BRIDGE REPAIR/REHABILITATION FEASIBILITY STUDY

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Functionality and Safety: The fender system helps guide boats through the opening beneath the bascule span. The narrow channel and the significant overhang of the bascule span reportedly make navigation through the bridge a significant challenge. This is reflected in the damage to the fenders. The Repair and Rehabilitation Scope for the fender system will not correct this undesirable condition. Load Capacity: The fender system does not affect the bridge load carrying capacity. Maintenance: Replacing the timber fender system members now would reduce maintenance in the short-term by reducing the need to make periodic repairs to the deteriorating timber or to reapply in-place preservative treatments. However, based on the limited anticipated service life of timber in this environment, maintenance would likely continue to be a significant long-term concern with the less effective water-borne preservatives. Use of tropical timber may increase the service life slightly and thus reduce maintenance somewhat, but because the durability of this timber is unreliable, the long-term maintenance is still anticipated to be a significant concern. Visual Impacts: Replacement of the fender system timbers is not anticipated to introduce a visual impact. 4.5.2 Embankment Slope Protection NBIS Condition Rating: 7 (Good) Condition Description: The rubble rip rap slope protection is generally stable with no apparent significant erosion or settlement and appears to be adequately protecting the approach embankments along the abutment wing walls. Repair Scope: None required. Rehabilitation Scope: None required. Functionality and Safety: The rubble rip rap does not affect the functionality and safety of the bridge. Load Capacity: The rubble rip rap does not affect the load capacity of the bridge. Maintenance: There are no reported maintenance concerns with the current rubble rip rap and no proposed changes that would affect the maintenance. Visual Impacts: There are no proposed changes to the rip-rap that would introduce a visual impact. 4.5.3 Waterway Bottom Surface/Scour NBIS Condition Rating: 7 (Good) Repair/Rehab. Feasibility Study March 10, 2011 Bridge No. C-07-001 (437) 45 Final Report
Condition Description: There are currently no reported scour concerns and the NBIS Scour Rating considers the bridge “Stable for Assessed Scour Conditions”. Repair Scope: None required. Rehabilitation Scope: None required. Functionality and Safety: The waterway bottom surface does not affect the functionality and safety of the bridge. Load Capacity: The predicted local pier scour during a major storm event for the pile bents is approximately 4 feet, which will reduce the axial load carrying capacity and lateral stability. The foundation capacity of many of the piles is unknown as there are no pile driving records indicating the depth to which the piles were installed or the driving resistance that was achieved. Although it is likely that the piles were driven to dense sandy glacial till material found 40 to 50 feet below the river bed, this cannot be confirmed. Although there is no reported significant settlement or loss in stability, the factors of safety for both axial capacity and lateral stability are unknown. Maintenance: There are no reported maintenance concerns with the current waterway bottom surface and no proposed changes that would affect the maintenance. Visual Impacts: There are no proposed changes that would introduce a visual impact. 4.6 Traffic Safety 4.6.1 Curb/Bridge Railing NBIS Condition Rating: 5 (Fair) Condition Description: See 4.2.4 and 4.2.5 above. Repair Scope: See 4.2.4 and 4.2.5 above. Rehabilitation Scope: See 4.2.4 and 4.2.5 above. Functionality and Safety: See 4.2.4 and 4.2.5 above. Load Capacity: See 4.2.4 and 4.2.5 above. Maintenance: See 4.2.4 and 4.2.5 above. Visual Impacts: See 4.2.4 and 4.2.5 above. Repair/Rehab. Feasibility Study March 10, 2011 Bridge No. C-07-001 (437) 46 Final Report
Page 1 and 2: BRIDGE REPAIR/REHABILITATION FEASIB
Page 3 and 4: 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The existing
Page 5 and 6: such there is a risk that the proje
Page 7 and 8: 3.0 BRIDGE DESCRIPTION Bridge Numbe
Page 9 and 10: Photo 2 - Present Mitchell River Br
Page 11 and 12: 4.0 ELEMENT CONDITION & REHABILITAT
Page 13 and 14: Based on the 1997 load rating analy
Page 15 and 16: promotes growth in the number and s
Page 17 and 18: 4.2.2 Deck NBIS Condition Rating: 5
Page 19 and 20: Rehabilitation Scope: In order to m
Page 21 and 22: 4.2.5 Railings NBIS Condition Ratin
Page 23 and 24: Functionality and Safety: Eliminati
Page 25 and 26: Although in-place preservative trea
Page 27 and 28: The bascule span timber stringers c
Page 29 and 30: Repair Scope: Although the timber m
Page 31 and 32: Use of an all steel counterweight w
Page 33 and 34: additional force effects, the speci
Page 35 and 36: typically loose. The steel guardrai
Page 37 and 38: Functionality and Safety: The cap b
Page 39 and 40: The surface decay and deterioration
Page 41 and 42: the interior of the piles where the
Page 43 and 44: Load Capacity: The current loss in
Page 45: Visual Impacts: Replacement of the
Page 49 and 50: 5.0 OTHER CONSIDERATIONS 5.1 Naviga
Page 51 and 52: SUMMARY OF TIMBER ELEMENT SERVICE L
Page 53 and 54: 5.3 Funding The project is currentl
Page 55 and 56: navigation opening. The estimated c
Page 57 and 58: • Continued replacement, repair a
Page 59 and 60: APPENDICES A. Existing Bridge Plans
Page 74: APPENDIX B Structures Field Inspect
Page 123 and 124:
PAGE 3 OF 22 CITY/TOWN B.I.N. BR. D
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
CITY/TOWN B.I.N. BR. DEPT. NO. 8.-S
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Page 144 and 145:
PAGE 2 OF 7 CITY/TOWN B.I.N. BR. DE
Page 146 and 147:
Page 148 and 149:
Page 211:
APPENDIX C Load Rating Summary (199
Page 237 and 238:
MAINTENANCE AND REHABILITATION OF T
Page 239 and 240:
Figure 14-1. - Many covered bridges
Page 241 and 242:
(discussed later in this chapter),
Page 243 and 244:
Figure 14-5. - Liquid wood preserva
Page 245 and 246:
wood, and other openings to the atm
Page 247 and 248:
Table 14-1. - Number and size of ho
Page 249 and 250:
member noting treatment information
Page 251 and 252:
Figure 14-11. - Splicing and scabbi
Page 253 and 254:
STRESS LAMINATING Stress laminating
Page 255 and 256:
ond between separated sections, inc
Page 257 and 258:
onding the old and new pile section
Page 259 and 260:
GENERAL PROCEDURES FOR EPOXY REPAIR
Page 261 and 262:
openings will allow epoxy to escape
Page 263 and 264:
Another quality control problem is
Page 265 and 266:
6. Avent, R.R. 1985. Factors affect
Page 267 and 268:
Integrated Remedial Protection of W
Page 269 and 270:
Figure l-Effect of fumigant applica
Page 271 and 272:
Table 1- Residual MITC content in D
Page 273 and 274:
of reinvasion (Forsyth and Morrell,
Page 275 and 276:
might represent the best option, wh
Page 277 and 278:
In: Ritter, M.A.; Duwadi, S.R.; Lee
Page 279 and 280:
Present and Potential Commercial Ti
Page 281 and 282:
2 U.S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE HANDBOO
Page 283 and 284:
Page 285 and 286:
Page 287 and 288:
Page 289 and 290:
10 U.S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE HANDBO
Page 291 and 292:
Page 293 and 294:
Page 295 and 296:
Page 297 and 298:
Page 299 and 300:
Page 301 and 302:
Page 303 and 304:
Page 305 and 306:
APPENDIX F FRP Pile Jackets
Page 307 and 308:
about its hazard to human health. T
Page 309 and 310:
Fig. 5. Cross section of wood pile
Page 311 and 312:
(Lopez-Anido et al. 2004c). For exa
Page 313 and 314:
Table 1. Cost Items for FRP Composi
Page 315 and 316:
Hardcore Composites. (2000). Hardsh
Page 317 and 318:
CALCULATION COVER SHEET Project Nam
Page 319 and 320:
URS Corp. 260 Franklin Street Bosto
Page 321 and 322:
Page 323 and 324:
Page 325 and 326:
Page 327 and 328:
Page 329 and 330:
Page 336:
APPENDIX I Correspondence
show all

BRIDGE REPAIR/REHABILITATION FEASIBILITY STUDY

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?