor damage. There is minor stream bed movement evident. Debris is restricting the channel slightly.

5 Bank protection is being eroded. River control devices and/or embankment have major damage. Trees and brush restrict the channel.

4 Bank and embankment protection is severely undermined. River control devices have severe damage. Large deposits of debris are in the channel.

3 Bank protection has failed. River control devices destroyed. Stream bed aggradation, degradation or lateral movement has changed the channel to now threaten the bridge and/or approach roadway.

2 The channel has changed to the extent the bridge is near a state of collapse.

1 Bridge closed because of channel failure. Corrective action may put back in light service.

0 Bridge closed because of channel failure. Replacement necessary.

7 1. Channel Scour None

7 2. Embankment Erosion None

6 3. Drift Some branches and aggradtion (2-ft) under bridge reducing hydraulic opening.

7 4. Vegetation Grass US and DS. Grass directs flow towards abutment 2.

N 5. Rip Rap None

7 General Rating Condition (NBI ITEM #61)

13599-25

ITEM # 113: SCOUR CRITICAL BRIDGES

N Bridge not over waterway.

U Bridge with "unknown" foundation that has not been evaluated for scour. Since risk cannot be determined, flag for monitoring during flood events and, if appropriate, closure.

T Bridge over "tidal" waters that have not been evaluated for scour, but considered low risk. Bridge will be monitored with regular inspection cycle and with appropriate underwater inspections. ("Unknown" foundations in "tidal" waters should be coded U.)

9 Bridge foundations (including piles) on dry land well above flood water elevations.

Bridge foundations determined to be stable for assessed or calculated scour conditions; calculated scour is above top of footing.

8P Bridge is a culvert-type structure with paved bottom.

8L Bridge has been evaluated / assessed as a low risk structure and no further study is required.

7 Countermeasures have been installed to correct a previously existing problem with scour. Bridge is no longer scour critical.

6 Scour calculation/evaluation has not been made. (Use only to describe case where bridge has not yet been evaluated for scour potential.)

6R Bridge is scheduled for major rehabilitation or replacement within the next 5 years; the scour study is deferred to the location/design phase of the bridge project. Periodic monitoring may be necessary.

6U

Bridge foundations are unknown. The bridge site conditions have been evaluated / assessed with cursory study in the field and office, and the risk of potential damage from scour is judged to be moderate or mild.

Structure has no history of scour problems. Further evaluation is deferred. If the risk of damage from potential or actual scour damage is judged to be severe, additional scour studies will be undertaken including borings or others means of subsurface exploration to ascertain foundation and supporting soil conditions.

Bridge foundations determined to be stable for calculated scour conditions; scour within limits of footing or piles.

4 Bridge foundations determined to be stable for calculated scour conditions; field review indicates action is required to protect exposed foundations from effects of additional erosion and corrosion.

13599-26

Bridge is scour critical; bridge foundations determined to be unstable for calculated scour conditions:

- Scour within limits of footing or piles.

- Scour below spread-footing base or pile tips.

3M Bridge is rated as scour critical on the basis of an evaluation and/or analysis; the potential risk is judged to be mild or moderate, and no actions are planned other than monitoring during routine inspections and after flood events.

3C Bridge is rated as scour critical on the basis of an evaluation and/or analysis; the potential risk is judged to be severe and scour countermeasures are planned. Monitoring is to be performed until scour countermeasures are in place.

2 Bridge is scour critical; field review indicates that extensive scour has occurred at bridge foundations.

Immediate action is required to provide scour countermeasures.

1 Bridge is scour critical; field review indicates that failure of piers/abutments is imminent. Bridge is closed to traffic.

0 Bridge is scour critical. Bridge has failed and is closed to traffic.

Component Rating

8L NBI ITEM # 113 None

13599-27

Scour & Waterway Evaluation - Field Review Report

Real Property # 13599 Location: Canelo Road Over: Slaughterhouse Wash

1. SCOUR VULNERABILITY RATING (PER FHWA)

a. Scour Critical: Yes No

Scour Susceptible: High Low

Risk: High Low

Foundation: Known Unknown

Structure Type: Bridge Culvert

b. Reasons for Rating: 2-yr Safety Inspection of In-service Bridges

2. RECOMMENDATIONS

a.

Countermeasures: Riprap Scour Monitor Inspection Other

b. Phase II Analysis Recommended: Yes No

c. Phase II Priority: High Low None

d. Remarks: None

3. SITE FIELD REVIEW

a. Evidence of Scour at Structure

1) Abutment Tilting or Moving In Yes No

2) Slopes Washing in or Sloughing Yes No

3) Scour Holes Near Abutments / Bents Yes

10-in scour hole exposing toe of ABT 1, near DS.

No

4) Bed Deposits Downstream Yes

Restricts flow towards

ABT 1.

No

5) Bridge Railing Sagging Yes No

6) Debris Yes aggradtion/vegetation under bridge (3-ft)

No

7) High-water Mark Yes No

b. Feasibility of Monitoring During High Flow

1) Rod / Pole / Weight from Deck Yes No

2) Fixed Monitoring Device Yes No

c. Feasibility of Adding Riprap or Other Scour Countermeasures Yes No

13599-28

Real Property # 13599 Location: Canelo Road Over: Slaughterhouse Wash

4. ABUTMENTS

a. Type

Sill

Counterfort

Pile Bent

Gravity

Spill-Through (Open)

Buttress

Cantilever Bridge Concrete Culvert Channel Walls

Dimensions (ft) Embedment (ft) Scour Exposure (ft)

b. Foundation L W D Unknown Unknown Ukn Ukn Ukn

Spread Footings Pile Caps Piles Drilled Shaft

Source of Data Field Review Design Plans As-built Drawings

Pile Driving Record Inspection Reports Other

c. Location from Bank Left (ft) Right (ft)

1) Set Back Yes No 8.5 11.25

2) In Channel Yes No

3) At Bank Yes No

d. Protection

1) Riprap Sand Cement Grouted Rubble Other Seawall None Commercial Block

2) Condition

Left Good Fair Poor N/A

Right Good Fair Poor N/A

13599-29

Real Property # 13599 Location: Canelo Road Over: Slaughterhouse Wash

5. PIER: Single Span (None)

a. Type

Solid Wall

Column Bent

Column with Web Wall

Hammerhead

Open Bent

Pile Bent

Double Hammerhead

Steel Bent

b. Shape Square Rounded Sharp Nose

c. Width Length Number:

d. Angle of Attack: Flood Flow: ° Normal Flow: °

e. Foundation Dimensions (ft) Embedment (ft) Exposure (ft)

(Worst pier) L W D

Pile Spread Footing Pile Cap Drilled Shaft

Source of Data Field Review As-built Drawings Design Plans

Pile Driving Records Inspection Reports Other

f. Protection

1) Riprap Sand Cement Grouted Comm. Block Rubble

Seawall None None Apparent Other

2) Condition Good Fair Poor

13599-30

Real Property # 13599 Location: Canelo Road Over: Slaughterhouse Wash

6. CHANNEL LATERAL STABILITY

a. Bends

1) Bridge Location Upstream of Bend Downstream of Bend In Bend

2) Migration Yes No Migration towards ABT 2.

3) Countermeasures Yes No Type: None

b. Bank Condition Upstream Downstream

1) Eroding Yes No Yes No

2) Stable Yes No Yes No

3) Vegetated Yes No Yes No Scarce grass and mid-size brush

4) Seawall Yes No Yes No

5) Countermeasures Yes No Yes No Type: None

c. Angle of Attack: Flood Flow: 90° Normal Flow: 90°

d. Point Bar Under Bridge Yes No 3-ft aggardation/reduction of channel width.

e. Islands or Bars Upstream Downstream

1) Island Yes No Yes No

2) Bar Yes No Yes No

f. Floodplains

Small (<2x channel)

Narrow (2-10x channel)

Wide (>10x channel)

g. Valley Setting

No valley

Low relief (<30 m)

Moderate (30-300 m)

High relief (>300 m)

13599-31

Real Property # 13599 Location: Canelo Road Over: Slaughterhouse Wash

7. CHANNEL VERTICAL STABILITY

a. Exposed Footing Yes Toe of ABT 2.

No Unknown Not Applicable

b. Exposed Piles Yes No Unknown Not Applicable

c. Contraction Scour (Encroachment)

1) Overbank Flow Left Right N/A

2) Relief Bridge Yes No

3) Roadway Over Topping Yes No Unknown Possible

4) Bridge Over Topping Yes No Unknown Possible

d. Long Term

1) Aggradation Yes No Unknown

2) Degradation Yes No Unknown

e. Bed Material

Silt-Clay Silt Sand Gravel Cobbles Other

8. GEOMORPHOLOGY

a. Channel Boundaries Alluvial

Semi-alluvial

Non-alluvial

b. Dam or Reservoir Yes No

c. River Sinuosity

Straight (1-1.05)

Sinuous (1.06-1.25)

Meandering (1.25-2.0)

Highly Meandering (>35%)

Man Made

d. In-stream Mining/Dredging Yes No

e. Headcuts or Nickpoints Yes No

f. Diversions Yes No

g. Channel Modification Yes No

h. Stream Size Small (<100 ft) Medium (100-500 ft) Large (> 500 ft)

13599-32

Real Property # 13599 Location: Canelo Road Over: Slaughterhouse Wash

i. Flow Habit Ephemeral Intermittent

Perennial but flashy Perennial Tidal

j. Braided Streams

Not braided (<5%)

Locally braided (5-35%)

Generally (>35%)

k. Anabranched Stream No (<5%)

Locally (5-35%)

Generally (>35%)

l. Stream Width

Equiwidth

Wider at bends

Random

Narrow point bars

Wider point bars

Irregular points

m. Natural Levees Little or none

Concave

Well developed

n. Apparent Incision Not Incised

Probably Incised

9. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS

a. Sediment Transport

1) Live Bed Condition Yes No Unknown

2) Clear Water Condition Yes No Unknown

3) Armored Bed Yes No Unknown

b. Watershed Agricultural Forested Swamp Urban

c. Tidal Influence Yes No Possible

d. Tributaries Upstream Downstream No factor

Distance to confluence of next stream/water body: 60-ft US

e. Observed Stream Velocity: No flow during inspection

10. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS

a. Remarks: Erosion from surface runoff has carved a ditch near WW 2, US, which contributes to channel flow.

13599-33

CHANNEL PROFILE

-10 ft

-9 ft

-8 ft

-7 ft

-6 ft

-5 ft

-4 ft

0 ft 5 ft 10 ft 15 ft 20 ft 25 ft 30 ft

Upstream Channel Profile Bridge 13599 Supports at scale for horizontal location purposes only - Referenced form Top of Slab

Baseline - 2009 2011

-10 ft

-9 ft

-8 ft

-7 ft

-6 ft

-5 ft

-4 ft

0 ft 5 ft 10 ft 15 ft 20 ft 25 ft 30 ft

Downstream Channel Profile Bridge 13599 Supports at scale for horizontal location purposes only - Referenced from Top of Slab

Baseline - 2009 2011

CHANNEL PROFILE