2019_LSAFs_BIR_Draft_31OCT2019_BC01.pdf

STATEMENT OF INSPECTION REVIEW AND APPROVAL

Part 1: TO BE COMPLETED BY THE DISTRICT OR OPERATING MSC

UPON COMPLETION OF INSPECTION AND EVALUATION

A qualified inspection team, according to the NBIS and USACE Policy, has completed the inspection and evaluation of the CENMVPMN000LSAF / LSAF Service Bridge.The inspection report received an independent technical review by a qualified bridge engineer and all substantive issues arising during the review have been resolved to meet the provisions of PL 100-17 and existing USACE policy.

/s/ Jacob Fall 31-OCT-2019 Bridge Inspection Team Leader (Final Report Signature Date)

Technical Review Team Leader (Date)

Chief, Engineering Division (Date)

Part 2: TO BE COMPLETED BY MSC

The inspection, evaluation and review of the LSAF Service Bridge has been completed in accordance with the approved Quality Control Plan, and this report is approved as sufficient in accordance with ER 1110-2-111 for updating the data in the CEBIS, and for proceeding to budget, schedule and design all maintenance and rehabilitation work necessary to correct deficiencies which jeopardize the structural safety and integrity of the LSAF Service Bridge.

Chief, Engineering Division (Date)

Page 1 of 19Reports

10/31/2019https://cebis.usace.army.mil/brgtest/cebis_2.rpts_dtl_utl.rpt_open?p_url=entire_rpt

LSAF Service Bridge

CENMVPMN000LSAF

MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA

Hennepin County, Minnesota

MISSISSIPPI VALLEY DIVISION

ST. PAUL DISTRICT

INSPECTED SEPTEMBER 2019

Page 2 of 19Reports

10/31/2019https://cebis.usace.army.mil/brgtest/cebis_2.rpts_dtl_utl.rpt_open?p_url=entire_rpt b6ecaml7 Highlight Issue: Date inaccurate.

Solution: Fix date.

b6ecjlf9 Sticky Note This date is auto generated by CEBIS. However, inspections can be conducted within +/- 1 month of the actual inspection date, prior to submitting a schedule change.

b6ecjlf9 Sticky Note

1. Summary of Inspection:

The combined routine and fracture critical inspection of the Lower Saint Anthony Falls Locks & Dam Service Bridge was conducted on October 14th, 2019 by Jake Fall, P.E.

(Bridge Program Manager and Team Leader) of the Saint Paul District, and Scott Hibbs, P.E., Mike Coleman, and Dakota Keller of Extreme Access, Inc. The previous inspection was conducted in September 2014. The weather conditions during the inspection were mostly sunny skies, with a light south wind at approximately 5 mph, and 49°F +/- 2°F.

A Fracture Critical and Routine Inspection plan were prepared prior to the inspection. The inspection team leader ensured all required pre-inspection planning was conducted and also ensured the inspection plans were followed during the inspection execution phase. The quality control process for the pre-inspection planning and inspection execution are documented in checklists which are in the bridge file rather than attached to this report.

Access to the bridge was from the deck, piers, machinery compartments and the ground.

Extreme Access provided rope access supervision to ensure a close up hands on visual inspection was conducted. All inspectors were SPRAT certified and inspected via industrial rope access techniques.

Located in Minneapolis, Minnesota, the main purpose of the Lower Saint Anthony Fall’s Dam Service Bridge is to convey the crane under carriage that is used to pick the bulkheads that are set to dewater the dam tainter gates. This bridge is not open to the public.

Construction of the lock and dam began in 1950 and was completed in 1956. The service bridge is comprised of six simple spans. Each span is made up of two steel plate girders that are welded construction and are Fracture Critical Members (FCM).The lock and dam tainter gate machinery is supported by the main plate girders. The bearings are founded on the dam piers, and the bridge has an aluminum deck. The lock became operational in 1958, but was not put into service until 1963 after the completion of construction of the lock at Upper Saint Anthony Falls.

After being placed into service the following repairs have been conducted:

1. The bridge was sandblasted and repainted in 1989.

2. Concrete pedestals under bearings were replaced prior to the 1989 Periodic Inspection.

3. Top flange plates and rails were metalized and rail clips replaced in 1999, and

4. Broken welds on bracing were repaired in 2004.

2. Summary of Findings:

The primary focus of this combined fracture critical and routine inspection was to conduct a close up (within arm's length) visual inspection of ALL FCMs and fatigue sensitive details (FSDs). This two girder bridge is primarily welded construction. Careful attention was given to the two primary plate girders and their connections. The primary plate girders on all spans were found to be in fair condition. FSDs such as lateral bracing connections, transverse stiffeners, utility brackets and intersecting welds were closely inspected. All members were examined for distortions, bends, buckling, loss of section and cracks with no major defects noted. The retrofits at the thickness transition on the bottom flanges (tension) on the primary span girders were also visually inspected and were found to be in good

Page 3 of 19Reports

10/31/2019https://cebis.usace.army.mil/brgtest/cebis_2.rpts_dtl_utl.rpt_open?p_url=entire_rpt b6ecaml7 Highlight Issue: Inspector Fall was not SPRAT certified.

Solution: Change text to indicate all inspectors on rope access were SPRAT certified to the appropriate levels.

b6ecjlf9 Sticky Note Concur. The following paragraph, " Access to the bridge was from the deck, piers, machinery compartments and the ground.

Extreme Access provided rope access supervision to ensure a close up hands on visual inspection was conducted. All inspectors were SPRAT certified and inspected via industrial rope access techniques." has been replaced with, "Access to the bridge was from the deck, piers, machinery compartments and the ground. All Extreme Access inspectors were SPRAT certified and provided their own rope access supervision to ensure that a proper close up, hands on, visual inspection was conducted. " condition. No non-destructive testing other than visual examination was conducted.

The deck was found to be in good condition. However, there are several lose or missing connections.

The superstructure was found to be in fair condition. There is some pitting on the top flange.

Maximum depth of pitting is estimated at 1/16th of an inch. Near the machinery platforms, isolated areas of active corrosion are present in the web section of both the upstream and downstream girders of each tainter gate span. These areas are particular located at the downstream 5th and 12th vertical stiffener / bottom flange intersection of the upstream girder, and at the upstream 5th and 12th vertical stiffener / bottom flange intersection of the downstream girder. Note, the 5th and 12th vertical stiffeners are counted from the east end of the girder. It appears the depth of section loss is greater than 10% of the web section, and has significantly progressed since the 2014 inspection.

The welding quality is generally characterized as fair. A weld discontinuity were also observed in the storage yard on the downstream side of the downstream girder at the 5th vertical stiffener from the East bearing. This creates a stress riser and should be ground out due to concerns regarding fatigue cracking. At many locations along the bottom flange the butt weld at the thickness transition is undercut or under filled. Bracing members have areas of light corrosion.

The substructure was found to be in satisfactory condition. However, there is minor cracking with efflorescence located on the upstream edge of piers 1, 2, and 3, at the inspection platform and trunnion anchorages. Approximately, 60 ft2 of severe cracking, delamination and spalling has occurred at the base of the downstream access door to the inspection platform on pier 1.

As reported in the 2014 Inspection Report, the concrete located beneath each bridge bearing pad was found to be in good condition, with no signs of distress associated with bearing performance. Most of the bearing bolts are bent. This is likely the result of over tightening the nuts which forced the anchor rods to bend rather than slide as the girders expanded and contracted. This condition has been noted in reports dating back to 2004 .

The crane under carriage was moved to allow for access and no noticeable deflection was observed.

The load rating needs to be updated to reflect the section loss due to pitting corrosion in the main girder top flanges, and has not had a QC check.

This is a non-public access bridge, therefore, no load limit signs or speed limit signs are posted.

3. Previous Inspection Findings and Recommendations:

Recommendations from the previous inspection are:

Sandblast and spot paint areas of active corrosion. (Not Done) Develop operating procedures that prevent operating loads greater than those allowed by load limiting devices and implement measures to ensure load limit devices function as required. (Not Done) Conduct next routine and fracture critical inspection in 60 months, September 2019. (Done) Update the load rating to reflect section loss due to pitting corrosion in the main girder top flanges. (Not

Done)

4. Recommendations:

Recommendations for this inspection are:

Page 4 of 19Reports

10/31/2019https://cebis.usace.army.mil/brgtest/cebis_2.rpts_dtl_utl.rpt_open?p_url=entire_rpt b6ecaml7 Highlight Issue: Confusing if writer is contradicting recommendation to perform load rating.

Solution: Rewrite sentence to indicate that although no load limit signs are posted, once load rating is performed, a load limit sign should be posted OR specific instructions for staff at easily located locations about loading bridge.

b6ecaml7 Highlight Issue: Nuts may continue to cause issues.

Solution: Recommend whether or not nuts should be loosened.

b6ecjlf9 Sticky Note Concur. The following paragraphs have been removed and replaced with the following, "Based on the bridge’s current condition it is recommended to update the safe load-carrying capacity using the expected loads and load configurations, in accordance to ER 1110-2-111 USACE Bridge Safety Program. Once updated, the load posting requirements will be determined by MVP’s Bridge Program Manager. Please note the bridge is not required to be posted, if the safe load-carrying capacity is determined acceptable for its expected loading conditions."

Removed Paragraphs, "The load rating needs to be updated to reflect the section loss due to pitting corrosion in the main girder top flanges, and has not had a QC check.

This is a non-public access bridge, therefore, no load limit signs or speed limit signs are posted."

b6ecjlf9

Concur. A recommendation has been made to loosen the anchor bolt nut has been made.

Conduct next routine and fracture critical inspection in 60 months. (October 2024) estimated cost:

$20,000.

A complete Load Rating Analysis including the quality control review shall be conducted to reflect section loss located along the main girder top flanges, and in the main girder's web sections located near the machinery platforms.(See the Summary of Findings for location details). estimated cost:

$7,000.

Develop operating procedures that prevent operating loads greater than those allowed by load limiting devices and implement measures to ensure load limit devices function as required. estimated cost:

$2,000.

Grind out weld discontinuity and perform NDT to effected area on the downstream side of the downstream girder in the storage yard. Weld discontinuity is located on the fifth vertical stiffener from the east bearing. estimated cost: $2,500.

Spot paint areas of paint system failure, especially at the machinery platform connections. estimated cost: $5,000.

Perform NDT to determine the actual depth of section loss in the main girder's web sections located near the machinery platforms.(See the Summary of Findings for location details). estimated cost:

$2,500.

Condition Classification Component Subcomponent

A General Comment

Condition Classification Component Subcomponent

A General Comment

Condition Classification Component Subcomponent A General Comment

Condition Classification Component Subcomponent

B Superstructure Steel-Girder/Beam

Condition Classification Component Subcomponent B Superstructure Steel-Girder/Beam

Condition Classification Component Subcomponent

B Superstructure Steel-Girder/Beam

5. Evaluation Summary:

No evaluations were conducted for this inspection.

Page 5 of 19Reports

PUBLIC HIGHWAY/ROADWAY BRIDGES INVENTORY AND APPRAISAL (SI&A) SHEETS Printed: 31-OCT-2019

202. Structure Number: CENMVPMN000LSAF 8 NBI Structure Number: CENMVPMN000LSAF

Geographical and Route Data

1. State Code Minnesota

2. District 00

3. County Hennepin County

4. Place Code 00000

6. Features Intersected MISSISSIPPI RIVER

7. Facility Carried by Structure SERVICE BRIDGE

9. Location MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA

16. Latitude 445845.01

17. Longitude 0931451.79

103. Temporary Structure Designation

On and Under Record Data

5. Inventory Route 180000000

10. Inv. Route, Mim. Vertical Clearance 99.99 feet

29. Average Daily Traffic 000001

30. Year of Average Daily Traffic 2009

47. Inventory Route, Total Horizontal Clearance 12.8 feet

General Data

12. Base Highway Network 0

22. Owner 70

34. Skew 00

37. Historical Significance 4

38. Navigation Control 0

42. Type of Service 45

43. Structure Type Main 303

44. Structure Type Approach 000

45. No. of Spans Main 006

46. No. of Approach Spans 0000

27. Year Built 1956

106. Year Reconstructed 0000

107. Deck Structure Type 7

108. Wear/SurfProt Sys 000

111. Nav Pier/Abut Protection 1

Condition Rating

58. Deck 7

59. Superstructure 5

60. Substructure 6

61. Channel and Channel Protection 8

62. Culverts N

Inspection Data

90. Inspection Date 09-2019

91. Designated Inspection Frequency 60

92. Critical Feature Inspection Frac Crit Insp: Y60

Underwater Insp: N Other Spec Insp: N

93. Critical Feature Inspection Date Frac Crit Insp: 10-2019 Underwater Insp: - Other Spec Insp: -

Dimensional Data

32. Approach Roadyway Width 12.8 feet

48. Length of Maximum Span 74.0 feet

49. Structure Length 389.0 feet

53. Minimum Vertical Clearance Over Bridge Roadway 99.99 feet

54. Minimum Vertical Underclearance N 0.00 feet

55. Minimum Lateral Underclearance on Right N 0.0 feet

56. Minimum Lateral Underclearance on Left 0.0 feet

Proposed Improvements

75. Type of Work 000

76. Length of Structure Improvement 662.7 feet

94. Bridge Improvement Cost 262

95. Roadway Improvement Cost 26

96. Total Project Cost 393

97. Year of Improvment Cost Estimate 2019

114. Future Average Daily Traffic 1

115. Year of Future Average Daily Traffic 2036

Appraisal Rating

67. Structural Evaluation 5

68. Deck Geometry 2

69. Underclearances, Vertical and Horizontal N

71. Waterway Adequacy 9

72. Approach Roadway Alignment N

36. Traffic Safety Features NNNN

113. Scour Critical Bridges 9

Load Rate and Post

41. Structure Open, Posted or Closed to Traffic A

63. Method Used to Determine Operating Rating 3

64. Operating Rating 20.80 ton

65. Method used to Determine Inventory Rating 3

66. Inventory Rating 20.80 ton

70. Bridge Posting 5

Over 200 Items

200. COE Division CEMVD

201. COE District CEMVP

202. Number CENMVPMN000LSAF

203. Inspection Office CEMVP

204. Inspector Jake Fall

205. Inspections Cost 20000

216. Seismic Category A

217. Acceleration Coefficient 0.02

218. Soil Site Coefficient 1.20

SR Sufficiency Rating: 48.5%

Page 6 of 19Reports

10/31/2019https://cebis.usace.army.mil/brgtest/cebis_2.rpts_dtl_utl.rpt_open?p_url=entire_rpt b6ecaml7 Highlight Issue: Date incorrect.

Solution: Change date to 10-2019.

Concur. This date is auto generated by CEBIS. However, inspections can be conducted within +/- 1 month of the actual inspection date, prior to submitting a schedule change.

Structure Number Name NBI Structure Number CENMVPMN000LSAF LSAF Service Bridge CENMVPMN000LSAF

Operational Condition and Relative Risk Assessment System: Nonpublic Vehicle 231) Life Safety: Low Impact (10)

235) Subsystem: Dam 232) USACE Mission: Moderate Impact (50)

233) Business Line: Navigation 234) Regional Commerce: Minor Impact (10)

236) Project (P2) number: 074295 Consequence Score/Category : 18 / III

Bridge Subcomponent Condition Classification

Component Subcomponent Condition

Classification Bearings Fixed Bearing B

Moveable Bearing (roller, sliding, etc.) B

Bridge Rail Metal Bridge Railing A Deck Other Deck A Protective Systems Steel Protective Coating B

Substructure Reinforced Concrete-Pier Wall B

Superstructure Steel-Floor Beam A Steel-Girder/Beam B

Utilities/Attachments Utilities A

Page 7 of 19Reports

10/31/2019https://cebis.usace.army.mil/brgtest/cebis_2.rpts_dtl_utl.rpt_open?p_url=entire_rpt b6ecaml7 Sticky Note Issue: Bracing missing.

Solution: Add bracing (element 613).

b6ecjlf9

Concur. The interior cross bracing are considered secondary structural members and are not fracture critical. The probability of complete bridge failure is minor. Therefore the cross bracing members haven't been listed.

Bridge Number: CENMVPMN000LSAF Bridge Name: LSAF Service Bridge Inspection Date: 09-2019 NBI No. CENMVPMN000LSAF Condition Ratings Appraisal Ratings

1. State: Minnesota 58.Deck: 7 67.Structural Evaluation: 5

2. District: 00 59. Superstructure: 5 68. Deck Geometry: 2

9. Location: MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 60. Substructure: 6 71. Waterway Adequacy: 9

6. Features Intersected: MISSISSIPPI RIVER 61. Channel: 8 72. Approach roadway Alignment: N

203. Inspection Office: CEMVP 36. Traffic Safety Features: NNNN

204. Inspector: Jake Fall 113. Scour Critical: 9

Element Cond Cond Cond Cond No. Name QTY ENV 1 2 3 4

Decks/Slabs Span Range: 1 to 006 60 Other Deck 3307 2 3257 0 50 0

Quantities are in square feet. The aluminum deck is in good condition. Several lose or missing connections were observed from the deck plates and grating. See photographs 4, 7, 8, 9, and 10.

Superstructure Span Range: 1 to 006 107 Steel Open Girder/Beam 778 2 673 74 19 12

Quantities are in linear feet. The main welded steel plate girders are in generally good to fair condition. Pitting corrosion up to 1/16th of an inch deep was observed on the top flanges of the main girders. The pitting has not progressed appreciably since the 2004, 2009, and 2014 inspections. Weld quality can be characterized as fair. One discontinuity was observed in the storage yard on the downstream side of the downstream girder at the fifth vertical stiffener from the east bearing. This appears to be a small amount of filler metal that was deposited on top of a welded inside corner. It is recommended this be coped out and ground smooth. The area should be tested with magnetic particle or dye penetrant to ensure there are no cracks. See photograph XX.

Near the machinery platforms, isolated areas of active corrosion are present in the web section of both the upstream and downstream girders of each tainter gate span. These areas are particular located at the downstream 5th and 12th vertical stiffener / bottom flange intersection of the upstream girder, and at the upstream 5th and 12th vertical stiffener / bottom flange intersection of the downstream girder. Note, the 5th and 12th vertical stiffeners are counted from the east end of the girder. It appears the depth of section loss is greater than 10% of the web section, and has significantly progressed since the 2014 inspection. See photographs 12

The bottom flange thickness transition retrofits are in good condition with no defects observed other than a small amount of undercut at a few locations. See photograph XX. For other superstructure details, see photographs 10, 11, and 12.

Substructure Span Range: 1 to 006 210 Reinforced Concrete Pier Wall 498 2 428 41 15 14

Quantities are in liner feet. The dam bridge piers were found to be in satisfactory condition. Typical hairline cracking with efflorescence, minor aggregate popouts, and spalling was observed on most of the bridge piers. Approximately, 14 ft of severe cracking, delamination and spalling has occurred at the base of the downstream access door to the inspection platform on pier 1. See photographs 13, 14, and 15.

Bearings Span Range: 1 to 006 311 Movable Bearing 12 1 4 7 1 0

Quantities are each. The moveable bearings were found to be in fair condition. Pack rust has initiated that potentially could restrict movement. Most of the moveable bearing anchor rods are bent. This is likely due to over tightening the nuts such that the anchor rods were not free to slide when the main girders expanded and contracted. This condition has been observed for at least the three previous inspection cycles. See photographs 16, 17, 18, and 19. Lateral movement in the downstream girder of bridge span 4 at pier 5 has caused a welded connection in a brace connecting the horizontal bearing anchor plate to a vertical girder stiffener to crack. See Photograph 16.

Span Range: 1 to 006 313 Fixed Bearing 12 1 8 4 0 0

Quantities are each. The fixed bearings were found to be in fair condition. Pack rust is beginning to restrict movement. No problems other than bent anchor rods were observed. This condition has been observed in at least the three previous inspection cycles. See Photograph 20.

Bridge Railings Span Range: 1 to 006 330 Metal Bridge Railing 778 1 775 2 0 1

Quantities are in linear feet. The bridge railing is in good condition, with some minor problems. Localized areas of minor surface corrosion has initiated.

Approximately, 2 ft of railing has been damaged along the downstream rail of bridge span 6. See photographs 21 and 22.

Protective Coatings and Concrete Reinforcing Steel Protective Systems Span Range: 1 to 006 515 Steel Protective Coating 14382 1 9348 5034 0 0

Quantities are in square feet. The steel protective coating was found to be in fair condition with minor paint failures and localized areas of surface corrosion. See photographs 9, 10, 11, 12, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20.

Agency Developed Elements Span Range: 1 to 006 601 Channel/Waterway Condition 1 1 1 0 0 0

Quantities are each. The channel is in good condition. No problems were noted. See photographs 1, 5, and 6.

Page 8 of 19Reports

10/31/2019https://cebis.usace.army.mil/brgtest/cebis_2.rpts_dtl_utl.rpt_open?p_url=entire_rpt b6ecaml7 Highlight Issue: Contradicts October inspection date.

Solution: Fix date.

b6ecaml7 Highlight Issue: Photograph number missing

Solution: Add photo number.

b6ecaml7 Highlight Issue: Photo number missing.

Solution: Add photo number.

b6ecjlf9 Sticky Note Concur. This date is auto generated by CEBIS. However, inspections can be conducted within +/- 1 month of the actual inspection date, prior to submitting a schedule change.

b6ecjlf9 Sticky Note Concur. The photos numbers have been updated to reference the correct photo.

b6ecjlf9

Concur. The photos numbers have been updated to reference the correct photo.

Photograph 2: Downstream elevation view.

Photograph 3: Upstream Elevation View.

Page 9 of 19Reports

Photograph 4: West Approach Looking East.

Photograph 5: A view of the downstream channel from midspan.

Page 10 of 19Reports

10/31/2019https://cebis.usace.army.mil/brgtest/cebis_2.rpts_dtl_utl.rpt_open?p_url=entire_rpt b6ecaml7 Sticky Note Issue: Photos failed to generate.

Solution: Add photos directly in Adobe and re-upload report to CEBIS.

b6ecjlf9

Concur. This is a CEBIS Issue.

Photograph 6: A view of the upstream channel from midspan.

Photograph 7: East approach looking west.

Page 11 of 19Reports

Photograph 8: General view of the deck. Note the missing connections, Photograph 9: General view underneath the deck. Note the missing connection in the floor beam, connecting the steel deck to the floor beam.

Page 12 of 19Reports

Photograph 10: General view of the superstructure from underneath the deck.

Photograph 11: General view of the superstructure. Looking west from Pier 1 this photograph shows the downstream side of the downstream girder at span 1.

Page 13 of 19Reports

Photograph 12: Severe section loss was observed at the downstream 5th and 12th vertical stiffener / bottom flange intersection of the upstream girder, and at the upstream 5th and 12th vertical stiffener / bottom flange intersection of the downstream girder. Note, the 5th and 12th vertical stiffeners are counted from the east end of the girder.

Photograph 13: General view of the Dam Bridge Piers.

Page 14 of 19Reports

Photograph 14: Approximately, 60 ft2 of severe cracking, delamination and spalling has occurred at the base of the downstream access door to the inspection platform on pier 1. (West side of access door looking upstream.)

Photograph 15: Approximately, 60 ft2 of severe cracking, delamination and spalling has occurred at the base of the downstream access door to the inspection platform on pier 1. (East side of access door looking upstream.)

Page 15 of 19Reports

Photograph 16: Lateral movement in the downstream girder of bridge span 4 at pier 5 has caused a welded connection in a brace connecting the horizontal bearing anchor plate to a vertical girder stiffener to crack.

Photograph 17: General view of a moveable bearing. Pack rust has initiated that potentially could restrict movement.

Page 16 of 19Reports

Photograph 18: Section loss of the bolt was observed after cleaning out the pack rust.

Photograph 19: Span 4 right downstream bearing. Note slight deflection towards the right. Deflection is approximately 2 degrees.

Page 17 of 19Reports

Photograph 20: General view of a fixed bearing. Pack rust has initiated between the bearing plates.

Photograph 21: General view of the bridge's hand railing.

Page 18 of 19Reports

Photograph 22: Approximately, 2 ft of railing has been damaged along the downstream rail of bridge span 6.

Additional Information may be found at:

Photograph 1: Ariel view of Lower St. Anthony Falls Dam Service Bridge.

Page 19 of 19Reports