HomeMy WebLinkAbout5. Mn/DOT Bridge No. 4175 Historic Bridge Management Plan
#s
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
MEMORANDUM
To: Mayor and City Council
Parks and Recreation Advisory Board
Mark McNeill, City Administrator
From: Mark Themig, Parks, Recreation, and Facilities Director
Date: July 26, 2007
Subject: Mn/DOT Bridge No. 4175 Historic Bridge Management Plan
INTRODUCTION
This agenda item provides City Council and the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board
with relevant sections of the historic bridge management plan for Mn/DOT Bridge No.
4175 (Holmes Street Bridge). At some point in the future, Mn/DOT plans to request a
meeting with the City Council to discuss the management plan and future of the bridge.
BACKGROUND
When the new CR1 01 Minnesota River Bridge was proposed in the late 1980's, one of
conditions of the approval by the Federal Highway Administration and the DNR was that
pedestrian and bicycle river crossing be provided by either attaching a pedestrian
crossing to the new bridge, or keeping and renovating the existing bridge. At some point
during the decision making process, Mn/DOT decided not to add pedestrian access to
the new bridge. However, they did not make any improvements to the existing bridge
either.
When Huber Park and related riverfront development projects started moving forward in
2003/2004, I initiated conversation with Mn/DOT about the future of Bridge No. 4175. At
that same time, Mn/DOT was preparing to study several bridges that were deemed to
have potential historical significance, including Bridge No. 4175. The study is complete
and Cyrus Knutson from Mn/DOT recently provided me a copy of the Historic Bridge
Management Plan for Bridge No. 4175.
DISCUSSION
In discussing the findings with Mr. Knutson, itappears that Mn/DOT has concluded that
restoring the bridge is required due to its historical significance. Apparently there are
similar bridges that could be restored to meet historical needs, but this bridge has been
identified as best meeting the needs.
Mr. Knutson indicated that the costs to renovate the bridge could approach $5 million;
and they are working on identifying potential funding sources. In addition, they will be
assigning a project manager to oversee initial planning. I did ask Mr. Knutson if it was
possible to look at options such as lowering the deck to connect better with the existing
DNR trail while retaining the historical structure or even to replace the entire structure.
He indicated that both options are something that the City Council could discuss with
Mn/DOT and could be researched.
At some point in the future, Mn/DOT will likely want to meet with the Council to talk about
the City's needs related to how a renovated bridge would function, as well as long term
plans for the bridge.
cc: Lezlie Vermillion, Scott County Public Works
'"
'" Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT)
Historic Bridge Management Plan
IV - Engineering Data Bridge Number: 4175
Inspection Date 10/19/2004 (Inspection and inventory data in this section was
Sufficiency Rating [1] provided for this project by MnlDOT in May 2005)
Operating Rating [1,2] 0
Inventory Rating [1,2] 0
Posted Load [1] 3
Design Load [1] 7
Deficiency Rating Status [1] N
Condition Codes
Deck: 4
Superstructure: 3
Substructure: 4
Channel and Prot.: 7
Culvert: N
Appraisal Ratings
Struct. Eva!.:
Deck Geometery:
Underclearances: 6
Waterway Adequacy: 8
Appr. Alignment: 6
Smart Flag Data [1] ~ (A check indicates data items are listed
on the Bridge Inspection Report)
Fracture Critical [1] Y
Last Inspection Date C48199601
Waterway Data
Scour Code [1]: The bridge was screened, evaluated, and deemed scour critical. A
Scour Action Plan is required. The bridge must be monitored during
high flows by local authorities and closed if necessary. While not
adjacent to the normal channel, the north abutment is the component
most susceptible to scour, according to scour computations.
Roadway Data
ADT Total: 50
Truck ADT Percentage:
Bypass Detour Length [2]: 0
Roadway Clearances
Roadway Width [2): 7.62
Vert. Clearance Over Rdwy [2): 99.9
Vert. Clearance Under Rdwy [2]: 4.7244
Lat. Under Clearance Right [2]: 0.9144
Lat. Under Clearance Left [2]:
Geometry Characteristics
Skew: 0
Structure Flared: 0
[1J These items are defined in the glossary in Appendix A. [2J These items are provided in metric units.
MEAD HNTB
ji:~ JUNE 2006 Engineering Data IV-1
Vt.:;::x"P.... -,~",_
'"
~
Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT)
Historic Bridge Management Plan
IV - Engineering Data Bridge Number: 4175
Roadway Characteristics
Floodplain Data
Available data indicates that Bridge 4175 will not inundate with a Q100 flood event. A 1995 Bridge
Office memo states that the low member elevation of any new structure placed on the existing piers
should be at or above 724.6 feet.
Accident Data
Not applicable due to its current status as a pedestrian bridge that is closed to vehicular traffic.
Location of Plans
Bridge Office
:MEAD H"T'B
~~. JUNE 2006 Engineering Data IV-2
..'
~
Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT)
Historic Bridge Management Plan
V - Existing Conditions I Recommendations Bridge Number: 4175
Existing Conditions
Available information was reviewed prior to assessing the options for preservation of Bridge 4175 and
visiting the bridge site. This information is cited in the Project Introduction section of this plan. A site
visit was conducted to qualitatively establish the following:
1. General condition of structural members
2. Conformation to available extant plans
3. Roadway geometry and alignment
4. Bridge geometry and clearances
Serviceability Observations:
At 42.4 feet wide, the deck is more than adequate for use as a pedestrian and bicycle facility.
In 1976 Bridge 4175 had an inventory load rating of H 11 and an operating load rating of HS 17.6.
The height of the existing railings satisfies current requirements for pedestrians, but is too low for
bicycles. With a 1.5% grade, the bridge complies with ADA requirements that specify a grade of less
than the 5%.
Structural Condition Observations:
A 1997 report by Parsons, Brinckerhoff, Quade, and Douglas, Inc., "Bridge 4175: Summary of
Inspection and Re.commendations for Reuse as a Pedestrian Bridge,"identified section loss in many
floor system components. Sidewalk brackets and sidewalk edge channels were deemed to be in
critical condition. Extensive section loss was noted for several f100rbeams in each of the four truss
spans.
The following observations were made during the site visit conducted for this plan. Components
supporting the sidewalks on both sides of the bridge have extensive deterioration on both the main
spans and approach spans. Unsealed sliding metal plate expansion joints have allowed salt-laden
water to wash over superstructure and substructure components, leading to accelerated corrosion of
steel and concrete components. Deck drains along both curb lines have also accelerated the
deterioration of outside truss members. Piers 3, 4, and 5 (the river piers) contain spalls and are
cracked. Pier 5 has extensive spalling on its south face. Pier 6 (the north transition pier) has extensive
section loss.
The concrete deck has transverse cracks and contains patches. A majority of the patches are in what
was the northbound traffic lane.
The northwest concrete stairway is in fair condition with scaled concrete. The northeast northwest
concrete stairway is completely overgrown with brush and was not visible during the site visit. A
wooden stairway was added to the east side of the south approach span by cutting through the metal
bridge railing; the stairway is in good condition.
The concrete railing atop the south abutment is in poor condition with spalled and scaled concrete and
exposed rebar.
~ HNT'B JUNE 2006 Existing Conditions I Recommendations V-1
, .
.,.
~
Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT)
Historic Bridge Management Plan
v - Existing Conditions I Recommendations Bridge Number: 4175
Many elements of both metal railings have extensive section loss. In general, the east railing has more
deterioration than the west.
The light standard at the south end of the bridge adjacent to the west metal railing is in poor condition.
It currently is strapped to a timber post that is adjacent to a sidewalk bracket and a f100rbeam bracket.
Non-Structural Observations:
Recent underwater inspection records indicate that some footing elements are exposed.
The lead-based paint system has failed on the metal railing. Extensive paint failure was noted on the
outer trusses with significant regions of paint failure noted on other steel components. Below the deck
and away from the expansion joints and deck drains the paint system is in poor to fair condition.
No arm's length inspection has been performed on this bridge since 1996. Recently, Mn/DOT has
inspected only the approach spans over LeVee Drive and the recreation trail at the south end of the
bridge.
Date of Site Visit
August 5, 2005
lvWAD HNTB
JfubLJNT JUNE 2006 Existing Conditions I Recommendations V-2
, "'t.
.b''I',.)'<>''<<k,.'.
,
.. Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT)
Historic Bridge Management Plan
V - Existing Conditions I Recommendations Bridge Number: 4175
Figure 1. Looking north from the south approach.
Note the safety barriers added to the curb side of the
sidewalks. Note the modern light pole in the
foreground on the west side.
Figure 2. Looking west at the wood stairs added to
access the bridge at the southeast corner. The metal
railing and safety barrier on the east side of the bridge
were removed at the location of the stairs.
Figure 3. Wood pole attached to the bridge on the
west side of the south approach spans to support the
modern metal light pole. Deterioration of the
longitudinal concrete beams and the transverse
sidewalk beam is evident. Metal railing and fascia
steel-beam paint is in poor condition.
Figure 4. Extensive concrete deterioration of the north
transition pier.
:MtEtID .H.N.. T. .8.
(:q.~m m ... m .. i...... JUNE 2006 Existing Conditions I Recommendation~ V-3
~
Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) J<
Historic Bridge Management Plan
V - Existing Conditions I Recommendations Bridge Number: 4175
Figure 5. Metal railing on the east side of the bridge.
Railing is generally in poor condition due to extensive
section loss of many elements, including some panels
that are damaged and distorted.
Figure 6. Typical configuration of main truss spans:
three primary trusses supporting a floor system with
narrow stringer spacing.
Figure 7. Cracked Cap on the west side of the north
river pier. The vertical faces of the river piers contain
several large spalls. Simple span truss configuration
leads to fixed and expansion bearings supported on
the river piers.
Figure 8. Debris has built up on the land side of the
north river pier leading to an unbalanced earth load
condition.
~ HNT'B
~qlJNf JUNE 2006 Existing Conditions I Recommendations V-4
~
"
Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT)
Historic Bridge Management Plan
v - Existing Conditions I Recommendations Bridge Number: 4175
Overall Recommendations
With a parallel/bypass vehicular bridge in service for TH 169/11, no transportation need requires Bridge
4175 to be in service for vehicular use. It is closed to vehicular traffic and currently functions as a
pedestrian bridge, which is a less-demanding use. However, it has not been rehabilitated to continue in
pedestrian/bicycle service for the 20-year period of this management plan.
The current status of the bridge eliminates option 1 (rehabilitation for continued vehicular use on-site)
while satisfying option 4 (closure and stabilization following construction of bypass structure). Option 4
does not require rehabilitation and therefore is not a viable option for the 20-year plan period. Of the
remaining options, option 2 (rehabilitation for less-demanding use on-site, such as pedestrian/bicycle
traffic use) is preferable because rehabilitation will provide long-term functionality and preserve the most
significant character-defining feature, the deck-truss superstructure.
Option 3 (relocation and rehabilitation for less-demanding use) would preserve the superstructure
through relocation at great expense, but would not preserve other character-defining features. Option 5
(partial reconstruction while preserving substantial historic fabric) would remove and replace the
superstructure and is not a viable choice for this bridge. Options 3 and 5 would likely result in the loss
of National Register eligibility.
To fulfill the requirements of option 2, extensive rehabilitation is recommended. Useful information on
rehabilitation is available in a reuse study previously commissioned by Mn/DOT. In 1997, Parsons,
Brinckerhoff, Quade, and Douglas, Inc., prepared "Bridge 4175: Summary of Inspection and
Recommendations for Reuse as a Pedestrian Bridge." The report estimated the cost of rehabilitating
the bridge for pedestrian/bicycle service at $3.2 million. The report included an estimate, produced by
the Mn/DOT Office of Bridges and Structures, of a new 12-foot-wide superstructure for
pedestrian/bicycle use, placed on the existing substructures, at $1 million. Such a replacement
superstructure would resl.;llt from the selection of option 5.
Recommended Future Use:
Rehabilitation for less-demanding use on-site.
Recommended Stabilization Activities:
1. Install rip rap at Piers 3, 4, and 5.
2. Remove the rocks and debris on the north face of Pier 5 to better balance the earth loads on the pier.
Recommended Preservation Activities:
1. Conduct an extensive concrete testing program (chloride sampling, cores, petrographic analysis) to
delineate the limits of sound concret~ for each of the substructure units and the approach spans.
2. Perform an arm's-length inspection using the Snooper Crane to determine the current condition of
truss span elements and document deterioration.
3. Conduct a paint inspection and testing program. The testing program should determine the
components and characteristics of the existing paint system (heavy metal contents, film thicknesses,
adhesion properties, and chloride contamination). Assemble results in a report that also provides a
recommended painting strategy (overcoat system versus traditional blast clean and paint systems)
MEAD HNTB
~1~UNf JUNE 2006 Existing Conditions I Recommendations V-5
"~w/";-.'i;".",.,,,,....,..
.
~
Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT)
Historic Bridge Management Plan
v - Existing Conditions I Recomme,ndations Bridge Number: 4175
4. Perform a load rating analysis to determine the capacity of the bridge in its current condition.
Evaluate the bridge subjected to two load cases: (a) fully loaded with pedestrians, and (b) providing safe
passage for emergency vehicles and snow removal equipment (H10 operating rating).
5. Remove the existing concrete deck.
6. Repair or reconstruct deteriorated truss elements. Members and elements that can not be repaired
should be replaced in-kind to the extent possible. Previous truss repairs that are not in compliance with
the Secretary of the Interior's St~ndards shall be reworked to be in compliance with the Standards.
Consideration should be given to replacement of rivets in-kind where replacement is necessary. Rivets
that are corroded, damaged, or otherwise require replacement should be replaced with rivets of equal
shank diameter. The replacement rivets should be hot-formed steel button-head rivets. Contemporary
methods of rivet installation may be used rather than those methods used in the early twentieth
century. If replacement of rivets is cost prohibitive, button-head bolts of similar shank diameter should
be used to replace those rivets which require replacement. It is likely that the rivet holes may require
reaming. Consideration should be given to the gage distance and physical access required for button-
head bolts because of the specialized equipment needed for their installation. If use of button head
bolts is not feasible due to physical constraints, conventional structural steel bolts may be used.
7. Rehabilitate the truss bearing assemblies if determined to be feasible and cost effective; otherwise
replace with neoprene bearing assemblies.
8. Rehabilitate the concrete substructure units based on the findings of the concrete testing program.
9. Rehabilitate the concrete approach spans based on the findings of the concrete testing program.
10. Install sealed expansion joints at all expansion joint locations.
11. Install a new concrete deck. Utilize details that carry deck drainage off the bridge to the north
approach. If feasible, deck drains should not be utilized.
12. Install a new metal railing that is a reconstruction of the original metal railing (see Minnesota
Department of Highways, Bridge No. 4175, Plan Sheet 2/21, "Stress Diagram & Floor Details for 4-125
Ft. Deck Trusses"), altered only as necessary to meet current Mn/DOT geometric and strength
requirements for bicycle railing. The new railing should retain the general design, color, texture, and
materials of the original. If additional vertical height for the metal railing is necessary it shall be obtained
by constructing a reinforced concrete curb to support the railing.
13. Install omamentallighting with details based on available extant plans and photographic evidence
(see Minnesota Department of Highways, Bridge No. 4175, Plan Sheet 21/21, "Details for Cast Iron
Newel Posf').
Projected Inspections to Monitor Bridge Condition
Routine:
1. Conduct routine inspections annually. Implement resulting recommended maintenance efforts within
a 12-month period.
2. Conduct an in-depth, arm's length inspection at 5-year intervals. Implement resulting recommended
maintenance or repair efforts within a 24-month period.
MBAD HNTB
~ JUNE 2006 Existing Conditions I Recommendations V-6
..
"-
Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT)
Historic Bridge Management Plan
V - Existing Conditions I Recommendations .Bridge Number: 4175
Special:
Conduct underwater inspections at 5-year intervals. Implement resulting recommended maintenance or
repair efforts within a 24-month period.
Recommended Maintenance Activities
1. Power wash the railings and deck annually, preferably in the spring.
2, Spot paint and/or metallize and paint deteriorated steel elements, following Mn/DOT standard
procedures, at 10-year intervals.
3. Completely repaint the structural steel, following Mn/DOT standard procedures, at 40-year intervals.
4. Lubricate bearings at 2-year intervals.
5. Replace expansion-joint glands at 20-year intervals.
MEAD HNTB
!~--uNT JUNE 2006 Existing Conditions I Recommendations V-7
\&xw,:iM~~~;:'-A'
..
"'-
Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT)
Historic Bridge Management Plan
VI - Projected Agency Costs Bridge Number: 4175
Qualifier Statement
The opinions of probable costs provided below are in 2006 dollars. The costs were developed without
benefit of preliminary plans and are based on the above identified tasks using engineering judgment
and/or gross estimates of quantities and historic unit prices and are intended to provide a programming
level of estimated costs. Refinement of the probable costs is recommended once preliminary plans
have been developed. The estimated preservation costs include a 20% contingency and 5%
mobilization allowance of the preservation activities, excluding soft costs (see Appendix D, Cost Detail,
Item 5: Other). Actual costs may vary significantly from those opinions of cost provided herein.
For itemized activity listing and costs, see Appendix D.
Summarized Costs
Maintenance costs: $50,600 annualized
Stabilization activities
Superstructure: $0
Substructure: $22,000
Railing: $0
Deck: $0
Other: $0
Total: $22,000
Preservation activities
Superstructure: $2,529,000
Substructure: $263,000
Railing: $438,000
Deck: $353,000
Other: $700,000
Contingency: $896,000
Total: $5,179,000
Applicable Funding
The majority of funding for the rehabilitation and reuse of historic bridges in the state of Minnesota is
available through federal funding programs. The legislation authorizing the various federal funding
programs is the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for
Users (SAFETEA-LU).
SAFETEA-LU programs include the Transportation Enhancement (TE) Fund, the Surface
Transportation Program (STP), the Highway Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation Program
(HBRRP), National Highway System Funds, and the National Historic Covered-Bridge Preservation
Program. A program not covered by SAFETEA-LU, the Save America's Treasures Program, is also
available for rehabilitation and reuse of historic bridges that have national significance.
Other than the Save America's Treasures Program, the federal funds listed above are passed through
Mn/DOT for purposes of funding eligible activities. While the criteria for determining eligible activities
are determined largely by federal guidelines, Mn/DOT has more discretion in determining eligible
activities under the TE fund.
The federal funding programs typically provide 80-percent federal funding and require a 20-percent
state/local match. Typical eligible activities associated with these funds include replacement or
rehabilitation of structurally deficient or functionally obsolete bridges for vehicular and, non-vehicular
uses, painting, seismic retrofit, and preventive maintenance. If a historic bridge is relocated, the
MEAD HNTB
,~ JUNE 2006 Projected Agency Costs VI-1
-""-.%>:w.',~~2.,,:.''<'
.
"- Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT)
Historic Bridge Management Plan
VI- Projected Agency Costs Bridge Number: 4175
estimated cost of demolition can be applied to its rehabilitation at a new site. It should be noted that the
federal funds available for non-vehicular uses are limited to this estimated cost of demolition. However,
TE funds can be applied to bridge rehabilitation for non-vehicular use.
State or federal bridge bond funds are available for eligible rehabilitation or reconstruction work on any
publicly owned bridge or culvert longer than 20 feet. State bridge bond funds are available for up to 100
percent of the "abutment to abutment" cost for bridges or culverts longer than 10 feet that meet
eligibility criteria.
A more in-depth discussion regardingfunding can be found in the Minnesota Historic Bridge
Management Plan.
Special Funding Note
N/A
MBID HNTB
/'bHlJNT JUNE 2006 Projected Agency Costs VI-2
t\:~$-::-!, ,. '--
%G_>"'M.
..
"-
Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT)
Historic Bridge Management Plan
Appendices Bridge Number: 4175
Appendix A. Glossary of Preservation and Engineering Terms
MEAD HNT'B
~'ltttIUNT JUNE 2006
"*"".-"-
.
"
Glossary
Appraisal ratings - Five National Bridge Inventory (NBI) inspection ratings (structural evaluation, deck
geometry, under-clearances, waterway adequacy, and approach alignment, as defined below),
collectively called appraisal ratings, are used to evaluate a bridge's overall structural condition and load-
carrying capacity. The evaluated bridge is compared with a new bridge built to current design standards.
Ratings range from a low of 0 (closed bridge) to a high of 9 (superior). Any appraisal item not applicable
to a specific bridge it is coded N.
Approach alignment - One of five NBI inspection ratings. This rating appraises a bridge's functionality
based on the alignment of its approaches. It incorporates a typical motorist's speed reduction because of
the horizontal or vertical alignment of the approach.
Character-defining features - Prominent or distinctive aspects, qualities, or characteristics of a historic
property that contribute significantly to its physical character. Features may include structural or
decorative details and materials.
Condition rating - Level of deterioration of bridge components and elements expressed on a numerical
scale according to the NBI system. Components include the substructure, superstructure, deck, channel,
and culvert. Elements are subsets of components, e.g., piers and abutments are elements of the
component substructure. The evaluated bridge is compared with a new bridge built to current design
standards. Component ratings range from 0 (failure) to 9 (new); element ratings range from 1 (poor) to 3
(good). In rating a bridge's condition, Mn/OOT pairs the NBI system with the newer and more
sophisticated Pontis element inspection information, which quantifies bridge elements in different
condition states and is the basis for subsequent economic analysis.
Deck geometry- One of five NBI inspection ratings. This rating appraises the functionality of a bridge's
roadway width and vertical clearance, taking into account the type of roadway, number of lanes, and
Average Daily Traffic (ADT).
Deficiency - The inadequacy of a bridge in terms of structure, serviceability, and/or function. Structural
deficiency is determined through periodic inspections and is reflected in the ratings that are assigned to a
bridge. Service deficiency is determined by comparing the facilities a bridge provides for vehicular,
bicycle, and pedestrian traffic with those that are desired. Functional deficiency is another term for
functionally obsolete (see below). Remedial activities may be needed to address any or all of these
deficiencies.
Deficiency rating - A nonnumeric code indicating a bridge's status as structurally deficient (SO) or
functionally obsolete (FO). See below for the definitions of SD and FO. The deficiency rating status may
be used as a basis for establishing a bridge's eligibility and priority for replacement or rehabilitation.
Glossary A-1
-;
..
Design exception - A deviation from standard bridge design practices that takes into account
environmental, scenic, aesthetic, historic, and community factors that may have bearing upon a
transportation project. A design exception is used for federally funded projects where federal standards
are not met. Approval requires appropriate justification and documentation that concerns for safety,
durability, and economy of maintenance have been met.
Design load - The usable live-load capacity that a bridge was designed to carry, expressed in metric
tons according to the allowable stress, load factor, or load resistance factor rating methods. An additional
code was recently added to assess design load by a rating factor instead of tons. This code is used to
determine if a bridge has sufficient strength to accommodate traffic demands. A bridge that is posted for
load restrictions may not be adequate to accommodate present or expected truck traffic.
Fracture critical- Classification of a bridge having primary superstructure or substructure components
subject to tension stresses and which are non-redundant. A failure of one of these components could
lead to collapse of a span or the bridge. Tension members of truss bridges are often fracture critical. The
associated inspection date is a numerical code that includes frequency of inspection in months, followed
by year, and month of last inspection.
Functionally obsolete (FO) - The FHWA classification of a bridge that cannot meet current or projected
traffic needs because of inadequate horizontal or vertical clearance, inadequate load-carrying capacity,
and/or insufficient opening to accommodate water flow under the bridge.
Historic fabric - The material in a bridge that was part of original construction or a subsequent alteration
within the historic period (e.g., more than 50 years old) that has significance in and of itself. Historic
fabric includes both character-defining and minor features. Minor features have less importance and may
be replaced more readily.
Historic bridge - A bridge that is listed in, or eligible for listing in, the National Register of Historic
Places.
Historic integrity - The authenticity of a bridge's historic identity, evidenced by the survival and/or
restoration of physical characteristics that existed during the bridge's historic period. A bridge may have
integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association.
Inspections - Periodic field assessments and subsequent consideration of the fitness of a structure and
the associated approaches and amenities to continue to function safely.
Inventory rating - The load level a bridge can safely carry for an indefinite amount of time expressed in
metric tons or by the rating factor described in design load (see above). Inventory rating values typically
correspond to the original design load for a bridge without deterioration.
Maintenance - Work of a routine nature to prevent or control the process of deterioration of a bridge.
Glossary A-2
..
"-
Minnesota Historical Property Record (MHPR) - A documentary record of an important architectural,
engineering, or industrial site, maintained by the MHS as part of the state's commitment to historic
preservation. MHPR typically includes large-format photographs and written history, and may also
include historic photographs, drawings, and/or plans. This state-level documentation program is modeled
after a federal program known as the Historic American Buildings Survey/Historic American Engineering
Record (HABS/HAER).
National Bridge Inventory - Bridge inventory and appraisal data collected by the FHWA to fulfill the
requirements of the National Bridge Inspection Standards (NBIS). Each state maintains an inventory of
its bridges subject to NBIS and sends an annual update to the FHWA.
National Bridge Inspection Standards - Federal requirements for procedures and frequency of
inspections, qualifications of personnel, inspection reports, and preparation and maintenance of state
bridge inventories. NBIS applies to bridges located on public roads.
National Register of Historic Places - The official inventory of districts, sites, buildings, structures, and
objects significant in American history, architecture, archaeology, and culture, which is maintained by the
Secretary of the Interior under the authority of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (as
amended).
Non-vehicular traffic - Pedestrians, non-motorized recreational vehicles, and small motorized
recreational vehicles moving along a transportation route that does not serve automobiles and trucks.
Includes bicycles and snowmobiles.
Operating rating - Maximum permissible load level to which a bridge may be subjected based on a
.specific vehicle type, expressed in metric tons or by the rating factor described in design load (see
above).
Posted load - Legal live-load capacity for a bridge usually associated with the operating or inventory
ratings as determined by a state transportation agency. A bridge posted for load restrictions may be
inadequate for truck traffic.
Pontis - Computer-based bridge management system to store inventory and inspection data and assist
in other bridge data management tasks.
Preservation - Preservation, as used in this report, refers to historic preservation that is consistent with
the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. Historic preservation
means saving from destruction or deterioration old and historic buildings, sites, structures, and objects,
and providing for their continued use by means of restoration, rehabilitation, or adaptive reuse. It is the
act or process of applying measures to sustain the existing form, integrity, and material of a historic
building or structure, and its site and setting. Mn/DOT's Bridge PreseNation, Improvement and
Replacement Guidelines (BPIRG) describe preservation differently, focusing on repairing or delaying the
deterioration of a bridge without significantly improving its function and without considerations for its
historic integrity.
Glossary A-3
..
"-
Preventive maintenance - The planned strategy of cost-effective treatments that preserve a bridge,
retard future deterioration, and maintain or improve its functional condition without increasing structural
capacity.
Reconstruction - The act or process of depicting, by means of new construction, the form, features, and
detailing of a non-surviving site, landscape, building, structure, or object for the purpose of replicating its
appearance at a specific period of time and in its historic location. Activities should be consistent with the
Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties.
Rehabilitation - The act or process of returning a historic property to a state of utility through repair or
alteration which makes possible an efficient contemporary use, while preserving those portions or
features of the property that are significant to its historical, architectural, and cultural values. Historic
rehabilitation, as used in this report, refers to implementing activities that are consistent with the
Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. As such, rehabilitation
retains historic fabric and is different from replacement. However, Mn/DOT's Bridge Preservation,
Improvement and Rep/acement Guidelines (BPIRG) describe rehabilitation and replacement in similar
terms.
Restoration - The act or process of accurately depicting the form, features, and character of a property
as it appeared at a particular period of time. Activities should be consistent with the Secretary of the
Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties.
Scour - Removal of material from a river's bed or bank by flowing water, compromising the strength,
stability, and serviceability of a bridge.
Scour critical rating - A measure of bridge's vulnerability to scour (see above), ranging from 0 (scour
critical, failed, and closed to traffic) to 9 (foundations are on dry land well above flood water elevations).
This code can also be expressed as U (unknown), N (bridge is not over a waterway), or T (bridge is over
tidal waters and considered low risk).
Serviceability - Level of facilities a bridge provides for vehicular,. bicycle, and pedestrian traffic,
compared with current design standards.
Smart flag - Special Pontis inspection element used to report the condition assessment of a deficiency
that cannot be modeled, such as cracks, section loss, and steel fatigue.
Stabilization - The act or process of sustaining a bridge by means of making minor repairs until a more
permanent repair or rehabilitation can be completed.
Structurally deficient - Classification indicating NBI condition rating of 4 or less for any of the following:
deck condition, superstructure condition, substructure condition, or culvert condition. A structurally
deficient bridge is restricted to lightweight vehicles; requires immediate rehabilitation to remain open to
traffic; or requires maintenance, rehabilitation, or replacement.
,...- Glossary A-4
<-
<-
Structural evaluation - Condition of a bridge designed to carry vehicular loads, expressed as a numeric
value and based on the condition of the superstructure and substructure, the inventory load rating, and
the ADT.
Sufficiency rating - Rating of a bridge's structural adequacy and safety for public use, and its
serviceability and function, expressed on a numeric scale ranging from a low of 0 to a high of 100. It is a
relative measure of a bridge's deterioration, load capacity deficiency, or functional obsolescence.
Mn/DOT may use the rating as a basis for establishing eligibility and priority for replacement or
rehabilitation. Typically, bridges rated between 50 and 80 are eligible for rehabilitation and those rated 50
and below are eligible for replacement.
Under-clearances - One of five NBI inspection ratings. This rating appraises the suitability of the
horizontal and vertical clearances of a grade-separation structure, taking into account whether traffic
beneath the structure is one- or two-way.
Variance - A deviation from standard bridge design practices that takes into account environmental,
scenic, aesthetic, historic, and community factors that may have bearing upon a transportation project. A
design variance is used for projects using state aid funds. Approval requires appropriate justification and
documentation that concerns for safety, durability and economy of maintenance have been met.
Vehicular traffic - The passage of automobiles and trucks along a transportation route.
Waterway adequacy - One of five NBI inspection ratings. This rating appraises a bridge's waterway
opening and passage of flow through the bridge, frequency of roadway overtopping, and typical duration
of an overtopping event.
Glossary A-5
..
.A
Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT)
Historic Bridge Management Plan
Appendices Bridge Number: 4175
Appendix B. Guidelines for Bridge Maintenance and
Rehabilitation Based on the Secretary of the
Interior's Standards
>Ii
~~ HNTB
,'lJIUNT JUNE 2006
--'-~ '~~,,,j%<.,..,.,.
..
"-
Guidelines for Bridge Maintenance and Rehabilitation Based on the Secretary of the
Interior's Standards
1. The original character-defining qualities or elements of a bridge, its site, and its
environment should be respected. The removal, concealment, or alteration of any
historic material. or distinctive engineering or architectural feature should be avoided.
2. All bridges shall be recognized as products of their own time. Alterations that have no
historical basis and that seek to create a false historical appearance shall not be
undertaken.
3. Most properties change overtime; those changes that have acquired historic significance
in their own right shall be retained and preserved.
4. Distinctive engineering and stylistic features, finishes, and construction techniques or
examples of craftsmanship that characterize an historic property shall be preserved.
5. Deteriorated structural members and architectural features shall be retained and
repaired, rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement
of a distinctive element, the new element should match the old in design, texture, and
other visual qualities and where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features
shall be substantiated by documentary, physical, or pictorial evidence.
6. Chemical and physical treatments that cause damage to historic materials shall not be
used. The surface cleaning of structures, if appropriate, shall be undertaken using the
most environmentally sensitive means possible.
7. Significant archaeological and cultural resources affected by a project shall be protected
and preserved. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures shall be
undertaken.
8. New additions, exterior alterations, structural reinforcements, or related new construction
shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be
differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and
architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment.
9. New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall be undertaken in such a
manner that if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic
property and its environment would be unimpaired.
Source: Ann Miller, et a!. A Management Plan for Historic Bridges in Virginia. Charlottesville, Va.: Virginia
Transportation Research Council, 2001.
"
"-
Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT)
Historic Bridge Management Plan
Appendices Bridge Number: 4175
Appendix C. Current Mn/DOT Structure Inventory Report
Current Mn/DOT Bridge Inspection Report
Past Maintenance Reports (if available)
Other Reports (if available)
:MEAD HNTB
{'BUNT JUNE 2006
~."';:<<:::<;":d
~ Mn/DOT STRUCTURE INVENTORY REPORT
Bridge ID: 4175 PEDESTRIAN OVER COUNTY 101 & MINNESOTA R Date: 01/04/2006
~
" IDENTIFICATION" "ROADWAY DATA" Def. Status ADEQ Sufi. Rating
Agency Br. No. (RS 1) - 2 Route System (Fed) CITY " WATERWAY DATA"
District 05 Maint. Area 5A Mn. Route System MUN Drng. Anila 16,600.0 sq mi
County 70 SCOTT (139) Route Number 3 Wtrwy. OpelJing 99,999 sq ft
City 3515 SHAKO PEE Roadway'Name LEVEE DRIVE Navigation Control NO PERM REQD
Township Roadway Function MAINLINE Nav. Vert./Hrz Clr.
Placecode 59350 Roadway Type 2 WAY TRAF Nav. Vert. Lift Clr.
Desc. Loc. .1 MI N OF JCT COUNTY 101 Control Section MN Scour Code R-CRIT;MONITOR
Sect. 1 Tnsp. 115N Range 23W BDG. Reference Point 000+00.000 Scour Eval. Year 2001
Lat. 44d 48m 02s lJTM-Y 4960950.05 Date Opened to Traffic 01-01-1969
Long. 93d 31 m 33s 458403.35 . " INSPECTION DATA"
lJTM -x Detour Length
Toll Bridge (Road) NO Lanes 2 UNDER BRIDGE (2) Inspection Date 1 0-19.2004 (CIMH)
Custodian STATE Inspection Frequency 12
STATE ADT 50 HCADT METRO
Owner Inspector
ADT Year 2002
Inspector METRO DISTRICT
Functional Class URBAN LOCAL Condition Codes Appraisal Ratings
BMU Agreement No
Year Built 1927 Yr Fed Rehab Nat'l. Hwy. System NOT NHS Deck 4 Struct. Eval.
Year Remod. 1969 STRAHNET NOT STRAHNET Su perstruct. 3 Deck Geometry
Temp. Truck Net NOTTRUCKNET Substruct. 4 Underclearances 6
Skew 0 Plan Avail. CENTRAL Fed. Lands Hwy. N/A Chan. & Proto 7 Waterway Adeq'cy 8
" STRUCTURE DATA .. OnBaseNet NOT BASENET Culvert N Appr. Alignment 6
Service On PED-BICYCLE " ROADWAY CLEARANCES" Other Inspection Codes
Service Under HWY;STREAM If Divided NB-EB SBWB Open, Posted, Clsd. P Rail Rating 1
Rdwy. Wid. Rd 1/Rd 2 25.0 ft Pier Protection Appr. Guardrail
MN Main Span 304 STEEL/DK TRUSS Vrt. Clr. Ovr. Rd 1/Rd 2 15.5 ft Scour Critical 3 Appr. Trans.
MN MSpn Det Def WARREN WNERT Max Vert Clr Rd 1/ Rd 2 15.5 ft Deck Pet. Unsnd. 2% Appr. Term.
Horz UIClr - Rd 1/Rd 2 In Depth Inspections
MN Appr. Span 106 CONC/DECK GRDR Lat UndClr Left/Right 3.0ft Y/N Freq. Last Insp.
MN ASpn Det Def RR UndClr Vert/Lat Frac. Critical C 48 01/1996
Culvert Type Appr. Surface Width 25.0 ft Pinned Asbly.
Barrel Length Median Width Underwater Y 60 09/2004
No. Main Spans 4 No. Appr.Span 4 " ROADWAY TIS DATA" Spec. Feat.
Total Spans 8 NBI Len. (1) YES " PAINT DATA ..
TIS 1st KEY TIS 2nd KEY
Main Span Length 127.7ft Route System 10 Year Painted 1972 Pct.Unsound 50 %
Structure Length 645.0 ft Route Number 35150003 Total Painted Area 94,305 sq ft
CONCRETE High End 323 Primer Type LEAD SILICA CHROMATE
Abut. Mat'l.
FTNG/PILE Low End 323 Finish Type LEAD SILICA CHROMATE
Abut. Fnd. Type
Pier Mat'l. CONCRETE Direction " CAPACITY RATINGS"
Pier Fnd. Type FTNG/PILE Reference Pt. 000+00.150 PED
Design Load
Deck Width 42.4 ft Interchg. Elem. MN
Deck Material CIP CONC " MISC. BRIDGE DATA" Operating Rating
Wear Surf. Type NOT APPL Struct. Flared Inventory Rating
Wear Surf. Inst. Yr. Parallel Struct. NONE Posting Veh: 24 Semi: 40 Obi: 40
Wr. Crs/FiII Depth Field Conn. ID RIVETED Rtg Date
Deck Membrane NONE Cantilever ID
Deck Rebars NOT/APPL Permit Code A N " IMPROVEMENT DATA"
Deck Rebars Inst. Yr. Permit Code B N Prop. Work
Structure Area 27,348 sq ft Permit Code C N Work By
Roadway Area 19,354 sq ft Permit Code Fut. Prop. Structure
Swk Width L/R 4.0ft 4.0ft Length Width
Curb Ht. L/R 0.3 ft 0.3ft " BRIDGE SIGNS" Appr. Rdwy. Work
Rail URIFHWA 08 08 YES Posted Load VEH L1M ONLY Bridge Cost
Ped. Fencing Traffic NO SIGNS Approach Cost
Hist. Significance NA TL REG ELEG Horizontal NO SIGNS Project Cost
Bird Nests (1) NO Vertical NO SIGNS Data - Yearll\llethod
01/04/2006 Page 1 ofi3
Inspector: METRO Mn/DOT BRIDGE INSPECTION REPORT
*
BRIDGE 4175 PEDESTRIAN OVER LEVEE DRIVE INSP. DATE: 10-19-2004
County: SCOTT Location: .1 MI N OF JeT COUNTY 101 Length: 645.0 ft
City: SHAKOPEE Route: MUN3 Ref. Pt.: 000+00.150 Deck Width: 42.4 ft
Township: Control Section: Maint. Area: 5A Rdwy. Area 1 Pct. Unsnd: 19,354 sq ft 2 %
Section: 01 Township: 115N Range: 23W Local Agency Bridge Nbr: Paint Area 1 Pct. Unsnd: 94,305 sq ft 50 %
Span Type: STEEL 1 DK TRUSS
NBI Deck: 4 Super: 3 Sub: 4 Chan:7 Culv: N Open, Posted, Closed: LOAD POSTED
Appraisal Ratings - Approach: 6 Waterway: 8 MN Scour Code: R- CR1T;MONITOR Def. Stat: ADEQ Suff. Rate:
Load Posting: VEH ONLY Traffic Signs: NO SIGNS Horiz. Cntl. Signs: NO SIGNS Vert. Cntl. Signs:
STRUCTURE UNIT: 0
ELEM STR QTY OTY OTY QTY QTY
NBR ELEMENT NAME UNIT ENV INSP. DATE QUANTITY CS 1 CS2 CS3 CS4 CS5
12 CONCRETE DECK 0 2 10-19-2004 27,348 SF 0 0 27,351 0 0
01-30-2001 27,348 SF 0 0 27,351 0 0
Notes: 2 Lane. Bituminous & concrete patches throughout deck.
301 POURED DECK JOINT 0 2 10-19-2004 84 LF 72 12 0 N/A N/A
01-30-2001 84 LF 72 12 0 N/A N/A
Notes: Pourable joint at north & south abutment. 12 LF spall along south joint.
304 OPEN DECK JOINT 0 2 10-19-2004 210 LF 179 31 0 N/A N/A
01-30-2001 210 LF 179 31 0 N/A N/A
Notes: Five open joint with sliding metal plate. 31 LF metal plate missing at 2 joints.
331 CONCRETE RAILING 0 2 10-19-2004 1,392 LF 0 1,392 0 0 N/A
01-30-2001 1,392 LF 0 1,392 0 0 N/A
Notes: 128 LF spans 1 & 2. 1392 LF Rail code 22, J barrier placed next to sidewalk both sides. Vertical cracks.
334 METAL RAIL-COATED 0 2 10-19-2004 1,392 LF 0 696 696 0 0
01-30-2001 1,392 LF 0 696 696 0 0
Notes: 128 LF span 1 & 2. [1927] The ornamental rail has flaking & surface rust (section loss) . [1996] West side post broken. [1998] Post
on east side broke. [2004] Holes in ornamentl'll rail, top coat paint gone.
110 CONCRETE GIRDER 0 2 10-19-2004 942 LF 0 754 94 94 N/A
01-30-2001 942 LF 0 754 94 94 N/A
Notes: Five CIP T beams: south abutment to pier 2, pier 6 to north abutment. [1996] The beams in spans 1 & 2 have 75 SF of spall with
exposed rebar. The haunch portions of the beams (south end of span 2) have spalled away completely. [1997] 10 SF Delaminated
concrete above roadway. [2004] 30 SF spall & exposed rebar beam 5, 5 SF spall & exposed rebar each beam 1 & 2, span 1. 3 SF
spall & exposed rebar each at beams 2, 3 & 4, 1 SF spall & exposed rebar beam 5, span 2. 40 SF each delamination & spall
bottom beam 5, span 7 & 8.
113 PAINT STEEL STRINGER 0 2 10-19-2004 8,630 LF 0 0 6,041 1,726 863
01-30-2001 9,116 LF 0 0 6,381 1,823 912
Notes: 17 Stringers, 13 deck & 4 sidewalk. Flaking & surface rust, section loss at connections.
131 PAINT STL DECK TRUSS 0 2 10-19-2004 1,521 LF 0 0 1,065 304 152
.01-30-2001 1,016 LF 0 0 711 203 102
Notes: 3 Deck trusses. Flaking & surface rust, section loss. Angle added to diagonal truss members LOU1 lower connection at piers 2, 3, 4
& 5. Angle added to diagonal truss members LO'U1' lower connection at pier 6.
152 PAINT STL FLOORBEAM 0 2 10-19-2004 1,320 LF 0 0 924 264 132
01-30-2001 538 LF 0 0 377 108 54
Notes: 44 Floorbeams. Flaking & surface rust, section loss at connections, both ends.
380 SECONDARY ELEMENTS 0 2 10-19-2004 1 EA 0 1 0 0 N/A
01-30-2001 1EA 1 0 0 0 N/A
Notes: Wood stairs (span 2 east side) from trail up t<:, bridge deck. Concrete steps at NE & NW corners. Steel wind bracing. Flaking &
surface rust.
01/04/2Q06 Page 2 of 3
Mn/DOT BRIDGE INSPECTION REPORT
Inspector: METRO
.. INSP. DATE: 10-19-2004
BRIDGE 4175 PEDESTRIAN OVER LEVEE DRIVE
STRUCTURE UNIT: 0
ELEM STR QTY QTY QTY QTY QTY
NBR ELEMENT NAME UNIT ENV INSP. DATE QUANTITY CS 1 CS2 CS3 CS4 CS5
310 ELASTOMERIC BEARING 0 2 10-19-2004 6EA 6 0 0 N/A NIA
01-30-2001 6EA 6 0 0 N/A N/A
Notes: 3 Elastomeric pads at ends of truss, north side pier 2 & south side pier 6.
311 EXPANSION BEARING 0 2 10-19-2004 12 EA 0 12 0 N/A N/A
01-30-2001 12 EA 12 0 0 N/A N/A
Notes: [1927] 112" Bituminous felt at south abutment. Roller nest at pier 2, 3, 4 & 5 (truss). [2004] Flaking & surface rust.
313 FIXED BEARING 0 2 10-19-2004 12 EA 0 12 0 N/A N/A
01-30-2001 12 EA 12 0 0 NIA NIA
Notes: [1927] 1/2" Bituminous felt at pier 1 & 2. Fixed bearings at piers 3, 4, 5 & 6 (truss). [2004] Flaking & surface rust.
205 CONCRETE COLUMN 0 2 10-19-2004 20 EA 10 4 6 0 NIA
01-30-2001 20 EA 10 4 6 0 N/A
Notes: 10 columns at pier 1 & 2. [1996] Pier 1: west column has minor spalling & delamination. [1997] Pier 2: center column has severe
spalling (north face) the other columns have moderate cracking. 10 columns at pier 6 & 7, strut between columns. Cracks,
delamination & spall at base pier 6 (end truss). [2004] 15 SF delamination west column pier 1.
210 CONCRETE PIER WALL 0 2 10-19-2004 121 LF 0 60 61 0 N/A
01-30-2001 121 LF 0 0 121 0 N/A
Notes: Piers 3, 4 & 5. [1996] Underwater inspection found spalling on all 3 pier bases (up to 5" deep). The spall areas appeared to have
increased in size since the 1991 inspection. Spall & delamination on pier walls. [2004] 100 SF delamination & spall pier 5.
215 CONCRETE ABUTMENT 0 2 10-19-2004 88 LF 38 31 19 0 N/A
01-30-2001 88 LF 38 31 19 0 N/A
Notes: [1927] Hollow abutments. [1996] South abutment: 125 LF of cracks & 75 SF of spall & exposed rebar.
234 CONCRETE CAF 0 2 10-19-2004 133 LF 79 29 25 0 N/A
01-30-2001 133 LF 79 29 25 0 N/A
Notes: 65 LF pier 1 & 2 cap. [2001] Pier 2: cap has 50 SF of spall. 68 LF pier 6 & 7 cap.
357 PACK RUST 0 2 10-19-2004 1EA 0 0 1 0 N/A
01-30-2001 1EA 0 1 0 0 N/A
Notes: Pack rust at connections.
358 CONC DECK CRACKING 0 2 10-19-2004 1 EA 0 0 0 1 N/A
01-30-2001 1EA 0 0 0 1 N/A
Notes: Random, transverse & longitudinal deck cracks.
359 CONC DECK UNDERSIDE 0 2 10-19-2004 1 EA 0 0 0 0 1
01-30-2001 1 EA 0 0 0 0 1
Notes: [1996] In spans 1 & 2, the concrete overhang hauches which support the sidewalk are severely spa lied with exposed rebar. [2004]
50 SF NBL water saturation bottom deck span 6. 500 SF water saturation (truss). 25 SF water saturation span 3 between stringer 7
thru 9.
361 SCOUR 0 2 10-19-2004 1 EA 1 0 0 N/A N/A
Notes: [1996] Underwater inspection found spalling on all 3 pier bases (up to 5" deep). Underwater inspection found 1.3 LF pier 4 footing
exposed. The spall areas appeared to have increased in size since the 1991 inspection. [2001] Flood water has submerged the
bottom chord of deck truss north end. [2004] Underwater Inspection by "Ayres Associates found south side of pier #4 footing has
15" of exposed seal.
363 SECTION LOSS 0 2 10-19-2004 1EA 0 0 0 1 N/A
01-30-2001 1EA 0 0 0 1 N/A
Notes: Section loss: Flaking & surface rust, pitting on all truss members (bottom half of truss).
01/04/2006 Page 3 of3
Mn/DOT BRIDGE INSPECTION REPORT
Inspector: METRO ~
BRIDGE 4175 PEDESTRIAN OVER LEVEE DRIVE INSP. DATE: 10-19-2004
STRUCTURE UNIT: 0
ELEM STR QTY QTY QTY QTY QTY
NBR ELEMENT NAME UNIT ENV INSP. DATE QUANTITY CS 1 CS2 CS3 CS4 CS5
964 CRITICAL FINDING 0 2 10-19-2004 1 EA 1 0 N1A N/A N/A
01-30-2001 1 EA 1 0 N1A N/A N/A
Notes: Do not delete this critical finding smart flag.
966 FRACTURE CRITICAL 0 2 10-19-2004 1 EA 0 1 0 N/A N/A
Notes: Do Not Remove. See in-depth report for location of F/C members.
981 SIGNING 0 2 10-19-2004 1 EA 1 0 0 N/A N/A
01-30-2001 1 EA 1 0 0 N/A N/A
Notes: [1992] Posted at 24 ton singie, 40 ton combination.
982 GUARDRAIL 0 2 10-19-2004 1 EA 1 0 0 N/A N/A
01-30-2001 1 EA 1 0 0 N/A N/A
Notes: Plate beam guardrail at NE, NW corners. Plate beam guardrail both sides Levee Road west side, north side Levee Road east side
of span 1.
984 DRAINAGE 0 2 10-19-2004 1EA 0 1 0 N/A N/A
01-30-2001 1 EA 0 1 0 N/A N/A
Notes: Deck drains at base both rails. 50% plugged. Storm sewer (washout) pulled apart at span 3.
985 SLOPES 0 2 10-19-2004 1EA 1 0 0 N/A N/A
01-30-2001 1EA 1 0 0 N/A N/A
Notes:
986 CURB & SIDEWALK 0 2 10-19-2004 1EA 0 1 0 N/A N/A
01-30-2001 1EA 0 1 0 N/A N/A
Notes: [1996] Severe erosion at SE corner of sidewalk (photo). [1998] Sidewalk is fenced off SE corner. [2004] Transverse & longitudinal
cracks sidewalk.
988 MISCELLANEOUS 0 2 10-19-2004 . 1EA 1 0 0 N/A N/A
01-30-2001 1EA 0 0 1 N/A N/A
Notes: 3 Conduits at east bay, 3 conduits under NB truss, 3 deck lights. Wood post & beam north end, 8 FT bituminous trail (CSAH 101),
wide open south end (curb at County road 69).
General Notes: CSAH 101 Roadway north & east, Scott County 69 roadway west of bridge.
.Bridge 4175 Year 2004
Bridge constructed in 1927.
Note: due to severe deterioration, bridge was closed to vehicular traffic in 1993, now serves as a pedestrian bridge. [1992]
Posted at 24 ton single, 40 ton semi. The bridge office advises that metro is only responsible for inspecting those portions of the
structure over over the traveled roadway (spans 1 & 2 over Levee Drive & recreation trail). The last Mn/Dot snooper inspection
was in 1993, a snooper inspection was performed by Parsons Brinkerhoff in 1996. The "Pontis" ratings for the truss spans are
based upon the.consultant report.
Inspector's Signature Reviewer's Signature I Date
-:,( ..:, r'( - (J b '0
MINNESOTA HISTORIC BRIDGE SURVEY-LIST WORKSHEET...... 0
~. . c. p =rr 1/ (/99(,
Bridge No.: I.{ /7') Type: S 6'-( County: Sea Tt Y"Y'''" Cd y..,. ~ f2n ,:
NR CRITERION "A," associated with events in (transportation, other) history:
t~1hi~:li~a" '~:etiii11f S- , later belt/parkway blazed traiJ
J~. ~';;"~'d4~~~~.._YI......... ._..,._ .
,.-.,.., .' ...
~~~~.s~~~ ...;?'.::....\..;-.:..~~J'''JG<-.. ....~,t~... ...-.~.....~..."..~
interstate . ~l~~o9Ei~~gnifi.g~~O:~~~~ng-SU4KoPtt in historic district
federal relief program ~ grade-separation program
NR CRITERION "B," associated with life of person(s) significant in the past:
no 11 yes:
NR CRITERION "C, II engineering, architecture, aesthetics:
_~'\'{''W'~~~!l
computer-generated tiC" list: ,...-: .JJ;... ,1 r-.......~~ added
. , .' . .~. . ",,;r .:LS, .:
~'g,.w_...~,~,..:%,.._...... '.
notable engineering~ design/type: representative / unusual/unique / RR-related
standard plan: documented / looks like / ??
size: * spans / span-length / structure-length / width
notable architecture, ornamentation, other aesthetic features: none
style: neoclassical/WPA/moderne/rustic detail: railing/lighting/pier/abutment
material: stone/RC/metal/wood ~. -t'.rY: ;.,"'~, ".'; ~',- t.. ~ ... w ~. h.",;'U~t;"""!l'~. ~ ~,"1jf.~ ,,;'{{;..~';.
~'f1'1ndt-j;C)]il-::: rura~ur'l'ran:Tgatewa.Y:lpark/bel tway /RR
04..' . .. ", lIo" 'tJ' ~'~~",':U~,..,,\..lo:' ...~'. _'_":If,=,f,.. ...
~hen built bridge was: first / early / common / rar~ / later / last
lOW bridge is: only / rare / common / 11 in
.
lotable: engineer / builder / fabricator / architect
neets a registra.tion requirement established for i ts tYP~: :/For ./)!.C;::. ,f(UJJ Be&-
)OCUMENTATION, overall: good some unconfirmed/unreliable nothing
maintenance 'card. \ Record Center file plans historic photos Improvement Bull.
:. '". ?' " ,l. .~.... '. . _ :: . .... .... . ..}
mown: year-built engineer builder fabricator architect
)ESIGN INTEGRITY, overall: no serious problems questionable marginal none
lltered/darnaged/removed/replaced: railings abutments/piers lighting approach
ridened: yes ?7 moved: yes ??
iURVEY : YES NO CONSIDER 17
YES NO CONSIDER ??
.
~
SF-oOOO6-02
STATE OF MINNESOTA
.
DEPARrMENT Office Memorandum
fa : SHPO INVENTORY ,fILE DATE: 8:"16-84
FROM : R. FRAME PHONE:
SUUJECT: .BRIDGE NO. 4175
RESULTS OF CHEGKING Mn/nOT RECORDS-STORAGE FILE ON THIS BRIDGE:
The multiple folders of this file contain documents relating
almost entirely to the 1927 construction and the 1969
remodeling work. There also is a folder of photographs,
all undated.
AccDDding to the original survey plat, the 1927 bridge replaced
an 1869 bridge nearby. The old bridge had a center swing span
209 1/2 ft. long for Minnesota River navigation. The question of
navigation appears to have emerged with the proposed construction
of the new bridge in the 1920s and there is considerable
correspondence relating to the need for the new bridge that
a petition from Shakopee merchants denying the need for a
moveable bridge for that channel. The request for the new
bridge had to go through congress and letters from Rep. August
Andresen relate to this affair.
The contractor the the 1927'bridge was the Widell Company of
Mankato and steel materials were supplied by Minneapolis Steel &
Machire ry.
The 1969 WDDk had steel from the ~ Maxon Corp. of St. Paul,
formerly St. Paul Foundry Co.
,
;'-;.,.'....:.~/\~;l"\"".i.~.:::: .' '" .... -~..P7,;'!t-';;""'''.STATE''OF 'MINNESO ....,. -SF:1"~t1f -. ..;-.,....-.. -,': ---~- ---'-'>,'.
: ..':. "';"" .,.:....;. :.~ r . - ,,1:; -..,.,-....,.. .." -,-.- .. '---. ":;-0 r '
,.:;;::.",<.,,"~jF::?~:~;'~:,..;.. .:;~ '.;:o~;,:'~r;' '. -l,i'roo : DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS '. ~;
'': . .'. ;-:.......~... "..~ :.1.!!p .::>;~ ~:.;.;t: . ..;J.,' ~. ~,. ......~ ._ , '.. . . ..
;':"(;.:.::~;i-~~:' '~~~1~~~. .;':.:-.:" BRIDGE MAINTENANCE, REPAIRS AND RENEWALS ... '.
t=~~.~~_,~CAll0N SEC.LJWP../LLRGULLT.H.1F.~:':~TY_~~.aLL________
; WCATED.a: __MllES____..fROM_Slzti.i:.qt2e.e_________.__._.___:._,..______.8TREAM~ue-:ro~_eLK~C'_._--=.___.
~.-.... . .. '. 27z6'. M..dd~ . . . '!~Z.3tJ. 82
~YEAR BUlLT___PZ..8__BUILT BY. __ ~ _ __ a___________,~-----_---"COST OF CONSTRUCTION _ _ :..=
.... .. N41?./$' ~~ . ~e..a<,-: L .2.@ Eli ' If/L:; ~ ~ . 30 ' .
~DESCRIPTIO -- . ..2..~.3!- -- .: _~ ____ - __ 0__. , . ~~_~_ WIDTH OF R WAY. _ P FLOOR aa.~,-
~ Dim::'~:. .. REPAIRS RECOMMENDED rsr.COST DATE REPAIRS COMPLETED COST
,
l-~ a.
EO:/9
.'
... 33g?...:!f
,.... 1.I""fI lJ! .. tJ, 7 ~ :, : q '5.,1
~vn ~ l.~'~
-.. "'~ ... I
~Iri..~-:')..~ :r.~ ~ '.,..J. ~~~~: :......... .'!~. 5.) ;i:'.t..:....: ~,~ :r't'".. !J,O' i.~' I
-' . . I
\ G'l,. "'\_O.Cj {; .{. "';' :,.
.....,,~ ' r- ,J(.,. J Sv
I r lc; ,:, L....4 .
~. ; .f '..I
. . .. 1l~ 7.0' I) ') \
.
. ;'57.{..,.') I
1/ at> i
I
1 j'?'/J . J{1,P ~~A j! ~~~ A:.!~.. ~ ,;. j.4~.$':"" t...~.1,./1i1.: '... t 3.5 7. 0 ~' I
I ~.: .! '.'. ~. ! I) i I " o' - , I
.' r . . -..,. . '"' ""::)!"J r l ~ . r;. -..1 ..:. ':' _ J, (, I:. ~.
.
:, \:::'~TE < ~EPAIRS' RECOMMENDED . ",. EST.cbsr. DATE "'REPAIRS COMP1ri;.O::;-'-:- . ~",:'COST
',~" . . ". .
';. . ~';",~.- "';~i;:< ":. -:. .. .. ' ,,'. I ~ n'" ..,~.. I '~'~~:~):(,{':<::;~:0.:~,~.:: -.... - .'
" .- ..,.. 1'1~J i(~PA';- L'''+IC,.C,,'t(c;i't.,.,,;..,.-,.,. :2.~/.~3.
.: 7:.; ,.:' ". ". ".' . . I 'fd.C, :,l-t: d.:r;:', i-:'k~!f~fS?{B('fN~ ~-;i~~~""!.
. ~.. ,.....~.._. ,', -.. -.--....__.. ..-..-..-----"",. .-..-......-
' . ,,:. .' .' N,'\r.~ .:rV\ 1>'F"R.~::~:(},(< ",.f..).
.. -.. "-- ..,.- .t.~".....::.t.... ...... .... "... .' J" .::.:~~..:.:;.~......-. .~~..-.
. . ~ 1>..;,...; .,.V;;......; ':' . ~"'2.I9Y.
.._,. -- _..~........" '",.. "::~:3:':.::)\,',
'. "..~....:.:... - .~::~..,.. ..' ';~:~,~:.:?}{;;
..;.....:.. ~~..... "'-... .~.. "-"';;. ,." -............ '-.- ..." ,".....
~:..t.. ...: : ,';', ,: . II
.~.~;'~..~.~r~..:;::..::~::..:.':.. :._~~.......... # ...., ,.,... ," ...
;~::~~~~:.~:~~::?;~~.~~<..:... -. .-....- -. ........ . ~
:~~~t~~~~.:;;~~::~~.~. ~ .. ". ."
.;; :J:"~:-:.~~ :~:"~~~~.
. ,;. .;. :- E/"/I/i{ 'E~'I9N~/~"'/
17 / .f' a - .' , ~
...;..... ." J1~f~/4.t.(!' ~AI'(';e,f'r~.
". ... ....., ..,
:;. .q t\
.. I."rp~lt i',fIw{.JJ '-j)ce.K,
," ...... . ", . - 11 .. "
.. '.< L;~'fr I '-I... '. ~ I""A.!: .., ..~. ... ,.
." '..;:., .......' . .-. ... ..: . M . ';, :)tZ:::~fi':"!:' ,r.t:f,.
... '- j...~...:.,~.,(~ \~V~:~~7.... f.' '-!.,!';.~~.~.,... ..;\,r:.!"1'~-;~,!~.:..~!iV....
_'~~~'h . ~:;if.~.A:.'~:;~>:;~~.q~~~~~~\::;~,r~;.~)~:f.~'~~;~';'~t~~?t(1)'t:: i!,~~~~~~q:r~:i :.;:;~t;.f;-':'~Z':.';':'
,~n; $l' ~~~;~~l;~;;~'~ .!;''T~'f;<~::r~~~~:!.t='?~'.ST^TE O:F MINI\ESOTA .~:,;.."~'t~f(~e~~~~i~S.afe Load "., TonS" 1;: t.;
:~<~Y'-.a(~4i-1-.!,;fs~;~~U.;,~~~;~p&~~~~,~~~;;it~t'~~\f"DEP/LRTMENr OF 'HIGHW AYS l:~~g~:f.'l"'?r.A~;i~~i~:~~.;,~:~ A';~~\;~':..." :.,.:'. :., ':;,
.~-'f;{~~A':;~1~;;t.Bl~~~' BRIDGE '1MAINTENANCE;" . REPAIRS :AND.'~RE~W ALS':~f~.lt;t-.~:;::'~}??~'h":~~; ..;'~:.(:
~~&~_~..,(;-:!~~;:'~J""'(-'~';;"':i'"" ,J>...,........,..<..~,..:i'....;: /' . .:J,/ "" '.: -.... !) r.:..,,' '.~~; // _ L"'" .i"':"k:\;;~:i)"<"" (;l"''''- .,...- ;,,:~':',::
.i"~~~:; -"~"''':''f'",;'''~';~''~~':./::'.1;' "". -.; .1J;J." --'-,J -';-"'T C. .J. ..- ;-11..; r../r.i..t;.~"r'...'
l~nilgc'N .' . ""'Malnt.No .,,-' "",:'TocahonSee Twp. 'llg T:H...~o... County . ".
~t~tr"~ ~r;? Mii~~'-'::'~~11.h' :.?'''(~~~ #.i9 K c f.E E . '. '. St~eam M /11/ "'! ~ -"'( lI.tf,v {R ~~~~ne~";:> . .::.., ,'_
~itftB~it7.2..g R~iltB;t""!fe W, Jj Ii a .(4 Cost s Iy.c Z)ali 'Substl11ctu~ . ~
~'f.;.,.q;~lf~~~l;'(.l;,'~>,;.~IC' ISI.!, r: Q.?h~ An . . (' AI;
;:;s:SupC:rsttiictur....,. / ':1..5 . p. C',-r ,,-<.. I v "" T.engtb Width Roadway Type F100t 13 'v C .
....:.:.,..: ,~."':' ..... -'
if:~;"i)ATE' REPAIRS RECOMMENPED EST. COST BOOK I DATE REPAIRS'COMPI_ETED COST
!';~:J;'S:..'. !tfb1 11t.!~ W~It." j/' It ..
"'- ." . , (:.,).
U'>~:i::;\~: If' 7 hr.ft..; hI. ( V;, OS /~, fz,- .
:'~tj:~:')V'~'... /1('1 I~ /.Jc:.......,. " J(' IJ. J", .'
........~. ~ ..' . .- - ,
..~J.::}.:,!. /0/" LA/~(, .W,n!/" . /V:1"
~,,~.o;:~,... . 7 (P I rl It;. " ,-, :.; u.
",:,,:,:~~,"'. \ ".19(1 17/J'r!.. I oS:'()"~
........ ' I J> I Lj .
.c.':" - 11(1 ~!7I.J'e t .J~ '1( i
" ' 11(7 ~i?~c>/-r ft ~( . j
!9~/( ?rP1;;7{1 !
19~t: ('~ '?1'11.7~i
1.9t/J Ir/~C. tf.cf,.?'l.{.S' tfft!..51 I
. ,.... , . V9;'i~ .pl, .j( ~lf" 7?~ jt' I
. -.:;;,. ~..:: .. . ..
. ~ l'..... '_'.. .
...
!
".
'It
.;;;/;j;/ "\~'..'~~7
" ~}"';Y'f)2/-;
//4~~~
. .
e.:?
?"<- \;".\.:%~,.,,:~:; ":";{..;:;~';:: :,. '~!.":".' .."....'..-:.. ~ . :;: '..':...\ ~ \'" ." .... .:.-:~i;'f:~':~~:~':;: ~f( ~ ~<:~~~
'~".""'J..~,,.. .... ,. ..,..t....,~\;.....,...-.;:.. ....,.............." ,'~ ". .,'; .~."...11 )'1~;7 ':..:."'......r*..'{.~l.. :::?lfrc;;','7t"
." ":ii.. ~'::'''':.;> ',:" :'~. ,.(....:..e- .. '. ,n " '. . .'.,. . .'" " , .~ '.,' ......... ','. ',: :,' . . " "..":,.......';';l<.., '.':i . . :".::-.
~~~~}Il~~~~:~4{;~~~~~~~!!-,~"t~.!P":"'*.f~~."'!""~'~"'" .tcy,:-:;-:", :."'-,....""...;;.K"'~ 7-.".1,', ':J..":'>r!'~k';it~f,,,,,,,,,,:,,~~~~~;;.i~:f.r.:,~:."'.;.J;~&;~;>...,r~"""I'~J~\
"', "F. =. ''''20'"''''''~''''-'''' }~' .~ 0-". . ,-' oJ ~ ..,.,...... '.. ...... .. ..., . . -<<. . ''''''':=.~'' .-,..,., '~'=,"l<., ....~.~,"'....~'w.<,'"' _. ~',,"""'" ".. ..' ., _" ... ~"_
.~..'\ "i..: .onn'.~". ~~.~~.. '-07~~,~~"tl 'r~""'" 1..'.\ t-'t: ti~j~...v,,!,,"'.,.-i.l\..~f~~ ~;\-.. ..., .,,~. .'-_~~_.. ~:: ,,:' ~",'~l~:';'........ ...:.....:......-":t~~~~2:~...J.~f.~~-'P.t.....~.~::r..s:~.'!,~~~iW}~~~-..~~~' .;-."t~...r:,~.:~~;:.f;.; ;~~~~/'::'4'" "..:.
...I....._~ .- r:!'lfi9':i~~n.. .'1 ("~' '"''f.rl'"'' ~~t:.:" ."." . -" ..~'tl";~..;....'I'r.m.:J ~'...;~~'''' ....., "':1t1,~/,._..... .....-'...1.'..
......i{;i-:(>l':;,r;~. .~~~.<,;~" ':'i:S; "..,:' ':"V:'b .~";" ::;:;:~'1'> .' STATE O~ MI~ltSOTA "'~f,;;.W,;,'..;';;:~~;.f.';'><<.J:'){~~7~Safe LOad ';;"";;,,;."Ji'~Tons-'r~':,;.,
~::I~'.I!- ,:;~._..... - .,.,.,.... ~"~",, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHW'.l'YS~""..J.""\'''"''-'''"'''~;>--'''''''''','.r. "..... -. ~,.'..
;';:'~l."T.:.6:~"\:~&'t;! ~ i";'.~~..' ~~. VO', ~ . "'.: '..' J~. t.:: ......,..: '.~." . no ~.t.L1;,..::. '\~';~"'''''';~.,;~~~~~~lW....>,)i.1; ~~~.g~':,.r.'?;..,:~...~ ,..; . / : lo
1".;;l"'" . """'-...,):!\30 . ~ .... " '," .......... .-.l~...'ko..;-'...(.-:~...?t. '~[:.....,. ...._.,
:'!...^~. ~~r;'~~~~~"~'BKID6E MAINTENANCE, REPAIRS:AND 'RENEWALS ';~r;';:'.~;'.'[.,,;.,.;~J(~)~\:.:':/'!.:.;
-'--1,;,u, . .., ~.--' ... '.5." . :(,.~..- -..:\ .t...~.. ',"" '.. .'
~~, r.~r'''''''''''';'''''l . "'''-'.',,,,. ". '.. . ..., . , '''. " .... c2' . .:....,.. ';1.1_0 _ :;\ ""', J,......~I . -, .,."., ..,-, . ''',,,'' .
.....' .a'i'l'''''''''' <!<.. ~,'..'" ,"',' J.. I J /.1:) '" =s .. . 1[77 .. .<,h,_"p'" /107: .. '..... ....;:,."
:JBrldgc:No'..' .... nint,'No' "<""':TcC&tionSec Twp... ltg' . T..R.N :"~Dttnty" 0 .T'" ''':.-::'
..,.:..~;;~}),~.itlfW....-..... :r...J.....~ - 'S'J::Jl<fJPCE"-' i1J}2/J1JJ1JE\^TIi1C1. t:::;e...", ;. .\t;; .....', '. .,
,ctI~~~~~'~{Y9~It'.""" rro~'- rTJ_ ~ /~c.430.b.).o'r;;tr~. .. ' ,',' ,..~!~~~~.~ : . -."::".: _.,~_-:-
:~Yi.iir::Bl!i1'. uiltB;y77.JEUJI/);:;/,L.(?tJCostl J 'S.P .... RubstructUfP"'....... '.' -;,. '.-: ,..j;
~~ "'..-).~.....~h....y~...f .. .... 9' .... .. . " 3 f ..". (!n' .
:~.s~iittuC1ii';... ,..... length Width Roadway 0" Type Floor. fl)(' ;' '. ;""
-::"'110 .. ,.~ .....'.. .... .
;";~.,DA-r:E ,;: REPAIRS RECOMMENPED EST. COST BOOK I DATE REPAIRS COMPLETED . 'COST'
. " ...
'. ~ "~~ . . '.' \ .. ..
',z....
0' ...
\ .
..
r'DATE REPAIRS RECOMMENDED EST. COST BOOK DATE REPAIRS COMPI.lITED COST
f.?
f.._
,....#.
, ,
!.. ... '.
"
-. ...
.., .0).
~~,..:t..:.\.~:.. .~,':'\. '.
....0p%~~~~~f~ :'j;;c).~;:;,:'. .",\. ..
~;~b.;it .;:t~::'~~::.;. ::.
~~~i~:;.:' <5~;';,.~:""!i :"i.~. '
~:r~tf~;*;~'y.!,::~? ,~"":: :;" . . ',' ..
~~~i"'~i1.4;~~'!.!..~ :~ '~;::-'. ~ :':""::/',;', '. . :~.t.. i ."- . . . .' :;ik'l
..........\-,"J:-,..""... "",:;~v.'-', '. .1..... .,.. -:3 q f f .
::.t,....~.: ...,.~.:. .. '.' '-.' '..... ...' ..,. , L? _.
:~::!:,,<?,.;: ;~. '.' .... .\. {..;.;, '.';,:..' €-I h ,-\~I I
.~<F.~Y::"~;:'~:. '....:.. ....... ., .:\;; '.:d~;': \J IO-l
~". ;;;:' ..' . .,. , : '. :'....' .. . ."~ -: ",.; -.. ..:. .:' '. "; , . ) . -I
.U:...'X:'" ...," ...., "',.:.1:.. . ...... . .' ~\ ~ \I I
':'~,:.'.:~.~' ),. .:',::,::..~~~~. ,~;:;'}:.:~.:;~;;::, :;:~~:. .,; .' '. .':. . , ."~ . , ." '-~
.. 'li!l:.. ' ,.' .<::,.J..,~..,J..,...:(V,<f';...'.~.,,;,......,.,....... ~ 1"""""-:":' I' .:..'. '." '" ~ '-\~.~
. -
'"
".
.. .
.
" ".
'.
....
...~~
....~~
~.-. ::;'
- ,/
.. .. -
. __0.. .l._____....._.~-.
. .....
- -.....-- .- _.w.
~ ~-.: ':'::r . ....: .. . ~::-.:;:.~:::J:-.:.::~._=~~ D~;;-t-;~J -~~:J.:'~~, :~".. ...:.~:~..:~:::.:-.~;..:~: '~~ .~'~'-'...:: -:;.. .~~~
'7' 1. General netOnllll~nd'ltlolls or l'ul"chn.<;cnlf St)'le. dimensions nnd malerilllo; ..;:-,:::..::."~,,..';:::~:::i:::";.__.....;;..:..;.;_:;......:.:..:._:.....:..:.: ...:..._...._...;..;:~..:_.
. ~_' .~.__ ___.. .2~ ...=.ec~:~e:~~l~:e o~f~~II~::~:etlll'~~:~~';~,~,,:_~,;.;~:;:=,,~~~,:~~:::,;:~:.:.,:..~~~.;L;:.~~::i:::~.,!.~.:..=~-=:'=~..~~~_..:;~~;;';:.=.~~:~:~.t:~
. .. b. T)'Pes of abutments, length of wings and their nllgle w1th'fol:ll'of'nbldl1!ent7-f.:::;.:;:t~;:.;.;::.~.;:.:.;.::;;:.-:k::::;:;=.:::;.:.:;.;::.:.;;:;;;.;:...~.......;._...:.....~=;.
. ." ... _; ._:........._..._.v............__.....___............___.__...-u........__..........-......_...:...~_.:..:::_'";f:~~:;-.:;:-~:::.::::..:...;:"_:..::.:.:;.:.;:::::~-::...:~~..:.~::_:-.::.:::.:;.:....~.:~...:.':~~
..... .. . . ll.' ~~;~.:~-;~;;;;;I~.~;;:.th~~~-;i.~~~~e~ ~~~Id.~.=~::::::==~~::=~~==:::.:-;~~:.: ;;~~~~~=::::_::=;~::~=~~~~~f~=~::~~~~~~~:~
d. Type of Iller .................__......"_.:..;..:....:.:;.;~.;;...;.~_...._".............:.._..:.:..._.......:.::.:~;"..-====::.:;.':...!..;:.; .:::-.:::.::::-"';.7"":'::- ...........-......- . .
'h, ..... ... eo. Peneb-atlonllllecessnl'Y rOl' wood plUng, If used ...A.:F..,;,-.J.6.w.4...I8.;~t!tf4.y{r,Jt/~7.c-A.'.r.t::~~.:.7.~:..;..;::.:.:..~;.:.;.~~-:::.~-:'-::::.:'~:::.=::-"-:-:,,=:::=
:
3. Special F~atul"l!Ill Waterfalls. mUlls, exceptlonnl f1ood9, fee. driftwood. sliding e~hnoQlDg,:,et.. .../J{.QA.e.:r.;;;"~:-+.;:.;,:;;:,;;,c~;.:,;..~;..-:.,:::.;,..:.:;;::;:
. _'oM - - ..~~
4. (~bnllgcs: In height 01" length fl"om thnt of old bridge. and rensons. WhT ..:....~........: ~;"l::;~::;:l.::~;.:;:l..;::...;.::...:....::.;"..:;:;,:::::=d. "";".";"-;:-':===:::'~"':'-:'~'~
. : . t. :. . I P' ~_.._.........-.....-............
. .j &. ~tl;~::~::::~:::~~~~;i~g:~;:~:.:~~:::~~:.:~;:.~t~~:.:::~:~.::.~.:::.:~::i~F~::=3::::::::::::::::~::~::~~.~::~:.~~;~:.I~:.~:=::=~:l~
...A.#._..,A'...w.(f..::::....d.(/11..~."P.8'..".....E/'-'.r...6.t~.1f(4:#.,,'-w:(f..~ .. "2'Q.;:b':..,JIr._Lrl..!..~........~.~~..~~.:.!:~.."!..'!..!!..:.!!!.J!'".;.:;.:.,;
b. SpUlWlI)"S and 1I0od tondltlons ........ o.v~r.E.I,w...~......y'.,I.(~'f...I1".. .. ..... . .... ..4"f..lizj....f.Z<t6.II.......................;....;.;..-.-...............
~.....I:9.1&.. ..,t".s.r..~..'-:lIr~l:.. hIS . !-:et!'fl...tlll.Aft:...O'-/...R.f?/1t.ks....._..............:........:.::.-::.;....;...."'"'-..;.;:..:........__........:.:..;.....:....:..:.:...::....................
~ . e. nl!lIIlOn why these bl'ldgcs are. or nrt not.1airlmHeatlons of what length the' Ilmp~~ b~ldg.o. should he ..........;:.............:............-"_...._....._......
l...:~.-:---.~;~-~_~~E::'-~~~~5~~~:':~=~~~Tt;~~~?rE
: ... '1. Informntion nnil e;ldence in regnrd to the high ",'oler stage was obtained as foll~;s'......i{JIoi:Mft.t.i~n..~F.C1;;,...Ohl.S.<<.ttL,:,......s....&..&.<.&w:.
/2 ; .. ._:_.. : .toO - :=:~~:.~::~~::~~:.:-:.~~:~~~.~::.t~,.~~.=~.~~~::~~~~;.:~:;;=...~.;:==;~~~~t:;~~~~~i~:~t:~~~~;::;:".;;:.i;.~~~~~=:~;;~~;:~~;~.~.~~~
.. . ... ..- . .. ~.. ...- ... -'.....:.. ..:__...___ _~. --s;- lI1uS\eontmdor provide 'for .tr;llfIc .~urlng.o:ons.tru,ction ~f 'pl'OpDsed btfdg..l~~.::~;-;.:N~....;..:::".:4'"Al.~.. by; "hat. tneanllt-;:.7.~='::?,.;..,,,,,. 7-:;";
.... .' = . .'~:-.~.......,- .~J::::-..f::.~.::=::f-:-~.~..~.:-.................;...:~...::=t:t~~.~~::7~::E:5:"~~:~::~::~::..::~;.-...~:Tet2:IT:::j~~t+t~:~:I~:tj~::f~~r::~'=~:t~i=t:
. ..-;..-... > .
.. - .-...... ..., ~~-r.;...-- r~' ..-.- ':r,-:r-;: ..-. ..-.. ...--. .~... .-..... ~_..-
_ . i" "I .'j.'L.l · I. "-,,,1.., I ,. l'q-.u:...'''~ ........... ..........I-....i..:. '''r~i''I''4'..j..., ....,..
~:~=_~_:::.:-_~~:~:_~.- ~7~,~~~-Lb_~~:~~;,~c, .'~~;~:.~j=~-~-~_~: - .:_~-j~~11~r~ltI ~:'~'f tf~'~;I-l;::il.~
I .f.rl: ~ cr~:~$ ~ CTlOK o.,.~.~ ~ It. E. SU'IDAIID .~..~..
t.,.J' ~^ ,4lW'\"t'lollA .
._...__. _.____.,_ .____~____._m___~__.
~~-,........'--"......-',....~"...~._~,~.~.."',."'.....","'".,,,...?..,'"'.'"'-"'....,.,.."~-~-=.-,,.~>..,'-..",..,~
~corr 11~. 7f' If/I::>
~
?O{,oost . . 7(J600.s-7
- .... -~..~... .-.' -.. -...... .. -.. ---. -.--. ----- ~---_..._._-. .... ---.-- -'...---..-- ..--.-....-------. .. '--...-- ...' .- ..
I
....
II I
I
I
I
f
,
I
,
i
I
-- ...... ..... -...., .....-.--- .._~ ... .. ...,--' ...... .. ..-., -, ....,.. ,I .......--...-.,---. ....:-... .~... .~.._---_...._~-.----_.......-........
19t:,0 /9'0
70000 9 1
-.... -..--...-...-----,-
1
I
I
I ,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
l
....- .. 19t.fy
-; 0 7 I .::l..l> 3 '. .' ]07/ ~of-
."
1 ! ]
, 1
W '. I
~:.. . '. .
-S;S~~~.i ~~'.' '"
,
.
-.-
I
I
,
[ .,. J -
.. '0_" -.
I , th ,..,.... - . -......
,
~
,
r
\
f
. t
,
~N \
" I
,
~
~
i
k--30,'J~r-3?,~+ (1.7,'~ /2..7./ ~1J."'~Jlt'~3:~/~1"''i~I' !
i
~kl , . J 11 !
!
,
"; i f $'+-'4 '""*6~ 1$ ,
~ f:. 'f l t. I
... ": 1 t l~ r , : . i
. .: ,n ~I ~ _.. '"
~ '- ~ ..,u- "" I~~,J ~ l~y" ,.
""'-''''-- ..,..,.-.,.. 41 l~ --.... (.
t,f. (..1/ '. '" -r::...cf ...... I(J !
. Q/Z.. f1'I,,,,,c~,, h.. ~.,;<. 6"""/1 ....... ttIJ~p I
~p../ 01:...:~.!/~~.fm I
I >-1 ,I' I
C..;3,'S. c.._~.s. !
<5~./ <leei ?ill S S --- I
5... /~ ~'11f /t fl:c 5KS'. .5 - I'J "I( N '/rc S1;: 5 I
/1. - 10' 1 <]1/'{; I
I
<j - ~, J1 t L . /311 . ;
I
,
2. - 2. I" .1- E: "eI pl, /jf.( I
I
I
I
I
,
i
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
, I
I
I' j. I _~" es. U/l..aei- "u... q ';;'l'cI "'" 7 0/, IT - VeL7 77 V~
.
;;J.? S - ~
;Zy. t ~ j(J j.
-tIer t. el. ;2~ I .""'--
pjE.~<; 0"; N' ~}Jj) Pi ERf. ON S E:rJ 1)
~
.
".,
SIP" ;/
:}.tl
.
.. I
I
- ",
. ' pc: t.-
.
ShlSt..f.
/(
'0; n.. (J~ lPJ --. : ....
..", .
..-
:
" ""
.. ~ .
/
/
I
~g
.
t..V
l
"'- /1-.0 ~ '19"]> /UcoMrp~/ c;"
I
~"'''''f\ t t!. {.r.~il.s - :yo."
'(H-IL S - 3:;" ()
Ir- l~." J
S. }Pi! '-;IL/1:S .2 - ruT.rl~ ef'r
I
~/t.Ar~/4' rc:p...,.-r- 8 c..Ar
'17 I f..
1'1-1/../ Af?
Iff'/- l/e,e. T
-- ........_.. _....... .. -e. ...../ &I\oIoL .1:' LJ..:lj"
~. - .. .. . . ..-. . .
~SUPPLEMENTAL STRUCTURE INVENTORY
. !DENT! FI CAT I ON
Bridge No. 4/7S- County S Ct? 't/ City .s J//1ro P F E
.
Name of feature crossed by main span(s) U'ii-1f:.9 c> (/ E"L. /h)',v,", FrPfl1 /C; II c It- ;"..7.-vet ~ .v I<.d
Name of feature cro~sed by other span(s)
Other. fea tu res in vi c i n ity (roads, ra i1 roads I bu i J di ngs, natura I featu res)
STRUCTURAL DATA S f~.?L DFC;t' G,:c. J &'IL - tu/J4~~F,A/ / tv / i/~(
Type of main span(s) (specific name, such as Warren truss, rigid frame concrete, c~ncrete T beam, etc.)
Number of m~ in spans "f Number of other spans :.if-
Type of other span(s) /4ffUIIC./.. Sf>/f.1Js - c.~..j i--' -rL"c!; CO,JeIt!!..Etc JJ.$t:.f< G,idEie..
If metal bridge, type of connections: Pinned Riveted 1./ We I ded
. Structure style, if girder or truss: Through Pony Oeck ~
.
Unusual features of this structure, such as iron or stone decorations, unusual bearings
DATA FROM BRIDGE NAMEPLATE
Year constructed /92- 7 Owner U? #Jd T
Builder, builderls address h?;/V;'\.I &" $, IH
All other information I/' jr /-014 '1 b~pl-,
ABUTMENT DATA
Materials C~.vCR. 61c
Type of construction C4.sT;"; PL/J(!/E' c"..,a.~.t'"ft!
(such as stone masonry, cast in place concrete, etc.)
PIER DATA
Materia Is C"^,,C: We
Type of construction Sd/;-J P,E/Z '.r r Ct/L~__",-, .I1.ec!l 11i-.i;:
(such as pile bent, solid pier, column pier, etc.)
OTHER
Location where bridge plans or drawings are filed
Names of designers on plan
Firm names on plan
Manufacturer or fabricator
Dates on plans
Dates of construction
Rema rks
FOIIII :lUI-I REVISED "S/71 -rH /tc; ..
MINNESOTA HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT Rood No.
Party No. e.. OFFICE OF PROGRAM PLANNING Dote <=1116/7/ ..
Party Chief County S(!()'TT
Driver ROAD INVENTORY Sec. - Twp. - Rge. 1- 1/5"'-23 .
~/7'S GRADE SEP,#TION SHEET Location:
Bridge No. A Ii 15"" <iha..k"tllef> -'
Replaced . . DATA FOR STRUCTURE . JRl
Posted Load Limits dl / MULTIPLE SPANS REQUIRE DETAILED SKETCH ON REVERSE SIDE
Year Built /111 ~~g~Ted Nt9 Sketch north SpOrtS TYPE OF STRUCTURE AND DESCRIPTION
Angle of Skew 9{}" arrow in relation to No. Lenqth (material, beams 1 stringers, etc. )
Total Lengtb Along Road 6'1.1).0 I direction of survey
.~ Tr.
Name of Rai I road: /J~ =A.... '~,,'~. .:r.'T.
L Tr.
Number of Tracks Tr.
.. , ~.t .1':- j ~"/
1/."-'.... .'_' .[ ~,.. I Tr.
Minimum Clearance Over Rail_ Tr.
over :l.. Total ~ I Measure spans in direction of inventory
No. Traffic Lanes under ."1- OVERPASS ROADWAY APPROACH WIDTH NEAR 0 FAR ~3
R ad No. . over 71/ lib w DESCRIPTION Width Between
a::
::> /1;<: 2.g,5.1
~ G~", urter (ti1 I J ~ Jf'cI. t; Curbs L. R. rc
Mile Point over 1,0 .,')<'f ~ Railings L. ~ .6
under - I- Sidewalk L
en
TYPE OF SERVICE c::
Over Under w Tr.
0.. Deck
5a HiOhwa~ 0 Highway ::I Surfacing:
en
o Railroad 0 Railroad w Tr. :;2..- C
OPed. OPed. a:: Abutments
o HQy-Rr. o Hgy-Rr. ::>
I-
o 2nd Level o Waterway <.> T r. ,II/.;.
~ Winowolls
o 3rd Level ~ Hgy-Water I-
o 4th Level o Rr. -Water CI)
III P i1inos .
o Building o Hgy-Rr.-Water ;:)
o Other o Other en Piers, etc.
Direction .E:'"~ Direction
I. (S) I. (6)
2- (7) 2. (7)
3. f4J + (a) 3. (a)
4. (9) 4. (9) .
5. (10) 5. (to)
I. On orch type underpass toke (6} 100- 8' ~ tlO}
height ot 1,2 3,4,a 5 on near
portal and (SI,(7),(a),(9),a (10) '-? 3 ~_s
on for portal. --(6)-1 IS} 1'--(10;'--
On sid type grade separationS .{ (1) (51} ~
take height at 1,3,5,(6}.(S)a(10). I \
2. If highway underpass is only
incidental to structure ,only infor-
mation as 10 span crossing high-
way will be noted on sketch. Gi VB
details of sPfln in spaces provided (6) (8))
above under' data for structure".
-.j
3. Show by sketch ot ri~hl- r~. width. lateral clearance
rivht and left, width ofsi ewalks, t ickness of piers or columns ./~
and total length of structure along line of survey.
Sketch approximCl,te angle of structure with respect to Qu. T,,, 1/1'..... T,15,...... Typo e
centerline of rood. ~ -0/ --
FIELD PHOTO IDENT. NO. 5 Widtt\. of. Median Strip /!/0>vL I Surface Type -pi
Party NO. ~ / =--i::JBl IVII I\jN t. ~V I A n II.7-rf"WAY UI:.I""AH: I MI:.N 1 'f ft Rood No. I t;.. 9'
Party'" Chief M ~ '- PLANNING RESEARCH SECTION Bridge Sheet No. 3
Driver. fJ .I Par:- i ;.~J:2... Date 7- 7- tot:
.. ROAD INVENTORY 5e..o TI
County
I SSI -Sec.- Twp.-Rge. /-11:;'-:.J3
,..' Area of Opening bC~ X BRIDGE SHEET
tJ..i~tOI t../ I 7 ~Y'
Bridge No.
No of Panels_ -
Posted Laad Limits
Year Buill /9;)1
Nome of Stream R ,'JG{! t stV'
MrfJ/JIES,;,rn
REi)CCJ(cO I'M9
Stalion Mile L ~. :-;-/ ...IO"S2.
.
Depth of Water , 6/)' lX
.MULTIPLE SPANS REQUIRE DETAILED SKETCH ON REVERSE SIDE
EXPANSION DEVICE Ske tch north
Good arraw in relalian la
direction of survey
Rocker 1 Tr.
Tr.
VERT. AND HORIZ. CLEARANCES Tr.
s' Tr.
Tr.
t
4 Tr.
Ull 1~11 Total
I
114}
ILl
'" Il:
-.: i ::>
...:.~~: I I- Curbs
U4l
Railings
""" 1.0u %'0" Sidewalk
Near Floor
I. 8.
2. 9. ~ Abutments
3. 10. =>
I-
0
4. It ~ Wingwolls
5: 12. t-
en
6. 13. ~ Pilings,
7. 14. en Piers.etc.
,
Negative No. Dir. Negative No. Dir.
If 3 to 5 is less rhon S' lake height 01 1,2,3,5,6,7 and 8, BRIDGE DESCRIPTION ABBREVIATIONS
9,10,12,13 ,a14.1f more than S' toke height 01 1,:3,5,7, and L Iron Angle /ro/\ I I-Beom
8,10,12. a 14.lf no knee broces,take height at 1,4,7,8, II, 8.H. Bulkhead Lam. Laminated
and 14.Points 8,9,IO,II.12,f3,aI4 ore 01 for portol. BiI. 8i tumlOous M.P. Metal Plate
TYPES OF BRIDGE STRUCTURES Cops Cops O.C. On Cenler
t. Centerline P. B. Pile Benl
Arch Arches(Oenote MiLl L.T. Low Truss C Channel 8eom RC.C Portlond Cemenl Conc.
8.5. Beam Span Plate Plole Steel Arch C.M. Corrugated Metol S.C. Seclional Concrete
8.G. Box Girder RC. Precast Channel Def. Deformed S. Steel
C.D.G. Conc. Deck Girder P. G. Precast Girder D.or $ Diameter Str. Stringer
C.R.F. Cone. Rigid Frome RS. Precast Slob FI. 8m. Floor Beom T. Timber
C.S Concrete Slab T. RG. Through Plole Girder F. B. Frome Bent wI With
C.T.G. Conc. Thru Girder W55 or WIOIOD-Sld. 80x Culv.
D.T. Deck Truss W(wid Ih x heighl)D: Daub., T= Trip. Example-if Ihe descripHon under Piling,Piers,Etc.,reads:
D.P.G. Deck Plate Girder W.P. T. Wood Pile Treslle 2-7-12" T. P. B. WI 12"x 12" T. Cops - 1-4 -snI.p.B. W!S" I Cop,
H.T. High Truss T.T.5. Treated Timber Span il would indicole thai two of the piers were pile bents and were
Encircle "Tr." if timber is treated C -'16 mode up of 7-12" diameter limber piles, wit h 12" It 12" limber cops
and thai one pier hod 4-S" I-beam piles with ~n SnI-beam cop.
Field Photo Identification No. tJ6i0 Go Field Photo Identification No. J,..;Oi!J;!:
-
--
1989 MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION - STRUCTURE INVENTORY "
C.S.= 7009 DISTRICT - JURISDICTION 7/13/1990
------------------------- ----------------------------
J * IDENTIFICATION * [ I * STRUCTURE DATA * I Suff Rating 02.0 S.D.
-------------=~---------- ---------------------------- Status
Br. No. V4~7.S. 0; I, ; i 56 HWY, PE~/HWY, STR -------------------______
~".l:.iK~,<:" k Type of Serv1 eEl J * SUBSTRUCTURE DATA * 1
District S Maint Area SA 1-----------------________1
Type Main Span 304 IAbut CONCRETE FTNG/PILE 1
County rscorrl RIVETED STEEL DK TRUSS 1 I
1C,..:,<i:,;\;4;:';;i I Pi er CONCRETE FTNG/PH E 1
City SHAKOPEE CONCRETE DECK GIg I Mater'l Foundat'n I
Type Approach Span 106 I------------~------______I
Township I * WATERWAY DATA * I
Fract TRUSS / 1---------------__________1
USTH 169 MAIN LINE Critl Member Proe Date IE/II/S8 I
Route Number FunctionlProc Scour Dr Area I
Spec! I I
Rdwy Type 2 WAY ROAD Feat Member Proc Date (Waterway Opening 99999 I
. ((
OVER MINN R & LEVEE DR Ft I Navi g Clear/Prot I
Name of Feature Crossed Culvert Type Length 1 (
IVert Horiz I
0.1 MI N OF JCT TH 101 No Spans 4 4 8 1-------------------------1
Descriptive location Main Appr Total I---~-~~~~~~:~-~~~~~:-~---l
Sec 01 Twp lIS Rge 23W length 127.7 645.0 Ft INear 2A J 24 I
Male Spn T ota! 1 Far 2A H. 24 I
Reference Pt 110+00.071 1 Type Cond Length J
SDWK WIn tt 4.0 Rt 4.0 ----------------------___
o 0 I * PAINT DATA * 1
44 48.0' 93 31.7' Rdwy Width OVER 30.0 1--------------_____1
Latitude longitude If Divided Nb-Eb Sb-Wb IYr Pntd......1972 I
I I
Detour Length 08 Mi Deck Width (Out-Out) 42.4 IType..........3C I
( I
STATE HWY STATE HWY Vert Clear Over :1 Ft Ft (Area....... 94305 1
Maint Resp Owner ~ I 1
Vert Clear Under lS~Ft Ft IYo Unsound......50 I
Fed-Aid System FAP 1-----------________1
Max Vert Clear Ft Ft I * EXPANSION * I
14 URBAN PRIN ARTERIAL I * DEVICE * 1
Functional Classification Underclear lat 3.0 Rt It 1-------------------1
1 Type. . . . . . . . . . . Gl 1
Year Built 1927 Rem 1969 Type Wearing Surface CONCRETE I' I
lCondition......I 1
Date Open To Traffic 01/69 Depth of W.C. & Fill 0.00 Ft 1 1
IYr Instl...... .69 1
Lanes on Br 2 Under ---------------__________1
Deck Protection System-Yr I * CAPACITY RATINGS * 1
21000 1988 1-------------------------1
A.D.T. HCADT Year Coated Rebar IDesign Load H 15 1
1 (
Rdwy Appr Width 60 30 RAILINGS Type 08 08 lOperating HS 17.6 I
Shld Surf I I
Condition 7 7 I Inventory H 11.0 I
Median Skew 00 1 1
Base Height 2'08" 2'08" IPosting LEGAL 1
1 I
Defense .Sys YES Temp Curb Hei ght 03" 03" 1 Rati n9 Date 12/76 I
I I
Plan Available CENTRAL Approach Guardrails 0 INeed New Rating NO I
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------~-(
I * CONDITION CODES * I * APPRAISAL RATINGS * ( * IMPROVEMENT DATA * I
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1
I Area 27348 19350 I Structure Eval............3 I P~op Work REPLACE LOC I
I Structure Roadway I Deck Geometry.............4 I Prop Structure BRIDGE I
I I Underc1earances...........3 I Length 8800 Width 100 I
I Deck CONC/CIP 11.00 4 I Safe Load Capacity........5 I Prop Adt 40300 Year 1990 I
I Material xUnsd I Waterway Adequacy.........8 I Appr Rdwy Work REGRADE I
I I Approach Alignment........6 I I
1 Superstructure........3 1-------------------------------1 Bridge Cost $25,350,000 1
I Suhstructu~e..........4 I * BRIDGE SIGNS * J Appr Cost I
I Channel & Protection..8 1-------------------------------1 I
I Culvert & Wall........N 1 Posted Load 0 Traffic 0 I Project Cost I
I Inspecti on Date.lO/09/89 I ....... '( 1
I Insp. Freq..12 Plan I Horizontal 0 Vertical N I Yr of Improv Data 1
----------~------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
. 1989 MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION - STRUCTURE INVENTORY
DISTRICT - JURISDICTION 7/13/1990
------------------------- ----------------------------
I * IDENTIFICATION * I I * STRUCTURE DATA * I Suff Rating 02.0 S.D.
------------------------- ---------------------------- Status
B~.No. 4175 2 56 HWY.PED/HWY.STR -------------------------
Type of Se~vice 1 * SUBSTRUCTURE DATA * I
District 5 Maint Area 1-------------------------1
Type Main Span 304 IAbut CONCRETE FTNG/PILE I
County SCOTT RIVETED STEEL DK TRUSS I I
IPier CONCRETE FTNG/PILE 1
City SHAKOPEE. CONCRETE DECK GIR 1 Mater'l Foundat'n 1
Type App~oach Span 106 1-------------------------1
Township I * WATERWAY DATA * I
Fract TRUSS / 1-------------------------1
MUN 3 MAIN LINE C~itl Member Proc Date I E/ll/88 1
Route Number Function IProc Scour Dr Area I
Specl I I
Rdwy Type 2 WAY ROAD Feat Member Proc Date IWaterway Opening 99999 I
I I
LEVEE DR UNDER TH 169 Ft I Navi g Char/Pl"'ot I
Name of Feature Crossed CuI vert Type Length I I
I Vert Hori z I
AT JCT TH 169 No Spans 4 4 8 1-------------------------1
Descriptive Location Main Appr Total I * APPROACH PANELS * I
1-------------------------1
Sec 01 Twp 115 Rga 23W length 127.7 645.0 Ft INear 2A J 24 I
Max Spn Total 1 Far 2A H 24 I
Reference Pt 000+00.150 I Type Cond length I
SDWK WID Lt 4.0 Rt 4.0 -------------------------
o 0 I * PAINT DATA * I
44 48.0' 93 31.7' Rdwy Width UNDER 25.0 1-------------------1
Latitude Longitude If Divided Nb-Eb Sb-Wb IYr Pntd......1972 I
I I
Detour Length 00 Mi Deck Width (Out-Out) 42.4 IType..........3C I
I I
STATE HWY STATE HWY Vel"'t Clear Over i:Ft Ft IArea....... 94305 I
Ma i nt Resp Owner I I
Vert Clear Under IS'14Ft Ft Ir. Unsound......SO I
Fed-Aid System NON 1-------------------1
Max Vert C1eal" 15 Ft 'Ft I * EXPANSION * I
19 URBAN LOCAL SYSTEM 1 * DEVICE * I
Functional Classification Underclear lat 3.0 Rt Lt 1-------------------1
IType...........Gl I
Year Built 1927 Rem 1969 Type Wearing Surface CONCRETE I I
ICondition......l I
Date Open To Traffic 01/69 Depth of W.C. & Fill 0.00 Ft I I
I Yr Instl....... 6 9 I
Lanes on Br Under 2 . -------------------------1
Deck Protection System-Yr I * CAPACITY RATINGS * I
100 1974 '1-------------------------1
A.D.T. HCADT Year Coated Rebar IDes;gn Load H 15 I
I I
Rdwy Appr Width 25 25 RAILINGS Type 08 08 IOperating HS 17.6 I
Shld Surf 1 I
Condition 7 7 I Inventory H 11.0 I
Madi an Skew 00 I I
Base Height 2'08" 2'08" IPosting l.EGAl I
I I
Defense SyS NO Temp Curb Height 03" 03" IRating Date 12/76 I
I I
Plan Available CENTRAL Approach Guardrails 0 INead New Rating NO I
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1
I * CONDITION CODES * I * APPRAISAl. RATINGS * 1 * IMPROVEMENT DATA * [
1-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1
I Area. 27348 19350 I Structure Eval............:3 I Prop Work I
I Structure Roadway I Deck Geometry.............4 I Prop Structure I
I' I Underclearances...........3 I Length Width I
I Deck CONG/CIP 11.00 4 Safe Load Capaci ty. ... .. . .5 I Prop Adt Year I
I Material Y.Unsd I Waterway Adequacy.........8 I Appr Rdwy Work I
I I Approach Alignment........6 1 I
I Superstructure........3 1-------------------------------1 Bridge Cost I
I Substructure..........4 * BRIDGE SIGNS * I Appr Cost I
I Channel & Protection..8 1-------------------------------1 I
I Culvert & Wall........N I Posted Load 0 Traffic 0 I Project Cost I
r Inspecti on Dab.lO/09/89 I 1 I
I Insp. Freq..12 Plan I Horizontal 0 Vertical 0 I Yr of Improv Data I
-----------~-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
~k ~ ' -p- - 7fT? ,~
~. ..:> ,- . ;'~~
~ " '+>
~;_'l :i~~: ~ . k:
';~~7
.' . 1,:r;.: .
f;.t
~t
l~~~l
</ ~;#.
v" for"
';'J
, " n THE 1IA'I'TEfl OF THE CONSTliUl.'1'IOU OF 'fHE PMPOSl1:D f:U:
.!i,j P-]
~1 ~~"
1: BRIDGE "CROSS nIX unnn:so'!'J\ IUVEfi on THUN'K l'\l('UW:y :W14BER t:~
~.
f FIVE AT SHAICOPEJi:. >lI:iNFSOTA, MJD ITE OOIiSEQUI!.tl'!, 2:-~1!:C'r OF . '.0"
"-
~ NAVIGATION OR SAID ErIVEIi. i.:.
~..~ .
~'1.~
we. the undera11!ned l1IanU!a.otur~rs 9f., ~qe ..9.1::(..0;(
~ Shako~e, Soott County, ~innesota, do hereby re8pectt~11y
'.G
sublldt: I .i:~
!~
1. That the unders1pned Amer1can Range Corporation, j
I ..,.
, ',J
. .~
'igners hereto, now and throu~b Ita predecessors 1n title for -,1-
Jeara has been oonducting the bus1ness Of Il.a.nufacturing stoves ,-
and ranges and other foundry products, and a.s inoident thereto
.'
h.as reoe1ved larf?'e and extensive sh1plLl!nts at raw ma.terial and :r, J'
}. ;-:-
have shipped out large sh1pu.-enta of !1n1shed produots. l' ~
. f.L
I 2. That the Jaoob Ries BOttlin~ Works, s1gners here- t'1I1
I '.
i ....1
to, are now and for over forty yenrs have been ene:acr.ed 1n the rri
~faoture of ~1n~r ale and other 11ke non-1ntoxicat1np bev- t:;. ,
to ;...
eragda at the 01 ty of Shakopee. and during add t1r:.e has a.nnual- J '
i.
1,.. shipped out' laree sh1pu.ents of the products so Ilianuraatured,. ~:j
! 3. Tha t the Schrpeder Brick &: L1n:e J.{anut'aotur1np- co::.- ~~~
pan)', s1fmers hereto, are no. and for over forty years last have ."
l' '
:. ~ ,"; .:;"
been enJtaped in the u.anufaature of briok and lime, and dur1I11?' r "
~}
i~:'
said th..e have reoe1voQ large sh1pll,ents of raw material and have i
shipped out larp.'e 8b1p~nts of fin1ahed prOducts. I;!'
4. That the s1p:ne.t's to this peti tlon are the three ~.'~':~ti
pr1nolpal industr1es ot the 01 ty of Sha.lr;opee and eu.pj.oy 3nnually I
over three hundred ~en. 1
,
5. That Shakopee, Chaska and otber po1nts along the
.
~1nnesota R1ver are served and acco~,Ddated with a~~le railroad 11h~
faoilities to hand1e all ou~go1ng an~ 1nao~ng tre1~ht with ~twost .r
"'1
dispatch and convenience, and tbat 1n add! tion to Baid railroad . .-'~
.....----..... ..... - .. ... .. a..._. _. '___n. -..._.._. aO_. ..........h .... _... ...... ...u..... .....__..._. "'_0" ,I
,
, .'
. -
. . ..
'~M" .,~~. ............. :~.~ ~ I . . . . -_.
--.'
.--"'..'
.
facilities the 5'tate of U1nnesota. ael"ves this city, Chaska
and otber p01nts on 8~id river with a thorough a.nd co~plete.
system of Trunk Highways upon wblch :1'1"eight and passengers
are transported.
6. That the U1nnBsota Hiver frot:. '.wha.t 10 known as
the Oarver Rapids at Carver, ~1nnesota, 1s shallow, nnd to
lta junotion with the ~i8a18sipp1 at Uendota. has less than
ono-sixteenth of a foot of fall to the ll.i1e, and thnt beyond ~
s~1d Oarver Rap1da and further up the f~ll and slope is far
g-reater, ana that by reason of. the er-ric:ultu:t'al developlllent ot !,
, ~
the oountry the upper por-tion of said river lsclU'ryirur the 'I
burden ot drainage for the ent1;re }!imlcsota Valley and larp.e ~ ' 1
Quant1ties of clay and ~ud and other debris are annually be1n~ i,
washed 1nto 1 ts cbannel, and that such n.ud and refuge 18 ce.r1:1ed i
,
. ."J
by 81:.1d r1 ver beyond tile Carver Rapids, and tbere l:'.ecause of ~~.:.~:\
little or no waterf~ll ?nd little or no current settles, result- r.'.~~~:;
~ ;...:..
1np- 1n the rupid mld constant flll11l!l' of s~ic1 channel bet'ween t'.: > .~.
i:..~ :. .
said carver Rapids and J.!endota., and. t.hat 1 t lethe clabo ot !...:
l:',...;
ao1enUf1o Den \;ho have investigated the bed of tbe ulnnesota ~I;,
River at Kendota that there 1~ no. sixty f~et vf ~ud 1n its I" :1-.
s:n, '
~~ '
..1
anc-1ent channel ;..nd that as t1u;.e goes on the channel of the . ''',-
. ....1 .
Minnesota Fi1 ver :frou.. Carver Rap1d.!J to l,lenClot~ will bec:Ok.e u.ore ~'j';'-' "
~\,; (
shallow and ~ore i~poGsible to uake na.vi~Gble.
7. That the condition of oaid channel at this time
would. require a.n expenditure 0 f Il..any willions ot dollars by the '0' _ .
~overnll..ent of the Unlt~d states to put it into condit1on for
navlfation.. and that 1n the cv.:;nt that such an expend1 ture should
be wade and sn1d ctlannel opened to ll.nkl~ ~ :':'Vir'llt1on pose1ble J that
the newly fL8.lie channel would 11'1 Ii short tia..e be filled by the
-~
.' , .
.. ._0....__.
-. .-' ..
,
,
..
heavy loads of wud carried down and deposited th&reln as before
went1oned.
B. That the Ulnnaaotn River takes a wlndlnr and oir-
cuitous oourse rrom Shakopee to ~endoia and would furnish l1ttle
or no r!.enns ot navi~:l.tion to l.!1nneapo11s.
9. That the Minnesota River fro", Carver hupicis to its
junotion w1 th the Mississippi 113 not nOli, nor hb.8 1 t been tor over
forty years, Q. tllA'hlllUY of t:rnde Upon '.rhieh navir-at1on 1mB conduct-
ed except in the insttince of a few excursions or excursion boats,
the last of which o.tteuspted to navlg'<,:,te Said river 1n 1914, and
~t with every obstacle ~d Q1tf1culty.
10. That no freIght of any nature trllatsoever nor
Oargo o~ treIfht has been tr~n8ported down or up tbe ~inneaota
River in over f1ty years ut the point where the proposed bridge
18 to be located. 1
11. That while we reco".nhe at this tiu.e a D'lover::ent I
1
to develop nav1rat1on on certain waterways in the Un1 ted States, .
j.
,
and .hile BUeh I..ovell.ent should reoeive enooul"ap'el~ent and has
marl t 1n certtt.1n cases, yet there is no 1t.eri t in nor neoess1 ty
for any IIiOven.er4t to develop navi{.!'ation on the Jt.irmesota !l1ver
frou. the Carver Rap1ds to the UiGS1SB1pp1 Hiver.
12. That the dispOsition of the people and the progress
ot the tiu.efa ee!)ccially in this port1on of the United states, de-
mands taster aLii luOre efficient U:ethOds of transportution than even
the railroads Can now supply, ~d while it is true that seventy-
1"1ve years ago the people alot}fr' the U1nnesota Valley would wait
for an approachine boat to deliver a oarp,'o of freifht such a Mans
or transportation now woulu be entirely ~ut of ~ate.
-)-
r.
}
... ........ ~_..'''._.''I .. .... -.. ..... .. ... ..,..- . ~--I--.~ . .)..I.,...._~.
.'
~ r t..a-"
13. The Minnesota River becuuse of the 1ncleu.ent
oll~te of Minnesota is closed to navi~Qtion for approxi~te_
1y s1x n;onths of the year, a.nd the stage at water during at
least lour of the reu.a1ni1lj~ l<.onths is entirely insufficient
in voluu.e to afford nny faCility for na...,ie;:J.Uon.
14. The people of Sha.kopec nnd all 1 te b'..lsines's ll.en
are 1:.ost keenly int.ere".ted .....nd er..!,ha.t;Lcally uxr-e the oonst%'uotlon
of the proposed b.r1dpe across the Minnesota fl1Vel' at the point
planned upon, and in taUnr this attitude firll.ly bel1eve that
they have in u..lnd the best interests of the 01 ty of Sha.k:opee
and the peo~le of the Burroundinr oO~~n1t1ee.
15. That he.retoi'ol'e ~nci in the year 1919) the la.nd.-
oners on the llinnesota hiver froll. Ortonvll1e to J!6ndota oriT.a.n-
ized a oorporation kZlo;m us the 1.!1nneaotu. Valley Developu.cnt
Assoc1at.1on, E:.nd that suld "u.>sociution when SO orf'.n1zied work-
1ng 1n co-operation \11th the f,overnli&6nt ot the State of u1nn- ,
,
!
080ta and the tln1 ted ftates, I1lade a thorough and extensive
,
1nves't1gat10n ot the wate.rf~l1s of the Uinnesota f!iver. and ~ j
such action was taken by said Co~)oration that a report was ~e
and. Gubtld. tted t.o the people U;lon which all land owners acquiesced.. ;
and we subll.l t a. copy of said report ill-lob Bdd copy 18 hereto
attached and' Il'i\de .. ~I\rt hereof.
~ '1'Hi1:hEFOltE: HeSPi:CTFlILLY SUBl.!IT. That such consider-
ation be l?'iven to all features involved in 1.hls ll.atter. that the
proposed brld(?'e as planneci shall be approved hy the proper auth-
orities of the United states. and that the lonr hope for the link
in 'the roact between Southwestern lA1nnesota and the Trrin Cities be
pro~ptly installed.
-4-
\
Dated a.t Shalcopee. Minnesota, th1s 12th dcy of April
A.D. 1926.
Respeotfully Bub~1tted.
"EnIO(!~
By.4/: ~
presiden1.;.
' ./1
JACOB l~S ,OOl1'LlHO lVO;;V.S
'" I .
. .....;; I
By ~. ""1,/
. . (~re,~!d~'nt ~
SCHnOg!)ER am CJ{ &: LIlliE: !I. t'e. 00.
~ pi ~<. .':7 ~ .() e.-
By"'" ~-c,'" ~..::,~? ~._"-'z-.." ~"c:..~:::r,"",~
L..~ I~ .~ ,.........
president. -
,
i
.
,
I
l
. ,
!
-5-
~
I
f.
. ,< :~~.;', :;~~t~i1i~-~~:5~~~~:~;~ !
r
. ..... . -. '.'- ~ '~" ~.u! ~~~~n"';"~ ....r... ,'"" 7:t.
..- 'r-'~:~~:::~0fti~~~~~. &:i;Jji1:~-fj;#'<;"" , ~.v_i~r~> '.
. . '-' ':--- J.~ .~~"'~~~,~.;{:".~'+ ~,~. >"M"'~~' .'
} i,; ~ '.' ..~...:.~~~!;.~ ~-:~...~~.;~ *~! . . .-
r r.....~fl ,.,~~.'I;" it.- . ' . .;;. .-. {
,:;/ ,:.~~!::-.(~~~~~:~;'" ' f
[
, . . .' OJ!''''.... ,...~, ~~:,~..~:t" !
' ' ". . . ~":. .4~1':,~;t~;.s~ WAR CEPARTMENT I
.., :. ~r~." ::':rp.~~~ ,~'.iiJ.~'
.' - ,,...::,:;"';~1'.' ._~:!~'$~?? UNITED STATES ENGINEER OFFiCe: \
. ~;'..?:/s:, ,r~'~'r.:r" 516 BREMER A.RCAce eU(L..OING :
,
. "-:~'.=--=-'~'" . . ~.~.:r June 14, 1926. f
- . .~,:.:. -:: . ST. PAUL, MINN. l
~
~
,
;
. I
~
I
I
I
I
~
t
j
I
I
Mr. o. y. :Baboock. . I
I
Coam1s8ioner at Highway's. I
Kinnesote. Sta.te 1tigh1r8Y' Department, I
St. Paul t J,{inn. I
I
Dear Sir: I
Your application. for approval at plans for a. bridge
I
to be constructed across the lL1xm.esota River at Shakopee. Minn. I
has been approved by the Chief at Eng1neersend Secret8.X7 at War. I
as per 1nBtrament at approval herewith. Please aoknOlrledge re-
ceipt at this dOO'Dll1ent. ,
I
,
,
Verr t~ yon.rs, !
,
I
~;J2JL~~
O. F. lri1l18IDB .
Yaj or I Corps of Engineers. r
Distriot Engineer.
InolostL1"e. I
I
I
RECeJVED. I
JUN 1.5 /926" '\ {J} I
OFi='/C I ~
1"1t:'.,~.."'l E: Or:- I
..n;; I,,,,,F HIGHWAYS
.
.
- , . .
.'. (,.".
,,':": ~.:-..::~~~~';;l~~~~~.'~ ... . ....L:....~~~--.;:.:: '.....
. ._--~.
.
/;;.....-."7 ~ .
- ..-"
. :r: //'.~;: ~
.'
:. t,l/ F I L E f -.-......---
- ...-.--....
. , (33 U. S. Statutes, Page 83) "
~j I ~.y .....t.-AT'ON
l-' CLASSi\- I....'; , .
f( -\ t-
\ . ~ tf~
l \.0- .I
~i\ 'J CRAP. 548. - An Act To anthorize the construction of bridges across
,Jv 1\ a portion of the Minueso~a Biver in the State of Minnesota.
:-~ ~ :BE IT ENACTED BY TEE SENATE .um HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE
UNITED STA.TES OJL~l~~ IN CONGRESS ASSEMJ3LED, That pe~~;ent, stat-
ionary, fixed span bridges may be constructed and maintained over and
across so much of the Minnesota River t wi thin the State of Minnesota,
8S lies between Dig Stone Lake, in said State, and the place on said
river between the counties of Lesueur and Sibley, in said State, where
the same is intersected and crossed by the north line of section
numbered twenty-five, in township numbered one hundred and twelve
north, of range numbered twenty-six west of the fifth principal merid-
ian: PROVIDED, That such bridges shall each bave a span not less than
forty feet wide over the main cu.rrent of the stream, which span shall
not be less than twenty. feet high in the clear above ordinary low-
water stage if constructed at or below the city of Mankato, and not
less than fifteen feet high in the clear above ordinary low-water
stage if constructed above said city of ~to.
Any drawbridge now constructed across said river at or aCove the
c1tyof Lesueur, in said State, and maintained by any 'municipal or
other co~orationt may be converted into a fixed span bridge, in con-
formity with the foregOing provisions.
SEC. 2. That said bridges and accessory works, when built and con-
structed under this Ac:tand according to the terms and 11mi tations
the>-.reof, sball be lawful structures, and said bridges shall be recog-
nbed and known as post routes, upon which also no higher charge shall
be made t:or the transmission over the same of the mails, the troo,!?s,
and the munitions of war of the United States than the rate per ~le
paid :for the transportation over the railroads or public highways lead-
in€ to such bridges; and said bridges shall enjoy the rights and priv-
ileges of other post routes of the United States; and Congress reserves
the right at 8D1 t~e to regulate by appropriate legislation the charges
over said bridges.
SEC. 3. That the Un! tad States shall bave the right of wa:t' for such
postal telegraph and telephone lines across said bridges as the Govern-
ment may con~truct or control.
SEC. 4. That Congress reserves the right to alter, amendt or repeal
this Act at any time.
Approved MarCh 15. 1904.
/
,
,
v April 10, 19.26.
, I .
. . . .
~
YnmESOTA DEPART:,t8NT OF HIGHWAYS
lm!DGE DEPT. ~IEMO.
~~~
Bridge Ho. 4175 Shaltopee. }'1il:m.
~ -
tl} Old .Bridge 409-11 It lODge Center swing span 209'-6" long.
. Low water to top of floor 33 feet.
(2) Extreme high wa.te~ 1881- E1 714.79 u.S. Da.t;mn
h1gb. It 1916- tt lijl.Ol" ..
Low .. 1926 n 87.61 It "
At Pier No.- 1 Pier No.2 Pier lfo.3
(3 ) Clearance of new bridge a.t H. W. 1~16 11. b ft. 6.ti .ti.O
II .,,, .. . tt H. W. 1 81 7.8 .0 4.2
" " n n " Low w.1926 35.0 33.2 31.4
l4l Eatkate of Coat.
Concrete 2560 cu.' )lds. at 330.00 = 76.800.00
Struo.Steel ~oooo Ibs." ~ = ~350.00
Wem-.Surt. 1 70 Sq.~8. Of 2.00 =- 3.740.00
Piling' . 9280 ft. "1.00 9.2.80.00
~
154.170.00
Cantillgenoles 1qt 15830.00
170,000.00 Total
.
'F~ ". OM .-" tit t:~;. State Projeet_..{i._:.J.~.:i. ,
. 4/75 ·
..- . Bndge No.:~.......... 1 ~ r ...--...-
STATE OF MINNESOTA _____......_.._........_...........__.___
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS.
PROPOSALS FOR BRIDGES
ON STATE PROJECTS
Proposal of---..-._.._..~~..J~~.~l._QQ..~_.___.._.... ..._..._..__._........_...._......._......_____.._.__...._..._....._..._._...
(Name)
Ma.nka.to, Minnesota
--........-----......-...-............--.-......-...-..--.(Addr~_;;~)-.--...---..--....---....-.....-...-._.--..--.---....---.......---.....--....--
to furnish and deliver an materfuls and to do and per.fonn all work, in accordance with the Plan, Contract
and the approved Minnesota Highway Department Specifications for this project on file in the Office of
the Commissionel' of Highways, except as specifically stated otherwise in the "Special Provisions" con-
tained herein, for the building of bridges on a certain section of Trunk Highway No.__ q. -_State Project
N ,. .to ... r- B'd N 1"' -'5
0._.1.._.._;\;.....:___..3....___.___._... n ge 0..-.:...-~!.--~.-----.-..---------------_:7-...----
h. h 1 will b . d tU l-'" '1 Ie. P M th ~'''~ I:}d f ,Alp r-I/ 192 -.;'
on w Ie proposa s e reCelve un _..'".;.. 0 C oc _.._..J.YL....__on e..~:-=:.. ay 0 .,-..-~_.____ ,.~__
,.. I Co),' . '. ''/'''' .t.
h. b'd b" 11....-:-... :l.....:7..,t". ~r!''' ".7 '; ~t'~, G C."7l7rl"
t IS n ge emg sltuated as fo OWS :.__;.:.....~..::..'.._:.;.__~~...._:..:.....~;_._.::...___~._.--_._._.._...__.___
,.. "/ .,.~.ft ~
.. ,.r. ~# "-,.~' ~
as mdicated on the plans approved_...:..:~!.c~-~~..:~~..::_._..___....__..192_.::_.
SPECIAL PROVISIONS
.r: , !. ,I" , I I I · ci:
,.. .""''f''- ,.. "';r.......,... 1<1"')-.-" ~ .... ~"...,..~: t............ ...,..~.. ",.. .(.' .. ..-ij~.~_r. Irl t-'/"'-,l'
~ .," -","'''' . ~ ,."'.... l. ; .. ... ..~. ........... - ../Ii',......... tI. _: . ..'.'~. ~ ,1_- ,JtI~...'" &; 4
To the Commissioner of High ways of the State of Minnesota,
Sir;
In accordance with the advertisement of the Commissioner of Highways inviting proposals for the
building of bridges on the section of highway hereinbefore named, and in confonnity with the plans and
specifications on file in the office of the Commissioner of Highways.
_.._'-~......hereby certify that.W.~.._~!..the only pel"Son, or persons, interested in this proposal as principals,
that it is made without collusion with any person, finn or corporation; that an examination has been
made of the Specifications and Contract Form, inclUding the "Special Provisions" contained herein, also
of the Plans, and of the site of the work, and propose to furnish all necessary machinery, equipment,"
tools, labor and other means of construction, and to furnish all materials specified, in the manner and at
the time prescribed, and understand .that the quantities of work as shown herein are subject to increase
01' decrease, and further understand that aU quantities of work whether increased or decreased are to
be performed at the unit prices shown on the attached schedule.
.
. .
- '.
\
~
.
.
SCHEDULE OF QUANTITIES
Note: This proposal shall be filled in by the bidder_ For ,complete infOlmation concerning these items,
and other material not listed here. see plans and specifications.
QUANTITIES
MATERIAL ITEM II Bridge I Bridge I Bridge I Bridge I 'Bridge I Bridge
No. No. No. No. No. No.
II f/:5 I I I I I
I i
II 6'":{j I I I I I
Total Span, Feet . ..:.. I
.//2566.$ j I I I I
Concrete, Cubic Yards I
_.- Il/(!t..1i,HO'1 I I I !
Reinforcing Steel. Ibs. I
. Structural'Steel. Ibs. II i.d7ZtrMl.t:5h:77d4t1 I I I
I
II q~/t.1C I I i I I
PlUng, linea.l feet II I I I
. .-.....-..--
~~r~1~~b-.:,,(OS/ir.7,;~1 G885 1t:.-;li:'7J~-4d I. J I
I I I
oa.r easure ~ _c: J ~.t_._?.' - ,
Mi~~:i~{;:lii~ II ~3 7d{! IE.5L~~u~d r A p " ~ ~ ./ ~. I.J
./2:J I 01........."':, C'" ~b~~~...'"~ ~~' t;~./if
,{"""orq 1~'7<1.5 II :;~ 2d IfS;-7i71a!4-1!17.."d ~;?(.4<?~Qr"t'~ m~?/~.~::'-~:-
- ~. ~)",. II ~""1 I I .\...:?el! I I
-.....-.... d, n :;),:: ~ I. \
-. ~rv_ 0, /:"'u / .~/..,~
Bid for Temporary Crossing- 1I.n:.~ /It! I I .. I I I
(Lump Suxn) I I
Bid for Removal of Old Bridge II J....~. ..,:t I I I I I
J I t I'....
(Lump Sum) I I
Bid for New Structure " I r I ! I
(Lump Sum) I
II I I I I I
I I I
I
II I I I I I
II I I I
. II *140.000.60 fOne hJndred for~ thOUSa.n~ dOll8J;sll
TOTAL BID
Unless otherwise stated it will be asswned that the "Total Amount" includes both the removal of the
old bridge and the building and maintenance of a temporary crossing when required.
If contracts for Bridge Nos.__.._....., ........_._, __........_. ............... _._...____, .._.._....... .__.._......, ....__..._..__.
.-.--...-.-, -.--...-....., are awarded to the und1:!rsigned.........____...agrees to a decrease of__.._. % from the above
price for each of these bridges.
It is further agreed that for any increase or decrease in the quantities as shown on the apPl'oved
plans, and as shall be ordered in writing by the Engineer, there shall be added to or subtracted from the
contract price the following amounts, to-wit: .
Excavation fOl' foundations, per cubic yard - - - - - - Increase $.._.~~Q9____.__Decrease $......1.!Q.Q..._
Plain concrete, per cubic yard - - - - - - - - - - Increase $..?9..!.QQ..____.Decrease $.....~~.'&Q.....
Reinforced concl'ete, per cubic yard - - - - - - - - Increase $..M:.!.99.._....Decrease $....__J.~_t.QQ..
Reinforeing steel in place, per pound - - - - - - - - Increase $......!;Q.~._.._..Decrease $_...._m__.!.9.~~
Wood piling in place under footings. per lineal foot - - - Increase $__....!&~L.....Decrease $..__.......!!9...
Structural 'steel in place. per pound - - - - - - - - Increase $...._...!.~.Q_..._Decrease $..__.._._.tQ~..
It is understood that the above unit prices include furnishing aU materials (unless otherwise noted
above). necessary forms, falsework. coffer dams, tools, machinery and labor. Excavation yardage will
be computed on the basis of net area of footings,
-Crl!'C150k....c;/P/tOtJ ."7j"o..[7(~r {//?dl?/', /.;"O,.t/~'r,7$ .t . :I
PJe.'/eJ.'Y:.? *"_~~fi__ O~crec/.7d- -!50
~
~
.
It is further proposed:
To do all 4'Extra Work" which may be required to complete the work contemplated, at unit prices or
lump sums, to be agreed upon in writing prior to starting such extra work, or if such prices or sums can~
not be agreed upon, to perform such work on.R "Fotce Account" basis, as provided for in Section One,
Paragraph 33 of the Specifications. . . .
To execute the form of contract and to furnish a contract bond in the amount of the contract, within
ten days of the acceptance of this proposal, as security for the construction and completion of the work in
accordance with the plans, specificatIons and contract.
To guarantee all of the work performed under this contract to be done in accordance with the specifi-
cations and in a good and workmanlike manner, and. to renew and repair any work which may be reject-
ed, due to defective materials or workmanship, prior to final completion and acceptance of the project by
the Commissioner of Highways.
. iii"Q'Fb'" =~:~~ of once- .
To begIn work on or efbre....._..............__.....__..___., 192...___, and to prosecute smd work so as to complete
the same on or befol'e'''>>'~!;.~_.~m.__, 192.7.....
.
Enclosed herewith :find certified check in the amount of ...s_ftYan...thQ:!U'.e.ng...bQ_b.v.ruk'.~.Q.__....._._
---.----...____..__......_....Dollars, ($...7~z..QQ..{).o...___), being at least 5% of proposal, made payable to the
Commissioner of Highways as a proposal guarantee, which it is agreed by the undersigned will be for-
feited in the event the Form of Contract is not executed, if awarded to the undersigned.
Signed: .,.' ... . .
............ ...-.-...~~..jIJg..~.U.J~.Q.l!i!~__............__.._._..........
.........J~Y..L..~:I!~..!~~~~JJ......_._._.............._......___....
President &; l.Wla.ger, Manka.to, MiDll.
............---......c.f...A.~...~~!?P..f...~~.Q.~.Y.~..~_.~~.lil:!.~
!4"a.rlka. to, MiDJl.
..................... ................-.-.............. ..............................................------............................-................---...
" ..... .Qorps:>r.ati.on.. op.er..a.:\;ine:..under...t.ha...le.mLof'..J4ilme.aQ:t2.....~........_..___........._...._......_ ._......_...........__
.... -..................... ...... .......- -.. -..-.......... ...... ...... ...-............. ..............--..............--....................----............. .....- --................... ........- .............................................-....--......---................----............-....-.................-....-....
....... ................. .........-.... ....oo .......... ........ .. ............... ......._.....__...... ................... _.._.................... ........ ..................... ............... ............... ...._.................................... ............ ...................... ........................._.... .......................__..........._...__.
-..... ....-... ......... ........... ................... ............. .......... ........... .................... ...... ..........-............. ............... ......... ........ ..... .............. ....................... .....-......................................... ...... ..........-.............................-....--.................-
(Note:-Signatures are to comply with SectiohOne, Paragraph Ten of the Specifications.)
~
I
i
--~- - - i -{1 · L'''' 07' L..01:\C.l\\ \ U\,I\nt\I.o vI:.\. L\UI'\, I t\t(u ',~ r\u;)::'I~ . t; ......' '.~ . 1
~q4.1RANSVaR5e .. ~, .. ( .. .&'b~~i~~; i
~ j
t ~.. · i
,
. ti~5. FI..OOR PL.Att of 1"ttU&StES' '.,' .~':.. ':-':0'" I
. \. " .~ ~o. .. . .~":.. ,."r" t.~' '..~ l...~-t !
- ..." Nil (j). SOUTH ApP'~OAeM. .Corte.RE1~ GLRD ;:~~~ I
t'i ,. rt ' 1 . .,~. ~ .-/ ,.,.~ ~.....- i
." ~ . oRiK.... ,1~ If .~, .' .~, i '" tt'i};. ':>f.'~~} I
!
. . ' . ..~..1J;' "\tii=r--. ,,; .~t.. ,
: .. t'(C! 8 - PiER Ft 1 '; .,'\ '! ...." ~t I
t ~I : o I ~.J , .:r.~Vl' ..~., .... t
t\. 9 - ,t 11 a , ' .. ~}: 'd.".....:.:.t;,,~ i
11 ;.;. ~. _.~,' " ;.-;' ~,,~ .; I
--. N~to - t. .3), '., ,.",,1,0 ..'",,\
. . '.' t ., T';', .'~
, . . "._ ,If W! \I. .. #4. . 1 '. ! . . '}''ij-:,.t' --- t~ !
'-. ....,~ '. ........ ~. ,. '.' '~'t~.;.~:. .
"" .. N<! te - .. -Its,., O. . ~~":Z4:~ t . I
.... \ .. . . Ii' : I..... .",f.~~..;~<'; .,
....
" , .. ~ 13 - .. 1t(D " ,f , ~. ': ':":..~ .
.... ~... . ,~..~"" ;p. :i~' I
-- - . . .. "1'0 \4 - It 11 7 -( ~. .~ j, ..:I..." "?J.......:. ..
1 - N~ 15: 50UTH AeoTMEHT' ':.;:'. "''''~~J ~~~
~'\J " I
..... ~- - -. ",'- ---1;. : .'o.r t~ :':~'~'.~:i~ "'A' I
, " /1 1'{0.1("- t, .. I" . ...... '~",~'J'i1. . I
.... . ..... ,.."'. ,'~.."""'., ..
II N12 t 1 .... ".1', 4 l'~f: ,.~'t~'",,~* i
,}-- ~ . . ... .~. J".~ ;'I"'.~.l.'l." ~~ I
.. l'l' IS- l'lORT~ ABUTMENT ."~t'.;;~ I
~ t... , ~..~
.. ... \9 - ,~ * ," ......... ~ .~..~. ~ . .:j;' .
. . I . -\ t. :;;.'.::'~ '.~'1. f.
-- . , Of t'l,ca ao . to.. .J '. - ~ .'. "1.' >.... '- ',<~ :
'" I I " ~. ..10..1'_ -~ I
. .... " Ntt~l" LAMP ?OS,.!~ilii:ti;':. .;'
. , . t . ~.......,.. :; l J. j,.: i
. SURVey 5~EET . " ... ':',)J '';..':~~
--
:"'\1 ~ORVEY", PROF\\.l! . .:k~.. .y'" i.:.J
I <:) .' .. _k' "A ~
. , - . " ';:~e:}i+,:'
.....
-- "---"'-'-
. :"'\1 ':;UMMARY .OF QUf\K'T\"\.\E..o '.' ><,;:. ~i;:i~
~ FOR 6FuoaE .No.4\,. 5 :!.-..::;: ~\
t-"' ; , '" . ...;
COt-tCoRETE' \:e.:.a1a Mn<./ eS4Ss. CU)(c)~
" r e. '.3 .. .. '.~' '\85 ~.. :;\'~;'
. .. "9""'\ . .... ,
., lOr;,.
, REIKF~. <;''TEE. \.. .l98.0 to Les.
~--'-~-----1 5nwc:.'\. :f;"iEEl.. (EST.). , ~~. ..
j tLoge.\4Q' II' ~ \
..~t" , ~...,~
" 'j., .'.'l ;,. ..
Cf\~'\ S'VEE.\.. . Co ~.;toq,. .~. ~i
, to&&.i'.." ~!. .
I Cf\~'\ tRoN .~
, ~...
, "~O~'~'~~ :, 't
FORe;. triG ~ .',' (
. . _ _. ~~It \v'" .i.
P1LlttOt (C REOSO'TE.O) ;i~.~.ft ,.
i
. ;;::;:-.- ---- Pl\..\NCl -"'" '" ~9oo~'"''
, I'" . ~ "" ... ._. '. .. ,,\4:. '-. ...
"
:' L.. _"". i~;~: MISC. l'TE.M~ - SEE Pt.AN.S. : ,
.. :
. .
'lit' . :,. . ,. , .'
r" -~.- . . .. . - .'.' '..-.,'. '. .......:"> - .. of" i', ... I
........ ........., 't'_'. ........ ..'. .
I'e.,? ArtC~OR BOL TS 1'l6"L<l-. $'-~; . '~f: ;.; , .,', '. ' .. . r
'\. ....."""
. .. ,. .' ~"':"". r ; .'
. ~.(. I I : ~ :; I
. :?;:~ I PIER Ii!' iD .
,..: :,
, ' . ,
I .".. ~ \. .
.~. .. ....--... :'" \.
~ .- ,
'- lfl/l \.... -" ~
. .' "J
, \.~.: '.... : . -
, < -,.
j
.. f' .
a
"
~;'-:.i..~:.:'-';":'~~- /.., --~
.,,,,.:.,~ ;~.:O:'_'.' "";''''~'''':''-,,_'',,~>_''_' I,.-...\'., '':,' o:'c'
"
. ,'\
',;~
. ' .
<-'
.
Z
S
~
_.
. ," , ;;::;:,({~;:':,:: , :....
'i}';:i" ";:':','\,
"~' ,,' ',::t - .:':>'
~~.~~'~ '.' :;.~
dii~f~~i2~ .
\r)clCsj '<<8' i ~~ .
&Ll:i ~m ~ ~~ .
2': !l ' ......
, :t %0 Cl/ at ..... ll'!~
..~ ~ ~. t ~-
, ~~ .~ "'~ '
~'.~ ti" !Q l ~',
liIl~~~~~ '~~
f~Ui~~t! ~~
to ! ... ~ ~ ~ · ~il!
~!~~~ "
. ,~a
....U1 ~
-0'6 '
/
.I
~
~ t
~ ~
(\.l n:l ~~ .
/i..~
... '!' ~
t~~
, C\a t;'~
tL~stil.! '
,__. u,,,::t'
." ,-..__.. ~.Cl ' .,
, ':)( t t-~.,
Cl." ' ' "
~ t'~ ~ '
~t
~") --~
,~ tii ~ t:-
It Q:! ct ~
, ''S ~ ,>-. w"
S!~j~
,~i ~
tQ~~!
(i!'
'_.h^' ':' ~"
..'''<';
..
~
I
:~:~~;f::::f:;"
. l I
t'-. j lr
!
~ ........ , r-
~ ! -
""'l"
......
I
I
I
I
f
I
!
,
!
I
I
1
I
I
i
!
,
i
I
,
,
i
,
,
i
I
i
i
- I
.
.
,
~
I
t
!
.1
!
1
I
I
I
i
i
I
f
.,
i :
j
l
I
1
:
:
I
1
!
1
~ ....--.-...----...- ..- -..-..---.- ----,..-----...-- .. . / - .J
.1
I .. : I
.. ,
",.... ~ I '- .J
I .- . , I .-..3
I i{;-\.j . -.../ '-""
1 '-' .
. o' j - I - ..- ,. .......
~
.. -
:MINNESOTA mSTORIC BRIDGE INVENTORY l'
Bridge No.: Inventory Number: S C - 5 PC - tJ6 t3 .
004175
County Name: Scott National Register Eligible: Yes
Cityrrownship..: Shakopee I Critleria :
Township: 115 Range: 23W Section: 01 Context:
UTM Coordinates: 15:458215:4960869 USGS Quadrangle: Shakopee Period of Significance:
Retains Integrity :
Structural Data
Main Span Type : SuperStructure:
number main spans : 04 Substructure :
number appr spans : 04
st.l'Ucture length: 645.00 Floor/Decking :
deck width : 42.40 Other Features :
Historical Data
Year built :
ContractorlBuilder :
Designer :
..~..>.:
~.i
Stat~ment of significance :
Bridge was declared eligible by previous Determination of Eligibility.
References :
Form Prepared By :
Hess, Raise and Company, Minneapolis, Minnesota
.-- .. .. ._-----,.._...._~----- ~_.______~_____..._...~~~_,~""""".~""''''"....,_......'"''"7"._..,.~,~'"'"'''''_=",.,....,...,~.~'.......=._,-n=;o""""~~._~.-.....,"""
.
..
\
a
~
i::
~
..
~
~
lU
i::
.S
~
??
::
I:
~
a
~
l:
I:
..
.:3
~
.;
...,
0 ~
M
.....
M
.....
0
..
...
lY
.t:l
c::l
.s
~
8-
~
Eo-<
~
-a
i
ar
Q
~
'"
.~
~
,
,
\
: I "j rl t ..., ~~< I
:.. ,,, pI,. .. .1 . .._"i l
. ." ' , !/W I
. . I 1 .;$~,: ~
.a- : t ~i4~ f
..'S"":."{' .
:0\ l
_ -'1-"-... . "f~' !
.. ~ . ..,.~~.. ~
. , :1S(J!
- .~~. i
f -"~ \
... _ I ., 1 ".'1. !
-I I. :~. !
1 . ~7i I'
~~'i"
II, \~.
I r I. . ~i'T.:'
{J l'~r
I' '.':1....
1-' ' +, ' 'i 1 'rf.: I
+- I - ...\:....
I " I I '~~r.. I
- ;.... -I I '.h..~
I- t -'- . ~;t--~~ ~
I I' I ,t . ..~~ I
t I I' .It.:
, ,,;@ I
I I '!;If'
I ~~'i"
- - _ '~iff.f. II
.J.. 1 . ;.1:~
t '~1'
." , I '.11:.
~ I \' ~ I
. ]:1;; ,
.I . ... ..1f.'Ji: I'
- I' ','
....6 .. 1 I \W'('.
~~.. .. ,.\ .A"t;, I
I :...~ " ~~~~'.
, ~ I
..~. I
.-1-- .~
., ;?'. ".iW II
., .,... I -I- ....@i.
I I I "','.. .~
.. ;~- -' .,' ':Of I
of ... .
.. I" I
, i
I
.... .. ., I
; ,
- "
I ...
~ I . '..:~:~i
~. ~-l..: .: t:.
- I
., ,
:, " ";J
- " .: ~~
- n'
! ,I
., - j':f! i'~.....: ,
~ '
, I
7-: 4.
~.J....
, I
- ,."" ,.... O:!)I:)3iH' SVid1 ..' 0': 'eN
". .. ..-- ,. 5<1.1 . ..
.' ': ...:,... ,> 'I . ' . ,. 3J.ndl~ai llOOS 3.LON , .
-: :,i~.. .:~-:':.~:': : "':/'.~-:'~ .... .Ol.uo~d A3^i:inS
.' ~'. :;',~~':":::~i.v:i:t ;. ...fl..... iA.3AIot S 'VNJEllI:IO
"l.. .l !tl~t"!.(~;r-;f"}" . "I:" aLt'O'" .;,;.. ./' All
.~~~~. '~~~~Jf~:;e::' " '. :;:'\;:~~~{'i '. .M.' - . ::
,
I
I
"
'.'.'c_.,
,- . -. ~ I
, .
-..
t ~'_:
:-,,:';:'/~"~;:-::::: ,,~>::; :.:::;'f
'..',0 ,'_. ,"
, " ". .'.~
.-;,:......-.,"'.
," i ' "
'.- ' i
" '
.,
" ..
'_'-~_ .1..- n~ _ ~ '...
. ~~ ."!
< ,..
. ~ .
"::~:, .- :~, . .. .
f~:":ft'~:i'~f
" ,~,". ..;~~~"". -. .
'( ':~~;" '~\';>l:.
.
,0-
f
BRIDGE NO. 4175
j
SUMMARY OF INSPECTION AND
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR REUSE
AS A PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE
-
PREPARED BY:
Parsons, Brinckerhoff, Quade and Douglas,lnc.
Minneapolis, Minnesota
.
;;;;;: PARSONS
g ~= BRINCKERHOFF -
----roo April 2, 1997
,EARSe
.
-4
( TABLE OF CONTENTS
J
Executive Summary
Background Summary
Bridge Inspection Results
Piers and Abutments
Deck
Rail
Concrete Approach Spans
J Bearings
Stringers and Floorbeams
Trusses
{ Stairs
Recommendations for Reuse as a Pedestrian Bridge
Construction Cost Estimate
Appendices
Appendix A - Drawings, Sheet No.
Appendix B - Photographs, Pages 1 - 28
Appendix C - Bridge No. 4175 Railing Condition Report
Floorbeam and Stringer Condition Summary
Construction Cost Estimate
Appendix D - Underwater Bridge Inspection Supplemental Report I
Scour Evaluation
,
. t
,
;
... i
I
J
( EXECUTIVE SUMMARY i
!
t
!
t
I
Bridge No. 4175 was inspected to determine the scope of reconstruction required to convert the ~
!
bridge to pedestrian use. The bridge is in generally fair condition overall, however chloride I
laden deck drainage through unsealed deck joints and a large number of short deck drains has !
promoted the deterioration of some of the bridge elements. The detailed results of the !
I
inspection are summarized below. I
i
, The following portions of the bridge are typically in fair to good condition:
to All members of the center truss except the truss verticals adjacent to the deck joints I
. The upper chord, lower chord, diagonals and verticals of the upstream and
downstream trusses except the truss verticals adjacent to the deck joints and the
, lower chord members beneath the deck drains I
, I
. Most roadway stringers
. Most roadway floorbeams
. North and South Abutment and Piers 1, 3, 4 and 7
. Most ornamental metal rail panels I
. Most sway frames
:
. Concrete approach span beams
( . Roadway deck .
The following portions of the bridge are in poor condition:
. Piers 2, 5 and 6
. All truss bearings
. Some roadway stringers and floorbeams
. Lateral bracing
. Sway frames adjacent to deck joints and drains
. Truss verticals adjacent to the deck joints
. Lower chord members of the truss beneath deck drains
. Sidewalk stringers
. Concrete approach spans sidewalk overhang brackets
The following portions of the bridge are in critical condition:
. Sidewalk edge channels
. Steel truss spans sidewalk overhang brackets
In addition to assessing the condition of the bridge, Parsons Brinckerhoff was asked to
recommend strategies for reuse as a pedestrian bridge and to develop cost estimates for that
j;\projects\active\ 19016\reports\summary.doc 1
..
..
reuse. It was requested by MnDOT to consider rehabilitative measures that will extend the
( service life of the structure 30 years.
We recommend that the following work be performed to rehabilitate the structure for reuse as a
pedestrian bridge:
. Remove the sidewalk overhang, sidewalk stringers and channels and concrete
sidewalk.
. Remove the inplace deck. We recommend that it be replaced with a deck 32'-0"
-' wide and with a thickness of 6".
. Inspect the top flanges of the stringers and floorbeams for section loss after the deck
slab is removed.
. Replace the existing ornamental metal railing with a new metal railing of similar
design with an opening size that meets MnDOT criteria.
· Repair or replace stringers, floorbeams, truss members and bearings as outlined in
the Recommendations portion of the report.
· Repair concrete pier and abutment surfaces as outlined in the Recommendations
portion of the report. Apply a special surface finish to all exposed concrete surfaces
...: following the concrete repairs. ..$ / ~
· "Clean and paint all the structural steel wi~_~n_~~oveq eaint syst~rnr'--" ;91 i---"
The cost of the above work items is estimated to bl. $3,200,00'd This cost includes a
- i contingency of 15% to account for those small indi~EfmS that were not included in the
estimate.
The cost of rehabilitating the bridge can be" compared to the cost of removing the existing
superstructure and constructing a new 12'-wide superstructure on the existing ~stru~
The Office of Bridges and Structures has estimated the cost of that option to b~$1 ,OOO,OO~_)
. -{ ~" ' 1"'(\""
.' '-';J'
. ' L,,-
/ : c" J
,
l -..., '
//-1\/
)1
A
lr,,;(,
fj :
. ...;r
~Ou {t;'fb
'"-, /} }
\ j~
'1V
fV!
j:\projectslaclive\ 19016\reports\summary. doc 2
-' ~,. .' -.. <
.
.' _"..$f/t _",J:w.
It,.,,.,....
~ T..",.f./'-
I If r.......s.-
PloD 11"- '.T.6I>..., 1~'I'. '''6.1.1,.>
-
" ~=:::::....j.j.. -r -
I 0 !:
~ .-fo# LUY.11s.M
;..:>>v1'1f Aatn/Cltr
~ \ &uY.m....:~:::::
~ I .- PrlJr. ~ 1 r:'! ~UP: 1H~ .Eu~:-~:-i-::~:.;:~
i ~Y.. ~~t c:::.~ P7LlP t 'T -.,.. .u-~
,,-.- ~
PlrH ItP ." ! ::
:I. I l:: t
~ .. I
+; e ...
..,. '" .. .. ':l (f
~ .. ~ l olS ..
.1 .. ~ ~
.~; ! ! i ...
"t In\ ~.a.:.-~E"- '9 ..~ ,
- "-.lJ'..,:.....l-..N'". 3,);<1 --
i - - .-.-
.:_ Et.af'W'. "'S3.. w S""'MC I... i:~
.30 FT. "T. ST". 596..10
-- To ~HA/'(OPt:E
I
iT. I ! L . .i . .
.... , , . , . . ,
\ \ ~
C'.':.~.
i i:i ; =: ,;,
.t .' :;:: :::
( 1H ~ H ~ !l!
- -'-'r'-''-'-' .-:-~._.+- ::!~:~.~._. - -.
~ ~~!~ ~i~
... 1!: i ;.! I :~ ~
, . .'
'0 ~ w '~::lilil!)I\It;;\f:I~l
l. .. . .
j' T
I
h~(' e,.. ~",tn6
~ t L'J' .t.~ ~" t'\'l.~~Pl..-"tUYJltDI&~e..,.Pt.-
i I Oi i:h . It'>e'Smos~-r..-_,,, R....~
. I I 1 " ~ . ee!.t..~~1:C't1IM :ICID "rftlt1:":S
r:..-Hl.-------.-.~. . ll'4'1_ . . . ..-
I J ',:. . :.....
.1 +1+.5 t-~ .1 . tft5. f"~ P1.MI. 0," Ttto',sca
. 1196' Soot.. ^~- C-.:.un GnlDUD
. 11"-"(._ . - .
. tf'e.- Pn.,,"l
4' .: I I ~I - 1P'!t- . .e
"hi t J - 1\'10- - ."
- It'll!' - "4
I I In -;: - "'t! . . "$ ,
. 1l'13. "Co
HW-~-.--.-.~ . 1l'14- .,.
I I, ... I ..... : - 1l"'5-~1\_""'"
I L I I .~ ' .z - '",'''''' . .
. ntt,. . .
...-~ t.- . l\"ta- \ioJm< II"",,.,,,
,I Ii' - ",15 . . .
~I. 00
i! 1-1 1 1'.'1' AneHl ~3 : ':i
"'to- - .
- Il"?l . \.MoP 1'0nG
U! ". r~A"'K,T~ ~- ~uftVc.y !JKI.1.T
'tjT:;! .~ I ~;;! ~ I"I!OI'lU
I . 1+-3.-----.- -.---.3-J ~UMf'iII"ftY or QU"'KTl"t'tI:.6
I . I .... I ~...
I I' 0' . :J rOft e",OQ'l l1.,IfZ l"'i ~
I w..w ....> C-...,. t:t. ~ 1: M~!. .
I~'~' I - J:?'.~ - let .
I ' R'tlPWG. ~'Tll.~ ~.OtO \.es,j
I ~-_... --------~ ~T"1l<;T.~ tn.l t",.e._ 'l
I . . c,,~ Sntt.. e','TOO -\ 1
I c,/\'5'T lito", ~\
I I FeflG.u.:);, "'20 .
I PILL"C. (c.:R(a~1.C) = u.id
-.- f--- -- "1 i --- -- - PtLUG .,~...
r ... Ml~ tTb1l\. ~I.t; P\.A"~.
I. _-l'~
:::~.,.:~, .~.~ 'If.. "3: ~r "''f-''''' ,',..'. .:;>.,.........
I".'^nr.... ~.I.T.I:IO.I.4- 1....'.. .
'.
P!~1f tf~ Z .' P/EIf tf~ ~
-
-..-...
Tllu,"", lI",,,w,,"y N'.6
~T..Tt 0' 1>I'....c:=OT..
Dt""s"..r;l\T 01 HI....ltwAy,a
AN<:llOR aOL T Pt.AH.GEII~RAl. F'I.I.:l &. El.II'ATlOll
&Rlt'Cit lt941":'~
o,.n THe :oll""t~.. RIVlft /I:r .:l....,"".tt.~
.:I to. 1 T.IIOI'<. 1I.?3W. .
"A.C~.ot( iwP. ~crrr c."UftTY
"'PPltovc~;:."L_
~. ...' V'" .
I '~~.- . ..... o~"~:=4.,'
Ifl E tMC ft.,. 0......:7. F ~GJ~N/IIIY. .
~
->
, f . BACKGROUND SUMMARY
\
Bridge No. 4175 was originally constructed in the late 1920's. It is a riveted steel deck truss
(Warren with verticals). It is one of four existing bridges of this type in Minnesota. Due to its
unique structure type as well as its decorative rail, the Minnesota State Historic Preservation
Office (SHPO) is interested in preserving the structure as much as possible.
- In 1969 a deck reconstruction and repair project was performed. The reconstruction project
replaced the deck slab on the steel truss spans, repaired the deck slab at the abutments and
concrete beam approach spans, added a "J" barrier between the roadway and sidewalk and
replaced the steel floorbeams and stringers adjacent to the deck joints.
The steel truss spans were repainted in 1969. MnDOT records indicate that the paint system
, has a lead based primer and that the top coat contains lead as well.
I
In the years since 1969 numerous repairs have been made to the bridge in an effort to extend
its service life until the new parallel bridge was constructed. Repairs included concrete repairs
to piers and deck, removal of the steel roller nests from the bearings and a variety of steel
reinforcements to the trusses.
In 1993 a parallel bridge was constructed downstream of Bridge No. 4175 to carry TH 169.
Bridge No. 4175 was left in service carrying pedestrian traffic across the river. MnDOT is
currently evaluating turning the structure over to another agency for continued pedestrian use.
( Bridge No. 4175 was inspected to determine the condition of the structure and the cost of
reconstruction prior to that potential turn-back. To determine the scope and cost of
rehabilitation, MnDOT requested that measures be taken to extend the service life of the
structure 30 years.
Bridge No. 4175 is subject to highwater and scour of the substrw::tures from flood events. The
historic highwater elevation is approximately 721, which occurred in the' spring of 1965. This
elevation corresponds to the elevation of the bearings and the bottom of the trusses at Piers 4,
5, and 6 at the north end of the bridge. MnDOT has prepared a scour evaluation of the
structure which is included in Appendix D. We have also included the 1996 Underwater Bridge
Inspection Supplemental Report in Appendix D.
(
j;\projects\active\ 190 16\reports\summary, doc 3
.
*-'
, BRIDGE INSPECTION RESULTS
(
Bridge No. 4175 was inspected by Laura M. Amundson, P.E., William Kline, P.E., and Edward
Lutgen from October 21 through November 8, 1996. Ultrasonic thickness testing of steel
portions of the bridge and the chloride content analysis of the inplace deck was performed by
American Engineering Testing, Inc.
The truss structure, stringers and floorbeam framing, and piers were inspected visually by the
use of an underbridge snooper. Pier surfaces were sounded with a hammer to detect
delaminated concrete. The deck and metal railings were inspected visually. The deck was
sounded by the chain-drag method to detect delaminations, and chloride content analyses were
performed on the deck in one location in Span 6 and one location in Span 7,. Section loss on the
steel portions of the bridge was determined by the use of calipers, ultrasonic thickness testing
was used where calipers were unable to accurately measure the material thickness.
See Appendix A for plan sheet drawings that detail the inspection findings, see Appendix B for
photographs that show the condition of each of the elements of the bridge.
The inspection findings for each portion of Bridge No. 4175 are reported below.
Piers and Abutments
Piers 1, 3, 4, and 7 and the North and South Abutments are in fair to good condition. There are
some spalled areas and areas of delamination that were detected by hammer sounding. The
\ typical size of a spall is 2-6 tf; the typical delamination is slightly larger, approximately 5-10 tf.
The spa lied and delaminated areas are randomly located on these substructures.
Piers 2, 5 and 6 are in poor condition. They exhibit significant section deterioration and loss.
The concrete within the core is generally intact; however, there are areas of the south face of
Pier 5 with delaminated concrete beneath spalled concrete surfaces. Pier 5 has extensive loss
of exposed steel reinforcement section on the south face as well. Piers 2 and 6 have significant
spalled surface areas on the "curved" arch soffits of the pier caps as well as at the columns and
column bases. There are areas on both piers where repairs have been performed on the
concrete surfaces. These repairs did not bond and are delaminating.
The spalled and delaminated condition of the piers and abutments is a result of deck runoff
leaking through unsealed deck joints between spans to the members below. Chloride attack of
the concrete and reinforcing steel as well as freeze-thaw damage to the concrete has caused
the spalled and delaminated surfaces.
Sheets 1 - 7 in Appendix A detail the delamination and spall locations on Piers 1 - 7, the
photographs on pages 1 - 7 in Appendix B depict their condition.
,
Deck
The concrete deck over the steel truss spans exhibits transverse cracking over each floorbeam,
which occur at twelve foot intervals. There is wheel rutting and evidence of concrete and
bituminous patching of the deck. Sounding of the deck surface by chain dragging indicates that
10% of the deck is delaminated below the surface.
i
j:\projects\active\ 19016\reports\summary,doc 4
.
..
( The concrete deck over the concrete approach spans exhibits longitudinal and transverse
cracking with evidence of surface patching. Sounding of the underside of the deck indicates
that approximately 25% of the deck in approach spans 1 and 2 and approximately 15% of
'approach spans 7 and 8 is delaminated below the surface.
A chloride content analysis of the concrete deck was performed in two locations: Span 6 and
Span 7. The chloride content samples were extracted at 1" intervals up to 3" in depth; they are
analyzed to determine the water soluble chloride content in each sample. The sample
extracted from span 7 does not provide reliable results as the chloride content with depth does
not correspond to expected values for a deck of that age and chloride exposure. The chloride
content of the sample extracted in Span 6 is 2900 ppm, 1700 ppm and 1400 ppm at 0"-1", 1"-2"
and 2"-3", respectively. These values indicate that the potential for corrosion is exceeded at the
level of the reinforcement; 300-400 ppm is the threshold value for corrosion to occur.
See the photographs on page 9 in Appendix B for the typical deck condition.
Rail
The condition of the inplace ornamental metal rail ranges from poor to good condition. The
members comprising the rail are very thin sections; for example, the upper curved lattice work
consists of1 18" thick angles. There is deterioration and significant section loss on all of the
types of members that make up the rail. All of the panels on the bridge would require some
repair prior to reuse. The repairs would typically consist of replacing some of the lower lattice
pieces andlor the upper curved angle pieces. Extensive cleaning by sandblasting and then
repainting would be required prior to reuse as well.
{ The condition of the rail was documented and assessed according to the number of repairs
required in each panel. The condition of each rail panel is shown on Bridge No. 4175 Railing
Condition Report contained in Appendix C. See also the photographs on pages 10 - 12.
Concrete Approach Spans
The concrete approach spanbe'ams are generallY in fair condition. Hammer sounding of the
surfaces of both sets of concrete approach spans indicate that approximately 10% of the
beams' surface area is unsound and would require repair prior to reuse. The typical location for
repair is the bottom surface of the fascia beam adjacent to an overhang bracket. This is due to
sidewalk drainage running down the surfaces of the bracket to the fascia beam.
The sidewalk overhang brackets in the concrete spans are in poor condition, we therefore
recommend their removal. The concrete overhang brackets typically suffer from significant loss
of concrete around the reinforcement at the ends. There are areas of unsound concrete on the
sides and bottom of the brackets as well.
Sheet Nos. 8 and 9 in Appendix A depict the areas of spa lied and delaminated surfaces for
, each set of approach spans. Also see the photographs on pages 12 - 15 in Appendix B for the ,
general condition of the approach spans.
Bearings
The truss bearings are generally in poor condition. Their exposure to deck runoff has caused a
significant amount of corrosion and pack rust on the surfaces of the bearing shoes as well as
f the surface of the bearing pins. The original construction provided for a roller nest under the
j:\projects,,"ctive\ 19016\reports\summary,doc 5
,
~
I
,
. b,
,
,
,
f
'" t
..' expansion shoe, the roller nest has been removed (assumed subsequent to the 1969 deck !
( reconstruction) and the bearing reconstructed with an elastomeric pad in its place. f
i
Because the bearing shoes were constructed with very thick material, the loss of section from r
~
corrosion is not as significant from a strength standpoint as the loss of function caused by [
f
bending and warping between the truss members and the bearing. Due to the bending of the f
f-
r
bearing shoes and the corrosion between the pin and the bearing there is no rotation provided t
!
by the pin. Additionally, it appears that there is section loss of the bearing pins. There is a ,
!
concern that the capacity of the pin has been significantly reduced by the loss of section. It was I
!
difficult to access the pin to determine the condition of its surface and the amount of section r
loss. However, it is visually apparent that the pin is no longer functioning as it should and that a I
I
"cleanup. of the bearing and pin will not return its original function or capacity. The I
photographs on page 18 show the corrosion and pack rust condition at the bearings.
~
Stringers and Floorbeams [
!
The stringers and floorbeams are in generally fair to good condition. There are several r
roadway fascia stringers that exhibit top flange section loss. This section loss is visible from !
below due to rust staining on the underside of the deck. However, we were unable to I
determine the full extent of the section loss due to the presence of the deck slab. When the
deck is removed, the top flanges of the stringers should be inspected further to determine the
condition of the top flange and replace and repair if necessary. See the Floorbeam and I
Stringer Condition Summary in Appendix C for those stringer locations where further inspection I
or replacement is required. I
I
,
( The floorbeam overhang brackets, stringers and channels that support the sidewalk are in poor I
to critical condition. Most bracket bottom flanges exhibit 100% section loss in one or both
flange angles. The condition of sidewalk overhang framing was so poor that documentation of
the condition of specific floorbeam overhang brackets was not made nor tabulated in this report. f
There are various floorbeam locations that exhibit significant bottom flange section loss that I
I
occurs over the outside trusses' to 3'-8' toward the center truss. This section loss typically I
occurs in one flange angle of the bottom flange. Many floorbeams have 100% loss of one l
flange angle over the truss with four floorbeams exhibiting 100% loss of one bottom flange
between the trusses, typically directly adjacent to the truss. Additionally, several floorbeams I
have section loss in the top flange angles. As with the stringers, the full extent of the section
loss is unknown due to the presence of the deck slab. These floorbeamsshould also be I
inspected when the deck slab is removed. See the Floorbeam and Stringer Condition
Summary for the f100rbeam locations where further inspection or reconstruction is necessary.
See the photographs on pages 19 - 21 for the condition of the stringers andfloorbeams.
Trusses
The general condition of most members of the center truss is good. The center truss has been
sheltered from the effects of chloride laden deck runoff and, except for those members directly
adjacent to the deck joints, it shows only a minor amount of corrosion. The vertical members A-
1, K-6 the lower chord members 1-2, 5-6 and the gusset plates and bearings at joints 1 and 6
are in poor condition and exhibit section loss on those portions of the member adjacent to the
deck joint. The section loss in the lower chord member occurs only at joints 1 and 6 and does
not extend further into the member.
j:\projects\active\ 19016\reportslsummary.doc 6
+
">3
( The general condition of most members of the fascia trusses is fair. The fascia trusses have
been exposed to deck runoff from frequently spaced (31'-3") deck drains and the effects of that
exposure are significant section losses in lower chord members beneath the drains. The
section loss in the lower chord members occurs in typically three locations: at the joints 1 and 6
connections which are adjacent to the deck joint, at the midpoint of member 1-2 and 5-6
beneath a deck drain, and at the joint 3 and joint 4 connection which is also beneath a deck
drain. There are several locations of significant section loss in the verticals and diagonals at
the joint 3 and joint 4 connections, as well. The section loss in these members typically occurs
in the vertical angle leg at the gusset plate interlace, and/or in the horizontal leg directly
beneath the drain.
The additional areas where section loss has occurred are the top plate of the top chord member
adjacent to and possibly beneath the.floorbeams. The amount and extent of section loss was
difficult to determine due to the floorbeam flange and pack rust presence. These areas should
be inspected further during the reconstruction of the deck and floorbeam bottom flanges and, if
necessary, the plate can be replaced or repaired.
The photographs in Appendix B on pages 16 and 17 show the overall condition of the trusses,
the photographs on pages 22 - 28 show the condition of the truss members at several specific
locations. It can be seen from these photographs that the condition of the paint system is in as
variable condition as the members are. The paint condition on the center truss and most
floorbeams and stringers is fair to g~od, typically about 30% of the paint has failed. The paint
condition'on the fascia trusses is poor, approximately 50% of the paint on the top chord and
diagonals is failed with the bottom chord at 100% failed.
( Stairs
There are three stairs on the bridge. There are two concrete stairs at the North Abutment and
one timber stair at the south end of the bridge near Pier 1.
The concrete stairs on the east and west sides of the North Abutment extend from the bridge
sidewalk to the roadway/trail below the bridge. The concrete surlace of the stairs is scaled and
delaminated its entire length. We recommend their removal and the replacement of only one of
them. With the absence of vehicular traffic on the bridge, the pedestrian traffic can easily cross
the deck to access the single remaining stair.
The timber stair is at the east side of the bridge adjacent to Pier 1. This stairway was recently
constructed and remains in very good condition. With the recommended removal of the
sidewalk overhang, it will be necessary to reconstruct the top ramp of the timber stair to provide
access from the stair to the deck.
See the photographs on page 8 in Appendix B for the timber stair and access ramp.
,
I
j:\projects\active\ 1901 5\teports\summary.doc 7
.
.'
!
r RECOMMENDATIONS FOR REUSE AS A PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE
I
;
Prior to reuse as a pedestrian bridge, it is recommended that rehabilitative measures be taken
to extend the service life of the structure. The Office of Bridges and Structures asked that our
recommendations and cost estimates be based on extending the service life of the bridge 30
years. The following recommendations assume that the structure will carry only pedestrian
loads (except for the occasional maintenance vehicle) and that suitable maintenance and
inspection will be performed on the structure to extend its service live.
i
We recommend removal of the existing concrete deck and replacement with a deck 32'.0" wide.
With one foot wide curbs on each side, this deck will provide 30'.0. between gutterlines. This
width is more than adequate for the proposed pedestrian use. This deck width was
recommended because it provides a small slah overhang beyond the width of the trusses The
recommended replacement deck thickness is 6" due to the close (2'-6 1/2") spacing of the
i stringers and the limited slab cantilever dimension. See Sheet No. 11 in Appendix A for the
; proposed deck cross-section.
While removal of the inplace deck represents a significant cost to the rehabilitation of the
bridge, there are several compelling factors that make its removal necessary.
. The deck must be removed to repair the floorbeam flanges. It will be necessary to lift
the f100rbeam slightly to remove the existing flange angles and clean and inspect the
bearing area on the top chord of the truss. It is also necessary for the inspection of
'. . the top flange of the stringers and floorbeams.
[ The replacement of truss members, the bearing reconstruction, and the painting of
.
the steel will be easier and less costly with the deck removed.
I The cost of repainting the steel stringer, floorbeam and truss members is included in the cost
; estimate. Two options were considered, an overcoat system and a conventional epoxy zinc-
rich system. We recommend that a neW" epoxy zinc-rich system be applied to all of the
structural steel.
We recommend removal of the steel sidewalk bracket and sidewalk support framing as well as
the concrete overhang brackets and sidewalk framing in the concrete spans with the removal of
the existing deck. The condition of both the steel and concrete elements supporting the
sidewalk is critical to poor and the width provided by them is n~t required for pedestrian use.
The placement of strip seal expansion joint devices at each existing deck joint is recommended.
Deck drainage should be evaluated to determine jf drains can be eliminated on the new deck. If
it is necessary to drain the deck, the drains must extend below the lower chord of the truss.
We recommend that a new ornamental metal rail be placed on the completed pedestrian deck.
While the existing ornamental metal rail is repairable, it will be very costly to do so. We feel that
for a slightly greater unit cost a new rail could be fabricated and reinstalled on the bridge.
Additionally, the inplace rail does not meet the current MnDOT criteria for opening size,
rehabilitation of the rail to reduce the opening to meet MnDOT criteria will further increase the
repair cost.
! While the deck is removed, the following steel repair and member replacements should be
performed:
j:\projectslactive\ 19016'teportslsummary . doc 8
.
,~
( . Replace members A-1, 1-2,K-6 and 5-6 in each span of each truss. See Sheet No.
10 in Appendix A for locations.
. Replace both gusset plates at the connections shown on Sheet No.1 O.
. Repair, by the addition of steel plating, the members shown on Sheet No. 10.
. Repair the floorbeams listed in the Floorbeam and Stringer Condition Summary in
Appendix C by replacing either the top or bottom flange angles as noted.
. Replace the stringers listed in the Floorbeam and Stringer Condition Summary.
. Reconstruct each steel truss bearing to remove the pin and upper bearing shoe and
replace with an unpinned shoe that resembles the inplace bearing and an
elastomeric pad that provides the required rotation and temperature movement
! characteristics.
. Conduct an inspection of the top flanges of the stringers and floorbeams to ascertain
that all areas of significant section loss are repaired prior to placement of the new
deck.
. Clean and paint all the structural steel with an approved paint system.
In addition to the steel repairs and replacements, we recommend that the following concrete
repairs take place while the deck is removed. '
. Reconstruct Piers 2 and 6. The concrete removal and reinforcing steel repair at
these piers is significant and shoring is required of the adjacent spans while
( reconstructing the columns and bridge seat surfaces of these piers. See Sheet No.
I
2 and 6 in Appendix A for concrete repair locations.
. Repair the approach spans concrete beams at the locations depicted on Sheet NO.8
and 9.
The remaining concrete repairs and reconstruction are as follows and cant?-ke place any time
during the bridge rehabilitation.
. Repair Pier 5 by repairing the spalled and delaminated concrete depicted on Sheet
No. 5 in Appendix A. The depth and area of concrete removal is significant but does
not necessarily require removal of the inplace deck to perform.
. Repair Piers 1, 3, 4 and 7 in the locations depicted on Sheet No.1, 3, 4, and 7.
Make minor concrete repairs to the North and South Abutment.
. Apply a special surface finish to all concrete surfaces following the reconstruction.
. Remove the concrete stairs at the North Abutment, and replace one of them in kind.
. Add new ornamental metal railing to the completed new deck.
.
j:\projects\active\ 190 16\repor1s'summary.doc 9
..
'-,
<-
,
I
( CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE
Cost estimates provided for two deck width options. The recommended deck width is 32'~0"
with a curb on each side, providing a 30'-0" roadway width. The estimated construction cost of
that option is $3,270,000. Based on the interests of SHPO we have also included an estimate
for a 36'-0" deck width. The wider deck is not required for capacity but is included because it
visually replicates the inplace deck by providing a "shadow line" from the deck overhang. It is
likely that a thicker slab is required with the 36'-0" deck width due to the overhang. Therefore
- the deck slab concrete costs have been adjusted accordingly. The estimated construction cost
of that option is $3,300,000.
As a comparison to the costs provided for rehabilitating the existing bridge, MnDOT has
estimated that the cost to remove the existing superstructure and replace it with a new 12'-wide
, superstructure on the existing substructures is $1,000,000.
;
i
i ,
j:\projects\active\ 19016\reportslsummary.doc 10
.
.
I ; ., . ... ~ ..
..
.P
...
Pier 3 - South face
-
Pier 3 - South~ast
corner
j
!
,
-
j:\projec:Slactivel 19016lreportslpixt adoc 2
.
"
~
(
Pier 4 - South face
-
Pier 4 - North face
.-
j:\projectslacljvel 190 16\reportslpix1 adoc 3
"
'"
j
. Pier 4 - North face
;
-
Pier 4 - Downstream
face
~
!
,
.-
;:\proiects\active\19016\repoTls\pix1 a.doc 4
..
..
~
Pier S - South face
-
PierS North face
,
.-
j:\projectslac1iVe\ 19016\reports\pix1a.doc 5
...
Pier 5 - West nose ..
- north side .9
(
-
Pier 5 - West nose
I
i
-
j:\proiectslactive\19016\reportslpix1 a.doc 6
..
.~~
..
Pier 6 - South face
I
!
-
I
Pier 6 . West face Pier 6 - North face
center column
j:\projects\active\ 19016\repons\pjxl a.doc 7
..
.~
JI
! Timber stair looking
north - Geheral
condition
-
D'eck access to timber
stair
-
j:\projects\active\ 19016\reportslpix1 a.doc 8
.
,~ Typical longitudinal
. cracking - South
I , concrete approach
( spans
-
Typical transverse
cracking - Steel truss
spans
...tt#f;t~~i~":~2~
.z~-. "J'""~.'
tf.;-o:.~;.f").... ... ~,,,#,_~,.. a..... .._.,1;_."'1 ..~ J"':.;'-:'
.-
.r'<.~--;"'~ ..... '; '. ..' ......--..' - . .. . . ....
f!iiii~~~~:rj~:;;~,~~.:?' ....:~{f~~r:.:..~~~: .', . .-:.:
i:\prGjects\aclive\ 1 S016\repOMs\pi'1 a.dcc 9
..
#0
..
Inplace ornamental
metal rail. Note
condition code 3 on top
horizontal.
-
Inplace light post -
Note section loss in
adjacent top horizontal
tube.
i
,
,~
j;\projects\active\ 1 9016\reponslpixl a.doc 10
-... ,
",-:.. 1tWfr.. ..." "'..'.,;,., _,
-, '- - .. -.. - . -;
--- Il'l_' III! _ .'...
...--- '. -..' ..."....,
1..-. _ ., l1li' ...,.__.; _
..'. -_. -.,", .. .11'"
. -. ., ". I I
. ' .
.. '" I.
II _. _.' _ _ _ ....
" .. . -. .
. .. ' . .
.... .. I _ ....... .
' .- -I - __ l1li__
.. .o;::.~ . __'.
1 ....... ~..< .._ "'-'.,. ,. _:II
~. . ~
,1II!IBI!llM II1II .... . ... " Ill..'
' ~, -.. "-
I'III'!':. _. ...
' "...... , . tI . ;. "0.' ~ 'r-~
':" i, :. 1l"""'" .I.f. ~. ';~:.'.""/.' Y1.1. .......
· - - 'f _'.f '. I _. .'
% .'....,. /.. ;,......j;......;..'.;;;'..~.. :~!f.I~.11 ., ..' '.' .11_
L . _ ~.' ';"lIII'~..1i ~ I , IlL
- , , "" "- -'.. 'I. ... ' _.";, . _
" .. .'.-
' .~..."".. - I -. _ ~ _ .,.".. I
. .... --:.- . - ~I
· ......... - I. ....... .. II ..
I - · -.' .: - , Ill' _. IICaI U5,
... - . - . - .' _.', --- .....""......~.;."
I ...... _I- , __. .....,.., '.. " .'...
-', II ;_ _
.. ,.. - 6..,.~..-..'....".,J...........,.. II_~.. _
Iii. .. 1!j ", ,} ",_I .
I · - · 'C':1,' f;'i\5:~~'~
il .1 "t
, . , ,
. .
- , ,
.. ,- ...
. ..
IIIiIIII .. ..1 . !!:II .. .
- . ....'-.-
. ..... -.
--- . -.~. .
- -- . .-
. - --. .. .. - . -.
.. !!!IDI ~ _ _ I.
I 1.- .. --..... _ .. 'll." " _ . ,
1_- _... _.'
. .- --. -
'... .... · / 1II!II!I!IllIIIIlI
'-. ,..... ..... , ' --
II .' "'.' _ III "
· III' J't , .. ...'"
- " 1 _"","",'~.
..:- -.. "'--" ..
..
.. . ;;. .
. .
.
>.
..
Span 5, upstream truss,
joint at 3 -
Typical condition of
members and
connection below deck
drain.
-
Span 5, upstream truss,
joint at 4 -
Typical section loss in
the vertical angle leg at
gusset plate interface.
Readings shown in
yellow indicate a 35%
section loss in the angle
leg. ,
This location is below a
deck drain, also.
.-
j:\projectslactive\ 19016\reportslpi><2a.doc 26
" - '0.
~ . . .. . ..
..
Typical condition of .
..
lower horizontal ~"
members at various
locations -
Approximately 45%
section loss
-
Maximum of 50%
section loss
Approximately 25%
section loss
-
j:\projecls\ac~".\ 19016\reportslpix2a.doc 28