Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDocumentation_Bridge_Tab 06_04/22/2008MINUTES VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA VILLAGE COUNCIL WORKSHOP MONDAY, JANUARY 28, 2008 CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order by Mayor Jim Humpage at 5:47 p.m. A roil -call was taken by Village Clerk Lori McWilliams. Present were: Mayor Jim Humpage, Vice Mayor Pat Watkins, Council Member Tom Paterno, Council Member Dan Amero, and Council Member Calvin Turnquest. Also in attendance were: Village Manager Michael R. Couzzo, Jr., Village Attorney Trela White, Village Clerk Lori McWilliams, and Department Heads. OLD BUSINESS 1. Discussion on the Tequesta Bridge Mayor Humpage announced that input from the public and Council was needed on the bridge issue, and commented there were some options-the bridge had six spans, two of which had been replaced; so the two on the west and the two on the east could be replaced. Mayor Humpage referred to his notes from a prior meeting for the following options: (1) the bridge could be replaced as it exists by changing out the other spans; or (2) repair and raise it in the existing locations by capping existing piles so it could be raised; or (3) remove and replace it at the existing level; or (4) replace the existing bridge and raise it. It all came down to the cost. To replace the existing four sections would cost $1.4 million to $1.7 million at the current time-the cost could be more when it was actually done. The price to replace the bridge in its entirety at the same level was approximately $3.25 million. The Council had no information on what it would cost to raise the bridge either by increasing the pilings on the existing structure and substructure or to construct a completely new bridge with all new substructure and super structure. Mayor Humpage advised there were people interested in raising the bridge; 77 residents were affected by the height of the bridge. The Mayor noted his job was to do what was best for the tax payers. An engineer was present tonight to answer questions, and this workshop was afact-finding venture to exchange ideas among the Council and hear input from the audience. Council Member Amero referred to a letter dated 1216/07 from Kissenger Campo which quoted $1.4 million to repair the bridge, but adding the additional costs brought the figure up to $2.8 million. The bridge they had repaired in Pinellas County was approximately $2.8 million for 5600 square feet; Tequesta's bridge was approximately 7600 square feet, so it might cost more. No demolition costs were outlined; this was not a concrete cost--they had not included engineering or design fees which would be Village Council Workshop Meeting Minutes January 28, 2008 Page 2 approximately 15%, adding another $500,000. Council Member Amero commented it would be a huge cost to repair the bridge, and almost double to replace it at the existing height. Mayor Humpage commented the Village would be responsible for the water; they would be responsible for the cable. Council Member Amero noted there were a lot of additional costs, which would need to be budgeted, and it could take 5 years or more to replace it. Village Manager Couzzo commented he found the number hard to imagine, and recommended doing a hard analysis, advising that Brian from Bridge Design Associates and a gentleman from Kissenger Campo were present and could discuss those numbers. Council Member Amero responded there was no time for analysis, referencing a letter from February a year ago which expressed concern for boater safety due to falling debris, so something needed to be done sooner than later; the May report last year had noted five areas on the bridge that .were in severe need of repair, and time was of the essence. Mayor Humpage referenced a 2/21/06 letter from Bridge Design Associates which noted over the next 5 to 7 years the spans would continue to lose strength, so there was some time, but he did not want to get to that time--costs would continue to rise, and a game plan was needed. Council Member Tumquest commented it was hard to come up with a game plan when there was not a complete cost analysis. Mayor Humpage asked if money should be spent to look at other options. Vice Mayor Watkins expressed concern with the pilings; she felt the only reasonable reason to replace the bridge entirely was if the pilings needed replacement; or if someone could assure Council #hat raising the bridge would save them from the jet ski spray that was helping to corrode the underside of the bridge. There would only be one opportunity during their lifetime to do whatever was decided, and whatever was done should last 50 years. The Vice Mayor wanted to be sure they did the best thing possible for the Village and agreed with Council Member Turnquest it was incumbent upon Council to do their best. Brian Row, President of Bridge Design Associates provided a slide show of the existing conditions of the bridge. Mr. Row felt the bridge could be raised 1-2 feet and keep the foundations in place, but after 2 feet of raising the current pilings could no longer be used, and the configuration would have to be different. Anew bridge would be needed if it were raised anywhere between 2 and 5 feet. Council Member Amero asked for a cost estimate for raising the bridge between 2 and 4 feet. Village Council Workshop Meeting Minutes January 28, 2008 Page 3 Mr. Row explained to repair, replacing the remainder of the decks and some pilings, would be between $1.3 and $1.7 million -using $1.5 as a median - if they wanted to now take that repair and raise the bridge another 1 - 2 feet it would add another $250,000 to the project. Mayor Humpage asked if that was because the pilings had to be capped. Mr. Row responded there was a gap of about 12 inches between the bottom side of the deck and the sidewalk, which could be filled in and brought up to the height of the sidewalk with minimal additional weight to the existing pilings. 1-2 feet would be doable with the existing substructure and would range between $1-$2 million. which would mainly be labor costs. Mr. Row explained the spans that were already done had been designed so that they could be reincorporated into a new project. Vice Mayor Watkins asked if anyone was looking under the water at the pilings. Mr. Row advised they had not sent a diver in but based on his 25-year experience, typically the area where there were oysters or barnacles was the area of concern, and they had looked at those areas and found nothing that led them to believe they could not do repairs. The Vice Mayor asked if it would help at all with the issue of water hitting the bottom of the bridge to move up a foot. Mr. Row commented the water spray from jet skis was a possible contributing factor; there were now other materials to help with the penetration, and jet ski spray should not be the only thing to focus on in deciding whether or not to raise the bridge. Other considerations would be whether there was stopping distance, aesthetics, or whether a foot or two would do anything for the boaters. The effect if the deck were brought up to the sidewalk was discussed. Mr. Row advised there could be a more crowned bridge-the only restrictions would be sight and stopping distance. A higher hump would mean speed must be slowed; with only a one foot raise, the approach would be changed to counteract the distance, which would be an extra cost. Mr. Row advised he had addressed the bridge issues -there were ancillary issues; utility, roadways, slopes. To raise the bridge one foot he estimated 6-8 months total time. Repairing existing versus 2 feet would be the same with only 30-40 days difference if the stars were aligned and the right contractor selected. If raised more, it would have to be done span by span and curing time of 5-7 days for each pile bent changed would have to be added. Mr. Row explained that a scour was the amount of soil lost under the bridge due to the river flowing naturally or tidally; pilings created a disruption to flow which allowed soil to be washed down the river, but he had not experienced any significant issues. Mayor Humpage asked if the river was getting shallower, to which Mr. Row responded no, it was getting deeper. Joe Hall asked why there was discussion about raising the bridge; Mayor Humpage explained that Council was just discussing all the options so they could choose the best one for the Village. Village Council Workshop Meeting Minutes January 28, 2008 Page 4 Patrick O'Grady and Dave Thompson of Kissinger Campo and Associates indicated they had done past water inspections on the bridge structure and no problems with pile deterioration had been found below the tide mark. The amount of stream bed lost to scour was not enough to worry about; they had monitored the structure after the hurricanes, and the channel bottom had behaved well there. The slabs were critical. and the damage was due to the jet skis. Patches in general were over concrete that was corroded and as the concrete continued to deteriorate, the patches delaminated and deteriorated. Mr. O'Grady suggested looking to the Coast Guard regarding the requirements if the bridge were to be raised, and commented he did not believe the structure had ever had a full scour evaluation, and he did not know if pile driving records existed for this structure. Dave Thompson, Structural Engineer, explained that as a follow up to their inspections they came up with replacement vs. repair costs ($3.2 million to replace at current height based on DOT tools and on a similar project - a rough number that would need further refinement based on engineering studies). Council Member asked what the $3.2 million cost figure included. Mr. Thompson responded it was a rough number and subject to change- indicative of the bridge structure, approach road modifications, and seawall work that would be required, including new pylons and other components. In estimating the repair they did not use the most recent cost estimates, they had used previous similar projects to estimate costs for deck replacement, jacketing of the piles, etc. Mayor Humpage asked the longevity comparison of repair, changing out the existing 4 spans and the other elementary work, compared to the replacement of the bridge. Mr. Thompson responded that generally, new bridges should be designed #or a 75-year service life. Repair costs would be more difficult to gauge, but proposed for the pile jackets using the cathodic system that prevents further erosion. Cathodic piles were estimated to last 20-25 years. Council Member Amero asked if repair would change the vehicle weight that could go over the bridge. Mr. Thompson responded the current limitation did not require posting; once the deck was repaired the capacities would come back up. Life expectancy on the worst deck was difficult to estimate-there had been a problem with the one that required replacement and at some time in the future there could be a similar situation- that was a concern that should be addressed. Mr. O'Grady explained the bridge was posted at 5 tons which was done as a precaution since by keeping heavy loads off it extended its life. Mayor Humpage asked if the Village needed to concern itself in repairs that were done that were failing or if they were sound enough for a year. Mr. Thompson explained that was difficult to predict, and described how internal stresses were expanded. It was difficult to gauge how quickly it would deteriorate, and it was a concern. Mayor Humpage suggested having the police boat monitor it on a schedule. Village Council Workshop Meeting Minutes January 28, 2008 Page 5 Mayor Humpage asked why the rebar could not be higher up in the concrete. Mr. Thompson responded modern design had limitations, but the rebar was most useful at the bottom of the slab where there was the most tension. Mayor Humpage asked if the bridge were repaired, the pilings encased, and slabs changed out, if it would be a 25-year bridge. Mr. Thompson advised 20 years for the pilings but there were some things that weren't affected such as the depth of the piling. Also, certain design criteria had to be met with modern design that was not in place when the original bridge was constructed such as shoulder width, crash tested bridge rails, etc. Mayor Humpage commented he understood the new stabs that had been installed were 50 years longevity and they would be placing 8 more 50-year slabs and 25-year pilings. Mr. Row explained that for the pilings that required jackets, at this point the modern technology could predict a 25-year life on the pilings .that had to be jacketed. There might be a certain number of pilings that had a lesser life, and there were some piles that were not showing any deterioration, and preventative maintenance could be done on those. It was his opinion the substructure was putting it in the 30-35 year life, and the decks were the weak component in this bridge. Vice Mayor Watkins clarified total replacement of $3.2 million; asked what the repair estimate would be. Mr. Thompson explained the repair estimate was $1.7 million, and he recommended doing a more detailed study and comparing annualized cost of a new vs. replacement structure. Mayor Humpage summarized that they were looking at a repair of the substructure, replacement of the super structure, or replacement of the bridge for $1.7 to $3.2 or $3.5 million; then if they raised the bridge it would be an additional $250,000 for the first 2 feet- to go higher serious studies were needed. Council Member Amero commented Bridge Design Associates had recommended a piece by piece replacement and shutting the bridge down every two years to continue repairs, and asked if that was still their recommendation. Response was that report had been written under the assumption a replacement would not be done. In that case, every two years two spans would have to looked at and at that time they should look at the other spans. The deck slabs would have to be replaced entirely based on the progression. However, if the Village decided to replace all at one time this would be a one shot deal. Council Member Amero recommended sending them back to look at a couple of different scenarios: 1) repair at current and 1-2 foot height with the unknowns addressed (engineering, demolition, retaining walls, roadway approaches, design of drainage, utility relocation, design and survey, construction phasing, and permitting costs) and a timeline to do the repair and a cost at existing and at 1-foot and 2-foot height. He explained the Vice Mayor went to Commissioner Marcus and tried to give the bridge to Palm Beach County, and they didn't want it unless it was new. Village Council Workshop Meeting Minutes January 28, 2008 Page 6 Vice Mayor Watkins expressed her opinion there would only be one shot at this and felt it was incumbent upon the Council to come up with funding needed for a study of the bridge to replace it as is or repair, and going up a foot or two, and to be sure the pilings were safe. The Vice Mayor recommended in order to come to the best decision possible that the Manager be directed to provide Council with a study, which they were going to have to fund. She wanted to be sure they had taken the time to come to the best possible conclusion for the Village. Council Member Amero agreed. Counci{ Member Paterno commented even if the bridge were repaired the sidewalks would deteriorate. Mr. Row advised the guard rails, sidewalks, and decks would be included in the project. Regarding maintenance cost after repair-there would be components that would need ongoing maintenance-very 3 to 5 years it might cost $350,000. After replacement, the first 15 years typically no repairs would be needed Council Member Patemo advised his first concern was the safety of the residents and then cost; he wanted it done so that safety was not a problem at any cost, and noted it sounded like potentially the replacement could be the same cost as the repair wi#hin the first 15 years. Mr. O'Grady commented with many repaired bridges, when inspection was done they were still listed as functionally obsolete and that would probably be the case here because the original construction did not meet current standards. Mr. Row commented the repair proposed for $1.5 million would remove the clearance and barrier problems being discussed. Mr. Row advised it was unknown what the Coast Guard and other environmental agencies would impose for a new structure, and if the bridge were replaced it would expose the Village to a totally new redesign, Coast Guard issues, environmental issues, and water beds -surrounding bridges had had to -raise significantly due to these new outside requirements. Other issues that would have to be addressed included engineering studies, permitting, right-of--way acquisitions, etc. Mr. Row advised if the Village was doing maintenance and not substantially changing there would be much less bureaucracy, although the agencies would all have to be satisfied; while going to a new replacement could take 3-5 years due to permit issues. Actual construction could take one year. If doing a repair there were ways to structure the contract to minimize the time the bridge would have to be closed- bringing it down to months in lieu of years. Council Member Tumquest commented he saw an open bidding war between the two engineers. He was seeing punch, counterpunch versus repair and replace. Mr. Thompson suggested a study to determine actual costs. Council Member Turnquest commented that over a 10-15 year period, repair vs. replace came out to basically the same costs. With replacement, residents would not have to be burdened every few years; and he was concerned to inconvenience residents and businesses Village Council Workshop Meeting Minutes January 28, 2008 Page ~ with repair. Council Member Turnquest asked how long after permits were issued it would take to replace the bridge, and what could be done offsite to shorten the time. Mr. Thompson responded that new bridge construction could be speeded up by having new capstones in position; looking at the maintenance of traffic issues such as detours or staged construction; alignment of the bridge could be offset slightly to assist in the staged construction. Council Member Turnquest asked how structurally sound would it be to have one lane open when one side was being demolished safely. Mr. Thompson commented that would have to be reviewed through a study they would have to look at a post tension structure and make allowances, but it was important to look at this in engineering studies. Mr. Row clamed that repair of the existing bridge would not require any road closure and maintenance would be of the substructure, and it was doable to use one span only. Discussion ensued regarding power lines that could be a problem. Vice Mayor Watkins commented this could not wait five years, she didn't want to bet on the integrity of the bridge, because the Council was responsible for the safety of the residents first and foremost. Village Manager Couzzo commented if they looked at the replacement, everything done during the 0-5 years would then be thrown away, and there would potentially be some inconvenience. The analysis had gone from 4 to 2 scenarios and an analysis could be created to assist in a decision with shutting down of the bridge, cost of reassigning public safety personnel, the impact of it over time; and he agreed if this was done as aggressively as possible, it could be done in 45 days. The Manager commented they needed a spreadsheet of the costs and particulars, which staff could put together. Mayor Humpage asked the time frame to raise the bridge 2 feet, to which Mr. Row responded approximately 1 week per bend, so with 6 bends it would take an additional six weeks for cure times. Council Member Paterno noted that would add cost; Mr. Row responded the contractor should sequence it out. Mayor Humpage suggested working 24/7 to cut down the time. Mr. Row noted many things could be structured into the contract for contractor enticements. Mayor Humpage announced to the audience that the numbers they were hearing are preliminary numbers, and the engineers were not getting paid to be present hey had come from Tampa and were present to help Council make a decision. He expressed his thanks to the engineers. The Mayor commented there was $90,000 in this year's budget to do the design, and consensus was needed to direct the Manager to spend some money on serious engineering in order to answer all their questions. Mayor Humpage advised the residents there would be a time when financing would have to be considered and asked residents to let Council know what they wanted. Council Member Amero indicated he felt it would be premature to proceed w~h spending the Village Council Workshop Meeting Minutes January 28, 2008 Page 8 $90,000 #or bridge design, asking that the Manager first come back with two options- one to keep the bridge as is; the additional cost, and raising 1-2 feet. Mayor Humpage added that numbers were also needed for the amount of overtime during the period the bridge was shut down. Village Manager Couzzo commented there was an account with money in it which could be used for a cost estimate report, which would provide pros and cons for the scenarios. The Vice Mayor asked if the Village Manager needed official direction to use some of the $90,000 the funds for the study. Council Member Amero asked the engineers for an estimate; the Manager commented he did not think it would be a lot. Council Member Patemo expressed his opinion the Manager's office could supply a lot of these numbers. Village Manager Couzzo advised that his office was currently working with other utilities to relocate their lines and place them under the water, commented his office could not supply drainage design, etc., and .indicated he would like to use both companies. Vice .Mayor Watkins expressed her opinion the Council needed to direct the Manager to spend a dollar amount to provide a complete study. PUBLIC COMMENT Joe Baker, 73 Fairview East, asked why raise bridge at all if it did not buy anything but would just waste money; and commented Council should decide what was wanted and then go out to bid. Village Manager Couzzo advised that at the moment they were looking for help doing some of the estimating components for two scenarios, hiring professional consultants based on their professional expertise, that you didn't bid the dollars, you bid the professional qualifications. Mr. Baker commented if they didn't know a firm's professional quaycations they could go out with the same requirements for everyone to place bids. The Village Manager explained there was a State statute which required this to be done a certain way-an RFP for consultants was based on who had the best expertise in the area to do what was needed. Discussion ensued. Village Attomey White advised under State statute Chapter 287, the Competitive Negotiations Act, which applied to engineers, landscape engineers, architects, and surveyors, there was a threshold below which one did not have to use the practice; for example, if it was under $25,000 for a planning consultant one did not have to go through this process. The Village was at that threshold. They were looking for a little more information on whether to replace or repair. Once that was determined then the Village would have to go out for RFQ-Request for Qualifications--which a committee would narrow down and bring to Council to choose according to expertise in the field; then they would negotiate a price. If a price could not be reached with the frst choice, it would go to the second, third, etc. Attorney White advised she was hearing that they were not quite there yet and still needed information. The question to Council was would they allow the Manager to utilize some of these experts to get this information for him. The Vice Mayor commented that she had been talking about using funds for the study. Council Member Amero asked if they were going to pay each consultant approximately $18,000 to do the study; Mayor Humpage .reminded Council they had been adamant about having a second report. The Village Manager advised the cost for Village Council Workshop Meeting Minutes January 28, 2008 Page 9 a study would be much less. Mr. Baker commented he lived on the west side of bridge and wanted to minimize the time he had to go around the other side of the country club. Mayor Humpage responded if the bridge were repaired it would last 25-30 years; if it were replaced it would last 75 years. Joe Hall, 159 Country Club Drive, asked why they were talking about raising the bridge, and that this was the second meeting on the bridge and they were still at the beginning. The Mayor explained Council had requested another opinion; and raising the bridge was an issue of longevity which would create a 75-year bridge; to repair was only a 25- 30 year bridge. Brad Mayo, Bermuda Terrace, commented one of the main reasons people on the other side of the bridge wanted it raised was to accommodate bigger boats. The Mayor advised there were 77 taxpayers who had bigger boats. Mr. Mayo suggested having Martin County and Palm Beach County people chip in to help pay; and expressed his opinion that accommodating bigger boats would raise the tax base and the Village would see their $250,000 expenditure come back in a reasonable time frame. Bill Watkins, 167 River Drive, commented raising the bridge would lessen the damage to the underside of the bridge due to salt spray. Betty Nagy, Shay Place, commented since these people did not live in Tequesta it was unfair to raise taxes on residents for them to have bigger boats. Mayor Humpage responded that whatever Council decided was fair to their 77 taxpayers, if it were decided to raise the bridge that would also benefit the residents, then they could approach non-taxpayers to see if they want to help fund as long as it didn't inconvenience Village taxpayers, and it was not fair to burden the 3200 ad valorem taxpayers with what would benefit only 77. Council Member Amero advised a disgrunt{ed resident suggested making it a toll bridge for non residents. Joe Baker commented he understood the money aspect, and he lived on west side of the bridge and if raised it would be an inconvenience to him to have to drive around. Jeff Davis, 136 Gulfstream Drive, suggested privatization, charging a user fee to utilize, and let the Village make money off of it by leasing it out. Bill Hayes, 148 Gulfstream, commented he was glad to have Jeffs idea, and asked to have different structures, using different materials to make it more structurally sound, or even a tunnel, and suggested alternatives methods be considered in the study. The Mayor reported someone had suggested building the bridge somewhere else, demolishing the old bridge, and inserting the new one alt in one day. Village Council Workshop Meeting Minutes January 28, 2008 Page 10 Mr. Row, Bridge Design Associates, commented there were alternative materials but they had already been incorporated. The Vice Mayor commented they needed to be sensitive to the time frame. Dottie Campbell, 30 Eastwinds Circle, commented she owned property on Tradewinds Circle and resided on Eastwinds Circle, so she was 2 of the 77. She encouraged Council not to not change the bridge to allow more water traffic. Mrs. Campbell recommended using the money for compliance--she saw the young kids on their water craft without their safety gear. Mrs. Campbell recalled there once was a plan to have another bridge, which never happened. This bridge originally belonged to the county and Tequesta did not want it, but the county gave it to the Village because they did not want the maintenance. Mrs. Campbell urged everyone to show up and vote in the next day's election. Randy Crop, Turtle Creek, Martin County, commented he was a bridge builder, and explained that raising the bridge during new construction would not take additional time; raising during rehabilitation would take additional time. If the bridge were raised it would eliminate the jet ski spray problem. Mr. Crop cautioned to be careful on spending double fees because it was not necessary--competitive negotiations were needed. Council Member Paterno questioned if half and half could realistically be done, to which Mr. Crop responded yes, but costs would be increased more than 25%. He advised that getting the utilities off the bridge would allow construction to go much faster. Bob McClockling, Starboard Way, asked how much the longevity of the bridge would be increased with it raised 1 foot for the jet ski spray. Mr. Thompson responded there would not be a significant difference, it might improve, but it was hard to say. Brad Mayo asked if coating the concrete with epoxy would minimize the jet ski spray damage as opposed to raising the bridge, to which the response was the difficulty was sealers could retain moisture. Council Member Turnquest expressed his opinion a better cost analysis was needed on three scenarios: repair, repair with increased height, and replacement. Council Member Amero agreed with getting a better cost analysis. Village Manager Couzzo suggested the analysis cost not to exceed $5,000. Consensus of Council was to get cost analysis on repair, repair with increased height, and replacement, not to exceed $5,000. A break was taken at 7:55 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 8:17 p.m. No Text F' h. ~''~ h, ~~ r,_~ a p~~ ~y L 'i ~ m ~ 'i ~ 0 O ~ J N N ~ ~ ~ O .~ ~..'c.~++~ ~~ s~ ~~fl ~.\^~..y L ~ _ r+ ` G C ' ~ ~~ t `~x. b Jt ~ < y i ~ Gi~. ~'h T }'.t. !/~4µ Y 1 ~ 4~ /'~ 45..' '"~$ ,.•s ~ <~ 4) e ~ o ~ ~ ~° ~ - ~ ~ o CV ~- c~ O~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ c~ ._ ~ -: 5n~ a v z 2 ?~ s E ~I~I~I11 ._ m .~ C~ °~a> £, ~, . ~ ~~~ ~~ ~ ,~ ~~ _~ ~- ~. jy:.. ~_- fi is N ~' N ~ }i ?~ ~% ~.N c.-.~ ~;~~~ ~~~ ~~ ~~ __ . ~_..~ ~b, }: ~~ ,F1 3"~YE '4,1~.^ O ^ ~ W O .,~:s '~4PgQ/~ 7 ~ Sw' ~~.. u f~+ ,kA. e` 4~ M ~ 1 s7tt:: ~ ~ ~ ~~ `° ~~ fit; _ ;, ~.~I~I~~~~~ . O ~ ~ ~~ n~ W W ~~ ~~ 0 z `' '~, . ~~ „r, t" +~ ~'~~ Y ~y f - a~`3h u 4 ~4:. 4W E ~~yrR~' ~B~F L ~. ,~ -~ A!' ~ 4 Y t. _ ~. _'1 ~ ~ ~' , i I ~ ~~ ~ 4v t r €i J t' ~ k~ j F ~(. ~ :I{ ~_~3 g ~~~. ~ B~,E t '~' ~ti } , t ~~ 4 , ~~~ ' , }~a _ ~.~, ~'tp r ,fit, ,~ ~y; 4 ` ~' i b~~ ; ~~~ ~~ `i t~~.. -. ?~,% e~ ~ fa ~~ rev ~~~ ~y, ~€ .7 A y~'y i's~ y }~ i € ~ !9~ g-s,.n ~~ ~ ~.. O ^ ~ ~'~'~ 0 i ~:a ~~ ~ E%: 1 j ~~ ~.,rti'~~'"l J Y J ~' ~ K a ~ ,.~ ~ 4 If q ~ 4 ~ }~ k j F q, 4 {`,~~ -~.ili.. Yl ~ ` ' f ~ ~ ... Ir_. F ~- c ~ '~~ ' I. I dz ~~ ~ ` ~ . ~ ~~y~, ,' ~A X ~ ` ~ ~ ~ ~Ip i +- -b 3 Y • ~ r > ~ .,a` y ; ~ x ,~i ~~ .f, >~ -, ,,,~ I ~ ~ ~ t~ ~ .= ,~ le ,.~k.,~. .... '~~ ~ ~,e: ,x~ s~< # ~ z ~ ~,~ ~W ~tl S.i ¢.:_ ~,€ l' p .~, ~-l _ ~- ~~~~ °°` ~g~ ~"' ~"" ~E h` ~~ gg 'Ln~ ~~Ilii~l ._ O O J ''`+ 1 ~~~~ ~. a ~;_ ~~~: ~:~ ~'.' ~4fJ~-'. g ~~~yt }hf i C Y':: G,: fir', - P~~ . \Y ~~ ~, E ~i a ~~ r. _. ~.~ ~. ~-_; {.~ M1~~ =:~;, ~' g1i~~l~~l~~lt ya i cx ice, g„~~:; W ^ ~ O O r e' t +• ~ ,r~ ,~$,~* f~ „~..~..PA}.^~ 41I~1~ ~!i~~i ~n 5`F t`3 ;... ~_ ~~~~ >~.~~,. ~' r o< ~Y %~ ts. @. ~• R ~_ v ~~ -F.., N m W E_.i ''~ i V, call -..~ tK , ~aF~ M t L `9> Y ~ '{g~ '8 ~-:.,M l t ~~~ ~ 31~' ~, '~ a „_ -' °1 ~.:>~~: ~~~ ^ U ~-- v, 1w4 ~~ ~! (~~ ~~~~( ~~ 1 i°, tl} ~e~ ~~_g ~~ ~~ ~, $~' ~ _. °~, ~IIII~II ~~+ ~~ ^ ~ W n~ W :: ,~r: t ~~ z, a~~ } ,~ _- ~~-~, - <-a k t 3 h ~ G t y ~~~_ c _,.,.. ~~ __p. _. _._ ,~ ~ .. .{i ;~H k 3'~ +4~ f Yy_l :j,~ 1 r~~ t f k ~' r~ '~ ~, F ~i ~t ~~s ... ~"~ u- ~~~ ~ ~• ! ~ ~ F _ t ,' P ~~tj{)~l ~ ' I~ ~ 1~ ~3 ~ 'itl'. i. lid!` {.I-. ~.c~C,:F -r ~" ~ ~fi ~ ,. ~`.= :,.~• ~.,,~q r ,.,, ,, ~ ;,~ i~ ~ ~ ~ ri ~? ~ S l ~ + 5~'"~" ~ "'2' ~ ~P . t t ~ _ ~ ,~ t ~a -,.... b~:+a~~ i'y' k {~~ ~ 7~ ;~ ~~, ~~+ ;~,~.(tP, C ~F,. O T ~~ {l~{~~ ~I~ ~~I ~~ 1R# #~ ..1 r qg ~~ IIIIII.!ill~ O ~~ U O O z t i .~ xx. P F ~ t i` ,' ~ ~ ~ y r • k x~~ ~. ~;. ~;~ ,,~ ~' ~- ~~. ~~ ~~. ` ;~^, „ t~ o ~.a f ' ~' r ~ '~~ Ls ~'`'. 1 ri ~~~ ~~'. =~ r~?` 4 >Z -i~ ~~e' s ~y t~4 ~~ ~ ~ . @t f y ,~ ~ ~. ~ ~ Erb r a ~ ~ T ~ j. .`.~ Sy~e U>i, U ~¢ , _ MB. .._ ~ T T ;a1 ~.~: S C3II y~~. '~ r a ~( "j° X37 c. ~ 4 ~ ,. f 4 ~a,. ~ ~r)a,,,_ F ~4• PR~~ ~i: I .,~?' ~ l`~ ~- ~°~!~ Q q iy [~ ~_ a ~_R ~~ O U N +-• O D.. Q O Z -' sK i j r , ` }J 2. F- ,:~ a k k ~~ ` ~ ~ ~~~~i. ~ P1I ~~~ jl~ x;r~ ~ ~- c ~ Ni j aa' r~ • i ~ ~ ~ ~a-~~, , «~ ;, . .-!?., .. 'N T {(}F ~~ ~~IIIII~isEE!'.. ~r { ~~; ~~ .,~. ~~ ~ ~~_ ~_ Wit. .~ -~ wi ~~~ U 0 .~ ._. C~ Q Cn -~-.~ U O ~! l Y~ ~ xY ~n~ ~ o~ `~.. }fe-•..~ ` ",...r ...~ti'~1 M ,-- U ~I z~ ~~l~, I pt J ._.: ~~~` ~.~_ ~4 ?-_' '~ ~e ."' a'~ ~~ ~~ r_fi ~~.~ .~,. V C~ Cn .~ U O ~~~~ ~ P Ty t t ,t t t w.. ~£ .} 4 mayy.: fix. Z rzr ..uQ~R~ T U ': ;: ~, ~, ~ ~. ~.~ ~", ~~ ~ ~ Cz-q ~~,, ~~ ~~'~ ~~ ^ ^ ~ U s-s't.'.Q~ a J ~ ~'' rE, i ~~,~; x~ {": ', i .+ °"-. ; `'; ~it~€--.._ ~ -' P 6~ ~~{~ ~rl T ~~~~ ~<' ca .'~, y i1'I T~•. lil' `x,.~; ~:' i n ='~ ,~ ,rd t_}E i ~ .~ F ~,y t - a- ~ ~ a - -- i 0 ~ y ' `~~. ~ ~ ~ <al ,~ ° d alb a ~~ ~ 2~`a _ -_'~ ;-'' ~~ j ~. n $; ,_~ ~ ~ ~ 4-, ~~~rd~b r.. ~.x t~ -A. ~G 4[ ~ ~y .N t ~, i ~ y y aJ tl~ E ~ k' r. f 4 ~ ~r 3 t r,4 Z j. j ~'~4 ~ u y ~ ~ ~ y 2 i`f f ~ ~;~' r~, 7'~t= V t , fir" r ~~ i '~ S Y 5 ~ `~i ~ ~ i . `~ ;~~ ~~ ~`~ ;, t. t ~ p ~. 3 +,~ y } ~ ~~A` ~~ cl ul.~ 6f-y ¢~,% p ~~~ ¢ =~# g ~~ ,,~~ ~~ IIIII-~~iii ._ c~ c~ c~ a ~. i 1 .'P_ ~ `fir 9 4 t~ s. €i ~( ~Y4 \Y i4 ~: C~~ .e ~, 41 -. ~~ gg¢¢Cg ~I ~'~,_~,„ ~i ~' :,~(' ~'f ^ ^ ~ a '~ `" av.~ 1 T U`:' ~` ~ i~E ~ ~ "~' f:1 ~" ~~ to ~ :t: v ~II, -1--~ ~--+ ~~w >f Y~ 4( ~.'.'` O~Yr `y~nV , L~ T ~ yr`,„..ta~. Vii' .i~. ~~ ~ '` 1(t 3 ~r^ 4~ a~`` ~~ i @~ ~•~ ®_ IIII11il O Z ~ ~~ ~; ~{~ ;~ w .r ~, ~~ ~, ~. r`~~. ~~~'..~ r F` ~ N` ~i -~~ t !~ t qua i ~ _ ~ ~ -.* 't,-4 , f 7 '~` i ~ .. ~~ ~ ?"C ~ , ~•: , . ~ 3 .. VJ r I LV v~ {3 ~~~ ~_ ~~ ~ ~~ _ ~ ~-~ ^~ i z ~~ :~~ ~~~ . , ~~. ~ 1 ~ t ~~ ~~ ~ f t ~ ~ ~~ ~~~ ~Y~.. t ~ ~~ rE ~ , r E ~f~. Sk {~' d ~,. A f~ ~~ _ ~ _, r y, ~.;. i H.,}~. ~ .~ ~ ' ~~ '~ #'g~• ~~ I ~' { i ~ y,~ , ` P~' ' ~ ~ _~ , t ' ~~ 4 4y, 3 1} }. 3 .~ f~ ; . ~ F ~ :_'~ P -: 4 4 ~ `;3 ~9F~` ~r N Uri e~ G ~/ t~ csil ~j~~~~j i I( !i~ 4 `i. ii I~ ! _~ 9ii~illllll "'i W .~ .~.~J L~ O :. ~. ~~ ,' ~Y~ r.l 1 i [[ ~ ! ~ ~i ~ ~~ a4 , i `^~ ~~Y T N z 11 tst v ~~ -~ I O Z ~ '` ,; i ~~ s~' - ,. ~. ,...~. - ?~ f r~ y , ~ L ~ J y r' ~ ~/ ~~~{ k Y jw J- .t Z Y' '~ r. M ~~. :^ ! `_.~ , ' a: ~. ~ ~ ~ M~ • #~ ~, y ; ~~ ~ 'i ?~ r ~, (~h~~ R - C '`~Yi__ . ~ . ~ '_ t.. ~~ J T :~~ \':!. } yT.cp~,ur C~ dV'~: u ~t. ~~; N N ~~1I~''~~i~ ~ . i!~~ sir ~I v~~ F` !!.t _ ® ~ IIII~~~~ a~ ._ O ., we ~}~ ~~ :~ c~. ~~ .a ~~¢` ,~ N 1 E`.-'~. §8« w E(~ f~~ } ~~~~t~j~ ~ t~ ~i sus ~.., ®_ ~ I111Ii1~ O w 0 ~L W L jot r a .,t t``)w ~P \! t. x4'4 - U ~~' a ~~'? tL /iv``4 Rw s ~ , i 2 '~; ~~ - r a 1~t~ i ~ ~' ~~ 1~ ,~~ ~ } ~ i { j 4 3 ~~ i~ ` , ~ ~ z e N No Text Couzzo, Michael From: David B. Thompson [DThompson@kisingercampo.com] Sent: Friday, January 25, 2008 6:22 PM • Couzzo, Michael ' Patrick O'Grady; Dave Crissey Subject: Tequesta Bridge Inspection Report 930227 Hi Mike, The copy of the report I referred to in our conversation is not the most recent, but. should provide a good representation of the overall condition of the bridge. I just spoke to Patrick O'Grady in our inspection office- although we have some good field notes, the most recent report is not quite ready for distribution. I've attached a link to the past two reports in electronic format for your use. Please send whatever information you have available on the meeting location, agenda, etc. by noon Monday if possible. Based on our conversation, I'll be prepared to answer any questions on the bridge condition and future service life. Best Regards, Dave T. Y%r::/,~~;Ccif~9:i<CG C_iC~~~iilrl~e,~C~"'C%€a~~'JC1.C~7n~ITL~'' '-r:...~ . '-_~ c_ username of kcaftp and password of kca if needed ®avid 13. Thompson, I~.E. Kisinger Campo ~ (associates Corp. 2203 N. Lois Avenue, Suite 1200 spa, FL 33607 3) 871-5331 email: dthompson(c~kcaeng.com website: www.kisingercampo com ISINGER AI~iP® SSCIAT .. June 15, 2007 Mr. Mike Couzzo, Jr. City Manager Village of Tequesta P. 0. Box 3273 Tequesta, FL 33469 RE: Bridge Inspection Report Submittals to Local Owners F'DOT Local Government Consultant Contract In District IV Dear Mr. Couzzo: In our agreement with FDOT District IV, KCA is responsible for submitting the FDOT approved bridge inspection report(s) to the Village of Tequesta in a timely manner throughout the duration of the contract. The following is a list of inspection report(sj for your review: Bridge No. Type Insp. Insp. Date Dive Date Analysis Analysis Comment 930227 Post- Repair 2/14/07 Type Date N/A N/A N/A N/A If you have any questions, please e-mail (tlocicero@kinsin ercampo com) or call me @ (81.3) 554-1919, ext. 509. Sincerely, i //'A~ I ~Z~rr'Lv' G/'k , a l~l~r- Thomas A. LoCicero, P.E. Bridge Structures Engineer TAL:em Encl. Cc: Skip Ferrera, CBI, FDOT Consultant Inspection Contracts Coordinator Brian O'Donoghue, P.E., FDOT District Bridge Inspection Engineer Patrick O'Grady, CBI, KCA Bridge Inspection Supervisor File: 4200620.066 Brandon Office • 9270 Bay Plaza Boulevard • Suite 605 • Tampa, FL 33619 • Phone: 813/554-1919 • Fax: 813/621-8582 Visit our web site at www.kisingercampo.com FLC)Ri~A .~EP~oRTMEPdI' ®F 1"RANlSi'®h.. ATi®N SRI®CE fVl~-fVAC~Ei!liENT SV~TEIVI Inspection/GID Report (INTERIM INSPECTION REPORT) )GE ID: 930227 PAGE: 1 OF 11 DISTRICT: 04 Fort Lauderdale INSPECTION DATE: 2/14/2007 DPLW BY: Kisinger Campo & Associates Corp BRIDGE NAME: Not Recorded OWNER: City/Municipal Hwy Agenc YEAR BUILT: 1962 MAINTAINED BY: City/Municipal Hwy Agenc SECTION NO.: 0093000114 STRUCTURE TYPE: 5 Prestressed Concrete 01 Slab MP: 0.325 LOCATION: 1.2M1 W OF US-1 ROUTE: 00000 SERVICE TYPE ON: 5Highway-pedestrian FACILITY CARRIED: TEQUESTA DRIVE SERV TYPE UND: 5 Waterway FEA TURE INTERSECTED: NO FORK LOXAHATCHEE RIV _,i THIS BRIDGE CONTAINS FRACTURE CRITICAL COMPONENTS I THIS BRIDGE IS SCOUR CRITICAL ~' THIS REPORT IDENTIFIES DEFICIENCIES WHICH REQUIRE PROMPT CORRECTIVE ACTION `~ FUNCTIONALLY OBSOLETE iXJ STRUCTURALLY DEFICIENT TYPE OF INSPECTION: Interim DATE FIELD INSPECTION WAS COMPLETED: ABOVE WATER: 2/14/2007 UNDERWATER:01/31/2006 SMART FLAGS: 359 Soffit Smart Flag: Soffit cracked FIELD PERSONNEL / TITLE /NUMBER Botha, Colin -Bridge Inspector (CBI#00422). (lead) Carreno, Fernando - BI Tech REVIEWING BRIDGE INSPECTION SUPERVISOR OVERALL NBI RATA DECK: SUPERSTRUCTURE, SUBSTRUCTURE: CHANNEL: CULVERT: VGS: 4 Poor 4 Poor 6 Satisfactory 7 Minor Damage N N/A (NBI) SUFFICIENCY RATING: 32.1 O'Grady, Patrick -Bridge Inspection Supervisor (CBI#00274) CONFIRMING REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER: INITIALS LoCicero, Thomas - PE #31136 Kisinger Campo & Associates 9270 Bay Plaza Blvd., Suite 605 Certificate of Authorization #2317 Tampa, FL 33619 NATURE: DATE: ~~ 31~1~~ REPORT ID: INSP005 (condensed) PRINTED: 03/29/2007 FL®fZl®,4 ~EPi4RTMENT CAF TI~IVSF'®~.. ATI~N ERI®GE M/~t~i4(~EMENT SYSTEM Inspection/CI® Report (INTERIM INSPECTION REPORT) )GE ID: 930227 DISTRICT: 04 Fort Lauderdale All Elements UNIT: 0 DECKS ELEMENT/ENV:99/4 PS Conc Slab 7607 sf PAGE: 2 OF 11 INSPECTION DATE: 2/14/2007 DPLW ELEM CATEGORY: Decks/Slabs CONDITION STATE (5) DESCRIPTION QUANTITY g Repaired areas and/or potholes or impending potholes 7607 sf. and/or raveling or rutting exist. Their combined area is more than 2% but less than 10% of the total deck area. ELEMENT INSPECTION NOTES: Note: Roadway slab units in Spans 1, 2, 4 and 5 are numbered 3 through 9. Sidewalk slab units in Spans 1, 2, 4 and 5 are numbered 1, 2, 10 and 11. Roadway slab units in Span 3 are numbered 3 through 7. Sidewalk slab units in Span 3 are numbered 1, 2, 8 and 9. Sidewalk slab units 8 and 9 had previously been identified as 10 and 11. Due to the amount of text noted under this element, all comments can be found in the attached addendum. CORRECTIVE ACTION TAKEN: Slab Units 3-3 through 3-7 have been replaced and all previously noted exposed steel in the deck underside has been patched, but the patches are starting to delaminate. REPORT ID: INSP005 (condensed) PRINTED: 03/29/2007 FL®RI®~i vEPfaRTN11ENT ®F TRANSPOh Q ~4T1®N SRI®GE I!llAPda4C~EIVIEIVT SV aTEIVI Inspection/CID Report (INTERIM INSPECTION REPORT) _. _.DGE ID: 930227 DISTRICT: 04 Fort Lauderdale PAGE: 3 OF 11 INSPECTION DATE: 2/14/2007 DPLW Smart Flag Summary UNIT:O SMART FLAG ELEMENT/ENV: 359/4 Soffit Smart Flag 1 ea. ELEM CATEGORY:Smart Flags CONDITION STATE (5) DESCRIPTION QUANTITY 3 Cracking and efflorescence on the undersurface is moderate. The 1 distressed area is 10% or less of the underside area. ELEMENT INSPECTION NOTES: Underside of the slab units have extensive spalling with exposed and corroded rebar and prestressed cables. Refer to Element 99 PS Conc Slab for related comments. Structure Notes BRIDGE OWNER: VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA Note: Bridge inventoried from west to east. This structure is on a 12 month inspection frequency due to SIA Items #58 (Deck), #59 (Superstructure) and #70 (Bridge Posting) are all rated a 4. INSPECTION NOTES: DPLW 211412007 Sufficiency Rating Calculation Accepted by knkcabc-P at 2007-03-29 07:32:39 Note: This was an interim (post-repair) inspection. Only Element 99 PS Conc Slab was inspected and evaluated, and will be included in this report. For all other deficiencies, refer to the previous routine report dated 1/28/06. REPORT ID: INSP005 (condensed) PRINTED: 03/29/2007 FL .IDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION BRIDGE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM Inspection/CID Report REPORT ID: INVT001 A COMPREHENSIVE Page 4 of 11 Structure ID: 930227 DATE PRINTED: 03/29/2007 >scription Structure Unit Identification Bridge/Unit Key: 830227 0 Structure Name: Description: SPAN 1 THROUGH 5 Type: M Main Roadway Identification: NBI Structure No (8) 930227 Position/Prefix (5) Route On Structure Kind Hwy (Rte Prefix) 5 City Street Design Level of Service 1 Mainline Route Number/Suffix 00000/ 0 N/A (NBI) Feature Intersect (6) NO FORK LOXAHATCHEE RIV Critical Facility Not Defense-crit Facility Carried (7) TEQUESTA DRIVE Mile Point (11) 0.325 Roadway Traffic and Accidents Lanes (28) 2 Medians 0 Speed 15 mph ADT Class ADT Class 4 Recent ADT (29) 13486 Year (30) 2004 Future ADT (114) 23398 Year (115) 2027 Truck %ADT (109) 2 Detour Length (19) 3 mi Detour Speed 15 mph Accident Count -1 Rate -1 Latitude (16) 026d57'30" Long (17) 080d06'12" Roadway Classification Nat. Hwy Sys (104) 0 Not on NHS National base Net (12) Not on Base Network LRS Inventory Rte (13a) 93 000 114 Sub Rte (13b) 00 unctional Class (26) 17 Urban Collector Federal Aid System Y Defense Hwy (100) 0 Not a STRAHNET hwy Direction of Traffic (102) 2 2-way traffic Emergency^ Roadway Clearances Vertical (10) 99.99 ft Appr. Road (32) 24.6 ft Horiz. (47) 38.7 ft Roadway (51) 27.8 ft Truck Network (110) 0 Not part of natl netwo Toll Facility (20) 3 On free road Fed. Lands Hwy (105) 0 N/A (NBI) School Bus Route ^/ Transit Route ^ FL ,IDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION BRIDGE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM Inspection/CID Report REPORT ID: INVT001A COMPREHENSIVE Structure ID: 930227 Page 5 of 11 DATE PRINTED: 03/29!2007 >tructure Identification Geometrics Admin Area Palm Beach County Spans in Main Unit (45) 5 District (2) D4 - Ft. Lauderdale Approach Spans (46) 0 County (3) (93)Palm Beach Length of Max Span (48) 36.4 ft Place Code (4) Tequesta Structure Length (49) 181.1 ft Location (9) 1.2M1 W OF US-1 Deck Area 7607 sgft Border Br SUReg (98) Not Applicable (P) Share 0 % Structure Flared (35) 0 No flare Border Struct No (99) Age and Service FIPS State/Region (1) 12 Florida Region 4-Atlanta Year Built (27) 1962 NBIS Bridge Len (112) Meets NBI Length Year Reconstructed (106) 2006 Parallel Structure (101) No ~l bridge exists Type of Service On (42a) 5Highway-pedestrian Temp. Structure (103) Not Applicable (P) Under (42b) 5 Waterway Maint. Resp. (21) City/Municipal Hwy Agenc Fracture Critical Details Not Applicable Owner (22) City/Municipal Hwy Agenc Historic Signif. (37) 5 Not eligible for NRHP Structure Tvpe and Material Deck Tvpe and Material Curb/Sidewalk (50): Left 5.2 ft Right 5.9 ft Deck Width (52): 42 Bridge Median (33): 0 No median Skew (34): 0 Main Span Material (43A): 5 Prestressed Concrete Deck Type (107): 2 Concrete Precast Panel Appr Span Material (44A): Not Applicable Surface (108): 6 Bituminous Main Span Design (436): 01 Slab Membrane: 0 None Appr Span Design (446): Not Applicable Deck Protection: None Appraisal Structure Appraisal Open/Posted/Closed (41) P Posted for load Deck Geometry (68) 2 Intolerable -Replace Underclearances (69) N Not applicable (NBI) Approach Alignment (72) 8-No Speed Red thru Curv Bridge Railings (36a) 0 Substandard Transitions (36b) 0 Substandard Approach Guardrail (36c) 0 Substandard Approach Guardrail ends (36d) 0 Substandard Scour Critical (113) U Unknown Scour Minimum Vertical Clearance Over Structure (53) 99.99 ft Under (reference) (54a) N Feature not hwy or RR Under (54b) 0 ft Load Rating Design Load (31) 4 M 18 (H 20) Rating Date 3/28/2006 Initials JLL Posting (70) 4 0.1-9.9%below fi Schedule Current Inspection Inspection Date: 02/14/2007 Inspector: KNKCABC-P -Colin Botha Bridge Group: N/A Primary Type: Interim Review Required: ^/ Naviaation Data Navigation Control (38) Permit Not Required Nav Vertical Clr (39) 0 ft Nav Horizontal Clr (40) 0 ft Min Vert Lift Clr (116) O ft Pier Protection (111) Not Applicable (P) NBI Condition Rating Sufficiency Rating 32.1 Structural Eval (67) 4 Minimum Tolerable Deficiency Structurally Deficient Minimum Lateral Underclearance Reference (SSa) N Feature not hwy or RR Right Side (55b) 0 ft Left Side (56) 0 ft Operating Type (63) 1 LF Load Factor Operating rating (64) 42.6 tons Alternate -1 Inventory Type (65) 1 LF Load Factor Inventory Rating (66) 25.5 tons Alternate -1 Alt Meth -1 Next Inspection Date Scheduled NBI: 1 /28/2008 Element: 01 /28/2008 Fracture Critical: Underwater: 01 /28!2008 Other/Special: 01 /28/2008 REPORT ID: INVT001A S`-ucture ID: 930227 FL .:IDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION BRIDGE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM Inspection/CID Report COMPREHENSIVE Frequency (92) mos 6 Schedule Conti Inspection Types Performed NBI^/ Element ^/ Fracture Critical ^ Underwater ^ Other Special 0 Inspection Intervals Required (92) Fracture Critical ^ Underwater Other Special ^/ NBI ~ CUStOfil General Bridge Information Parallel Bridge Seq Channel Depth 7.9 ft Radio Frequency -1 Phone Number (000) 000-0000 Exception Date Exception Type Unknown Accepted By Maint 01/01/1962 Warranty Expiration 00/00/0000 Bridge Load Rating Information HS20 Govr. Span Length 34.4 ft L-Rating Origination Design Pians Load Rating Date 03!28/2006 Method Calculation AASHTO formula Load Dist. Factor 0.68 Impact Factor 30 Design Method Load Factor Design Measure English Recommend SU Posting 32 Recommend C Posting 99 Recommend T Posting 99 Gov FB Span 0 ft Gov FB Spacing 0 ft FB HS20 Rating 0 FB SU4 Rating 0 FB Present N FB INV Rating Factor0 FB OPR Rating Factor0 FB FL 120 0 tons Bridge Scour and Storm information Pile Driving Record Unknown Foundation Type Unknown Mode of Flow Tidal Rating Scour Eval Scour Susceptible -Low Highest Scour Eval Phase I completed 1 Condition', NBI Rating Channel (61) 7 Minor Damage Deck (58) 4 Poor Superstructure (59) 4 Poor Substructure (60) 6 Satisfactory 24 mos 11 mos 24 mos (91) Last Date (93) 01/31/2006 02/14/2007 01/28/2006 (90) Page 6 of 11 DATE PRINTED: 03/29/2007 Inspection Resources Crew Hours 4 Flagger Hours 0 Helper Hours 0 Snooper Hours 0 Special Crew Hours 3 Special Equip Hours 0 Bridge Rail 1 Concrete post & beam Bridge Rail 2 Not applicable-No rail Electrical Devices No electric service Culvert Type Not applicable Maintenance Yard 0 FIHS ON /OFF No Routes on FIHS Previous Structure Single Unit Truck 2 Axles 31.8 tons Single Unit Truck 3 Axles 33 tons Single Unit Truck 4 Axles 32.5 tons Combination Unit Truck 3 Axles 48.3 tons Combination Unit Truck 4 Axles 44,1 tons Combination Unit Truck 5 Axles 48 tons Truck Trailer 5 Axles 50 tons Posting Weight 5 tons Actual SU Posting 99 tons Actual C Posting 99 tons Actual T Posting 99 FL 120 Long Gov Span -1 tons FL 120 Trans -1 tons Single Axle Trans -1 tons Tandem Axle Trans -1 tons Wing Span -1 ft Web to Web Span -1 ft HS2p OPR Rating Max Span -1 tons FL120 Long Max Span -1 tons Scour Recommended I Stop scour evaluations Scour Recommended II No recommendation Scour Recommended III No recommendation Scour Elevation -1 Action Elevation -1 Storm Frequency -1 Culvert (62) N N/A (NBI) Waterway (71) 7 Above Minimum Unrepaired Spalls -1 Review Required ^/ FL .IDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION BRIDGE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM Inspection/CID Report REPORT ID: INVT001A COMPREHENSIVE Page 7 of 11 °`-••cture ID: 930227 DATE PRINTED: 03/29/2007 ents Inspection Date: 2/14/2007DPLW pan Id lem/E escription Qty1 %1 Qty2 %2 Qry3 %3 Qty4 %4 Qty5 %5 T Qty 0 99/4 S Conc Slab ~OS. ~~ ~ 7607 100. ~~®~ 7607 sf. Notes Note' Roadway slab units in Spans 1, 2, 4 and 5 are numbered 3 through 9. Sidewalk slab units in Spans 1, 2, 4 and 5 are numbered 1, 2, 10 and 11. Roadway slab units in Span 3 are numbered 3 through 7. Sidewalk slab units in Span 3 are numbered 1, 2, 8 and 9. Sidewalk slab units 8 and 9 had previously been identified as 10 and 11. Due to the amount of text noted under this element, ail comments can be found in the attached addendum. CORRECTIVE ACTION TAKEN: Slab Units 3-3 through 3-7 have been replaced and all previously noted exposed steel in the deck underside has been patched, but the patches are starting to delaminate. 301/4. ourable Joint Seal ~~ ~ 84 100. ~~©~ 84 If. Notes Note: Total quantity t•epresents the visible portion of the joints in the curb and sidewalk areas. Roadway portions are no longer visible due to the new asphalt overlay. Sealant within the sidewalk portion of the joints is completely deteriorated and in some areas they are packed with dirt and debris. Refer + to photo 10. The sidewalk joints show no significant change from the previous report. ) 331/4 one Bridge Railing 244 7.05 ~ ~ 120 2.95 ~~~~ 364 If. s+-•eS CS3= Most of the posts have delaminations up to full height x 8" throughout. In addition, the following posts have spalls with exposed reinforcing steel: Left side: Posts 1-4, 2-1, 2-4, 2-5, 3-1, 3-2, 3-3, 3-4, 3-5, 4-1, 4-2, 4-3, 4-4, 4-5, 5-1 and 5-4. Right side: Posts 1-2, 1-6, 2-1, 2-3, 3-2, 4-3, 4-4, 4-5, 5-2 and 5-5. Refer to photo 11 for typical view. The bridge railings show no significant change from the previous report. The approach guardrails were considered incidental to this element: The steel approach guardrail panels typically have minor dents and the timber posts have some splintered edges. Northwest guardrail Post 13 is missing the nut for the anchor bolt. Southwest guardrail is missing the anchor bolt nuts at Posts 1, 2, 4 and 6. Refer to photo 12. The approach guardrails show no significant change from the previous report. ) 204/4 /S Conc Column 21 8.33 ~~ 13.89 10 7.78 ~~~~ 36 ea. Notes Note: Only the outside faces of the piling in Abutments 1 and 6 are visible due to concrete added between the piles (backwalls were jacketed). Refer to Element 475 R/Conc Walis for any related comments regarding the two (2) support piles at each retaining wall. Due to the amount of text noted under this element, all comments can be found in the Element Notes section of the addendum. The following is a brief summary: Several piles have cracking, mostly as a result of corroding reinforcing steel. Refer to photo 13. FL .IDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION BRIDGE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM Inspection/CID Report REPORT ID: INNT001A COMPREHENSIVE Page 8 of 11 S•-••cture ID: 930227 DATE PRINTED: 03/2912007 ents Inspection Date: 2/14/2007DPLW pan Id Elem/E escription Qtyi °/,1 Qty2 %2 Qty3 %3 Qty4 %4 Qty5 %5 T Qty 0 215/4 Conc Abutment 59 0.38 25 5.4 14 14.22 ~0 ~~~ 98 If. Notes CS1=The east face of Abutment 1 cap has less than 1164" wide cracking that outlines a repair area from Pile 1-1 to Pile 1-3 and between Piles 1-5 and 1-6. CS2= Abutment 1 cap and Abutment 6 cap have intermittent horizontal cracking up to 1/64" wide developing within 8" of the bottom edge. Abutment caps have vertical cracks up to 30" long x 1 /32" wide. CS3= Abutments have other more significant cracking and delaminations as follows: Abutment 1 cap: Delaminated repairs up to 24" long x 30" wide in the east face at the haunched areas adjacent to Slab Units 1-3 and 1-9. Abutment 1 cap: Horizontal crack 4' long x 1/64" wide in the lower east face between Piles 1-4 and 1-5, which is beginning to delaminate. Abutment 6 cap: Horizontal and vertical crack 4' long x 1 /8" wide that starts above Pile 6-5. Abutment 6 cap: Spall wifh exposed reinforcing steel 40" x 10" x 4" bottom west edge between Piles 6-7 and 6-8. Refer to photo 14. Abutment 6 cap: Delaminated patch 1' long x 6" wide in the top west edge under Slab Unit 5-10. Refer to photo 14. The abutment caps show no significant change from the previous report. 234/4 Conc Cap 109 2.62 25 14.38 40 ~000~ 174 If. CS2= Bent caps have random cracking up to 1/32" wide. CS3=The following is a list of delaminated areas, most of which are previous repair areas: Bent 2: West face, under Slab Unit 1-2, 18" long x 12" wide Bent 2: West face, south end, (two) 6" x 5" Bent 3: Bottom northeast corner, 18" long x 12" wide Bent 3: Bottom face near the southwest corner of Pile 3-1, 18" long x 18" wide Bent 3: East face, under Slab Unit 3-8, 18" long x 12" wide (at haunch) Bent 3: East face, lower edge from Pile 3-2 to north end, 16' long x 3" wide Bent 4: West face, lower edge between Piles 4-4 8, 4-5, 6' long x 3" wide Bent 5: Bottom west face between Piles 5-1 and 5-2, 4' long x 18" wide. Refer to photo 15. Bent 5: Bottom west face between Piles 5-4 and 5-5, 6' long x 10" wide The following was considered incidental to this element: Some of the intermediate bent caps have heavy rooted vegetation growing on the ends. Refer to photo 16. The bent caps show no significant change from the previous report. D 396/4 therAbut Slope Pro 2400 100. 0~00000~ 2400 sf. Notes Note: This element represents the concrete filled fabric mat slope protection. CORRECTIVE ACTION TAKEN: All four approach slopes have been covered with concrete filled fabric mats. Grouted over rip rap bags at the northwest and northeast corners of bridge were removed. D 29014 hannel 1 100. ~0 0000~0~ 1 ea. Notes CORRECTIVE ACTION TAKEN: Lateral erosion at the southeast and northeast channel slopes was repaired during installation of the concrete mat slope protection. Erosion at the ends of the northwest and southwest retaining walls was also repaired during installation of this slope protection. FL .<IDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION BRIDGE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM Inspection/CID Report REPORT ID: INV7'001A COMPREHENSIVE Page 9 of 11 Structure ID: 930227 DATE PRINTED: 03/29/2007 cents Inspection Date: 2/14/2007DPLW pan Id Elem/E escription Qty1 %1 Qty2 %2 Qty3 %3 Qty4 %4 Qty5 %5 T Qty 0 359/4 offit Smart Flag ~~~~~100. ~ ~~~ 1 ea. Notes Underside of the slab units have extensive spalling with exposed and corroded rebar and prestressed cables. Refer to Element 99 PS Conc Slab for related comments. D 321/4 Conc Approach Slab 2 100. ~~~~~~~~ 2 ea. Notes Note: The approach slabs are not visible due to an asphalt overlay. Both approach slabs are outlined with cracks up to 3/8" wide. Refer to photo 17. West approach slab surfacing has a longitudinal crack, 8' long x 1/8" wide in the westbound lane. Southwest approach sidewalk has a diagonal crack 3' long x 1!8" wide, adjacent to Abutment 1. The approach slabs show no significant change from the previous report. Note: The approach sidewalk and approach slopes were considered incidental to this element. Southeast approach sidewalk has a fractured area with exposed steel, 5' long x 3" wide x 3" deep, on the outside edge at the end post. Refer to photo 18. Northeast approach sidewalk (new section) is exposed the outside edge, 17' long x 6" high. Refer to photo 19. Some construction debris has been left on the approach shoulders. Refer to photo 20. CORRECTIVE ACTION TAKEN: Undermining at the southwest and southeast approach sidewalk has been repaired. Fractured area at the southeast approach sidewalk has been repaired. Some of the vegetation along the approach slopes has been cut down. 475/4 Conc Walls ~--~-~ 193 5.39 63 4.61 ~0 ~~~ 256 If. _ _es Note: Total quantity includes both abutment backwalls and all four wingwalls, including the the two support piles at each corner of the bridge. Backwalls were jacketed in the past. CS2 8 CS3: The retaining wall caps have cracking up to 1/32" wide, some with efflorescence and/or corrosion bleedout. Northwest retaining wall cap has a delaminated patch, 6' long x 10" wide, located at the angle break. Northwest and northeast retaining wall support piles have up to 1/16" wide vertical cracking with corrosion stains. Refer to photo 21. Northeast retaining wall support piles are delaminated up to 3' long x 3" deep with corrosion stains extending up from the marine growth. At Abutments 1 and 6, there is concrete between the piling that extends down to within 8" of the groundline. Below this concrete, a ruler can be probed back to the original wall. The retaining walls show no significant change from the previous report. Total Number of Elements: 11 Inspection Information Inspection Date: 02.14.2007 Type: Interim Inspector: KNKCABC-P -Colin Botha Inspection Notes: Sufficiency Rating Calculation Accepted by knkcabc-P at 2007-03-29 07:32:39 Note: This was an interim (post-repair) inspection. Only Element 99 PS Conc Slab was inspected and evaluated, and will be included in this report. For all other deficiencies, refer to the previous routine report dated 1/28/06. Ins°ection Date: 03.08.2006 Type: Interim Inspector: 843 I_._~ection Notes: Sufficiency Rating Calculation Accepted by kn538p1-P at 2006-03-29 16:26:23 FL FDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION BRIDGE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM Inspection/CID Report REPORT ID: INVT001A COMPREHENSIVE Page 10 of 11 Structure ID: 930227 DATE PRINTED: 03/29!2007 action Information Inspection Date: 01.28.2006 Type: Interim Inspector: KNKCAET-P -Timothy Sweeney Inspection Notes: Sufficiency Rating Calculation Accepted by KNKCAES-P at 2006-02-24 15:29:08 Note: This structure is closed until further notice, due to the 100% corroded prestressed strands and permanent fracture in Slab Unit 3-7 at mid-span. Due to the failed state of these strands and the numerous exposed and severely corroded strands in other slab units at Span 3 underside, the NBI rating for Deck and Superstructure has been lowered from a 5 (Fair) to a 2 (Critical) during this inspection. Inspection Date: 10.26.2005 Type: Special-Nat Disaster Dmg Inspector: KNKCAPO-P -Patrick O'Grady Inspection Notes: NOTE: Storm damage assessment completed on 10/26/2005 following Hurricane Wilma. No storm related damage was found in the structure as a result of the hurricane. Inspection Date: 08.26.2005 Type: Special-Nat Disaster Dmg Inspector: KN853KR-P -Ken Reinhold Inspection Notes: NOTE: Storm damage assessment completed on 08/26/2005 following Hurricane Katrina. No storm related damage was found in the structure as a result of the hurricane. Inspection Date: 03.15.2005 Type: Interim Inspector: 840 Inspection Notes: Sufficiency Rating Calculation Accepted by KNKCAES-P at 2005-04-12 11:03:56 Inspection Date: 02.24.2004 Type: Regular NBI Inspector: KN738A6-P -Anthony Bibelhauser Inspection Notes: Sufficiency Rating Calculation Accepted by kn738vb-P at 2004-03-18 16:58:09 KN738A6-P inspection comments - Structure 930227 - Date 2004-02-24 - Inspection Date: 02.18.2003 Type: Interim Inspector: KN738WW-P -Wade Wolfe Inspection Notes: Sufficiency Rating Calculation Accepted by kn738vb-P at 2003-03-04 16:36:23 KN738WW-P inspection comments - Structure 930227 - Date 2003-02-18 - This is an interim inspection, only elements 99 P/S Conc Slab and 359 Soffit Smart flag are included. Inspection Date: 02.28.2002 Type: Regular NBI Inspector: KN738SH-P -Scott Hughes Inspection Notes: Sufficiency Rating Calculation Accepted by kn738ma at 3/7/02 11:45:19 KN738SH inspection comments -Routine inspection. Structure 930227 - Date 2/28/02 - REPORT ID: INVT001A . S'-ucture ID: 930227 FLT .0A DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION BRIDGE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM Inspection/CID Report COMPREHENSIVE Page 11 of 11 DATE PRINTED: 03/29/2007 rction Information Inspection Date: 04.11.2001 Type: Interim Inspector: KN738R0-P -Rick O'Connor Inspection Notes: Sufficiency Rating Calculation Accepted by kn738vb at 5/15/01 17:34:36 KN738R0 inspection comments - Structure 930227 - Date 4/11/01 - This is an interim inspection conducted based on SIA item 70 Bridge Posting being rated 4 or less. Only Element 99/4 PS Conc Slab and 359/4 Soffit Smart Flag are in this report. For a comprehensive list of all other deficiencies and recommended repairs, see the previous report dated 02109/00. The following deficiencies noted are not covered by elements in the PONTIS program. Repair recommendations for these elements can be found in the recommended repair section of the attached addendum. Signs- signs are posted at each approach fora 33 ton weight limit. The sign configuration does not conform with FDOT Standard Index 17357 guidelines. Tequesta Drive is posted at several points prior to reaching the bridge for "No Thru Trucks Over SOOOIbs. Net Wt". Inspection Date: 02.09.2000 Type: Regular NBI Inspector: 311 Inspection Notes: Sufficiency Rating Calculation Accepted by kn738dc at 3/1/00 11:45:20 KN738DC inspection comments - Structure 930227 - Date 2/9/00 - Refer to the attached addendum for all non-Pontis and additional element deficiencies and recommendations. ction Date: 02.24.1999 Type: Interim Inspector: 311 Inspection Notes: Sufficiency Rating Calculation Accepted by kn7381p at 3/24/99 13:33:04 Sufficiency Rating Calculation Accepted by kn7381p at 3!24/99 11:42:14 KN738DC inspection comments - This interim inspection is being conducted based on SIA Item 70 Bridge Posting being rated 4 or less. Structural deficiencies affecting the load carrying capacity were reviewed and will be included in this report. For a comprehensive list of all other deficiencies and recommended repairs, see the previous report dated 1/20/98. Structure 930227 - Date 2/24/99 -The following deficiencies noted are not covered by elements in the PONTIS program. Repair recommendations for these elements can be found in the recommended repair section of the attached addendum. Signs-Signs are posted at each approach fora 33 ton weight limit. The signing configuration does not conform with FDOT Standard Index 17357 guidelines. Tequesta Drive is posted at several points prior to reaching the bridge for "No Thru Trucks Over 5000 lbs. Net Wt". Previous comments > (none) Structure Notes BRIDGE OWNER: VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA Note: Bridge inventoried from west to east. Note: This structure. is on a 12 month inspection frequency due to SIA Items #58 (Deck), #59 (Superstructure) and #70 (Posting) are all rated a 4. F~®R9~ ®EP~RTMENT F TR~~~P®RT~aT~® BRI®GE INSPECTI®N REP®RT A®DEN®UM .- ~. _ ; CONTENTS OF ADDENDUM Location Map Photo Section & Sketches Weight Limit Sign Photos * Fracture Critical Data Load Rating Analysis Summary Recommended Repairs Element Notes * Scour Evaluation * This section is not included in this re ort. BRIDGE OWNER: VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA BY: KISINGER CAMPO & ASSOCIATES CORP. REPORT IDENTIFICATION Bridge Number: 930227 Post-Repair Inspection Date: 2/14/07 Bridge Name: Tequesta Drive over North Fork of Loxahatchee River Road Name/Number: Tequesta Drive Feature Intersected: North Fork of Loxahatchee River Critical Deficiency Statement: None Traffic Restrictions: According to the current load rating analysis dated 3128!06, this structure should be posted at or below the Operating Rating for the SU type vehicles as follows: SU-32 tons. This structure is current! osted for a blanket wei ht limit of 5 tons. Refer to hotos on a e 3. Page 1 of 13 F~D° '~A DEPARTMENT ®F TRANSPORT'^'`5N BRIDGE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM BRIDGE INSPECTI®N REP®RT Bridge IVo: 930227 Inspection ®ate: 2/14/07 LOCATION fViAP ~outn tievanon ~ B(i ~ o PoaucRD , CAai MiNe'z N.C G 'C N~ lffW-RD C1R ~ \V' p.` ~t` %ye, p\ A VO gl t CS CYPRESS CIi{_ V141~BE `sue 1$~~ RR ~ c Oc ~ z ~A Pazggale uaDan Q cep:m.a@aS' M1~•: b t^ P1~'Ct ¢ 14 SIAABOARD WAY ti o ~ OAN RIDGE LN ~ 4~ ~d `, GOLF PI ~ ~ ep BIGIM RD > ~ ~ ~ O m WILLOW RD ~ 2~ V_l. ST,lUDEDR ~. ~ A r ~ z %NE TREE CIR , ~ f £~p~NAV ~ GUIF CT 4 ~ y~ c,~ ~WESIWOOD AVE u - A7pLFA CI0. $ ,1c, l JJ 1 ~ ~Q g RQ ~ L IR TT"" ~ I O p. "Y ~ 4 ~2 z J.3U227 ~ MO ILY GR OA AF CT m WINDWARD AYE z ~ ~> T< w mTequazla vnlaq. or /Code Enlorumenl ~~ jp~R E9 o~ xg cpmro. o.ol x ~Galle76iille , - SE~ ~cCaMYz f Te9uGSPu mm P Raslauianl ~quD BAWIEW TER ~ s a ~ o CHURCH RD ~ ¢ q z ~ MIDGE RD I+ s ~ ~ ~ $ ~ ~ , ~~ ~ ~ RIVER DR BAYVIEW Ci ~ S ~ RIVER TER P FRANKLIN RD m ~ 9 } C ~ iRO ~ ~~$ N ~ ; ' ~ //yyam~ -Tf(~ k EWIN4SOR ~. Pon Origin ~~, ~ ~ RD YRD p :,: H ~BD WBfVERL ~ O ~ m ~~ EYEBALL VE ~G, ~ NORW ~ B ~ ~ 1 FRAZIER RD r ~ ~ old @Hi.-~,IS g "Qb $ ~ z < ~ ~ ~ V4,y ~ m T 1 m iSTq~ ~ m ~ I o~ < ~ ~ Q ~ POINT W E ~ ^' .,~ i Dale use swKd to k:ense. e ®ZDOa DeLarrte. Sired tales USA®ZN6. o wo 100p Idee www_Oelorrt2.cam IM (5.6' W! Dde Zoom 13-6 1 Cl.~UCJ Ld uL wer LvorLn r~orx or Loxahat chee River 12 Miles W/O US-1 Page 2 of 13 FI_®° '~A ®EP~4RTMEI~IT ®F TR~-NSP®RT~ ^''~I~ BRIDGE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM BRIDGE INSPECTI®N REP®RT BricJge iVo: 930227 Inspection ®ate: 2/14/07 POSTING PHOTOS ~ -~ K r F ', , ~, ~e x __. a Y, cwpacn : „~ r~ ~. .- ~s,~-: - ~` v ~ y_ ~~, I E f ,ss~ ~ B ~ r X ../ -~T` - pia} ~~ ...h! ' `4~E~HT _ .n.tl~AlT . < 5 ~~ - k ~ 'h p. ~ TONS. r~ ~is_': ~. __ V ":~ .~ , BRIbGE ~' OPEN - ~`,~ THANK90U FOR -,~~~~ -~.. ' :, YOUR PATIENCE - -~ ~ r __ vnu~ Avon u~o - `~ ,. west weight Limit Sign ~~. _ - /,j ~y~tgr U~ ~ X1;5 i SIC Tt~i~ ~ ~ ~ r.. k ~ __ / ~ ~lf_~~.I: ~~V --//' ~~ t: ~ ~k n ~,~~^ - ,~ 15I 4~~ THANK YOU FOR „ ,,~e -~~ v YOUR PAYIENCE ~~~``~'~°""°-` '~'~"' s~ vuLac ~ AHO ~ ~, ~~, t COUNCIL -~' r Srtry;~~ -~ Z n -> i d ~4-Ta Sb ~ 1 East Weight Limit Sign 4 ~`.: «I~-t " K ~~~~% "~" ; Page 3 of 13 I°B~tL '1~PV ®E P/`9f~ 8 Id1E1V 1 ®F 6 Ri'11tla7P®f9 1 ~ ^r'6d IFY ERI®GE FIflA-NAGEAAENT SYSTEI~i SRI®C3E INSPECTION REPORT LOAD RATING ANALYSIS SUMIViARY STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION D: LOAD CAPACITY INI+'ORNIATION BRIDGE DATA: Bridge Number __ 930227 STR Type Main [BID Item BI(43)] ___ 501 POSTING DATA: Posted YES 1f yes, Existing Restrictions 5T BID Item }l8(41) -- P - 3. ANALYSIS DATA: A Method of Malvsis _ X Load Factor ___ Working Stress B. Malvsis Svstem~ X BARS SALOD "BRUFEM Load Tat Other Other E. Controllin¢ Member Malvzcd~ Material: _ _ Steel _ ~C_ Concrete Cast iu Place X Precast X Prestressed Post Tensioned Timber Other _ S an, _ X Simple Continuous Frame Slab: X Non-Composite _ Composite 4. Load Ratine Summary Table: i3ridge Rio: 930227 Er~spectiof~ ®age: 2/14/07 Date _ 3/28/2006 Sl R "Cype APR [BID Item 82(44)j 000 Posting Nealed Restrictions AID Rem HIl(70) BID Item H7(3 I ) C. Malvsis Based Otr X _ Design Drawings As-Built Record Plans Shop Drawings X Field Measurernrnt ._----- -- -_ Catalogs _ Sample Testing -Other Function: __ X Slab __ Stringer Floor Beam _ Girder Culvert ___ _ Truss Shame: ____ - _ Rollai Built-up Welded __ Built-up Riveted ___ Box Shape AASHTO Girders X Other Voided Slab YES tf yes, Proposed SIJ-J2"i D. Dana Stoce<1: X Distract Office Grntral Office _ _ Microfilm __ Bridge Owner Materials Tell [ ab X Other K Dave Substructure: Brn[ Conswction Piling Cap Pier Construction ------_ Piling _ __ _ Footing _ __ _ Column Cap Impact Factor: 0.300 LOAD RATING SUhfMARY FOR OPERATING RATTING GROSS TONS VEHICLE TYPE TONS OPR RATING OPR FACTOR SPAN N°• SPAN LENGTH CONTR MEMBER M or V hLDF SU2 l7 3I.8 1.67 2 34'-5" GOl M 0.680 SU3 33 33.0 1.00 2 34'-5" GO! M 0.680 SU4 35 32.5 0.93 2 34'•5" G01 M 0.680 C3 28 48.3 1.73 2 34'-5" GOI M 0.680 C4 36.6 44.1 1.21 2 34'-5" G01 M 0.680 CS 40.0 48.0 L20 2 34'-5" G01 M 0.680 STS 40.0 50.0 1.25 2 34'-5" GOl M 0.680 HS 20 36 42.6 1.18 2 34'-5" GO l M 0.680 5. Comments - Member GO I is a prestressed concrete voided slab with a span length of 34 416 ft Member GO l has a large spall and exposed tendons Reductions for material strengths and section loss have been taken. 6. Computations: Performed By Jason L LaBarbera, P.E. Date 3/28/2006 Checked By Patrick Mulheam Date 3/28/2006 Reviewed By David B. Thompson, P.E. Date 3/28/2006 7. Responsible Eneioeer: Jason L- [LaBarbera, P.E. P.E.# 64004 Date _ 3298006 ~Oyooy ~/z9 /o~ Page 4 of 13 FL®~ '~~ ®EPARTMENT ®F TRANSP®RTP°'°~E~ 13R1®GE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM SRI®GE INSPECTI®R~ REP®RT Fridge Pd®: 930227 Bnspecti®n ®ate: 2/14/07 ELEAIIENT 6l~OTES Element Cate ory: 99 PS Concrete Slab (Continued) Note:. Roadway slab units in Spans 1, 2, 4 and 5 are numbered 3 through 9. Sidewalk slab units in Spans 1, 2, 4 and 5 are numbered 1, 2, 10 and 11. Roadway slab units in Span 3 are numbered 3 through 7. Sidewalk slab units in Span 3 are numbered 1, 2, 8 and 9. Sidewalk slab units 8 and 9 had previously been identified as 10 and 11. CS3= The following is a list of spalls and/or delaminations noted in the underside of the roadway slab units. All conditions noted are at or near mid-span unless otherwise noted: Several of the slabs in Spans 2 and 4 have diagonal cracks up to 12" long x 1/32" wide at the bent caps. Refer to photos 1 through 5 for views of below conditions. Note: All of the delaminated patches have moisture penetrating through them. Slab Unit 1-3: 19" x 8" delamination at the east scupper Slab Unit 1-8: 6' x 4" delamination along south edge Slab Unit 1-9: 3' long x 1/16" wide longitudinal crack adjacent to Bent 2 near the center Slab Unit 2-3: 9' x 3' delamination near the center Slab Unit 2-4: 8' x 3' delaminated patch Slab Unit 2-5: 7' x 3' delamination near the center Slab Unit 2-7: 3' x 3' delaminated patch Slab Unit 2-8: 4' x 3' delaminated patch Slab Unit 2-9: 4' x 8" delamination with an 8" x 5" x 1" spall with exposed steel at Bent 2 Slab Unit 2-8: 13' x 6" delamination south edge from mid-span toward Bent 3 Slab Unit 4-3: 18' x 3' delaminated patch Slab Unit 4-9: 5' x 3' delaminated patch Slab Unit 4-5: 5' x 3' delaminated patch Slab Unit 4-6: 5' x 2.5' delamination near the center Slab Unit 4-7: 4' x 3.5' delaminated patch Slab Unit 4-8: 16' x 2' delaminated patch and delamination Slab Unit 4-9: 3' x 16" delamination along south edge at Bent 4 cap and a 12' x 12" delamination at center Page 5 of 13 FI~C" ~~ ®EPARTMENT ®F TRAI'~SP®RT~ --'®N 13RI®GE iv1~41NAGEi~ENT SYSTEflfl 13R1®GE INSPECT!®N REP®RT ~riclge No: 930227 Inspection ®ate< 2/14/07 ELEfiAENT NOTES Element Cate ory: 99 PS Concrete Slab (Continued) Slab Unit 5-3: 3' x 1' delamination along south edge and intermittent span length x 8" delamination along north edge Slab Unit 5-4: Intermittent span length x 8" delamination along north edge; 8' x 1' delamination along south edge Slab Unit 5-9: 6' x 14" delamination along south edge at 2/3 point and 5' x 12" delamination at Bent 5 Underside of the 1' wide cast-in-place curb section in Spans 1, 2, 4 and 5 typically has significant cracking, delaminations (unsound concrete), or spalling as a result of ,corroding reinforcing steel. In some cases, the delaminations or spalling extends 3/4 of the span length. Refer to photos 6 and 7. The metal utility conduits attached to the north overhang are heavily corroded with several areas completely corroded through, exposing the plastic coated cables within. Refer to photo 8. Traffic face of the curbs in Spans 1, 2, 4 acid 5 have longitudinal ("horizontal} cracks up to 1/16" wide and several delaminations with and without corrosion staining in areas throughout. Top of the sidewalks have numerous shallow spans and delaminations with and without exposed reinforcing steel. Refer to photo 9. The following is a list of top side sidewalk deficiencies: Span 1: North sidewalk adjacent to Abutment 1 has a delaminated repair 6' x 4' Span l: North sidewalk adjacent to Bent 2 has a delaminated repair 18' x 3' Span 1: North sidewalk under utility pipe at mid-span has two (2) spans with exposed steel 18" x 4" x 3/4" Span 1: South sidewalk adjacent to Bent 2 has four (4) delaminations and spans with exposed steel up to 5" x 3' x 3/9" Span 2: North sidewalk adjacent to curb at Bent 2 has a delamination 17" x 4" Span 2: North sidewalk under utility at 3/4 point has a spa11 with exposed steel 5" x 4' x 1" Span 2: South sidewalk adjacent to curb has an intermittent delamination and span with exposed steel 25' x 5" x 1/2" Span 3: South sidewalk adjacent to curb, 8' & 16' from Bent 3, has two (2) delaminations with exposed steel up to 7" x 3" x 1/2" (popouts). Other minor spans with no exposed steel exist along new curb. Span 3: South sidewalk has longitudinal cracks up to 1/32" wide and minor spans with no exposed steel along new curb. Page 6 of 13 ~~~" '°~A ®EPA-RTflAENT ®F TR,~NSP®RTP -°®N BRIDGE iYIANAGEflAENT SYSTER~ SRI®d3E BR9SPECTI®i~ REP®RT fridge i~o: 930227 inspection ®ate> 2/14/07 ELEMENT NOTES Element Cate ory: 99 PS Concrete Slab (Continued) Span 4: South sidewalk has longitudinal cracks up to 1/32" wide Span 4: South sidewalk adjacent to curb has a spalled and delaminated area with exposed steel and corrosion stains 25' x 6" x 1/2" Span 5: South sidewalk has longitudinal cracks up to 1/32" wide Span 5: North sidewalk, 4' from Bent 5, has a spalled and delaminated area with exposed steel and corrosion stains 16" x 4" x 1/2" The following is a list of deficiencies noted in the underside of the sidewalks: Slab Unit 3-l: At 1/2 point, delamination with corrosion stains up to 3' x 12" wide Slab Unit 3-9: South edge at 1/2 point crack/span/delamination 12' long x 1/32" wide (span 4' x 3' x 2" deep) Slab Unit 4-l: At Bent 5, delaminations 3' x 1' and 7' x 16" at centerline Slab Unit 4-10: At 1/2 and 3/4 points, two (2) delaminations each up to 3' x 1' Page 7 of 13 FL®° -°7A DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT`-'ON BRIDGE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM BRIDGE INSPECTION REPORT Bridge lilo: 930227 Inspection Date: 2/14/07 PHOTO SECTIOiV ____ ______ _ ,.,,,,, ~ v vciauuti4LCU yaLCiieS Page 8 of 13 ~- .~ _ FL®" `7e4 DEPARTIrliENT OF TR~4PdSPORT~' ~~1~ BRIDGE flAA1VAGEllAEIVT S1fSTEflA FRIDGE INSPECTIORI REPORT' PHOTO SECTION 13ric9ge Flo: 930227 Inspection ®ate: 2/14/07 Page 9 of 13 FL®''7A DEPARTIl~EidT OF TRANSPORTd-'®f~ BRIDGE iVIANAGEflAEPlT SYSTEflA BRIDGE BfVSPECTIOIV REPORT Bridge No: 930227 Inspection ®ate: 2/14/07 PHOTO SECTION ,~.. ' ~, + I'`~ ~- ~.: Photo #5 #~.t -, %. :C Element 99 Slab Unit. 9-5 - and 9-5 delaminated patches Page 10 of 13 riic~w Ito ~.lemenL yy - ~1~ypical underside of cast-in-place curb section showing delaminated patch FL®' °-A DEPARTMENT ®F TRANSP®RT~' _°~~ BRIDGE MANAGEMENT SYSTEf~ BRIDGE 1NSPEarTI®N REP®RT Bridge No: 930227 Inspection ®ate: 2/14/07 Photo #7 Element yy - •i•ypicai underside of cast-in-place curb section showing delaminated patch ~. '`:r. Page 11 of 13 rno~o ~o dement yy - Typical view of heavily corroded utility conduits on the north side of the bridge FIe®^'~5A ®EPARTMENT ®F TRANSP®RT~' _°®~9 SRI®GE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM ERI®GE ANSPEGTi®N REP®RT S~icJge Igo: 930227 Inspec4ion ®ate: 2/14/07 PHOTO SECTIOR~ ~, ~~. ~~ ~ , ° r 1w__ _ .-:. Photo #9 Element 99 - North sidewalk in Span 1 showing spalls with exposed reinforcing steel Page 12 of 13 pia®" `~~ ®EPAI~TflfIEi~T ®F TRAPiSP®R~~' ~°~ BRi®GE NIAfVAGEnAEfV'T SYSTEM i3RB®GE @~BSPECTI®N REP®RT i3rit9ge iVo: 930227 &easpection ®at~: 2/14/07 RECOi~lVIViEIVDED REP/~IRS Element Category: 99 PS Concrete Slab xepair all aelaminated (unsound) and spalled concrete throughout the underside of the bridge. This includes all delaminated areas and patches, and spalls in the slab unit underside and underside of cast-in-place curb section. Clean and paint the utility conduits along the north side of the bridge. Repair all top of sidewalk delaminations and spalls. Repair underside of sidewalk-spalls in Slab Units 3-]-, 3-9, 4-1 and 4-10. Page 13 of 13 No Text Memo 1~®: IVlayor/Council From: nAichael R. Couzzo, Jr._~-~,.~ ®ate: 5/21 /2007 Rte: Engineering Status Report and Recommendations for the Tequesta Drive Bridge Attached please find a copy of Bridge Design Associates, Inc. assessment report and recommendations for the Tequesta Drive Bridge. This report is submitted for your review and consideration. I believe this subject may be appropriate for discussion by Council at a future workshop. With regard to engineering recommendations related to existing delamination, our Public Works Department has been directed to coordinate removal (in boat traffic areas). Please feel free to contact me should you wish to discuss this matter. Palm Peach County, Florida ~'~~uest~ D~~ve ~radge Over the North Prong ofthe Loxahatchee River Prepared by: BRIDGE DESIGN ASSOCIATES, INC. April, 2007 C~(t~ l Brian C. Rheault P.E. 38797 Project ®verview Bridge Design Associates, Inc. was retained to investigate and report on the condition of the Tequesta Drive Bridge. Recent construction on the bridge includes the replacement of the center roadway deck in 2006. Inspection of the bridge focused on determining the areas of the bridge that exhibited signs of corrosion and concrete delamination. Concrete roadway panels were investigated using visual inspection and soundings from striking the panel with a metal hammer. Several areas of severe concrete delamination were observed in the roadway and sidewalk panels. Major areas of concern include the roadway panels in spans 2 and 4, sidewalk panel in span 3, and the cast-in-place concrete curb in some locations. The majority of rail posts were found to be in bad or poor condition. Posts were observed to have large sections of missing concrete with exposed reinforcement. Reinforcing was found to be routinely corroded. Concrete rail posts that did not have sections of missing concrete or exposed reinforcement exhibited moderate to severe cracking. Cracking and delamination was observed on the corner of the revetment walls on the southeast, southwest, and northwest revetment. Large cracking and spalling were observed in these locations. Some of these sections were over the area of existing patching. Piping attached to the bridge showed areas of severe corrosion. Some sections had been completed corroded through the exterior of the pipe. Brackets attached to pipe also showed areas of corrosion. Traffic barriers on the approach slab had loose connections between the barrier and post, with some posts not connected to the barrier and some missing nuts to secure the railing. Bridge Design Associates, Inc. I ll~eeetment ~afl~ C®naii~i®n Bridge Design Associates, Inc. 2 Areas of cracking were observed in the same regions as areas that were observed to have been patched. .,, t{ ,~ - ~ ~ 5 h) S ~iR ,. .,fix. i ~ yf i 1' Ip'• ' ~ ~,b ' '?i~eiif~ ~ ~ . F ~ f i. S ~d .. ~ ,[, fi~y ~ „K >. ~~.1 y.'-- Bridge Design Associates, Inc. 3 _. -: ~ ,, ~®a~c~¢te R~~l ~®sI C®~dat~®n The condition of the concrete rail posts was found in most cases to be poor or bad. Posts routinely were observed to have large sections of missing concrete and exposed rebar. Reinforcing bars were heavily corroded and in some cases completely exposed to the corrosive environment. f; .' ,- . ,, ~y ,, ~.~~ ~~ Bridge Design Associates, Inc. 4 n ~ ~ ~ ~. a~ ~~ - .:,,; } t"~' r a 1 Bridge Design Associates, Inc. 5 Posts were also observed to have moderate to severe cracking. This cracking was severe enough to expect that the rail posts would very shortly have sections of concrete fall off. ~A t r..., J: c .. Y '~ ~ ., r , ~~. . v~` t r' Bridge Design Associates, Inc. 6 1Piie ~C~~ ~®nditi®n Pile caps at the joint between the roadway and sidewalk panels in some areas showed signs of delamination and cracking. On bent No. 2 there was a section of missing concrete with exposed reinforcing steel. Bent No.l had a previously patched section that was delaminated and cracked. ~:i~ f ft. '~ ~ i~ x. r'r ~~ ~=i ~-- '~ ~ `' s-~ _: _ ,. * ~ Bridge Design Associates, Inc. ~ ,' i ~ / /i ', ~i _.~ The bottom of the pile cap on the End Bent No. 1 had an area of delamination with quarter to three quarter inch wide cracks. rte' .G_... ::- ~ .- . _. Bridge Design Associates, Inc. 8 . ;,p- f _, d.~ - `3,. ~._ t _~ __ - _- ~ i. ._ R ~~ _ Bridge. Design Associates, Inc. 9 An area of cracking and delamination on the bottom side of Bent No. 4. ~'®nc¢-e~e lPlle C®naIlfll~a~ Concrete piles were only inspected above the level of low tide. The majority of piles are considered to be in good condition. Cracking was observed in piles eleven and twelve of End Bent Number 1 and in pile four of bent number 2. Sections of rust bleeding were discovered on some piles. The piles' pickup locations were occasionally found to have exposed reinforcing bars. Bridge Design Associates, Inc. 10 ~ s .- ,. :<' 4: .. i ~~ ~ ~i.+sa.....w. `.wrtl Bridge Design Associates, Inc. 11 ~C®nca~etc >~a~e- ~®~ndfltl®~n Roadway panels in span 2 had large areas of delamination and cracking. In some cases delamination and cracking was observed in areas that were previously patched. Areas as large as Oft by 12ft were observed to be delaminated. ~; . r•• . ~.:.._ I. . ' 7/S ~ _ .... ''i; u*. ,~ * ~~~ y~. ~ ~ s ~ ~ I ^'"" ~! .5 , ` ' ~ t f .,3 ' ::~ ~ ~- ~ ~~4 1 I ~~V ~. i ~ ~~ -.:1` ~ ~~.2 . ~ Nrf^e A 2, .7 ` b.v-.. ~ .d y~i V~ ~ ~ -, fM+ • ,. ~ ~~'~.~~` ~; ~T v tiY~ "~ .~ T! r ~ .. .} ±f~~ f ~~ f ~ I ~~~.' 1' '~ ~ ...mod y+cl. 4 ,~ K.. r . _ y ,~.,, _ 4 ~ C~* i+3~il ~ .t. ~~~ } ,. 3~, _ - ~_~ _~, ~.- ~~-: ~, _ r ~s ,~-~~, ~~ `~ Bridge Design Associates, Inc. 12 ®ne of the sidewalk panels in span 3 showed signs of severe delamination with the presence of large cracking. Roadway panels in span 3 also showed signs of severe delamination and cracking. Some panels show several separate areas of delamination. _.+- ~<<~ ., ~~:; ~~ ~~~ r SKr Yr 0 ~ Y`~~ ~~ F 'y~ A}n; ~,~ „~ ~ L . < Bridge Design Associates, Inc. 13 The joint between the cast-in-place concrete curb and roadway panels were found to be routinely cracked. This cracking and delamination was found in some regions that were previously patched. Bridge Design Associates, Inc. 14 A patched section that shows signs of delamination and severe cracking on the cast-in- place curb in span 5. Bridge Design Associates, Inc. 15 -', ;~ ~fldew~l>l~ ~®~ae~eti®an The ground beneath the sidewalk on the northeast corner of the bridge show signs that the ground beneath the sidewalk has been eroded away. The concrete sidewalks show signs of cracking along the joint of the cast-in-place concrete curb and the sidewalk panel. -: . ~ he ~ Y,; r_.., _ ; . °i ' ~ } i4 ~~ - Z St ,~ ~~ - r ~ .~, ~ _ ~ - "i=~ i *r ~.. _ M t~^F 1 ~ O 4 ~ T .. ~. ~ J ~S, `N~ . ~. , Bridge Design Associates, Inc. 16 . ,: -;,.: ., - ~ ~-:' ~ - ~ :s ~ ;.: Bridge Design Associates, Inc. I~ ®Ihe~° A~°e~s ®f ~®ncer~a Traffic railing post connections were routinely found to be loose. These connections were also found to be unattached between rail and post, with several bolts that did not have any nuts to secure the bolt. Bridge Design Associates, Inc. 18 Fipes that were connected to the bridge also exhibited signs of deterioration. 'T'his deterioration included signs of severe corrosion, in some cases entire sections of pipe cover is no longer present. Connection brackets were also found to be heavily corroded. ~~ .~ a '• .. ~1. ~` ` Bridge Design Associates, Inc. 19 Conclusion Based on the observed condition of bridge, there are several areas of concern. Concrete roadway panels in spans 2 and 4 showed signs of severe delamination. The southern sidewalk panel in span 3 had areas of severed cracking and delamination. There is concern over the danger of sections of concrete falling from the deck onto boats below the bridge. Concrete rail posts were found to be mostly in poor to bad condition. Several posts had large sections of missing concrete with exposed reinforcing strands. Other posts had areas of cracking that will give way if hit. The concrete piles of the bridge were in good condition, with the exception of a few piles that had areas of cracking. Piles were only investigated above the waterline, so Bridge Design Associates, Inc. is unable to affirm the below water condition of any pile. Pile caps were found to be in mostly good condition. There were some areas of delamination and cracking observed in the pile. These areas of concern were generally found at the corner between the roadway and sidewalk panels. Two pier caps showed areas of delamination. Recommendations Based on our site observation: Spans number 2 and number 4 need to be replaced within the next 24 months. The sidewalk slabs and railings need to he replaced within the next 24 months. We also recommend removing any loose patches or spalling concrete for boater safety. Based on the inspections it is clear that within four to five years the entire bridge deck will have to be replaced. We recommend the village. decide to continue the piece by .-s.. ~..........A.. `4 piece replacement b ~ a y close g the bridge down every two years to continue the repairs or take st to replace. bridge in the next 24 months. ~~.~~ It is our opinion at concrete repai on span number 2 and 4 and the sidewalk slabs of span number 3 will not extend th ife of the deck slabs significantly enough to justify the expense. . 0 S:\2006-Jobs\06-517 Tequesta Drive Bridge\report\06-517 Tequesta.doc Bridge Design Associates, Inc. 20 PROJECT: Tequesta Dr. NUMBER: 06-517 Date: 3-22-07 Tequesta Drive Bridge Inspection 06-517 Post Number Condition Notes Post Number Condition Notes N N 1 Good 2 Good S S 1 Good 2 Bad XB N 3 Poor S 3 Bad N 4 Bad XB S 4 Bad N 5 Poor S 5 Poor CR N N 6 Bad 7 Bad XB S S 6 Bad 7 Bad MC MC N 8 Poor S 8 Bad N N 9 Poor 10 Bad PT S S 9 Bad 10 Bad MC, XB N N N 11 Bad 12 Poor 13 Bad MC CR MC, XB S S S 11 Good 12 Bad 13 Bad PT, CR MC, XB CR N N N 14 Bad 15 Bad 16 Bad MC, XB MC, XS S S S 14 Bad 15 Bad 16 Good PT CR N 17 Bad MC S 17 Poor N 18 Poor S 18 Poor N 19 Bad MC, XB S 19 Poor N 20 Bad MC, XB S 20 Poor N N 21 Bad 22 Bad MC S S 21 Bad 22 Bad MC, XB XB N 23 Bad MC, XB S 23 Bad N 24 Poor S 24 Poor N 25 Bad XB S 25 Poor N N 26 Good 27 Poor PT S S 26 Bad 27 Poor XB, CR N 28 Bad MC, XB S 28 Poor N ~~ 29 Poor 3G Good CR S S 29 Bad 3G Good XB MC Missing concrete sections XB Exposed Rebar CR Cracked Concrete PT Existing Patch Post numbers begin at the west side of bridge The absence of a note does not necessarily imply that missing concrete, exposed rebar, cracked concrete or existing patches were not present. .Christopher LaPorte, E.I. 21 41G1J ~' c 'Bleed ' DL I VDelam nation Prese ortC~Rx Cracked SPR Spalled PT's-IEx s9ngoPatcte; BL -Rust ~ Christopher La orte E.I. 22 PROJECT: Tequesta Bridge NUMBER: 06-517 Date: 3/29/07 PROJECT: Tequesta Bridge NUMBER: 06-517 DATE: 3/29/2007 Tequesta Drive Bridge - 06-517 Pile Condition Pile Bent Pile Notes Pile Cap DL btw 1 and 2 - PT btw 7-8-9 - XB north of pile 12 - PT w/ CR north of pile 12, 15 ft horiz i 9 in either side of corner- PT w! DL south of pile 1 4 BL End Bent 5 No.1 s 7 PT 8 PT 9 PT ~o 11 CR4ftvert-BL 12 CR 4 ft vent - BL Pile Cap XB over pile 1 west side - PT w/ SP btw piles 4 and 5 west side gent No. ~ 2 1 s 4 XB at pick up location PT w1 DL over pile 1 - MC XB biw pile 4 and 5 east side - CR along east bottom corner - Pile Cap DL bottom btw 4 and 5 -plant growing over pile 1 Bent i No.2 2 Pile Cap CR btw pile 1 and 2 west side - Cr btw pile 4 and 5 bottom - DL btw pile 4 and 5 Bent ~ 2 No.3 s 4 CR SP 5' vent PT Gver pile 5 - DL btw pile 4 and 5 bGttOrri east corner - CR biw pile i and 2 west side - Pile Cap CR above pile cap south side Bent i No.4 2 f CR south of pile 1, 5 ft horiz - PT w/ some DL south of pile 1, 15 ft - CR 1 ft over pile 5 - Pile Cap IBL north pile 12 End Bent 5 BL No.7 6 10 BL 11 BL 12 BL Piles are numbered from the south to the north; XB -Exposed Rebar; MC -Missing Concrete; BL - Est Bleed; DL - Delamination Present; CR -Cracked; SP - Spalled; PT -Existing Patch '"ir Cristopher La Forte E.I. 23 No Text ~~~~°~~~ ~~~~~~~~~u~ CddARLIE CRdS'd' ,~ ~{ ~'~~•~~~~'°~~fld®~ GOVERNOR District 4 Structures & Facilities 3400 Commercial Blvd., Fort Lauderdale, FL 333309 Telephone: (954) 777-4150 Fax: (954) 777-4697 Toll Free: 1-866-336-8435 February 15, 2007 CERTIFIED MAIL 7004 1350 0002 6320 7868 Mr. Mike Couzzo Jr. Village Manager Village of Tequesta P.O. Box 3273 Tequesta, FL 33469 ~~ Sigoi6cant Bridge Deficiencies FDOT 4 -Local Government Bridge Inspection FPN:23406017204 & 23406417204 Bridge ID: 930227 Tequesta Drive over N. Fork of Loxahatchee River Dear Mr. White: STEP[iANdE KOPELOYJSOS dNTERM SECRETARY Our bridge inspection consultant performed the Posr-Repair field inspection on Feb noted the following deficiencies (overall NBI ratings for deck and superstructure will lremam a 4 Poor -~~.z,,..._i condition): 1) Even though repairs were accomplished to the bridge's deck and superstructure, a spall and numerous delaminations were noted in the underside of the roadway slab units m Spans 1, 2, 4 and 5 (Span 3 slab units were replaced except for those located in the sidewalk azeas). Most of these deficiencies are located at or neaz mid-span. Several of the slab units in Spans 2 and 4 have diagonal cracks up to 12" long x 1/32" wide near the adjoining bents. 2) The underside of the roadway slab unit delaminations include delaminated repairs. The delaminated repairs have moisture penetrating through these areas. A 8" x 5" x 1" deep spall with exposed steel is located within a 4' long x 8" wide delamination in the underside of Slab Unit 2-9 at Bent 2. Refer to photos 1 and 2. 3) The top of the sidewalk sections have numerous spalls, some with exposed reinforcing steel, and delaminations. The delaminations include delazninated repairs. 4) The underside of the slab units in the sidewalk sections in Spans 3 and 4 have a spall and delaminations. Refer to photo 3. 5) The underside of the 1' wide cast-in-place curb sections in Spans 1, 2, 4 and S has significant cracking, delaminations (unsound concrete) and spalling as a result of corroding reinforcing steel. Refer to photo 4. www.dot.state.fl.us Mr. Mike Couzzo Jr February 15, 2007 Page 2 In addition to the above conditions, there is concern for boater/marine vessel safety due to the falling objects (delaminated or unsound concrete that could break free).. potential for Sincerely, j N fi a John Danielsen, P.E. Structures & Facilities Engineer District Four JD:tI cc: Skip Ferrera, CBI, FDOT District 4 Brian O'Donoghue, P.E., FDOT District 4 Patrick O'Grady, CBI, Kisinger Campo & Associates Corp. Thomas A. LoCicero, P.E., Kisinger Campo & Associates Corp. File: 93022 7SIGDEF(POST-REPAIR) PHOTO SECTION I -'r~F -S? h-nd wp' ~, ` ''I^ ~ ~ -, ~'b ° ' n 'ir Y t ~ f~" ~ a c ~ w.. _ ~,~ ~y , ~ y '# ~ 4i ~VS# ' , t°`Tq~},nc ,k,~ tr,7 'r~ ,1.: . ~ . Y, . y ~ ~ ~ ~ s. ~ '~ ~ ~~S ~ N~ jf' ~,~ ~ ~~~ ~ rte" ""' ~ ~` ;:` ~~ _`-~,w ` ~ 4.. ~ ~...sz't .,...,ate, i :,ice.' z~'~ ,... h ~~~, Photo #1 Delaminations in underside of roadway Slab Units 2-4 and 2-5 a °-~ Photo #2 i ^ l~,fi y 'k x ~.. ~ ~.;:. f ~ } ~~` ~ ~• "Y , 4 ~ ~~ v ~ r ~? N 7 ~A r ~ ~{ ~ J 3~ 7 `} ''.~? t 1 ~ ~ ~~ ~ i ~ ~M~~~, S all with .w - _.._ _ p exposed steel in underside of roadway Slab Unit 2-9 PHOTO SECTION ;~~ ~ ~~~, r `1 ,. t ~; ~ + ~ ~ nr r~ "' I r~ t ;,+F ~ t ~,y&~ i ~, r .~ ~ ~, ~ . ~.rr*~~n. ,; t {{ yt r _ ~ 1 _ ~ } ~~ 4_ b ~ Photo #3 Delaminatinn in unr~rrc~r~P of c;.~P..,~ttr ct~t, rT.,:, ~ n rnot o ~4 uelamtnations to underside of curb section in Span 5 Fee • l~ 0 ~ '~ ~ ~ ~ -~ r>, ~ Diz JIz 0 +~ _b ~I-' ~ I O a O ----77~~ ~~ N I m my~ I A h on ~y_ N >~~~ ~ D S u0 2 O p 2 O D i IIIIIIIIIIII o .~ e~' .i IIIIIII~~~II r- ~o ~~ ~ ~ (~ ~. ~ a `~ z ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~ ~`~~b ~ ~ ~ r~ ~ ~ OD ~ o d ,~ ~~~,o ~~ ~ ~ ~ C~ Q~ ~~ "~ ~ ~~ ~~ o ~ ~~ ~ `~ ~ ~' ~ / p~ W ''Y \ V D o V1 NO mi l7 Zi m~ n~ Di O^ n Ao m2 o phi ~~I~ o 0 rn i ~ ~ cr `~ o ~ I ~. ~ z~ ~ o°oa (I, c ~ o U ~~~_~~_ ~~~~~`1 ~ ~~~~~~~ ~~,-~~ ~~' o no ~~ Z ~ c ~? !`~ ~ ~~lF ~ 1 rl } ... i~- ~ (I !'~~~ '~..~ Q ~` c Q II ' O n 'I O ~~ Ill O II ~~J~ ~ 0 Gv~ ~~, =' ~ ~ J 1, ,~ a ~. , O ~~ ~»~ ( ~J C~:, ~ L•;' ~\~ S ~~ ~ .o ~n ~ l ' , ~~, _, ~ U ~ V ~~ ~ ~~ 1 `-J ~~~ `~ ~ ~. , ~' ~ ~ ~~ ~ ., ~ ~l G~~ ~ ~~ c~ h E. ~' . ~'_ ~'`~,L /'~i~ ~ ~.,.~ c ~~~' ~ l~ ;; r;..- r _;~, END_ BENT N0._ 1 STA 17 + 10.00 EN_D BENT NO_. 7 ~'lLE CAP STA. ~ 8~ + 90.00 i 20'-0" ~ ~ APPROA SLAB __ L 20'-0" ~ ~_-= '-- . ~ ~ APPROACH SLAB ~~ ~ >> ~ c~c~~, c~6 °~~ :, _~ 5 o C.A.B- CHECKED ~A ~p `` B.C.R_ ~j 1 DATE a Laxahatchee River 02 08 oe SG~LE PROJCCT NO- t ~, F l o r i d a As r,oTEO ate, c. RI1lDUN-~e~s~ = nanw rE. xRC i wwa OB-517 u No Text Memo 'g'®: Mayor/Council IFrom: Michael Couzzo, !/illage Mater>-~-~~.~-- --_,.~ ®ate: 1/9/2007 ~~~ ~~~' Re: Tequesta Drive Bridge As a follow-up to previous discussions/inquiries and in preparation of a long range Capital Improvement Plan, please find the attached proposal from Bridge Design Associates, Inc. (Bridge Design Associates consulted on the recent bridge repairs). As you will note the proposal is in two phases, providing alternative analysis for repair or replacement of the existing structure. Original time frame for this work was approximately 7 years after repairs recently completed. This time frame may be extended or accelerated based upon regular inspection and maintenance of the existing structure. Last year's replacement cost for the center span was $235,000.00 (this amount is for the replacement span and installation only.) This information is provided for your use considering how to proceed. Please contact me should you have any questions. Thank you. X01 o8G 3684 BRIDGE DESIGN ASSO Oi Ot:35p.m. Ot-02-2001 t /t COIUSULTIPIG EPd~IWE~Rs ~RIMI C. YtHEAbJ>r.T, P.E. PresidenP January 2, 2007 Village of Tequesta 250 Tequesta Drive, Suite 300 Tequesta, Florida 33469 ATTENTION: REGARDING: PROJECT NO Dear Michael: Michael Couzzo Tequesta Drive Bridge 06-517 Pursuant to your request, Sridge ®esign Associates, Inc. can provide the following engineering services: Phase l: Reviev~+ of the existing bridge conditions and preparation of a repair plan fpr future span replacements and other needed repairs. Phase II: Study of existing conditions to determine the cost and permit requirements to replace the existing structure utilizing the current or similar Iqw member elevations and spans aril outline the costs to raising the bridge and modifying the existing spans to increase the .width and height for boat clearances. Our base fee for Phase I is $8,500.00.. Our fee to complete Phase It studies is $9,500.00. If you have any questions, please give me a call. Respectfully, BRIDGE DESIGN ASSOCIATES, INC. Brian C. Rheault, P.E. President BCR:kedS:12006-Jobs106-597 Tequesta Drive BridgelCorrespondencelpru 010207.dvpd 2035 Vista Parkway, Suite 200 • West Palm Beach, F)orida 33411 (561) 666-3660 ~ Fax: (561) 686-3664 JAhJ-02-2007 11:59AM FAX: 561 6S6 3664 ID: PAGE:001 R=93~ rroIESSlonal lvlemo ®~b~~ ~e9~e°a~ Page 1 of 2 From: Debra Telfrin [dtelfrin@tequesta.org) Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2006 3:27 PM To: Geraldine Genco (E-mail) Cc: Pat Watkins (E-mail); Tom Paterno (E-mail); Michael Couzzo (E-mail); Debra Telfrin (E-mail); Jim Humpage (E-mail) Subject: Tequesta Bridge Memo Importance: High Memo T®: Council Member Genco Fnoen: Michael Couzzo, Village Manager ®~: 12/19/2006 R~ Tequesta Bridge t have reviewed your email regarding the Tequesta Bridge, and provide the following observations' a March 2006 -Village of Tequesta replaced center span of bridge (approximately $235,000.00). Replacement life 50 years+. October 2006 -Village of Tequesta repaired underside of bridge (approximately $57,000.00). Repairs extend life of sections 5 to 7 years. m Estimated cost to replace remaining four sections in today's dollars, $900,000.00 - $1,200,000.00. m Potential to raise bridge and costs? This analysis would require additional engineering, and could vary considerably based upon specified design and timing. Important to note as you indicated, raising the bridge may not be possible given design parameters and existing conditions. o If the bridge can be raised, and the Council desires to move forward in this direction, I would recommend looking into cost sharing with all affected parties. 1/9/2007 L 1 VLI.JJl V1J QJ. LYJ V111V Fage 2 of 2 Fortunately, the Village has ample time to consider these options. I understand however that providing funding for these improvements may be desired well in advance. If the Council wished to investigate these options further, I would recommend the involvement of a qualified engineer. Thank you. Cc Mayor Jim Humpage Vice-Mayor Tom Paterno Council Member Pat Watkins lf9/2007 No Text ~I~f~~~; ICS t~1~41`~Sr, ~~~. COtVSULTfNG E{Yt~fNEERS BRIAN C. ItHEAULT, P.E. Presiders t ~elZrl.l3r)! 24, 2C?OG 250 Tequesta Drive, Suite 300 Tequesta, Florida 33469 ATTENTION: Michael Couzzo, Jr. Village Manager REGARDING PROJECT NO.: Dear Mr. Michael, Tequesta Drive Bridge 06-517 ~D As we discussed, the Tequesta Drive structural repairs should be completed Saturday morning, February 25, 2006. It is our professional opinion that the bridge can be opened to traffic 6:00 AM Monday February 27, 2006. If you have any questions, please give me a call. Respectfully, BRIDGE DESIGN ASSOCIATES, INC. Brian C. Rheault, P.E., #38797 BCR:kedA:llet 06-517 02-24-06.wpd 2035 Vista Parkway, Suite 200 • West Palm Beach, Florida 33411 (561) 686-3660 • Fax: (561) 686-3664 No Text ~ Q~~ ~~+ ~~~~ 2035 ~Iista Parkway, Suite 200 ~7Vest Palm Beach, FL 33411 (561) 686-3660 During our site visit we observed the tensioning of the strands for (5) deck units. The strands were initially pulled to 7,OOQ lbs., marked, and then pulled to 31,762 lbs. The final elongation is the measured difference between the two pulls. All the strands were within the 15.63" ±/_ 5 %. Seethe field tensioning report for individual results. TS:ts:106517-021506 FIELD REP ~~ RT SIGNED " ~ _ Tim Sherwood I' -- - s SIGNED <:.... .. .:_ _-- Brian C. Rheault, P.E. #38797 Y _ ?^~ ~ 'fit t: ~ ~) ~ `' i ..~ o ~ ~' ;^s ~ ~. ~~`;~ .!~,j q ,f ,$ q kw.~ l.`.~~• ~'~ '' ~ ~ ~:, •.. :tee>t--;.. f {~ ~ ~. ~ ~s ~' ~ ~ r ;~'+ ~4r~~;.~r,+~~~~~+~~~1~'~;~lY~ y~ it ~4^'a),~ ''~rt4 i~ ~' `e` ts~~~`3~. ~.~, ~. ~ r ' ~ ~i~) ~6 l O r N O U a w n m a~ v a~ ~R1DC3E ®ES~~~! 2i15f06 Tequesta Drive Bridge SEPC SEP~ ~o~ c~~. ~ os~s'i ? ----- During our site visit we observed the rebar location for three (3) type A, and two (2 t e B prestressed deck slabs for the above-mentioned job. The reinforcement was ro erl) yP clearances were in tolerance, and the correct number of bars were observed. p p y placed, No problems were observed. FrELD ~E~~RT J ~ ~~ SIGNED: Timothy A. Deland, E.l. SIGNED: Brian C. Rheault, P.E. #3g7g'7 ~- ~ ~~~x -e-~~.ua~ a.~li I;~ k . A LLD G,1 ~~~~~. ~~.~~~:"~~~~5 ~~.~ ~~ ~®PV,e_ „ ' ~ : ~`.__ ~' ,o QLI~IT'~' C°®IVT7l®~ T.rnaE: '' °~ ~.Eh~~l~®~TI1~I~ P®IZ/7° :' L`-' ~ i~~~~ TElKP. - ~a t:.,. i ii' - ~ '" t9~r L, DATE __,_?808 ins Vaz>;as/Brooks INSPECTOR FINAL. TENSION 3 ] , 762 Ibs. FINAL, Ed,ONGA'd'd®N: 15.b3 ins. Minus 5% Plus 5% TENSION: 4 , 5 ELONGATION : 14 883 l 6.408 Strand Elong. Before Elong. After Seatin 8 E-1 0.5 0 ~•S c-1 o.s ~ A-4 0.5 i 0.5 0 0.5 COIL fYUMBER ~~ 0 ~ t JCCEAllXK2D., 28 543 AREA 2 ICCJAIOlE7B ~: - 28 964 O.iS3 s JCCJAUZVOD . 28 587 0.153 < ICCEAIIXK2B . .153 s 28.717 O.IS3 6 ~ 7 ~,~ AVERAGE ~ 2~~ 3 0 153 Strand Ficld Data Location Actual Initial° Final• _ h Idrnt. Elon O1 15 627123 Te~1OD Tension et Elon atian . PI 15.627123 7,000 31,562 7 00 - ni ,«.....-- , 0 31,562 ~ I 15.627123 7,000 -' ,''~` 31 562 - - I 15.4448 7,000 , 31 562 U 15.6445 7,000 , 31,562 i I 15.6441; 7,000 31.562 I rs-vaa8 7,000 31,562 I 15.6448 7,000 3 1,562 i ' - - 1 15.6445 7,000 31,Sb2 I • IS.GaaB 7,000 31,562 ' t 15.Gaa8 7,000 31,562 I Is.t,aaH 7,000 31 562 a t5.G4a5 ~ nnn , .. ~... . Decks 6 0000000000000000000000000000 5 0000000000000000000000000000 4 •0000000000 000000~0000~000 3 0000000000000000000000000000 2 000000000000000000000000000 ' YiiYYYYYYiiY1iYYYYi1Ji1iYYYYYYr,.:_;-:f„-;4,. A$C,DL• ~ GHI i KC.MNQP QRS,T UV WXy2 a B- PR®®ZICT: flS" AB~ks AfARX INO. ~ ~ ~_ ~ !F-b f . -------__ FI-®T ~ COMM. ~_ Elon ation 15.7633 15.5389 15.7395 ' 15.6697. DilTence Diffen:nce Data A FORA4IJI C-4 u~T~ 02-21-06 rRO.~ECT Tequesta Dr. LocATION Tequesta, Fl. c®NTRACrOR Cone & Graham ,~oa No. 1 ®6-517 During our site visit we observed the set up of the crane on the bridge. The deck units were removed and set on span # 4. The crane was moved off the bridge and the deck units were swung around and set on the ground on the east side of the approach to the bridge. The loading of the new deck units is expected for tomorrow in the reverse order of operation today. TS:ts:106517-022106 FIELD REPUlZT SIGNED Tim Sherwood SIGNED - --. . Brian C. Rheault, P.E. #38797 _~ :~" `~ ~.~ ~,~ s _. -~ ~ ~' rte'; - ,.. r„~ . d 9 Tequesta Dr. 02-27-06 :~~:r~ _-. - ;: . y ~~~.. _. ~. ~ t~. ~rY ~~"; ___ i i ;i t_ ~ ~' ~~r~ `~ r. a, r~ >: 'r~- ;!~ '~ . ~~ n-- - :~i* t/i.A~ _ e _ ~ . ~ a~ ~ ~' _ Nom. ~._ y ..- ;p ~~ t V • e ~.1 ... !. v ..:-o" J - _~-~' .~r ._. :u 4 •.:~ `e+ ~~~ '~,° ,,: +, ;. ... ~. .• .. _~ of ~v~.. ~~~~ ~ f. _ ,~, ~ •.P + • .f. ~. ' /' ~. °~ "r t ~ y_ti '~ly8". E /' .« ` 1'A. ~~, . Tequesta Dr. 02-21-06 ~ t '' .^ r ~y • '~ C .i,. _ /~ '`~ ~ti +;~ ~~ .ate -'~~ - w~_~g ~r ~ i F - =yy' f ,r' . ~ ,ar' - - 1 J.. y~~;r' . ; .,~; Y a y Vi° .'_ .> , rd • ;~ . ~ ~~ r -P< _' .fir -c.. +.:' ,' ~;' ".^~:~ ^ :+, .. . is w ~" ~ ~y ~~- ~ rte, ~, ,,~ _ .. ,. -~~~ ` .~ r.;-, ~, '~~r .. . ..> _ `~~° rte. s ~~w`tl~m .yp! `. ~. _ ~. :P - • . ~. f. pyyy •I {M~y .. A t -„ _ ~~~= ,~ ~• ~~~t i'~~ .. __ _ _ __ .~~ ~ -- - ,_. _ ,_ ._ ~ ._ . ~ ,,~ -. .~ ~ -- r . ~ r,. .- . t ,;~ - . v' ~ _. _ :; /,~'~' -~r 'ice .1,r'~ / .~ u,' ,. Tequesta Dr. 02-21-06 «~1..9 ,f 1 1:. Z, i~ .tE.:l tai, ~~~Y:/<: ~v~j~st ~'~, beach, ~L 334 ~ ~56~~ 6&6-3660 F~Q.'1'r•' ~ mat-~~,-~~ ~ .Fa~+~ ,'~'Q. Q~-~ ~ ,` Lvt C1~i~";~' ~ c~~~s~~ ~~. ~~~~~s®rv ~'eq~esta, ~I. ~®t~~~~r~:a~ ~®ne & ~~`aharn ~~~`?3'ka ~gF ~~t~ t'~~~~ '~kl~ ~s~t~~1'~=~~ t~-x~ ?~iT;' d~~,~L ~~ ~~~t~~o~ aE"f~ ~~a~~i~g~~F¢:. ~~~~: ~~i~it%°E~1° ~~accd F~c arec~~ r.~~~~ts c~ cast tine ~;~~s~.~~°~ p~~~.~4. ~ 1zc x°cE~~f~~ca~~ stc~~ ~=as ~~accd a~c~ ~~:~~~ ;c~~~°~t~ sr~~?`~atF~~a ~~as as fc~~~cav~=s: ~~~t~~~~ ~t~iat~-~s,~s bards 6~~~ ~.E~l ~@~~ ~c~d~ ~ ~ ~~~6~ ~~~~~~ ~ ~ zz ~ ~~~ ~. .V~xly~~-.. ~99 7r~ a ~ gyp, ~~,,,, pry ~atC~Bd ~ n~d-7[[1~:=.£'.et< ~~~,.r"`I"~Ff~i'1~ l~ ~f,~.~Cl 1J:~'. ~4~ar+Fii~ ~~_ ~+i ~w ~:7T. ~~,~Cifc'~wt. I I~ s~GNED '~ir~~ ShervvQ®d ~, ~ ~: - F. ,.. SIGI~D Arian C. Rheault, F.E. #38797 ~~ -- {~: `ir. ! r~' 1i ! ~~ J.. ~; ...... ;~,t~fS;n -- - ~ ~ •~ ..1 ~ ... ~ }. 1 ~G r~ ~ .YS~' . `"~- Tequesfa fir. F~2-2~-®C T. r~ "', ~~ ~.z;;,; -- ~~j C _ .... ,~ ~ '\~ i ~•~\ ~ _ ,~ti +. _._ - 7 '1'. ~ -~.tt" ... =. _ -~ .., -_ ._ .,,. :. a: ( ~~ '= x y "~ ~, ;~~ '~~ tiFg ~, t e$ r~ ~x* ~` x ~ M ~"~gc~es~~: fir. Q~~~~-~36 ~~p , r. ^' I ~ ~~~ . i .i ~ i ~. ~.--. d r~ ' A' V~ a kL,~ '~ ~ r' ~. ,. 1 ~. •l~_, _., ~~~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~F~~~~. ~~3~ ~I~sia ~~~~.~, ~fi,Afle~ :~~~P ~~cl~S~ I~~ I~~~.~~, ~~, 33~ (~~~~ ~II6-366 ~~.~~ (~~-%3-®~ .ticrr roc;. ~ ~?G-S ~rv~~~c~e' 1 cq~~s~ fix. ~~',`'.c"?U <;~;.n.~ d:'24.G E'r~F~,; t~i'~ c'sk~~~°i"~.'~'~ ~:~~~ rt;~:~I`r°~ax~r ~`~~~' E„F (~I ,,g E~ .s'.. t~ - ~.~C~< ~.,E.~dF.~i ~kFZ G.LF~". IS.~t~I'~F~..t.i:~cG~G tF~.~.LL a~~.~~e:a~ ~v. ~~~~ ~'s~`°~s^:~~u ~~.?~2°P„ ~~54 u"~-.~="s'~ ",;:k~c'~m~~ ~a~fi°'~sr.1~ it:~~2fib~.~~_~ ~~~ ~yi.~ :~E~~~ r~° ~is~iL~3~Ft'. ?`vj~' ~~°®bl~~ ~.~re~e ~1~se~r~c~. ~~ ~~~ ~~~.~~~re~ ~ ~a~~~. ~~~~~Ia®~ ~e~ ~~~a~a~~ ~e ~a~~g~ ~x~ss~~ ~P~~a ~~~~T~~~. SIGNER ,. _ ~ -~ 4_ ~r~an ~. I~ea~It, I~'.~. #3797 ,~ - _. ~ ~. ,. 1~'T E Y..~ a .> r ~~ f .,._f ~ I' ~._ '_.,. t I 3 ~-... ;1 T ~ ~~ `~ ?~ ~~ ~ i ) m ~ _ _ ... ~ + ,~ ~ ~~': a ~ , ~ 1 ~:~ ~. ~1 7 1 ~~~ir~ I GD O M N CV O e.: N N ~~~~®~ ~ ' '~~~~ ~~~o 20~~ ~ISta I~aa-l~a~, Sex~te 200 ~~Jest halm leach, ~i/ 3~~~ ~ (661 68b-3660 ~b-5 ~ 7 P~ro~~~ '~equesta fir. ~ ~.oc~~~or, ~'equesta, ~'1. ~or~~~c~®~a Cone ~ Graham 1~ ~°E~~g o~~ sa~:e xr.w~t ~~>e o~~ser-t~~e~ ul~e ~os~:-iefrsfis~~~g ca~tl~e stra~~s ~s~r the h~~ge cecl~ ~~~ts.. r~'he ~ni~.~al wall eras 1000 ~SSa., the seeor~c? ~~as 5882 psi. '~l~e d~fferenee vvas docu~-nente~ as the €;lor~ga~:FOn ~~lhPelw ~~~a~. reeor~e~ e~~ t~~e ter~s~4r~ing ep~ort (2.60"~s see attael~e~.. 's`he elos~res ~T~tere east aw ~~ell a..s ~:he e~,s. `s'he follo~.~ring ~jas the eoncrete &i s~is~~lier =n~orn~,ati®n. yea T~/~ater~ars: b~00 deg,' ~~ l~n~aa.~nt: 1.0 ~ar~.s b.5" sl~.rn~ ~~~~ ~'o~ie: ~ ~ ~08ci0 e~~ # 2262: ~'lel~er # 9~218~52 ~esth~g e~rli~i~ers: ~ ~nx 1~~??~ T~:fs:\065~ s-02~~06 <., __.: SIGIVED,,::__ _,_., Brian C. IZheatalt, ~.~. #38797 0 N N O L Q _~ F ~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~-~~.~~? ~~ ~AI_tt3RATl®N ~D ~~ 5674 -r JeoaCt`4 TYPE: 0.6 Jaclts t<•. Accessories MFG Tt-9E0. RAM AREA: 7.95 DA t E: 2!20/2006 ~~ JACifi ID: J&A97-016 COMPUTE® RAM AREA:_ 7.48 ~ r-ra~.~~u~~ ~~~u~a: tViASTER GAUGE CALIBRATION STANt3ARC&: ANSI 4s.2 fytASTER GAUGE: 356 SER1lICE GAUGE CALtBRATt®N STAN®AR®: ANSI 4Q.1 SERlfICE G¢BUGE(S): GAUGE 1: 6-30474 P~64,liC~F 9• r_noa~=~. ~•,.a~..~- a_ ~ LOA®CELL: CALIBRATION STAN®AR®: ASTM E4 AN® EZ4 TYPE: Slope Indicator I.®. NO. 10112 METER NUMBER: 7292 METER MFG: Slope Indicator CONVERSION EQUATION: AVG. X 1 -~ 0 Temperature: 75 Humidify: 26% Calibration Location: DYWIDAG SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL, INC. Calibrated By: Allan Rainwater Calibration Firm: DYWIDAG SYSTEMS INTERIJATiONAL, INC. @9erified By Ed Pueschel t,~erification Fi~era: DYWIDAG SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL. INC. Customer: Cone & Graham, Inc. Jib <UurnhPr~ J057348 t'UTASTER GAUGE 1 GAUGE 2 GAUGE 3 GAUGE 4 RUN 1 RUN 2 RUN 3 A~'G ACT 14tPS 1000 1000 _.......0.._.._ 0 _ _ ............0 6.19 ....... 6.17 ........................... ... 6.2 ........ ......... . . 6.187 6.187 2000 2000 ..........~ ............ ...........~.......... ..............~.......... ....__. 13.79 14.1 . ..... .... , 14 ..................... 13.963 ..... .......................... 13.963 .2500 ........ .......2500 ......... ::.:...:: 0.:.:.:.::.:. .::::::::.:: 0::.:.:.:. ~..::::..:.:.: 0::::::::.. :.:::::,:1.7.69:.:::. _..::::..:17 :95:..: .::: ..:.::...17.82.: :::::. 7.820. ::: x . 17.820 .... 30 3000 0 .... 0 ........................ 0 ......................... 21 63 ........................... 21.85 ........................... ... : 21.78 ..........:.... . :: : 21.753 .: .... .. _. 2i .753 #m 3500 3500 0 0 0 ....25.45 .. . ..........25.6..... .... ........... ... ....---.25:68 ..................... 25.577 .... .......................... 25.577 ' 00 4000 0 0 ...0 ....... ... . .........29.4-__... . 29.49 ....... 29.59 .... . 29.493 .... ....... 29.493 ~ , 00 4500 0 0 0 33.33 33.42 33.47 33.407 33.407 5000 5000 0 0 0 37.17 37.28 37.31 ............. 37.253 .... .......................... 37.253 5500 5500 0 0 0 41.09 41.06 41.03 41.060 41.060 ~ 6200 6200 ........0 ............ ...........0.......... . _..........0............ ..... 46.34 46.41 46.39 46.380 46.380 For Monostrand Use Only True Gauge PSI: 62.67 46.880 = 80% of U.T.S Use Gauge PSI: 6300 45 40 35 in ? 30 Y 25 n ~ 20 15 ao 5 0 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 Gauge Reading = PSI 5000 6000 7000 treated By:.Fdussell fyalasinski Report Number: 11-3-EDTS-R3 Revised Date: 4-8-t)0 ~P 2 0 ~a ~ ~ `~ ~ "~i a ~L' L~Jtl'J. `l ~~yy~7 ppg~ ii~~ ~~FF~~ ~ ..f~'~ ~ ate- ~HwJ _ _ ~„r/ _- __ - mvuw.. 6"_~c~°~",~H4tl~4~~. '~~~„$` nr ~~ ~j~. ~~e[~(m~'.~~G~ ~~\:e~'.. _ 4l,' _vs~~ ~ ~_a-~., enifiai 6 ~ecoa~~3 ~ i=ina! i~i~i~i ~ S~~anc~ ~ Fi~ai 9ni@iai / S~rona ~ Final // `i2 _ ~ f~ , 2 ~ ~ 9 ~~ E u p`~ ~~ I~ ~~ ~ 6 '~ ~ 'I ~ .9 2~ 21 22 2~ 2~ ~5 26 27 ~~~~ is ~~~~~I~T ~~~~~~~~,~~~g ~~~~~ x035 ~jist~. Pa~-lcv~~ay, Suite ~'OC~ iJt~est ~ai~ Be~.ch, PL 3~~•1 i ~~61~ 686-366 f...~~ ~ e ~ ~Z-L7-0~ ~,~®~ ~r~. - : d6-5 ~ 7. ~~~'~~~:~ ~ - ~'eQiZestc~ ~Y. F.®~~~~t®ro, 'I'e~uesta, Fl. ~~~'~~~T®~ Cone ~i ~raharn I.~uri~g cur site visit ~e ®~sexveci t~ge e~rripleteci bridge. '~'l~ae ~~S~L~aet€~r ~-vas c~eag~a~g ~t~ t1~e sEte ~~d ae~xr~:via~g ti-~e ~~zF°`~i~, ~~rr-~~e~° ~~~~ tree ~.~aate~-. ~i~ ~YS~~ie~~s ~~se~°~~ed. e~o~:6CU:lV'U'~~ ~-~~r f ~V ~dV1VL'L _. _.. '~ir~s She~va~c~ SIGNED ` . - _ ~..; ~ ._ Brian C. Rheault, P.E. #38797 o~ ~toJ~~ moo°oooo° ''~ FQ~d~ M9QODOQ v o ~ O O a O fl 0 U o O O o O C o W~ N O O Q O 0 0 'TI 1p N _UU d ~1 r-1 b m ~, o 0 0 ~ ~>CXkDC~ ~~ ~~~~~~ ao'oooa oot~oag 00000 i~~ O Na-lpQ1N FR~ii rl ~ .O ~ t~1 ~ ~+1 .-i .-i C ~ A R+ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ °~ ~^ ~ ~ ~~ _~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~- 0 ~a °~ ° ~ ~~ ~ "~ N ~ .. ~~~~ -~ ~~ ~ ~~~~ _- '~ ~ ao ri o c~ ~ ~. O~CNW ~ Wt9 ~ O r~-1-10fl0 ~~~}}O~ r-~ 1'i ri ri e-1 c-! H ri ~L' ~ aP r01Min~ a1fA ~ 0+1~-] 000000 D>42-~ Z00/Z4Q d 88£-i 1Zl1 9~i i3y t'1fYlfltl SAS laD1gH~31-~a~ S'~7~6-Jobs~06-517 Ieq/esla Dave Bndge~Bb-PL'SLDE7 dwg n (- n -I Z A ~~~~ ~ ~ o ~ ~R~= ~ 0 0 z I o D n I ~ m IIIIIIIIIIII _ :? -~- IIIIIIII~~~~ aY b ° ~ td ~ ~ `~ N ~ ~ r• ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ tU o N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ (7 o d ~ .. o ~ ~ ~ ^O J ~ ~ Q N ~ N~J f'~ O C r• ~ a ~~ o~ --~ v~~ o ~N NO O mZ (l ~~ ~~o m ~ o ~ r A o N 0 DD ~ ~ N 2 ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~lO f~Tl ~ ~ r 1 ~ ~~~. ~~ z~ O a z~ ~' C ~~ ~ 2 1/4° ti ~ ~ -. o ~ ~ ~ M/N. O ~ r '~i ~' {, s (..~ O o ti~a o ~ o ti~ i~ ti~ o ~ ~ ~'. ~ ~ i_ 2 1/4 " `" `° MIN. ti ti ' = ti ~ " ~ ~ ~o`~~ 3,. 9., i o ~ „ ¢„ 11„ o`"ti ~~~ v ~ ti ~ ~ O Z O ~~ ~ k m~ ~~ 1 r- „ O ~ x ~ o ~, ~ °c o i u ~ ~ i 4i1~ 1 ~B" ~ ~_ ~~ ; ~ ~ ~" _ ti V ~ 11/1 ° 11/2 ~ ~= Iz `~ I r-R-~ ~ I I i_ ~ ~ - ~ o ~ o c,, A ~^ti ~~ ~ ~ o ~~ ~~ti C ~~~' ~Zti v ~ v O ~ ~ O n ~ Z O ~. t j ~ __. <<~; ~, ~' ,,,:,' i __ - -- i i I I ! ti ~ `'' n 4 ti D - ~ r- ~ v - ~ i` ~ ~ ~~ C ~ a ti ~ a h ~ O~ n D ~ ~ O ~ (~ ~ o ti ~ _ o ~ -~/~- c ~ v r~ D v '~`-a --~1=-- 0 2 1/4^ ~, `b ~ ~ ~ - - '~ M/N. o n a ~. ti O .A ~ ti a ~ -__ -- -- 0 ~~ o ~ ~ = A 1'-3„ 11/2° I l/2° I I ~`~ - ~ ~N i- ~, - ~1 I LN ~Il ~~ _M''~ -- ~ ti ti ti --- -~ o ti ~~ ~ a ~, ~ \ : ' ~ I ~'- - --- ,3" 9,. ~o~ - i r, o ~ 4„ 11„ o~ti -- ~ ~ o v Z ti O O O ~ fi ~-v 2 O i` ti A A C i` 0 ~o~' ~~~ o~~ ~~~ OAR' ~'=~v O ~ ~~~ ~fi O ~ C~ T O i; ~; z ~ ~ Z W ~ ~ ~.~ ' _~ c~ z~~ i V ~ s ~~ ~ ~ ~ °j ~j - ~' e' ~ ~~ ~~ ~ O ~A D ~ '~ ~ ~~ Z ~ o I ~ / O -~ ~, ti 0 ` 3 1/2" 3 1/2" r~ --~ D ° ~ ~ ~ r ~, 6 ,~ 10 J/1' ~ ~' 10 I/1 ° °j ~ ; ~Z c,, i ~ x ~Z ~ U l0 1/1 " ~ ~ ~ 10 1/1 " ~ D ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ao ~ '" ~~ a o .I7 (/) ~ `~"~ (n ti ~ ~~ ti c.,, ~ o~ 2c ~ ~D77 6n ~ D _. o ~ ~ y N ~ rn r ~ (~ I ~ ~ w 2 _ O C ~ ~, ~ ~ o ~ -i m 0 ~ J _ r~ O ~ ZOI O ^i U~~ ^ V l z ~' `~ ~ ~ C0 ~ ~-0 ~/ ' ~7 D? O c ~ '~ „ ~"_o ~ ~ D ~ ~ ~ `,^l nl ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ Z ~o ~, 0 ~o 2~ ~ ~~ 2~ o~ Z ~ ,,~ , , ,,~ ,,., 0 ~ 1 3 - ? M7E Eeb ~b~~ ~ ~ . Z~~N .l1 n om ~~~ ~ D N ~__ ~_ 0 A N Z O D m I I m IIIIIIIiIIII is a} sg Se e; - ° 1 ~ °R ~~~~~~ii~lll ~~ , V C ~ W ~ ~ (~ ~ N 'Y ~~ ~ ~~~ `~~~ ~ o c~ ~~~~ ~~~~'. na d ~ ~ ~' ~ ~ ~ ~+ r ~ ~~ w " ~ W M ~u O ~ r m~, ~a CU`'~ ~~~ ~ ~N OO ~Z (70 Zi ~/ nn Di Or ~m Am mf m O o' o~ m `c do' A ~ ~ o I ~ ~ ~ ~7 = O 7 7 ~-3 w ~ ~ - m r ~ D m ~ a zm z 0 0 ,. U m 0 ti N ~~ 11= ~ ^ ~ . ~ I m o ~ o~ ~~ 0 m zN m v U W 9 n O n ~~ II . ~ I m O ~ ~~t t;. r~ ~ .t .re `° ' S'-A 1 /~' 5 SPACES of l0 J/4 f ^ o c - I I ' ~I-~!I ~I~-I; ~ '-~' - - I - - I - - ~ ti -~~- -i- -i- - -i"- -i- _i- - ~~~_--t_ !.--i--!--i i._ _i_ _i_ _ i i _ i_ _i_ i I~ -i i - i I~~~-==-=~==1 .I~I-------- --~-- -i- -i- - ti --j~- -j- -j- - ~ --1-- -i- -i- -' w e o ' `^ i ~ ~ ~.- _I- _I- O C ~ _ ~ ~e '--~._ -I- -I_ i. ~ -i.- -i- -i- - .~.- -i- -i- - ~.~- - - i i i i ~~. I" I I I ~.- -i_ -~_ _ i I ~ O •~F---~--~- _ . H'tF---1---.___ ~ ` . .--I _ -I- -I- _ ~ \ w N L ~l _ I I~ ~I ~ _ I~ m ~- I I - w ~~ ~~ 5~-l1 I/1" w. ~ o< --- ~ ~ m c'., IU r z . ~ m a .m . ~ o ~N :~ z ~ I 3 W ti n n ~_ ~~ ~~ ~~ 5-5 '/Y 3^ 6" 4~-5 1/1^ 6^ 9- `": Z z v m m N N m 0 m Z U w I II I m o D w -- i II I m o D _I I = i - - i--- --i - - N i i i i i _ __i_ ___i_ __ i i i i- --i--~--i i- --i- -i--i i -- --i- -i- -- i o - --i-- --i- I w - _-I -I c] v+ i q C ~ ---I----- _ --I- -I-- -_--i-- -i- - . = ° IO o °, ~ i- _i= _ ~~ ~ p _ _ _ I ___ - --I- -I- V \ _ ~__ -I- v _ _ _ 'I- '`-~ ~I~-I; •=~-i i =, ~ * r m r ; D r I A W U1 ? A A A A /~ ti ~"'~~ 1 UI UI m m m ~ N A A N ? N f N D T C Z C Z c ~ ~ N W ,~, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - o Q m U ? A N N _ N ~ m ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ m ~ C ~ p O ~ O ~ ~ C C7 ~ -' N ~ ~ ~ OJ ~ ~ ~ I TI z ~ _ A O I_ ~ I I' U ? L co A O - ~ N ~ N --1 r ~l r ~ Z = v / ~ 1 I Ul ~ Vl A N ~ N m N m U m ~ ~ ~ m ~ ~ ' 1 v _ ~ _D D_ D r i D r *i G.. O_ O U D C7 G7 ~ O O D ~ O ~,7 ~ ~ ~' Z =1 ~ ~ ~ ~ C7 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~) Da7C Feb $~ < . ~~-- _~ ^~~O ~ R m ~~f= n N~ D N N= O m N Z m ~ ,~ m ullu~lll~~ ;# _s 'E ag ~ IIIIIIII~~ - b ~ ~--] Cd P~ ~° ~ ~ -, N ~~~ z ~ fD ~ o ~D ~~~~ ~'o~~. 00 ~ n o M ~ ~ ~ ~, 0 ~+ r (p ~ ~ w M ~ "J ~ ~ F-j ~ ~ O ~ f.., . ~ ~'~°' N. '~ a~~ ~ ~ D o N NO m2 (70 Z~ Os nn Di m o rn ~g > ~~ C oA ao ° I ~ ~ ~ z 0 5 b I``~`~I ~.1 v1 ti O /7 ~~ z~ ~z ~~ o~ O Z ~ ~~ ~ I ~~ ~ ~ ~~ a k - ~ 1 ~ ' f ei ~ r ~ ~ y i ~ 'f .~ 4 1~~ ~ ~ 1 ~ [ 'f ~~P - i O t\ - Cr I~ ti ~ Cn C ~ Z ~ rn ~~ c ~_ VJ~ n \ ~ v ~-^1 ~~~ _I `;_ - - ~~,ti ~, a `' JJ `-V ~ ,- b ~, ~ U C ~ ~ ^\'- ~` o o ~ ti ti ~- 0 ~~ 0 i ti ti O ti ti 0 ti `~' 1 1~^~`) l d b O _ < y O ~~ I '~ v Cr I~ I+ ti A I O I~ O ~~ ~J ~V (J n 0 I'_ O ;a ~ ~ O O ~~ ~ ~~~~ OO ~ -mac ~ ~~ ~ ~~ z `~ ~~ O ~~ ~? CA Z ~ r O ~ ~~ r0 c` ~ L ~~ o~ Z A Q ~- -cam ~~ v Cn i` i_ o ~\ ~, ~~ 0 i ti • ti O I~ ti ti 0 ~~ ti fcb 0$ -l0lBom 5:7006-_/obs~06-517 lequesta Onve • bb~~ ~ m m~ ^`~~O ~ ~~4s 1 D yr ~i O -+L- 2 0 a o I Z ~i D m I III IIIIIII~~~ - ss $' g :~ ~; s --aF IIIIIII~~~~ ' P- b c ~--] Cd ~ ~ ~ ~ '~ r• a ~~~ x z ~ ~ b~ o CD o ~ ~ ~ ~. o~ ~ ~o d M ~ ~ O ~rnrn ~ r ~U X A~ ~{ ~ 'J ~ N ~ ~~ o~ ~ `~ ~ a~~ ~~~ D O ~N NO m^ (~ Z> ~~ n~ D1 ~^ " An mz m o o' o rn ~~ N ~B ~~ O n ~° ~ ~ (° , °l ~ _ `,~`~ 0 y N b b y ).11 y 111/2" 14'-D" I 14'-0" 6'-111/~ i I ti -~ ; I - I _ _ _. -- --, - ---- ----- ~ 1 - {~ O w O --i i ~I m ~ ~ ~ ~ W. - ~', i ~ I~!, ~ ~ti~~ ti 0~~~ ~~~r ~~z~ Z~p~ R' 0 ~~ ~~ 0 ------ ---- I I --I-- ~ ----- -- -- 6 3/4" 8 1/2" 5~ 5 1/?" 6" ~~ ~~ ,T ~' °~ ti ~ ~ ~ r T z ~,. ~ a ~~ O ~ ~ ~ O~ ~ C ~ ~^Ci0 O ~n~ n ,?c°„o ~~~ `~ o Z ~ ~ 5' S~1/2" 6 3/4" i 5'-51/2' S'-81/1 I 6' - I I o ~ ~ ~ ~~~ z o ~ ~ ~ a~~o O ~;o ~ ;g ~ Z o~~ ?~ ~a~ z~ o~~ ~~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ I~ o i~` c„ o ' O O ~~z ~ ~ o O o `~ A o° ~ o ti I~ O ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~o o~ ~ z ~~ ~ ~ ~ m iz JIO +~ ~~ N o~ _~ a _ ~ DMZ ~I~ z 00 i o ~~ i I L~ J --. li '~ ~= _' N ~O v 1 b O b U 1 ~~, ~ ~ I. c-~ . ys ~~ ^~ ~. N ~ ~ `I~11 ~` -~ -~ ,I I f -~' rn I I I ~, . ~ ~, II I I i \j I II I ~ 'I I~ ~ I I I I i. f~`- . L A~ IA~~O ~ ~I mP~m _ N D ^~~ n ~~ ~ m ~~ 0 A m 0 Z 0 D I m ~IIIIIIIII I a °9 og Z :3 'a;° -~ IIIIIII~~~~ _~ ro ~ ~ gym/ ~ rn 7 `Y \ (J t~, N Q+ ~ h~ FFF~~~ ~ z~/~~ ~ lV ~{ '"S N ~ ~ fi~ ~o~~'. UG ~ ~ o d ,~ M `~~, O l~ ~' CD y X ¢1 w t-+ ~ ~O ~ ~ f'~ ~~ a~~rn `S l U ~ o W i too Zi m~ nn Di ~^ n An mZ m O o o rn ~n ~~ ~~ o ~ o TT ~ ~ J ~ 0 a~~e ~ Z C ~ -, O v, ~ G' ? ~v -' x7 !v ~, -- n !v o vi c " ~ ~ o b o rTl ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ o' ~ c~ ~ ° ~ o ~ Z ° ~ ~ m~~ ° = ~ o ~ ~ , ~ cn ~ z Z 2 ~ 3 ~ oo mm^~ ~~ '~ ~ ^~ ~ ~ ~ n -„ o ` a .~oJ ~ ~ 4~ ~oa ~ n ~r*, pJ' o n 0 p`c J 3 ~~ p ~vrv 1 n~ `~'- oo~ opr' m Q J ~ ti o ~ m C C~ 2 o b O m ~ ~~ O ~ C Z O n~ J~ o ~O ... ~ ~D y ~ J '.~ -. N O S 4~ ~ o u, cD ~ ~ O i c cp ~~ to „ I O ~~~ a O~ T ~O n m ~L j- -,, C n ~ C) j ~ ~ `D ~ O ~ ~ fp ~ O ? O ~ 2 N OJ i ~ O ,' C C ~ m ~ p ~ ~ ~ ~ ~lJ C., O 4 Q 1 n O n O, ~ ~' ~ ~ O O ~ ~ ry J D_ J fp O ~ n ~ A ~ bl/1 Q ~ ~ ~ -. ~ C~ O. ~ `1 r ' b m ~ O o o ~ b ' ~ O cn J "o n o !•) ~ o m `~° N p n~ o m ~" ~ = p~ •-. m `^ ° J O ~ ~ c i^ ~ O ? m i~ : o~ O T ~ ~- O ~ k ` Q , S ~ ~ ` . A 1 ~ q p cp y O ~ ~. P ~ ~ =: VI ~ ~ v, ~ ~ c~ _~ O b O" 00 opy j ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ m ~ c~2 0 ~ O ~ O~ ~ ~ ~ O y O p ~ 3 O J J J" .^ b ~.q `° ~ o ~ ` n~ ° c b ~ p ~ o p y~ I °' ~ a ° o t^ ~ o ? op ° ~ O ~~ m ~ o n ~ n mJ ,o m pJ ~bU n o ~ ma ~ ° o c ~ o nb ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ fp ~ p ° ~ ~ cb ~ o ti ~_ c0 0 ~ x ~ a ~ ~ ~ T J ~ m 0 ~ J to ~ O `D I J O ~ O O '^ m ~.,~ `^ ~ ~ cJj m 4 V7 `° o O ~ O ob n o o- o ~ n ~" j"~ ~ O 4 J DD J ~° ~ o ~ a s p ~ ~~ ~ rn m c ~ `o b o rn o ~ o o p~ ~o :S ~ ? `~ m n o,~~. a 0 ~ 4 ~ 0 D j O T Q U U j ~ n O. ~ O 2 O p ~' j m y I o c ? o O n p O o O `c ~ n. m ~ N fOii ~ O o O F `^ l b D ~ ~ , (^ n. O - O 1 O O y ~ ~ n ~D C J J. J ~^ O c^ l ~. O Vl ~ ~ O O -` J Q N 0 ~~ :)~ O ~~ n ti 4 ~ b ~ ~ C Zl ~ ~ ~ p rD 3 ~ d ~ ;~ , ~ n ~ T p n ? '1 O . O .~ tD O `p ` J O tr 0. ~ ~ 0 _ n CT o 1 m J O cp O ~, ~ - b O• n p n Q ,- C p J O 4 ~ ~ 0.~ ~ ~ ~ ~ C O ~ ~ ~ ~j Q b b ? ~ ~ o J O , Q T ~^ ~ ' O m p O O m ~ _ ° q ~- p F ~ ~ rj ~ a, J O p ~ ~ F Q ~ - ' ~ o OT ~ ~, Q m `a S O O F i~ c^ ~ ~O~ cn cp ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~o ~- J ~ O ~ ~O T `° ~ o j m ~ m v ~ m ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ o v o I~ ti ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ b U z Z to T N ~~ ~ p.0 ~O p n) ~ Ob ~~ NO ~ ~ ~ O ?SO ~O ~ ~~ ) C b? b ~m nMyZ ~ y m r° ~ ~ ~'J ~ ~,°~ oo `_ornZ J ~~c`Dn~ ~~`J°~ abo°Z o'er mb 3 ~' ~ 3 `pz O otn °s o ~ " O " ~ 0 0~ J ~, X V 4?~ O ~. n O ~^ b0 ih fp Q O ~1 ~~ J b b J~ J Z ~ O ~ In Q~ ~ 0 r D b O y ~ ~D b b~ RI j, ~ c TT O m U~ m ? ~, O D 4 ry Q n 4 n tr. o O O ~ O m n O ~ r b J to ~ T Z N rn ~~ 1~ 1 b o w ~ ~ F o O y o j = ~ 4~ o~ m Q~ rn S A C) C N 1 ~ C ~ `~ b o~ ~.,~,.Li !~ ' n o o b? c n 0 / ~ 2 ~y'~wi~s~`!}a\ o~ ~ 4~^mm, 3~^4 ?~ o`OV,rj ~o o J 4~r~ m m~O ~ F c v , m~~m`D ~o"o m m°° o ~ n c `i ~~o a Q~, " ~'D '~ a~ oQ 3 U, m cnb o3y O 0 o ° ~ ?o- J `" a~.a ~ a`1`° ~ 3 ~ v, `° a" ~ 4 ~ ~ ~ ~ aQ ° `D 3. u m y p~ ~ 4 ip o ~_; ~} o~ 4 3 N o ~ O~ v i ~ D ~~ o c S ~ ~ ~ R U J Q j J ~ ~ T tp l p ~ ~ j ~ ~ p C b ~ ~ ~ j -~ I ~ ~ _ ~ ~ J ~ j 1 ~ _ ~ ~ n `D ~n O ~O S O ~ ~ ~ ? _ O C ~ ~~~" b ti ~ O~ y O '~ ~ b 0 ~ O ? 0.O W N ; b J J J J ~ i i0 `D sp'. p cD J O ~ O o'_s~ cp b" I p o- y O ? ~a b p ~ ~ p v`°i~ t^ (p -°.s ono, ~O N cp ~ _C J y p 0 y .C p a3. 3 ~ ~ bb o"~, am 7n `D O >c O F D ~ J 5 0 J ~ Q O m ^' n -`~ Qc^. . m J. ~ Q t'p c, W S J p 0 0 0' T ci ~n ' '~ b J O j. Ol 4 ~O p t^ v O. ~D ~ C Q J ~ ~ -~ ~ O `D ~ J ~ O Q _ I. o c ~o ~ 4 0 _ F b=i~~.vo, ~' ac ~ m v, m ~ ~,~~ ~-m m m„ O n ~ 1 3oo J3 OHO ~`o Q o 3~s S? ~ob° ~ p o ~ ~`^ C 4 o,^ ~o ~a ° . ° ~~ j `po-rn ~^ ~ J m a ~ `~ ~°o ~ `c oo c ° ova 3 ~ ~ • ~ ~'.!J;:~i O J J J w O ~ O n ~ O l c^ H J R S n c ~ J O O b O !n O vi fp ~ cn O p, O J O ~. ~. tr ~^ O ~ I ~ Q I~ O rn m O Q b 0 G o t O '~ n ? m ~ 4 J t^ ° O b 0 n~ Q T O N ~ O ~~L ~ OJ o 4b ~" o mm J Q I ~~ O C p 3 c o o ~ Q 4~ _ C J O O -~. O ~ ~ o ~,~, I~~., o- c o a ~~~ n b 4 ~ p F ~ ~. d o ~ ~ n ` '" ~ " 3 ~ J m ° ° ~ - gip S?b I ~ x J ? ~ ~ J mn u, 4 -.O cp o C m a ,€. J J fn O b n ACC O S j ~. `n S cp j p ~. fD J O p J O c m cp ~ m O~ n b ~ _ ~ ~ 'o O 00 4 O ` m ~ l~ l^ O S~ p ~ 0 J ~ O c O~ ~^ Q b ~ tp C ~ Q Li ~ O o- `D b~ ~ ~ ( ry O O. Q tr cD p. J" ~^ ~ ~~ ~^ ~ S ~ ? J ry ~ ~ J'O O F J~ O m m _ ~ I ~ ~ ~ p ~ ~ ~ i_ i O S ti •.ir.. ~ m `° ~, b ~, o 0 n `^ ~ ~ b r^ ~I ~ n V ~ ~ ~^ ~ V O r^ Cb ~,~ D p 2 o~,~~; n ' ~o,o"n `~ ° Y ~ O ao~ b~m^~ a o- ~ ~ ~ oz m n 2 c p ? - 4 ~ o cj c^ o ~" n i t il o l p ~~~ . O d J ~ nl O_ i l ~ p <G '1 C? Q~ F~ C y Z `D O p- ~ Q J O C ~ ~~ 1 ~ ~ ~ m ~ Q~ m ~ ~ L L7 o- Q j ~ m y O ~- ~' ~ g ~ ~ ~ J cp ~p O ? . O Vl ~v l ~~~ , ., ~f ~ I ' ` O ~ O O b ti J ~~ ~ "~ Z ' , !~. y C 0 b OJ ~oz ~~a-' DJR~ z ~ -- O ~ j' h~ ~ l C j? ~ ~ O J~~ Q ~ N k O. J. O ° O Q ~~ 4 `^ l~ ~ nl ~} 1 (D J p O b T Z ~~ ~ °~ tr ~ o,a Qo _ ~~~~ Jo > Q o n~ T~ ~ -^ m` J O ~ O. ~ ~. N ~ ~ -o ° J ~ '( '~I O ~ ~D v / J i O ~ ~ O 4 f ~ C O O ~ C Q ~' ~ ~ _ C J ~ O o ~ ~ ~ a `~ o a o Mo o „3 ° F o-~ p 0 3~ 3 , ~ o' , n o ~. ~ 0 ~c~ b J N Q ~ O Ivy O ~ ~ J J C J~ ~ ~ J d' O - C O ~ O Q ?Q'O O ~D , O 0.p ~ Q? ~~ ~ ^ ~ ~ m O ? O ~. ~ 0 ~ `^ c ~ n '~ O ~~~ oa of J~ J p n ~c 0 F ? ~ ~p O I ~ ~ ~ n ~o ~ -- er. n s o J° J ~ a o ~ c p J ~ , . j Q F ~ c° ~ ~ D`~ ~ ^' J 3~ , 0 `OOO ~ ~ a~ p ~ 1 ~D _ a a ~ O ~ ~ p n ; 0 Q ~ t^ ? n J O O Q J J U ~ O O m T • ~~$~ A . ~~~o ~ 3 ~NOn f ~N~" > ~a I = a _~ , III D ~ O I Z to D m m ~ I I I IIIlilll~~ _ _ 09 °08 tee` as IIIIIII I 0. b ~ y td ~ ~ (D ~ ~ ~' ~' ~ ~~ ~ z~~ ~ o CD ~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~• ~ ~ no 0 ~ '~ 0 ~'~'~'~t ~ ~ ~ ~+ r ~ ~ c fi ~~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~' . ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ a"cam ~ n ~ m= ~o Z> ~O' nn -~ ~^ '" A~, mz m o o rn ~~ o > `~ n ~ a O z ~ o ~ U ^ ~ S CT1 r J Z O 5 b ~ ~ b V o °o ~~~o ~~ ~ ~~~`~ ~ oz ~~_~ `'~' o ~o ~~ ~~ z~ c ~? "~ t Tequesta Bridge Meeting Notes 3/28/08 8:30 a.m. Attendees: Tom Jensen Randy Cropp Vince Arena Brian Rheault Dottie Campbell Mary Lindgren Peter Lucia Lori McWilliams Russell White Pat Watkins Mary Hinton John DePalma Jim Humpage Abby Roeloffs Keith Davis Michael Couzzo Chief Weinand Chief McCollom The purpose of the meeting was to exchange ideas regarding the repair or replacement of the existing bridge. The bridge is almost 50 years old and in need of repair. Three options were discussed: • Option 1 -Repair Existing Bridge $1,249,000 • Option 2 -Repair Existing Bridge & Raise Superstructure $1,685,000 • Option 3 -Rebuild Bridge to Higher Elevation $2,640,000 OPTION 1 Bridge would add approximately 20 years of life to bridge for 1.2 million. Price would go up to approximately 2 million for additions. Option estimates replacing only deck slabs and the rest would be repairs: Life of piles could be pushed another 20 years with pile jacket technology. They would jacket 20 piles and the remaining 20 would need to be jacketed in 15 years; however it was recommended to do all the piles at the same time. Future maintenance and repair costs were not factored into the cost. Estimated future repairs would cost tens of thousands rather than hundreds of thousands. Option 1 would only improve existing structure to current Code. Down time for bridge repair would be 45 - 60 days; however the contract could be structured with incentive clauses to cut time. New bridge down time would be approximately 90 - 120 days. It was suggested the project be done during the off season and to allow for a one way traffic pattern. There are currently not any FDOT funds available unless the bridge had a historical designation (4 years shy). There may be enhancement programs available; but there were limited funding capabilities. It was suggested a traffic analysis be done to determine Martin County and Palm Beach County's impact on the bridge. Overtime costs would be incurred to place public safety personnel on the other side of the bridge during the project. OPTION 2 Option would raise bridge 12" to 18" with minimal destruction to bridge. Cost would be about $200,000 - $300,000 more and additional time needed. This would only raise the deck and provide for everything else in Option 1; else would remain status quo. Discussion ensued on reason to raise the bridge; issues regarding boaters and ski jets; mangrove and sea grass problems due to wakes; implementing a no wake zone and increased- law enforcement regarding boaters. OPTION 3 Engineer believed this to be the best option and would not cost much more for a full replacement. Discussion took place regarding the time line to obtain environmental permits and environmental issues that could arise. The Environmental Service representative believed the permit process should not be lengthy due to the site location. A preliminary environmenta{ survey of the area was strongly encouraged. A full replacement bridge life of 50 years could be expected. New bridge down time would be approximately 90 - 120 days; however could be negotiated with contract incentives to lessen the downtime. It was suggested the project be done during the off season and to allow for a one way traffic pattern. BRIDGE DESIGN ASSOCIATES 1402 ROYAL PALM BEACH BLVD. BLDG. 200 ROYAL PALM BEACH, FL 33411 561-686-3660 OFFICE, 561-686-3664 FAX Page 1 of 3 By: Checked sy: 06-517 TEQUESTA DRIVE BRIDIGE OPTION 1 REPAIR EXISTING BRIDGE Assumptions: Replace super structure only: decks, sidewalks, barriers, designed to current code requirements Total Number of Spans Number of Spans to replace = Typical Span Length = Typical Span Width = Existing Approach Span Qty = Existing Approach Span Length 5 4 36 ft 42 ft 2 20 ft En ineerin 8 1 LUMP SUM •. $ 60,000 • $ 60,000 Perm~ittin 1 LUMP SUM $ 5,000 $ S,OOp Mobilization 1 LUMP SUM $ 200.,000 $ 200,000 Maintenance of Traffic t LUMP SUM $ 15,000 $ 15.000 Demolition of Existin Su er Structure 1 LUMP SUM $ 75,000. S 75,000 18" Precast Deck Units 6046 SQ FT $ &5 $ 393,120 Sidewalk ~ concrete 86 CY YDS $ 500 a 43,000 Sidewalk • Reinforcin 6534 L85 $ 1,40 $ 9,1:48 Concrete Barrier Walls 440 LN FT $ 120 $ 52;80:0 Aluminum Bi le Bailin 440 LN ET $ J5 $ 41,600 Existin Bent Modifications 1 LUMP SUM $ 15,000 $ 15;000 Pile Jackets 20 EACH $ A,750 $ :95,000. Guardrails 1 LUMP SUM $ 50,000 $ 50,000 Minimal Roadwa re air 1 .LUMP SUM $ 30,000. $ 30,000 Utilities 1 LUMP SUM $ 50,000 $ 50000 e~~~,_rn+a- ~ , ,mow flao Printed 3/17/200811:20 AM S:12006-.fobs\06-517 Tequesta Drive Bridge\Misc\Cost Options-Option 1 BRIDGE DESIGN ASSOCIATES 1402 ROYAL PALM BEACH BLVD. Page 2 of 3 BLDG. 200 ROYAL PALM BEACH, FL 33411 561-686-3660 OFFICE, 561-686-3664 FAX 06'517 TEGUESTA DRIVE BRIDIGE OPTION 2 REPAIR EXI TIN BRIDGE & RAISE SUPERSTRUCTURE Assumptions: Replace super structure only: decks, sidewalks, barriers, designed to current code requirements Total Number of Spans = 5 Number of Spans to replac®= 4 Typical Span Length . 36 ft Typical Span Width ~ 42 ft Existing Approach Span Qty . 2 Existing Approach Span Length = 20 ft Raise superstructure elevation 1 ft to 2 ~ By: Checked By: Printed 3/17/2008 i 1:20 AM S:12006-Jobs\06-517 Tequesta Drive Bridge~AAisclCost Options-Option 2 BRIDGE DESIGN ASSOCIATES 1402 ROYAL PALM BEACH BLVD. BLDG. 200 ROYAL PALM BEACH, FL 3341 i 561-686-3660 OFFICE, 561-686-3664 FAX Page 3 of 3 By: Checked By: 06-517 TEQUESTA DRIVE BRIDIGE OPTION 3 REBUILD BRIDGE TO HIGHER ELEVATION Assumptions: Replace super structure only: decks, sidewalks, barriers, designed to current code requirements Total Number of Spans = 5 Number of Spans to replace = 4 Typical Span Length = 36 ft Typical Span Width = 42 ft Propposed Approach Span Qty = 2 Proposed Approach Span Length 30 ft Raise superstructure elevation 1 ft to 2 ft En ineerin e 1 LUMP SUM $ i 50;000 $ 150,400 Qermittin 1 LUMP SUM $ .50,040. $ 54,000 Mobilization i LUMP SUM $ 260.000 $ 260,004 Maintenance of Traffic 1 LUMP SUM $ 15,000 $ 15,000 Demolition of Existi Bride 1 LUMP SUM $ 11.0,000 $ 110,000 14" Piliri 720 LN FT $ 40 ^~ .28,.800 18" Pilin 2040 LN 1=T $ 55 $ 110,000 Pite Ca -Concrete 230 CY YDS $ 1,004 $ 234;000 Pile Ca - Reinfvrcin 31350 LBS $ 1.00 $ 31,350 18" Precast Deck Units 7560 SQ FT $ 65 ~ 491;4t><J Su rstructure -Concrete 60 CY YOS $ 500 . $ 34,000 Su rstructure - Reinforcin 39th LBS $ 1:40 .5 5;460 Concrete Farrier Walls 480 LN FT $ 12p $ x7;600 Alumiriurri Bic le Bailin 480 LN FT $ 95 $ 45,600 Utilities 1 LUMP SUM $ 17,040. $ 17;040 roach Slabs 2 Each $ 57333: $ 114,667 Steel Sheet Pile 440 . LN FT $ 1,350: $ 540,000 Cuardraefs t LUMP SUM $ 50,000 $ 50,000 Roadwa Modifications 1 LUMP SUM 300,400 $ 300,000 otal 2 6 7 $ ,63,87 U E $ 2, Printed 3/17/2008 11:20 AM S:~2006-Jobs\06-517 Tequesta Drive BridgelMisclCost Options-Option 3 No Text KISINGER CAMPO $~ ASSOCIATES CORP. .~ r: April 1, 2008 Mr. Michael Couzzo, Jr. Village of Tequesta P.O. Box 3273 Tequesta, FL 33469 RE: Bridge Inspection Report Submittals to Local Owners District Four Bridge Inspection Report Dear Mr. Couzzo: The following inspection report is attached for your review: Bridge No. Type Insp. Insp. Date Dive Date Analysi s Type Analysi s Date Commen t 930227 Routine 1/15/08 1/22/08 N/A N/A N/A If you have any questions, please e-mail (tlocicero@kisin ercam o.com) or call me @ (813) 871-5331, ext. 509. Sincerely, is ~s~ °~ t a Thomas A. LoCicero, P.E. Bridge Structures Engineer TAL:lr Enclosure Cc: Skip Ferrera, CBI, FDOT Consultant Inspection Contracts Coordinator Brian O'Donoghue, P.E., FDOT District Bridge Inspection Engineer Patrick O'Grady, CBI, KCA Bridge Inspection Supervisor File: 4200620.189 ~~{~~ ~'`~-. Brandon Office • 9270 Bay Plaza Boulevard • Suite 605 • Tampa, FL 33619 • Phone: 813/554-1919 • Fax: 813/621-8582 Visit our web site at www.kisingercampo.com FLORID. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPI .TATION BRIDGE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM Inspection/CID Report ZIDGE ID: 930227 DISTRICT: 04 Fort Lauderdale PAGE: 1 OF 20 INSPECTION DATE: 1/15/2008 EFLL BY: KCA OWNER: 4 City/Municipal Hwy Agy MAINTAINED BY: 4 City/Municipal Hwy Agy STRUCTURE TYPE: 5 Prestressed Concrete 01 Slab LOCATION: 1.2M1 W OF US-1 SERVICE TYPE ON: 5Highway-pedestrian SERV TYPE UND: 5 Waterway STRUCTURE NAME: Not Recorded YEAR BUILT: 1962 SECTION NO.: 93 000 114 MP: 0.325 ROUTE: 00000 FACILITY CARRIED: TEQUESTA DRIVE FEATURE INTERSECTED: NO FORK LOXAHATCHEE RIV FUNCTIONALLY OBSOLETE XQ STRUCTURALLY DEFICIENT TYPE OF INSPECTION: Regular NBI DATE FIELD INSPECTION WAS COMPLETED: ABOVE WATER: 1/15/2008 UNDERWATER: 01/22/2008 SUFFICIENCY RATING: 32.1 HEALTH INDEX: 77.70 This report contains information relating to the physical security of a structure and depictions of the structure. This information is confidential and exempt from public inspection pursuant to sections 119.071(3)(a) and 119.071(3)(b), Florida Statutes. Only the cover page of this report may be inspected and copied. REPORT ID: INSP005 (condensed) PRINTED: 02/27!2008 FLORID. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSP~ :TATION BRIDGE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM Inspection/CID Report _ RIDGE ID: 930227 PAGE: 2 OF 20 DISTRICT: 04 Fort Lauderdale INSPECTION DATE: 1/15/2008 EFLL BY; OWNER: MAINTAINED BY: STRUCTURE TYPE: LOCATION: SERVICE TYPE ON: SERV TYPE UND: KCA 4 City/Municipal Hwy Agy 4 City/Municipal Hwy Agy 5 Prestressed Concrete 01 Slab 1.2M1 W OF US-1 5 Highway-pedestrian 5 Waterway Not Recorded 1962 93 000 114 0.325 00000 TEQUESTA DRIVE NO FORK LOXAHATCHEE RIV ^ THIS BRIDGE CONTAINS FRACTURE CRITICAL COMPONENTS ^ THIS BRIDGE IS SCOUR CRITICAL ^ THIS REPORT IDENTIFIES DEFICIENCIES WHICH REQUIRE PROMPT CORRECTIVE ACTION ^ FUNCTIONALLY OBSOLETE D STRUCTURALLY DEFICIENT TYPE OF INSPECTION: Regular NBI DATE FIELD INSPECTION WAS COMPLETED: ABOVE WATER: 1/15/2008 UNDERWATER: 01/22/2008 SMART FLAGS: 359 Soffit Smart Flag: Soffit cracked OVERALL NBI RATINGS: DECK: 4 Poor SUPERSTRUCTURE: 4Poor SUBSTRUCTURE: 6 Satisfactory CHANNEL: 7 Minor Damage CULVERT: N N/A (NBI) SUFFICIENCY RATING: 32.1 HEALTH INDEX: 77.70 FIELD PERSONNEL / TITLE /NUMBER U'Vrady, John -Bridge Inspector (CBI# 00344) (lead) Elborne, Paul - BI Tech Hoogland, Keith -Bridge Inspector {CB!#00341) Lead Diver Brewer, James -Diver Miller, Shawn -Diver REVIEWING BRIDGE INSPECTI( PERVISOR: INITIALS ~~ Crissey, Dave -Bridge Inspector (CBI#00321) ~~~:. J CONFIRMING REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER: Loclcero, Thomas - PE #31136 Kisinger Campo ~ Associates 9270 Bay Plaza Blvd., Suite 605 Certificate of Authorization #2317 Tampa, FL 33619 SIGNATU SATE: STRUCTURE NAME: YEAR BUILT: SECTION NO.: MP: ROUTE: FACILITY CARRIED: FEATURE INTERSECTED: a This report contains information relating to the physical security of a structure and depictions of the structure. This information is confidential and exempt from public inspection pursuant to sections 119.071(3)(a) and 11 i3.071(3)(b), Florida Statutes. Only the cover page of this report may be inspected and copied. REPORT ID: INSP005 (condensed) PRINTED: 02/27/2008 FLORID. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPI :TATION BRIDGE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM Inspection/CID Report IDGE ID: 930227 DISTRICT: 04 Fort Lauderdale UNIT: 0 DECKS ELEMENT/ENV:99/4 PS Conc Slab PAGE: 3 OF 20 INSPECTION DATE: 1/15/2008 EFLL All Elements 7607 sf. ELEM CATEGORY: Decks/Slabs CONDITION STATE (5) 3 DESCRIPTION Repaired areas and/or potholes or impending potholes 7607 sf. and/or raveling or rutting exist. Their combined area is more than 10% but less than 25% of the total deck area. QUANTITY ELEMENT INSPECTION NOTES: Note: Roadway slab units in Spans 1, 2, 4 and 5 are numbered 3 through 9. Sidewalk slab units in Spans 1, 2, 4 and 5 are numbered 1, 2, 10 and 11. Roadway slab units in Span 3 are numbered 3 through 7. Sidewalk slab units in Span 3 are numbered 1, 2, 8 and 9. The asphalt surfacing over the expansion joints has roadway width x 1/4in. wide transverse cracks. - NEW. There is a light to moderate accumulation of dirt and debris along the curbs -NEW. The topside and underside of the sidewalk slab units have numerous spalls and delaminations, some with exposed steel -INCREASE. The underside of the roadway slab units have numerous spalls and delaminations, some with exposed rebar -INCREASE. Due to the amount of text noted under this element, refer to the Element Notes section in the addendum for a list of specific deficiencies noted in the sidewalk slab units and the roadway slab units. Corrective Action Taken: The worst areas of corrosion on the utilities along the north side of the structure have been repaired by installing PVC s{eeves around the corroded areas. The utilities still have varying degrees of corrosion. ELEMENT/ENV:301/4 Pourable Joint Seal 84 If. ELEM CATEGORY:Joints CONDITION STATE (3) DESCRIPTION QUANTITY 3 Major adhesion and/or cohesion failures may be present. 84 If. Signs or observance of leakage along the joint may be present. Joint may be heavily impacted with debris and/or stones. Major spalls may be present in the deck and/or header adjacent to the joint. ELEMENT INSPECTION NOTES: Note: The quantity and condition state represent only the visible portion of the joints in the curb and sidewalk areas. Roadway portions are not visible due to the asphalt overlay and are considered incidental to this element. Sealant within the sidewalk portion of the joints is completely deteriorated and in some areas, they are packed with dirt and debris - NO CHANGE. Refer to photo 10. This report contains information relating to the physical security of a structure and depictions of the structure. This information is confidential and exempt from public inspection pursuant to sections 119.071(3)(a) and 119.071(3)(b), Florida Statutes. Only the cover page of this report may be inspected and copied. REPORT ID: INSP005 (condensed) PRINTED: 02!27/2008 FLORIG. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPI :TATION BRIDGE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM InspectionlClD Report tIDGE ID: 930227 PAGE: 4 OF 20 DISTRICT: 04 Fort Lauderdale INSPECTION DATE: 1/15/2008 EFLL All Elements UNIT: 0 SUPERSTRUCTURE ELEMENT/ENV: 331/4 Conc Bridge Railing 364 If. ELEM CATEGORY: Railing CONDITION STATE (4) DESCRIPTION QUANTITY The element shows little or no deterioration. There may be 3041f. discoloration, efflorescence, and/or superficial cracking but without effect on strength andlor serviceability. 3 Some delaminations and/or spalls may be present and 601f. some reinforcing may be exposed. Corrosion of rebar may be present but loss of section is incidental and does not significantly affect the strength and/or serviceability of either the element or the bridge. ELEMENT INSPECTION NOTES: CS3 =Most of the posts have delaminations up to full height x Bin. wide throughout - NO CHANGE. Refer to-photo 11 for typical view. In addition, the following posts have spalls with exposed rebar up to full height of post x full width of post: Left side -Posts 1-4, 1-6, 2-1, 2-4, 2-5, 3-1, 3-2, 3-3, 3-4, 3-5, 4-1, 4-2, 4-3, 4-4, 4-5, 5-1 and 5-4 - INCREASE. Right side -Posts 1-2, 1-6, 2-1, 2-3, 2-6, 3-2, 4-3, 4-4, 4-5, 5-2 and 5-5 -INCREASE. Refer to photo 12 for typical view. The approach guardrails were considered incidental to this element: The steel approach guardrail panels typically have minor dents and the timber posts have some splintered edges - NO CHANGE. Random cushion blocks are loose -NEW. ELEMENT/ENV: 204/4 P/S Conc Column 36 ea. ELEM CATEGORY: Substructure CONDITION STATE (4) DESCRIPTION QUANTITY The element shows little or no deterioration. There may be 22 ea. discoloration, efflorescence, and/or superficial cracking but without affect on strength and/or serviceability. This report contains information relating to the physical security of a structure and depictions of the structure. This information is confidential and exempt from public inspection pursuant to sections 119.071(3)(a) and 119.071(3)(b), Florida Statutes. Only the cover page of this report may be inspected and copied. REPORT ID: INSP005 (condensed) PRINTED: 02/27/2008 FLORIG. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPI .TATION BRIDGE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM Inspection/CID Report tIDGE ID: 930227 PAGE: 5 OF 20 DISTRICT: 04 Fort Lauderdale INSPECTION DATE: 1/15/2008 EFLL All Elements UNIT: 0 SUBSTRUCTURE ELEMENT/ENV: 204/4 P/S Conc Column 36 ea. ELEM CATEGORY: Substructure CONDITION STATE (4) DESCRIPTION 2 Minor cracks, spalls and scaling may be present and there may be exposed reinforcing with no evidence of corrosion. There is no exposure of the prestress system. 3 Moderate cracks, spalls, scaling and some delaminations may be present. There may be minor exposure but no deterioration of the prestress system. Corrosion of non-prestressed reinforcement may be present but loss of section is incidental and does not significantly affect the strength and/or serviceability of either the element or the bridge. 8 ea. ELEMENT INSPECTION NOTES: Note: Only the outside faces of the piling in Abutments 1 and 6 are visible due to the concrete added between the piles (backwalls were jacketed). Refer to Element 475 R/Conc Walls for any related comments regarding the two support piles at each retaining wall. Due to the amount of text noted under this element, all comments can be found in the Element Notes section of the addendum. The following is a brief summary: Several piles are cracked/delaminated, mostly as a result of corroding rebar. Corrective Action Taken: The previously noted deficiencies in Piles 1-2, 1-3 and 1-4 have been repaired since the 3/8/2006 Post-Repair Inspection. ELEMENT/ENV: 215/4 R/Conc Abutment 981f. ELEM CATEGORY: Substructure CONDITION STATE (4) DESCRIPTION QUANTITY 6 ea. QUANTITY The element shows little or no deterioration. There may be 861f. discoloration, efflorescence, and/or superficial cracking but without affect on strength and/or serviceability. This report contains information relating to the physical security of a structure and depictions of the structure. This information is confidential and exempt from public inspection pursuant to sections 119.071(3)(a) and 119.071(3)(b), Florida Statutes. Only the cover page of this report may be inspected and copied. REPORT ID: INSP005 (condensed) PRINTED: 02/27/2008 FLORID. _ aEPARTMENT OF TRANSP~ _;TATION BRIDGE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM Inspection/CID Report RIDGE ID: 930227 PAGE: 6 OF 20 DISTRICT: 04 Fort Lauderdale INSPECTION DATE: 1115/2008 EFLL All Elements UNIT: 0 SUBSTRUCTURE ELEMENT/ENV: 215/4 R/Conc Abutment. 98 If. ELEM CATEGORY: Substructure CONDITION STATE (4) DESCRIPTION QUANTITY 3 Some defaminations, moderate cracks, spalls and/or 121f. scaling may be present and some reinforcing may be exposed. Corrosion of rebar may be present but loss of section is incidental and does not significantly affect the strength and/or serviceability of either the element or the bridge. ELEMENT INSPECTION NOTES: CS1 =The east face of Abutment 1 cap has less than 1/64in. wide cracking that outlines a repair area from Pile 1-1 to Pile 1-3 and between Piles 1-5 and 1-6 - NO CHANGE. Abutment caps have vertical cracks up to 30in. long x 1/32in. wide - NO CHANGE. Abutment 1 cap and Abutment 6 cap have intermittent horizontal cracking up to 1/64in. wide developing within Bin. of the bottom edge - NO CHANGE. CS3 =Abutments have other more significant cracks and delaminations as follows: Abutment 1 cap has delaminated repairs up to 24in. long x 30in. wide in the east face at the haunched areas adjacent to Slab Units 1-3 and 1-9 - NO CHANGE. Refer to photo 16. Abutment 6 cap has a Oft. long x Bin. wide delamination above Pile 6-5 -INCREASE. Abutment 6 cap has a delaminated patch 1ft. long x bin. wide in the top west edge under Slab Unit 5-10 - NO CHANGE. Abutment 6 cap has a 3-1/2ft. long x 1ft. wide delaminated patch in the lower west face between Piles 6-7 and 6-8 -NEW. Corrective Action Taken: The previously noted delamination in Abutment 6 cap between Piles 6-7 and 6-8 has been repaired, but the patched area is now delaminated as noted above. ELEMENT/ENV: 234/4 R/Conc Cap 174 If. ELEM CATEGORY: Substructure CONDITION STATE (4) DESCRIPTION QUANTITY The element shows little or no deterioration. There may be 951f. discoloration, efflorescence, and/or superficial cracking but without affect on strength and/or serviceability. This report contains information relating to the physical security of a structure and depictions of the structure. This information is confidential and exempt from public inspection pursuant to sections 119.071 {3)(a) and 119.071(3)(b), Florida Statutes. Only the cover page of this report may be inspected and copied. REPORT 1D: INSP005 (condensed) PRINTED: 02/27/2008 FLORID. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSP( :TATION BRIDGE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM Inspection/CID Report RIDGE ID: 930227 PAGE: 7 OF 20 DISTRICT: 04 Fort Lauderdale INSPECTION DATE: 1/15/2008 EFLL Ail Elements UNIT: 0 SUBSTRUCTURE ELEMENTIENV: 23414 R/Conc Cap 1741f. ELEM CATEGORY: Substructure CONDITION STATE (4) DESCRIPTION QUANTITY 2 Minor cracks, spalls and scaling may be present but there 251f. is no exposed reinforcing or surface evidence of rebar corrosion. This report contains information relating to the physical security of a structure and depictions of the structure. This information is confidential and exempt from public inspection pursuant to sections 119.071(3)(a) and 119.071(3)(b), Florida Statutes. Only the Cover page of this report may be inspected and copied. REPORT ID: INSP005 (condensed) PRINTED: 02/27/2008 FLORIG DEPARTMENT OF TRANSP~ ;TATION BRIDGE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM InspectionlClD Report RIDGE ID: 930227 DISTRICT: 04 Fort Lauderdale PAGE: 8 OF 20 INSPECTION DATE: 1/15/2008 EFLL All Elements UNIT: 0 SUBSTRUCTURE ELEMENT/ENV: 234/4 R/Conc Cap 174 If. ELEM CATEGORY: Substructure CONDITION STATE (4) DESCRIPTION QUANTITY 3 Some delaminations, moderate cracks, spalls and/or 541f. scaling may be present and some reinforcing may be exposed. Corrosion of rebar may be present but loss of section is incidental and does not significantly affect the strength and/or serviceability of either the element or the bridge. ELEMENT INSPECTION NOTES: CS1 =Some of the intermediate bent caps have heavy rooted vegetation growing on the ends - NO CHANGE. Refer to photo 17. CS2 =Bent caps have random cracking up to 1/32in. wide - NO CHANGE. CS3 =The following is a list of deficiencies noted: Bent 2 cap west face under S.U. 1-2, 2-1/2ft. long x 2ft. wide delaminated patch -INCREASE. Bent 2 cap west face under S.U. 1-10, aft. x 2-1/2ft. delamination -NEW. Bent 2 cap west face at south end, 1ft. 4in. x 1ft. 4in. x 1 in. spalled and delaminated area with exposed rebar -INCREASE. Refer to photo 18. Bent 3 cap bottom northeast corner, 18in. long x 12in. wide delaminated patch -INCREASE. Bent 3 cap bottom face near the southwest corner of Pile 3-1, 2-1/2ft. long x 18in. wide delaminated patch -INCREASE. Bent 3 cap east face under S.U. 3-8, 2ft. long x 1ft. Tin. delaminated patch -INCREASE. Bent 3 cap east face lower edge from Pile 3-2 to north end, 16ft. long x Sin. wide delaminated patch - NO CHANGE. Bent 4 cap west face lower edge between Piles 4-4 & 4-5, 7ft. long x 1ft. wide delamination - INCREASE. Bent 4 cap lower west face at south side of Pile 4-1, 4-1/2ft. x 2-1/2ft. delaminated patch -NEW. Refer to photo 19. Bent 5 cap bottom & west faces between Piles 5-1 and 5-2, 6-1/2ft. long x 3-1 /2ft. wide delaminated patch -INCREASE. Bent 5 cap lower east and west faces and bottom face between Piles 5-4 and 5-5, Eft. long x Eft. wide delaminated patch -INCREASE. This report contains information relating to the physical security of a structure and depictions of the structure. This information is confidential and exempt from public inspection pursuant to sections 119.071(3)(a) and 119.071(3)(b), Florida Statutes. Only the cover page of this report may be inspected and copied. REPORT ID: INSP005 (condensed) PRINTED: 02/27/2008 FLORIC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSP~ :TATION BRIDGE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM Inspection/CID Report RIDGE ID: 930227 DISTRICT: 04 Fort Lauderdale PAGE: 9 OF 20 INSPECTION DATE: 1/15/2008 EFLL All Elements UNIT: 0 SUBSTRUCTURE ELEMENT/ENV: 396/4 Other Abut Slope Pro 2400 sf. ELEM CATEGORY: Substructure CONDITION STATE (4) DESCRIPTION QUANTITY There is little or no deterioration. Surface defects only are 2400sf. in evidence. Random open joints may exist. ELEMENT INSPECTION NOTES: Note: This element represents the concrete filled fabric mat slope protection. ELEMENT/ENV: 359/4 Soffit Smart Flag 1 ea. ELEM CATEGORY: Smart Flags CONDITION STATE (5) DESCRIPTION QUANTITY 3 Cracking and efflorescence on the under-surface is 1 ea. moderate. The distressed area is 10°!0 or less of the underside area. ELEMENT INSPECTION NOTES: Underside of the slab units have extensive spalls with exposed and corroded rebar. Refer to Element 99 PS Conc Slab for related comments. ELEMENT/ENV: 321/4 R/Conc Approach Slab 2 ea. ELEM CATEGORY: Other Elements CONDITION STATE (4) DESCRIPTION QUANTITY 1 The slab has not settled and shows no sign of 2 ea. deterioration other than superficial surface cracks. ELEMENT INSPECTION NOTES: Note: The approach slabs are not visible due to an asphalt overlay. Both approach slabs are outlined with cracks up to 3/bin. wide - NO CHANGE. The west approach slab surfacing has a longitudinal crack, 8ft. long x 1/bin. wide in the westbound lane - NO CHANGE. The following was considered incidental to this element: The southwest approach sidewalk has a diagonal crack aft. long x 1/bin. wide, adjacent to Abutment 1 - NO CHANGE. The northeast approach sidewalk has a 12in. x Bin. delamination at the fourth guardrail post from the structure -NEW. The asphalt surfacing of the approach roadways has random cracking up to Eft. long x 1/bin. wide -NEW. Corrective Action Taken: The construction debris has been removed from the approach shoulders. This report contains information relating to the physical security of a structure and depictions of the structure. This information is confidential and exempt from public inspection pursuant to sections 119.071(3)(a) and 119.071(3)(b), Florida Statutes. Only the cover page of this report may be inspected and copied. REPORT ID: INSP005 (condensed) PRINTED: 02/27/2008 FLORIC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSP~ :TATION BRIDGE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM Inspection/CID Report tIDGE ID: 930227 PAGE: 10 OF 20 DISTRICT: 04 Fort Lauderdale INSPECTION DATE: 1/15/2008 EFLL All Elements UNIT: 0 MISCELLANEOUS ELEMENT/ENV:475/4 R/Conc Walls 256 If. ELEM CATEGORY: Other Elements CONDITION STATE (4) DESCRIPTION QUANTITY Minor cracks and spalls may be present but there is no 229If. exposed reinforcing or surface evidence of rebar corrosion. Open joints may be prevalent. Some delaminations and/or spalls and/or minor settlement 271f. may be present and some reinforcing may be exposed. Corrosion of rebar may be present but loss of section is incidental and does not significantly affect the strength and/or serviceability of either the element or the bridge. ELEMENT INSPECTION NOTES: Note: Total quantity includes both abutment backwalls and the four wingwalls, including the the two support piles at each corner of the bridge. Backwalls were jacketed in the past. CS2 =The retaining wall caps have cracking up to 1/32in. wide, some with efflorescence and/or corrosion bleed out - NO CHANGE. Northwest retaining wall support piles have up to 1/16in. wide vertical cracking with corrosion stains - NO CHANGE. CS3 =The northwest retaining wall cap has a delaminated patch, Eft. long x 10in. wide, located at the angle break - NO CHANGE. -Refer to photo 20. The southwest retaining wall cap has a aft. x 10in. delamination at the angle break and a 7-1/2ft. x 1-1l2ft. delamination at the end -NEW. The northeast retaining wall cap above the support pile has a 1-1/2ft. x Sin. x Sin. spall with exposed rebar -NEW. Refer to photo 21. The exposed faces of the northeast retaining wall support piles are delaminated up to aft. long x Sin. wide with corrosion stains extending up from the marine growth - NO CHANGE. Refer to photo 22. The concrete sheet piling between the support piles of the southeast retaining wall has a Eft. x Eft. delaminated area -NEW. The following was considered incidental to the element: The slope behind the end of the northwest retaining wall has a Eft. x Eft. x 1-1/2ft. deep washout located directly above an outfall pipe in the retaining wall -NEW. Refer to photo 23. Due to the amount of text, refer to the Element Notes section in the addendum. This report contains information relating to the physical security of a structure and depictions of the structure. This information is confidential and exempt from public inspection pursuant to sections 119.071(3)(a) and 119.071(3)(b), Florida Statutes. Only the cover page of this report may be inspected and copied. REPORT ID: INSP005 (condensed) PRINTED: 02/27/2008 FLORIa. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSP~ :TATION BRIDGE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM Inspection/CID Report tIDGE ID: 930227 PAGE: 11 OF 20 DISTRICT: 04 Fort Lauderdale INSPECTION DATE: 1/15/2008 EFLL All Elements UNIT: 0 MISCELLANEOUS ELEMENT/ENV: 290/4 Channel 1 ea. ELEM CATEGORY: Channel CONDITION STATE (4) DESCRIPTION QUANTITY 1 The channel is in good condition, channel banks are 1 ea. protected or well vegetated, river control devices and embankment protection are not required or are in good condition. This report contains information relating to the physical security of a structure and depictions of the structure. This information is confidential and exempt from public inspection pursuant to sections 119.071(3)(a) and 119.071(3)(b), Florida Statutes. Only the cover page of this report may be inspected and copied. REPORT ID: INSP005 (condensed) PRINTED: 02/27/2008 FLORIC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPi :TATION BRIDGE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM Inspection/CID Report tIDGE ID: 930227 PAGE: 12 OF 20 DISTRICT: 04 Fort Lauderdale INSPECTION DATE: 1/15/2008 EFLL Smart Flag Summary UNIT: 0 SMART FLAG ELEMENT/ENV:359/4 Soffit Smart Flag 1 ea. ELEM CATEGORY:Smart CONDITION STATE (5) DESCRIPTION QUANTITY 3 Cracking and efflorescence on the under-surface is moderate. The 1 distressed area is 10% or less of the underside area. ELEMENT INSPECTION NOTES: Underside of the slab units have extensive spalls with exposed and corroded rebar. Refer to Element 99 PS Conc Slab for related comments. Structure Notes BRIDGE OWNER: VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA Note: Bridge inventoried from west to east. Note: This structure is on a 12 month inspection frequency due to SIA Items #58 (Deck), #59 (Superstructure) and #70 (Bridge Posting) are all coded a 4. NSPECTION NOTES: EFLL 1/15/2008 Sufficiency Rating Calculation Accepted by kn538oj-P at 2008-01-24 17:13:08 This report contains information relating to the physical security of a structure and depictions of the structure. This information is confidential and exempt from public inspection pursuant to sections 119.071(3)(a) and 119.071(3)(b), Florida Statutes. Only the cover page of this report may be inspected and copied. REPORT ID: INSP005 (condensed) PRINTED: 02/27/2008 REPORT ID: INVT001A Structure ID: 930227 )RIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATIC BRIDGE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM Inspection/CID Report COMPREHENSIVE Page 13 of 20 DATE PRINTED: 02l27I2008 )escription Structure Unit Identification Bridge/Unit Key: 930227 0 Structure Name: Description: SPAN 1 THROUGH 5 Type: M Main Roadway Identification: NBI Structure No (8) 930227 Position/Prefix (5) Route On Structure Kind Hwy (Rte Prefix) 5 City Street Design Level of Service 1 Mainline Route Number/Suffix 00000/ 0 N/A (NBI) Feature Intersect (6) NO FORK LOXAHATCHEE RIV Critical Facility Not Defense-crit Facility Carried (7) TEQUESTA DRIVE Mile Point (11) 0.325 Roadwav. Traffic and Accidents Lanes (28) 2 Medians 0 Speed 30 mph ADT Class ADT Class 4 Recent ADT (29) 13486 Year (30) 2004 Future ADT (114) 23398 Year (115) 2027 Truck %ADT (409) 2 Detour Length (19) 3 mi Detour Speed 30 mph Accident Count -1 Rate -1 Latitude (16) 026d57'29" Long (17) 080d06'13" Roadwav Classification Nat. Hwy Sys (104) 0 Not on NHS National base Net (12) Not on Base Network LRS Inventory Rte (13a) 93 000 114 Sub Rte (13b) 00 Functional Class (26) 17 Urban Collector n Federal Aid System Y Defense Hwy (100) 0 Not a STRAHNET hwy Direction of Traffic (102) 2 2-way traffic Emergency^ Roadwav Clearances Vertical (10) 99.99 ft Appr. Road (32) 24.6ft Horiz. (47) 38.7 ft Roadway (51) 27.8 ft Truck Network (110) 0 Not part of natl netwo ToII Facility (20) 3 On free road Fed. Lands Hwy (105) 0 N!A (NBI) School Bus Route ^/ Transit Route ^ This report contains information relating to the physical security of a structure and depictions of the structure. This information is confidential and exempt from public inspection pursuant to sections 119.071(3)(a) and 119.071(3)(b), Florida Statutes. Only the cover page of this report may be inspected and copied. )RIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATIC BRIDGE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM Inspection/CID Report REPORT ID: INVT001A COMPREHENSIVE Page 14 of 20 Structure tD: 930227 DATE PRINTED: 02/27/2008 Structure Identification Geometrics Admin Area Palm Beach County Spans in Main Unit (45) 5 District (2) D4 - Ft. Lauderdale Approach Spans (46} 0 County (3) (93)Palm Beach Length of Max Span (48) 36.4 ft Place Code (4) Tequesta Structure Length (49) 181.1 ft Location (9) 1.2MI W OF US-1 Deck Area 7607 sgft Border Br SUReg (98) Not Applicable (P) Share 0 % Structure Flared (35) 0 No flare Border Struct No (99) Age and Service FIPS State/Region (1) 12 Florida Region 4-Atlanta Year Built (27) 1962 NBIS Bridge Len (112) Meets NBi Length Year Reconstructed (106) 2006 Parallel Structure (101) No ~~ bridge exists Type of Service On (42a) 5Highway-pedestrian Temp. Structure (103) Not Applicable (P) Under (42b) 5 Waterway Maint. Resp. (21) 4 City/Municipal Hwy Agy Fracture Critical Details Not Applicabie Owner (22) 4 City/Municipal Hwy Agy Historic Signif. (37) 5 Not eligible for NRHP Structure Type and Material Deck Tvpe and Material Curb/Sidewalk (50) Left 5.2 ft Right 5.9 ft Deck Width (52): 42 Bridge Median (33): 0 No median Skew (34): 0 Main Span Material (43A): 5 Prestressed Concrete Deck Type (107): 2 Concrete Precast Panel Appr Span Material (44A): Not Applicable Surface (108): 6 Bituminous Main Span Design (4313): 01 Slab Membrane: 0 None Appr Span Design (446): Not Applicable Deck Protection: None ~ Appral as 1; Structure Appraisal OpenlPosted/Closed (41) P Posted for load Deck Geometry (68) 2 Intolerable -Replace Underclearances (69) N Not applicable (NBI) Approach Alignment (72) 8-No Speed Red thru Curv Bridge Railings (36a) 0 Substandard Transitions (36b) 0 Substandard Approach Guardrail (36c) 0 Substandard Approach Guardrail ends (36d) 0 Substandard Scour Critical (113) U Unknown Scour Minimum Vertical Clearance Over Structure (53) 99.99 ft Under (reference) (54a) N Feature not hwy or RR Under (54b) 0 ft Load Rating Design Load (31) 4 M 18 (H 20) Rating Date 3/28/2006 Initials JLL Posting (70) 4 0.1-9.9%below Navigation Data Navigation Control (38) Permit Not Required Nav Vertical Clr (39) 0 ft Nav Horizontal Ctr (40) 0 ft Min Vert Lift Clr (116) 0 ft Pier Protection (111) Not Applicable (P) NBI Condition Rating Sufficiency Rating 32.1 Health Index 77.7 Structural Eval (67) 4 Minimum Tolerable Deficiency Structurally Deficient Minimum Lateral Underclearance Reference (55a) N Feature not hwy or RR Right Side (55b) 0 ft Left Side (56) 0 ft Operating Type (63) 1 LF Load Factor Operating rating (64) 42.6 tons Alternate -1 Inventory Type (65} 1 LF Load Factor Inventory Rating (66) 25.5 tons Alternate -1 ~ ~2 SChedule~ Alt Meth -1 Current Inspection Next Inspection Date Scheduled Inspection Date: 01/15/2008 NBI: 1/15/2010 Inspector: KN5380J-P -John O'Grady Element: 01/15/2009 Bridge Group: N/A Fracture Critical: Primary Type: Regular NBI ~ Underwater: 01/15/2010 Review Required: ~/ Other/Special: 01/15/2009 This report contains information relating to the physical security of a structure and depictions of the structure. This information is confidential and exempt from public inspection pursuant to sections 119.071(3)(a) and 119.071{3)(b}, Florida Statutes. Only the cover page of this report may be inspected and copied. REPORT ID: INVT001A Structure ID: 930227 >RIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATIC BRIDGE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM Inspection/CID Report COMPREHENSIVE Frequency (92) Last Date (93) mos ~ Schedule Con Inspection Types Performed NBI^/ Element ^/ Fracture Critical ^ Underwater ^/ Other Special ^/ Inspection Intervals Required (92) Fracture Critical Underwater ^/ Other Special ^/ NBI ~ Custom^ General Bridge Information Parallel Bridge Seq Channel pepth 7.9 ft .Radio Frequency -1 Phone Number (000) 000-0000 Exception Date Exception Type Unknown Accepted By Maint 01/01!1962 Warranty Expiration 00/00/0000 Bridge Load Rating Information HS20 Govr. Span Length 34.4 ft L-Rating Origination Design Plans Load Rating Date 03/28/2006 Method Calculation AASHTO formula Load Dist. Factor 0.68 Impact Factor 30 Design Method Load Factor Design Measure English Recommend SU Posting 32 tons Recommend C Posting 99 tons Recommend T Posting 99 tons Gov FB Span 0 ft Gov FB Spacing 0 ft FB HS20 Rating 0 tons FB SU4 Rating 0 tons FB Present N FB INV Rating Factor0 FB OPR Rating Factor 0 FB FL 120 0 tons Bridge Scour and Storm Information Pile Driving Record Unknown Foundation Type Unknown Mode of Flow Tidal Rating Scour Eval Scour Susceptible -Low Highest Scour Eval Phase I completed 1 Condition NBI Rating Channel (61) 7 Minor Damage Deck (58) 4 Poor Superstructure (59) 4 Poor Substructure (60) 6 Satisfactory 24 mos 01/22/2008 12 mos 01/15/2008 24 mos (91) 01/15/2008 (90) Page 15 of 20 DATE PRINTED: 02/27/2008 Inspection Resources Crew Hours 8 Flagger Hours 0 Helper Hours 0 Snooper Hours 0 Special Crew Hours 3 Special Equip Hours 6 Bridge Rail 1 Concrete post & beam Bridge Rail 2 Not applicable-No rail Electrical Devices No electric service Culvert Type Not applicable Maintenance Yard 0 FIHS ON /OFF No Routes on FIHS Previous Structure Single Unit Truck 2 Axles 31.8 tons Single Unit Truck 3 Axles 33 tons Single Unit Truck 4 Axes 32.5 tons Combination Unit Truck 3 Axles 48.3 tons Combination Unit Truck 4 Axles 44.1 tons Combination Unit Truck 5 Axles 48 tons Truck Trailer 5 Axles 50 tons Posting Weight 5 tons Actual SU Posting 99 tons Actual C Posting 99 tons - Actual T Posting 99 tons FL 120 Long Gov Span -1 tons FL 120 Trans -1 tons Single Axle Trans -1 tons Tandem Axle Trans -1 tons Wing Span -1 ft Web to Web Span -1 ft HS20 OPR Rating Max Span -1 tons FL120 Long Max Span -1 tons Scour Recommended I Stop scour evaluations Scour Recommended II No recommendation Scour Recommended III No recommendation Scour Elevation -1 ft Action Elevation -1 ft Storm Frequency -1 Culvert (62)N N/A (NBI) Waterway (71) 7 Above Minimum Unrepaired Spalls -1 sq.ft. Review Required ^/ This report contains information relating to the physical security of a structure and depictions of the structure. This information is confidential and exempt from public inspection pursuant to sections 119.071(3)(a) and 119.071(3)(b), Florida Statutes. Only the cover page of this report may be inspected and copied. REPORT ID: INVT001A Structure ID: 930227 )RIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATIC BRIDGE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM InspectionlClD Report COMPREHENSIVE Page 16 of 20 DATE PRINTED: 02/27/2008 ements Inspection Date: 1/15/2008EFLL pan Id Elem/Env Descr~pt~on ~ Qty1 %1 Qty2 %2 Qty3 %3 Qty4 %4 QtyS %5 ~ T Q 0 99/4 S Conc Slab - ~~ 0 ~ jL O~i~~ 7607 100. 0~~~~ p ~~ 7607 sf. Notes Note: Roadway slab units in Spans 1, 2, 4 and 5 are numbered 3 through 9. Sidewalk slab units in Spans 1, 2, 4 and 5 are numbered 1, 2, 10 and 11. Roadway slab units in Span 3 are numbered 3 through 7. Sidewalk slab units in Span 3 are numbered 1, 2, 8 and 9. The asphalt surfacing over the expansion joints has roadway width x 1l4in. wide transverse cracks -NEW. There is a light to moderate accumulation of dirt and debris along the curbs -NEW. The topside and underside of the sidewalk slab units have numerous spalls and delaminations, some with exposed steel -INCREASE. The underside of the roadway slab units have numerous spalls and delaminations, some with exposed rebar -INCREASE. Due to the amount of text noted under this element, refer to the Element Notes section in the addendum for a list of specific deficiencies noted in the sidewalk slab units and the roadway slab units. Corrective Action Taken: The worst areas of corrosion on the utilities along the north side of the structure have been repaired by installing PVC sleeves around the corroded areas. The utilities still have varying degrees of corrosion. D 301/4 ourable Joint Seal ~CO '~I 0 ~ , 84 100. ~~~C~! 0~~~, 8~- Notes Note: The quantity and condition state represent only the visible portion of the joints in the curb and sidewalk areas. Roadway portions are not visible due to the asphalt overlay and are considered incidental to this element. Sealant within the sidewalk portion of the joints is completely deteriorated and in some areas, they are packed with dirt and debris - NO CHANGE. Refer to photo 10. 331/4 Conc Bridge Railing ~ 304 3.52 i 0 ~i` 6 16.48 ~CI p ;~~; 3' 64 If,- tes CS3 =Most of the posts have delaminations up to full height x Bin. wide throughout - NO CHANGE. Refer to photo 11 for typical view. In addition, the following posts have spalls with exposed rebar up to full height of post x full width of post: Left side -Posts 1-4, 1-6, 2-1, 2-4, 2-5, 3-1, 3-2, 3-3, 3-4, 3-5, 4-1, 4-2, 4-3, 4-4, 4-5, 5-1 and 5-4 -INCREASE. Right side -Posts 1-2, 1-6, 2-1, 2-3, 2-6, 3-2, 4-3, 4-4, 4-5, 5-2 and 5-5 -INCREASE. Refer to photo 12 for typical view. The approach guardrails were considered incidental to this element: The steel approach guardrail panels typically have minor dents and the timber posts have some splintered edges - NO CHANGE. Random cushion blocks are loose -NEW. 204/4 /S Conc Column -~ 22 1,11 ©16.87 ®2.22 'I ~ ~~~C-1 36 ea. Notes Note: Only the outside faces of the piling in Abutments 1 and 6 are visible due to the concrete added between the piles (b-aclkwalls were jacketed). Refer to Element 475 R/Conc Walls for any related comments regarding the two support piles at each retaining wall. Due to the amount of text noted under this element, all comments can be found in the Element Notes section of the addendum. The following is a brief summary: Several piles are cracked/delaminated, mostly as a result of corroding rebar. Corrective Action Taken: The previously noted deficiencies in Piles 1-2, 1-3 and 1-4 have been repaired since the 3!8/2006 Post-Repair Inspection. This report contains information relating to the physical security of a structure and depictions of the structure. This information is confidential and exempt from public inspection pursuant to sections 119.071(3)(a) and 119.071(3)(b), Florida Statutes. Only the cover page of this report may be inspected and copied. REPORT ID: INVT001A Structure ID: 930227 )RIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATIC BRIDGE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM InspectionlClD Report COMPREHENSIVE Page 17 of 20 DATE PRINTED m/~7nnna ments inspection Date: 1/15/2008EFLL pan Id Elem/Env Description ~ Qty1 %1 Qty2 %2 Qty3 ~ %3 Qty4 %4 QtyS %5 ~ T Qty 0 215/4 R/Conc Abutment ~--, 86 7.81 :~~ 12 12.19 ~ 0~~~1_ ~~ 98 If. Notes CS1 =The east face of Abutment 1 cap has less than 1/64in. wide cracking that outlines a repair area from Pile 1-1 to Pile 1-3 and between Piles 1-5 and 1-6 - NO CHANGE. Abutment caps have vertical cracks up to 30in. long x 1/32in. wide - NO CHANGE. Abutment 1 cap and Abutment 6 cap have intermittent horizontal cracking up to 1/64in. wide developing within Bin. of the bottom edge - NC CHANGE. CS3 =Abutments have other more significant cracks and delaminations as follows: Abutment 1 cap has delaminated repairs up to 24in. Tong x 30in. wide in the east face at the haunched areas adjacent to Slab Units 1-3 am 1-9 - NO CHANGE. Refer to photo 16. Abutment 6 cap has a Oft. long x Bin. wide delamination above Pile 6-5 -INCREASE. Abutment 6 cap has a delaminated patch 1ft. long x bin. wide in the top west edge under Slab Unit 5-10 - NO CHANGE. Abutment 6 cap has a 3-1/2ft. long x 1ft. wide delaminated patch in the lower west face between Piles 6-7 and 6-8 -NEW. Corrective Action Taken: The previously noted delamination in Abutment 6 cap between Piles 6-7 and 6-8 has been repaired, but the patched area is now delaminated as noted above. 0 234/4 ~lConc Cap j~ 4.57 ~` 2 14.38 54 31.06 ~ 0 ~~ p ~ 174 If. Notes CS1 =Some of the intermediate bent caps have heavy rooted vegetation growing on the ends - NO CHANGE. Refer to photo 17. CS2 =Bent caps have random cracking up to 1/32in. wide - NO CHANGE. CS3 =The following is a list of deficiencies noted: Bent 2 cap west face under S.U. 1-2, 2-1/2ft. long x 2ft. wide delaminated patch -INCREASE. Bent 2 cap west face under S.U. 1-10, aft. x 2-1/2ft. delamination -NEW. Bent 2 cap west face at south end, 1 ft. 4in. x 1ft. 4in. x 1 in. spalled and delaminated area with exposed rebar -INCREASE. Refer to photo 18. Bent 3 cap bottom northeast corner, 18in. long x 12in. wide delaminated patch -INCREASE. Bent 3 cap bottom face near the southwest corner of Pile 3-1, 2-1/2ft. long x 18in. wide delaminated patch -INCREASE. Bent 3 cap east face under S.U. 3-8, 2ft. long x 1ft. Tin. delaminated patch -INCREASE. Bent 3 cap east face lower edge from Pile 3-2 to north end, 16ft. long x Sin. wide delaminated patch - NO CHANGE. Bent 4 cap west face lower edge betvueen Piles 4-4 8< 4-5, 7ft. long x 1ft. wide delamination -INCREASE. Bent 4 cap lower west face at south side of Pile 4-1, 4-1/2ft. x 2-1 /2ft. delaminated patch -NEW. Refer to photo 19. Bent 5 cap bottom & west faces between Piles 5-1 and 5-2, 6-1/2ft. long x 3-1/2ft. wide delaminated patch -INCREASE. Bent 5 cap lower east and west faces and bottom face between Piles 5-4 and 5-5, Eft. long x Eft. wide delaminated patch -INCREASE. D 396/4 ther Abut Slo a Pro 2400 100. ~ 0 p ~ ~~ P ~~~~I-~~~~~L-~~I__JL-"~~ 2400 sf. Notes Note: This element represents the concrete filled fabric mat slope protection. ~ 129014 hannel ~;; 1100. C~~~I p ~~_ ~p ~ ~-'I'~ Notes --~~i-- ~~~-~ JI~ I 1 ea. 359/4 offit Smart Flag ~' p_]~~0~!~~100. ~~ 0 ~ 1 ea. 5 Underside of the slab units have extensive spalls with exposed and corroded rebar. Refer to Element 99 PS Conc Slab for related comments. This report contains information relating to the physical security of a structure and depictions of the structure. This information is confidential and exempt from public inspection pursuant to sections 119.071(3)(a) and 119.071(3){b), Florida Statutes. Only the cover page of this report may be inspected and copied. REPORT ID: INVT001A Structure ID: 930227 ~RIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATIt BRIDGE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM Inspection/CID Report COMPREHENSIVE Page 18 of 20 DATE PRINTED: 02/27/2008 ~ments Inspection Date: 1/15/2008EFLL pan Id ElemlEnv Description Qty1 %1 Qty2 %2 Qty3 %3 Qty4 %4 Qty5 %5 ~ T Q 0 321/4 R/Conc Approach Slab ~ 100. ~~i0o ~~~~~ 2 ea. Notes Note: The approach slabs are not visible due to an asphalt overlay. Both approach slabs are outlined with cracks up to 3/bin. wide - NO CHANGE. The west approach slab surtacing has a longitudinal crack, 8ft. long x 1/bin. wide in the westbound lane - NO CHANGE. The following was considered incidental to this element: The southwest approach sidewalk has a diagonal crack aft. long x 1 /bin. wide, adjacent to Abutment 1 - NO CHANGE. The northeast approach sidewalk has a 12in. x Bin. delamination at the fourth guardrail post from the structure -NEW. The asphalt surfacing of the approach roadways has random cracking up to Eft. long x 1/bin. wide -NEW. Corrective Action Taken: The construction debris has been removed from the approach shoulders. D 475/4 Conc Walls ~~~~, 2 g gg,45 ~ 27 J 10.55 ~~~~ ;256 If. Notes Note: Total quantity includes both abutment backwalls and the four wingwalls, including the the two support piles at each corner of the bridge. Backwalls were jacketed in the past. CS2 =The retaining wall caps have cracking up to 1/32in. wide, some with efflorescence and/or corrosion bleed out - NO CHANGE. Northwest retaining wall support piles have up to 1/16in. wide vertical cracking with corrosion stains - NO CHANGE. CS3 =The northwest retaining wall cap has a delaminated patch, Eft. long x 10in. wide, located at the angle break - NO CHANGE. Refer t~ photo 20. The southwest retaining wall cap has a aft. x 10in.. delamination at the angle break and a 7-1/2ft. x 1-1l2ft. delamination at the end -NEW. The northeast retaining wall cap above the support pile has a 1-1/2ft. x Sin. x Sin. spall with exposed rebar -NEW. Refer to photo 21. The exposed faces of the northeast retaining wall support piles are delaminated up to aft. long x Sin. wide with corrosion stains extending up from the marine growth - NO CHANGE. Refer to photo 22. The concrete sheet piling between the support piles of the southeast retaining wall has a Eft. x Eft. delaminated area -NEW. The following was considered incidental to the element: The slope behind the end of the northwest retaining wall has a Eft. x Eft. x 1-1/2ft. deep washout located directly above an outfall pipe in the retaining wall -NEW. Refer to photo 23. Due to the amount of text, refer to the Element Notes section ih the addendum. Total Number of Elements: 11 Inspection Information Inspection Date: 01.15.2008 Type: Regular NBI Inspector: KN5380J-P -John O'Grady Inspection Notes: Sufficiency Rating Calculation Accepted by kn538oj-P at 2008-01-24 17:13:08 Inspection Date: 02.14.2007 Type: Special-Posted Bridge Inspector: 957 Inspection Notes: Sufficiency Rating Calculation Accepted by knkcabc-P at 2007-03-29 07:32:39 Note: This was an interim (post-repair) inspection. Only Element 99 PS Conc Slab was inspected and evaluated, and will be included in this report. For all other deficiencies, refer to the previous routine report dated 1/28/06. This report contains information relating to the physical security of a structure and depictions of the structure. This information is confidential and exempt from public inspection pursuant to sections 119.071(3)(a) and 119.071(3)(b), Florida Statutes. Only the cover page of this report may be inspected and copied. )RIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATI( BRIDGE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM InspectionlClD Report REPORT ID: INVT001A COMPREHENSIVE Page 19 of 20 Structure ID: 930227 DATE PRINTED: 02/27/2008 pection Information Inspection Date: 03.08.2006 Type: Interim Inspector: 843 Inspection Notes: Sufficiency Rating Calculation Accepted by kn538p1-P at 2006-03-29 16:26:23 Inspection Date: 01.28.2006 Type: Regular NBI Inspector: KNKCAST-P -Timothy Sweeney Inspection Notes: Sufficiency Rating Calculation Accepted by KNKCAES-P at 2006-02-24 15:29:08 Note: This structure is closed until further notice, due to the 100% corroded prestressed strands and permanent fracture in Slab Unit 3-7 at mid-span. Due to the failed state of these strands and the numerous exposed and severely corroded strands in other slab units at Span 3 underside, the NBI rating for Deck and Superstructure has been lowered from a 5 (Fair) to a 2 (Critical) during this inspection. Inspection Date: 10.26.2005 Type: Special-Nat Disaster Dmg Inspector: KNKCAPO-P -Patrick O'Grady Inspection Notes: NOTE: Storm damage assessment completed on 10/26!2005 following Hurricane Wilma. No storm related damage was found in the structure as a result of the hurricane. Inspection Date: 08.26.2005 Type: Special-Nat Disaster Dmg Inspector: KN853KR-P -Ken Reinhold Inspection Notes: NOTE: Storm damage assessment completed on 08/26/2005 following Hurricane Katrina. No storm related damage was found in the structure as a result of the hurricane. Inspection Date: 03.15.2005 Type: Interim Inspector: 840 Inspection Notes: Sufficiency Rating Calculation Accepted by KNKCAES-P at 2005-04-12 11:03:56 Inspection Date: 02.24.2004 Type: Regular NBI Inspector: KN738A6-P -Anthony Bibelhauser Inspection Notes: Sufficiency Rating Calculation Accepted by kn738vb-P at 2004-03-18 16:58:09 KN738A6-P inspection comments - Structure 930227 - Date 2004-02-24 - Inspection Date: 02.18.2003 Type: Interim Inspector: KN738WW-P -Wade Wolfe Inspection Notes: Sufficiency Rating Calculation Accepted by kn738vb-P at 2003-03-04 16:36:23 KN738WW-P inspection comments - Structure 930227 - Date 2003-02-18 - This is an interim inspection, only elements 99 P/S Conc Slab and 359 Soffit Smart flag are included. This report contains information relating to the physical security of a structure and depictions of the structure. This information is confidential and exempt from public inspection pursuant to sections 119.071(3)(a) and 119.071(3)(b), Florida Statutes. Only the cover page of this report may be inspected and copied 1RIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATIC BRIDGE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM InspectionlClD Report REPORT ID: INVT001A COMPREHENSIVE Page 20 of 20 structure ID: 930227 DATE PRINTED: 02!27/2008 pection Information Inspection Date: 02.28.2002 Type: Regular NBI Inspector: KN738SH-P -Scott Hughes Inspection Notes: Sufficiency Rating Calculation Accepted by kn738ma at 3/7/02 11:45:19 KN738SH inspection comments -Routine inspection. Structure 930227 - Date 2/28/02 - Inspection Date: 04.11.2001 Type: Interim Inspector: KN738R0-P -Rick O'Connor Inspection Notes: Sufficiency Rating Calculation Accepted by kn738vb at 5/15/01 17:34:36 KN738R0 inspection comments - Structure 930227 - Date 4/11/01 - This is an interim inspection conducted based on SIA item 70 Bridge Posting being rated 4 or less. Only Element 99/4 PS Conc Slab and 359/4 Soffit Smart Flag are in this report. For a comprehensive list of all other deficiencies and recommended repairs, see the previous report dated 02/09/00. The following deficiencies noted are not covered by elements in the PONTIS program. Repair recommendations for these elements can be found in the recommended repair section of the attached addendum. Signs- signs are posted at each approach fora 33 ton weight limit. The sign configuration does not conform with FDOT Standard Index 17357 guidelines. Tequesta Drive is posted at several points prior to reaching the bridge for "No Thru Trucks Over 50001bs. Net Wt". Inspection Date: 02.09.2000 Type: Regular NBI Inspector: 311 pection Notes: Sufficiency Rating Calculation Accepted by kn738dc at 3/1/00 11:45:20 KN738DC inspection comments - Structure 930227 - Date 2/9/00 - Refer to the attached addendum for all non-Pontis and additional element deficiencies and recommendations. Inspection Date: 02.24.1999 Type: Interim Inspector: 311 Inspection Notes: Sufficiency Rating Calculation Accepted by kn7381p at 3/24/99 13:33:04 Sufficiency Rating Calculation Accepted by kn7381p at 3/24/99 11:42:14 KN738DC inspection comments - This interim inspection is being conducted based on SIA Item 70 Bridge Posting being rated 4 or less. Structural deficiencies affecting the load carrying capacity were reviewed and will be included in this report. For a comprehensive list of all other deficiencies and recommended repairs, see the previous report dated 1/20/98. Structure 930227 - ' Date 2/24/99 -The following deficiencies noted are not covered by elements in the PONTIS program. Repair recommendations for these elements can be found in the recommended repair section of the attached addendum. Signs-Signs are posted at each approach fora 33 ton weight limit. The signing configuration does not conform with FDOT Standard Index 17357 guidelines. Tequesta Drive is posted at several points prior to reaching the bridge for "No Thru Trucks Over 5000 lbs. Net Wt". Previous comments > (none) Structure Notes BRIDGE OWNER: VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA Note: Bridge inventoried from west to east. This structure is on a 12 month inspection frequency due to SIA Items #58 (Deck), #59 (Superstructure) and #70 (Bridge Posting) JI coded a 4. This report contains information relating to the physical security of a structure and depictions of the structure. This information is confidential and exempt from public inspection pursuant to sections 119.071(3)(a) and 119.071(3)(b), Florida Statutes. Only the cover page of this report may be inspected and copied. FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION BRIDGE INSPECTION REPORT ADDENDUM ,, _ ~ CONTENTS OF ADDENDUM Location Map Photo Section & Sketches Weight Limit Sign Photos * Fracture Critical Data Load Rating Analysis Summary Recommended Repairs Element Notes * Scour Evaluation This section is not included in this report. BRIDGE OWNER: VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA BY: KISINGER CAMPO & ASSOCIATES CORP. REPORT IDENTIFICATION Bridge Number: 930227 Routine Inspection Date: 1/15/08 Bridge Name: Tequesta Drive over North Fork of Loxahatchee River Road Name/Number: Tequesta Drive Feature Intersected: North Fork of Loxahatchee River Critical Deficiency Statement: None Traffic Restrictions: According to the current load rating analysis dated 3/28/06, this structure should be posted at or below the Operating Rating for the SU type vehicles as follows: SU-32 tons. This structure is current) osted for a blanket wei ht limit of 5 tons. Refer to hotos on a e 3. Page 1 of 26 FL' `IDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPOR~ TION BRIDGE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM BRIDGE INSPECTION REPORT Bridge No: 930227 Inspection Date: 1/15/08 LOCATION MAP South Elevation FAIRWAY N ~ w BEACON PALL R1S ._ . - - _ _ - . _ . _ . _ . _ L~ ~ ~ y~~ o VIL ~ LMEBLVO ' INTEBAYOR ~' $ ~ ¢ ~ y ORCHID DR o g g pj' ~ $q ~ 1tPIMt $OtOM SV 4t Q' ,[iS 'F ~~~ G ~ UEEWIQLO GR ~ C~ VILUIOEBLVD C C[ A BtpLKEn STARBOARD WAY ~ RESS CIR g ~ ~ ~ GOLF PL RIVE BIIANI RD R PINEB CT ~. OAK RIDGE LN ~ g ft'/LLO{yR0 -~ HNETREE CMt R - ~~VO ~J6~' TR(~ p SozahN hsa%sa .~ ~`N $~ ~ OVLF CT FNFt~ aY~ WESTWOOD AVE g2gtEq GR 0 OAKLEAF CT ~ f F '9 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ HOLLY CIR AY RD ' WATERW S.np . ~ ~' ~ EBZ POP ~ M ~QN' ~ TE01£STA dt TB4u8sU g Q'~ ~ a a @ ~~ G ~ BRIDGE R DUR HOBBIES Rb ~" r ff p~ R7 o P ~ ~ Y ~ D 9 ^' LM v, y 0.1VER DR ~ 830227 ~ ~ a~ ~ qP ~ COCONUT LN ~y y~ °m ~ z ~ ~qO a EYEBAL VE Fp ~ FWIZIER RD ,., ~` : PENNOCK PgNT RO ~ bL ~ Z p.0 ~ SHIRLEYDR lA ~SS ~ mTn ? ~ ,~ TQ". ~ .. _.. OLD MYSTIC CT ?OINT LN E Qp 54 -r ~ ^5 ~;'" ~ ~ f WILLWISON RD ~ '~ ga~~ ~~pG L~Iwuse ~ a ~k p OkAHATOHEE PINES DR g g 3 a .WRRer Mgat Beach CBlay ~ SETN SUN PL -~" COVE PL SUNDANCE CT ~ SENEGAL CT >D" G1 R .SENEGAL 00. -. Fon $ptfllMiii AOYlt t.OiCti0fCj1K %10. Drly. ~ ~ a g ~ ~ Z~ ~ ' ~ ~,. T ~ ' Qp- TIDEWATER CIR 4 4~. CENTER 8i ~ ~ ~G ~ a:.z ,. ~' ' ~ d 9 s ~ ~ ~~i CH EYENNE ST §j ~ ~ ~< ~ z > ~QS JuPler Beech PaM1 ~ G $ °p H z ~ 5 °'~ ~ E DMUND ST ~ ~ JUPIT R ~ m o ° g ff ~. ~i ~ E ST ~ + ~ ~ INIET RD IIOHTHOUSE RD Q R z g ~ e ~._. qWWWWW e ~ D. ~ 8 0 o i EkT ~ S ~ ~ QYQS ~ d ~ u ~ ~ X$4 ~ ~ i£ ~~ t KiNEPL ~ B O ,ffi ~ z y A 4y OUTHVIEW DR z. } Data use subject tc lice nse. rT tl 4 ®2D04 DeLoane. Stree t Atlas USA[92005. 1 0 B00 1200 t 800 2400 3000 3800 MN 0° (6. VV) Data Zoom 13-0 iequesta ur. over North r'ork of Loxahatchee River 1.2 Miles W of US-1 Page 2 of 26 FL 'IDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPOR" TION BRIDGE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM BRIDGE INSPECTION REPORT Bridge No: 000000 Inspection Date: 00!00/00 POSTING PHOTOS ~~:. Page 3 of 26 West Weight Limit Sign East Weight Limit Sign FL IDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPOR TION BRIDGE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM BRIDGE INSPECTION REPORT Bridge No: 930227 Inspection Date: 1/15/08 LOAD RATING ANALYSIS SUMMARY S'M'fF. Op FLO W DA DEPARTMENT OF 7Rn5S PURTn1'ION U: LOAD CAl'ACI'1'Y 1NNOKMA'1"ION I. BRIllGEllA'1'A: J»•611n Dodge Number 9307.27 Date 32;i200G Sl'R Type Main (DID (tern H1(43)] 501 ~ STR Type AYK (DlU I[em D2(a4)I 0110 2. POS'1'WG DATA: Posted YES If yes , Gxisting Posting NeL<ieit YES If yes, Proposed RLStriuions 5"f Restrictions SU-32'f Dif) Item HS(al) P -- - HID lcem HI I("'0) - ~ 4 131D Item H7(3l) a 3. ANAI.I'SlS UA"fA: n. Method of Analysis: C An.dvsi> Da~~1 Q`_ _._ _ _. . D. [Data ~ Loral. _ _. X Load Factor _ X Design Drawings X District Offitc Working Stress ---.. - - As-Duih Rexord Ylans ____- ..___ Cell tral Otfice B. Analysis System: Shop Drawings -- Microfilm _.. X_-. . DARS --- X Fidd MeasuremLTn _. _..__.. Bndgc Ownar _. SAI.OD Caulogs Materials Test Lab DRIJFF M Sample 7~L-.+ting . ____.. _ _ h ~ ~ Other K Drive l.nad TLSt Other Otlur Qther ---- B. C'ontrollinE Mcnlbtr Analvrcd~ Material : . __ Steel _ Y...._.. .. Concrete ---- Cast in Place __ ___ X Prex:ast - _ X PrtstrLSSCd Post Trnsioned _ Timber~~ Other man: -._...--- X Simple Continuous . . Fian1C Slah X NorrCompositc ~ Colnposite 4. Load Ratine Summary 'fable: I~;uthc. tigrl; X Slah ----_.. ---Stringli _ _ Floor Dean _ -,-,-__ GtrdLT __ _____~ Cu Ivcn Tntss Shin.; __ Rnllai _,,,-._ Huill-up WtldLtt _-.__-_ Dutlt•up Riveted __________ Dox Shupe __ AASIiTO Gird Ts X ~ Other Voided Slab Suhstructure~ Drnt Construction _.. __ .._..._. Piling _ Cap Pier Couswction -.. _... Piling -----_-_ Footing Column __... In)ltuct Factor: 0.300 LOAD RATING SIJM~IARY FOR OPERATING RATING GROSS TONS VEHICLE TYPE TONS OPR RA'fiNC OPR FACTOR SPAN No. SPAN LE;VCTH CONTR. 111F.DiBF;R S1 or V LLOF SU2 .17 31.8 1.87 2 34'-5" GOl M 0.680 SU3 33 33.0 1.00 2 34'-5" Ci01 M 0.680 SU4 35 32.5 0.93 2 34'-5" 601 M 0.680 C3 28 48.3 1J3 2 3a'-5^ 601 bt U.680 L4 36.6 44.1 L21 2 34'-5" 601 hl 0.680 CS 40.0 48.0 1.20 2 34'-5" 601 M O.G80 S'IS 40.0 50.0 1.25 2 34'-5" GOI ;M 0.680 HS 20 36 a2-G L I8 2 34'•5" 601 M 0.680 ...~..... .~.. ..y na. ..~ __ ....__. Rai Ilr, ral:lOr V.: I 5. Comments -`--_- Member 601 is a Drestressed concrete voided slab with a span length of 34.416 tt. Memb6r GOI has a lar c s ali-and exposed tendons. Redut:tions for mafenal strenEths and section loss have been taken 6. Comuutations: Perfonned By 7ason L. iaf3arbera, P.F.. Date 3282006 _ Chcckal dy Patrick Mulheam Date 328!2WG Reviuwed By David D. T'ho~son, P.E. pate 32820UG 7. Responsible Eneineer: Jason L. [.aBarbera, P.B. P.E. # 64004 __ Date 389/2006_ 6yoo y 329 /O le Page 4 of 26 FL 'IDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPOR TION BRIDGE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM BRIDGE INSPECTION REPORT Bridge No: 930227 Inspection Date: 1/15/08 ELEMENT NOTES Element Category: 99 PS Concrete Slab (Continued) Note: Roadway slab units in Spans 1, 2, 4 and 5 are numbered 3 through 9. Sidewalk slab units in Spans 1, 2, 4 and 5 are numbered 1, 2, 10 and 11. Roadway slab units in Span 3 are numbered 3 through 7. Sidewalk slab units in Span 3 are numbered 1, 2, 8 and 9. The following is a list of spalls and/or delaminations noted in the underside of the roadway slab units. All conditions noted are at or near mid-span unless otherwise noted: Several of the slabs in Spans 2 and 4 have diagonal cracks up to 12in. long x 1/32in. wide at the bent caps. Note: All of the delaminated patches have moisture penetrating through them. Slab Unit 1-3 has a 14in. x Bin. delamination at the east scupper - NO CHANGE. Slab Unit 1-8 has a Eft. x 4in. delamination along south edge - NO CHANGE. Slab Unit 1-9 has three longitudinal cracks up to aft. long x 1/16in. wide adjacent to Bent 2 near the center - INCREASE. Slab Unit 2-3 has a 9ft. x aft. delamination near the center - NO CHANGE. Slab Unit 2-4 has an 8ft. x aft. delaminated patch - NO CHANGE. Refer to photo 1. Slab Unit 2-5 has a 7ft. x aft. x Sin. spalled and delaminated area with three exposed rebars having up to 10~ section loss near the center - INCREASE. Refer to photo 1. Slab Unit 2-7 has a 9ft. x 3-1/2ft. delamination and delaminated patch - INCREASE. Refer to photo 2. Slab Unit 2-8 has a Oft. x aft. delaminated patch - NO CHANGE. Slab Unit 2-9 has a Oft. x Bin. .delamination with an Bin. x Sin. x lin. spall with exposed steel at Bent 2 - NO CHANGE. Slab Unit 2-8 has a 13ft. x bin. delamination south edge from mid-span toward Bent 3. Slab Unit 4-3 has an 18ft. x aft. delamination and delaminated patch - NO CHANGE. Slab Unit 4-4 has a 5ft. x aft. delaminated patch near center - NO CHANGE; Longitudinal cracking less than 1/32in. wide exist along north edge east of mid-span - NEW. Slab Unit 4-5 has a 5ft. x aft. delaminated patch with corrosion staining - INCREASE Slab Unit 4-6 has a Eft. x aft. delamination - INCREASE Slab Unit 4-7 has a 9-1/2ft. x 3-1/2ft. delamination and delaminated patch - INCREASE. Slab Unit 4-8 has a 16ft. x 2ft. delaminated patch and delamination - NO CHANGE. Slab Unit 5-3 has a aft. x lft. delamination along south edge - NO CHANGE. Page 5 of 26 FL 'IDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPOR~ TION BRIDGE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM BRIDGE INSPECTION REPORT Bridge No: 930227 Inspection Date: 1/15/08 ELEMENT NOTES Element Category: 99 PS Concrete Slab (Continued) Slab Unit 5-4 has an intermittent span length x Bin. delamination along north edge; 8ft. x lft. delamination along south edge - NO CHANGE. The underside of the 1ft. wide cast-in-place curb section in Spans 1, 2, 4 and 5 in Slab Units 2-3, 2-9, 3-3, 4-3, 4-9, 5-3 and 5-9 typically have significant cracking, delaminations (unsound concrete) and/or spalling as a result of corroding reinforcing steel. In some cases, the delaminations or spalling extends 3/4 of the span length - INCREASE. Refer to photos 3 and 4. The metal utility conduits attached to the north overhang are heavily corroded with several areas completely corroded through, exposing the plastic coated cables within. Refer to photo 5. The top and traffic faces of the curbs in Spans 1, 2, 4 and 5 have longitudinal (horizontal) cracks up to 1/16in. wide, some with corrosion staining, and several delaminations with and without corrosion staining in areas throughout. Top of the sidewalks have numerous shallow spalls and delaminations with and without exposed reinforcing steel. The following is a list of top side sidewalk deficiencies: Span 1: North sidewalk adjacent to Abutment 1 has a delaminated repair Eft. x Oft. - NO CHANGE. Refer to photo 6. Span l: North sidewalk adjacent to Bent 2 has a delaminated repair 18ft. x aft. - NO CHANGE. Span l: North sidewalk under utility pipe at mid-span has two spalls with exposed steel up to 18in. x 4in. x 3/4in. - NO CHANGE. Refer to photo 7. Span 1: South sidewalk adjacent to Bent 2 has four delaminations and spalls with exposed steel up to Sin. x aft. x 3/4in. - NO CHANGE. Span 2: North sidewalk adjacent to curb at Bent 2 has a delamination 17in. x 4in. - NO CHANGE. .Span 2: North sidewalk under utility at 3/4 point has a spall with exposed steel Oft. x Sin. x lin. - NO CHANGE and a 14ft. x bin. delamination, starting 5ft. from Bent 2 - NEW. Span 2: South sidewalk adjacent to curb has an intermittent delamination and spall with exposed steel 25ft. x Sin. x 1/tin. - NO CHANGE. Span 3: South sidewalk adjacent to curb, 8ft. & 16ft. from Bent 3, has two (2) delaminations with exposed steel up to Tin. x Sin. x 1/tin. (popouts). Other minor spalls with no exposed steel exist along the curb - NO CHANGE. Span 3: South sidewalk has longitudinal cracks, some with corrosion staining, up to 1/32in, wide and minor spalls with no exposed steel along the curb - NO CHANGE. Page 6 of 26 FL 'IDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPOR TION BRIDGE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM BRIDGE INSPECTION REPORT Bridge No: 930227 Inspection Date: 1/15/08 ELEMENT NOTES Element Category: 99 PS Concrete Slab (Continued) Span 4: South sidewalk has longitudinal cracks up to 1/32in. wide, some with corrosion staining- INCREASE. Span 4: South sidewalk adjacent to curb has a spalled and delaminated area with exposed steel and corrosion stains 25ft. x bin. x 1/tin. - NO CHANGE. Span 5: South sidewalk has longitudinal cracks up to 1/32in. wide, some with corrosion staining - INCREASE and a Eft. x aft. x 1/tin. deep spalled and delaminated area with exposed steel at Bridge Rail Posts 5-3 and 5-4 - NEW. Span 5: North sidewalk, 9ft. from Bent 5, has a spalled and delaminated area with exposed steel and corrosion stains 16in. x 4in, x 1/tin. - NO CHANGE. The following is a list of deficiencies noted in the underside of the sidewalks: Slab Unit 2-10 near mid-span has a 5ft. x aft. delamination - NEW. Slab Unit 3-1 at mid-span has a delamination and delaminated patch with corrosion stains up to 13ft. x aft. wide - INCREASE. Slab Unit 3-2 at mid-span has a lift. x 2-1/2ft. delamination - NEW. Slab Unit 3-8, previously noted as 3-9, at mid-span has a crack/spall/delamination with exposed rebar 12ft. long x aft. wide x tin. deep - INCREASE. .Refer to photo 8. Slab Unit 3-9 just west of mid-span, has a 7ft. x aft. delamination - NEW. Refer to photo 9. Slab Unit 4-1 at Bent 5 has a delamination aft. x 1ft. and a 7ft. x 16in. delamination at centerline - NO CHANGE. Slab Unit 4-2 at mid-span has a 5ft. x 1-1/2ft. delamination - NEW. Slab Unit 4-10 at mid-span and 3/4 points has two delaminations each up to aft. x lft. - NO CHANGE. Page 7 of 26 FL 'IDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPOR" TION BRIDGE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM BRIDGE INSPECTION REPORT Bridge No: 930227 Inspection Date: 1/15/08 ELEMENT NOTES Element Category: 204 P/S Conc Column Note: Ohly the outside faces of the piling in Abutments 1 and 6 are visible due to concrete added between the piles (backwalls were jacketed). Refer to Element 475 R/Conc walls for any comments regarding the two support piles at each retaining wall. CSl = Most of the piling in Bents 2 through 5 have un-patched pickup points up to 18in, below the top of the marine growth - NO CHANGE. CS2 & CS3 = Several piles have cracking, mostly as a result of corroding rebar. The following is a list of deficiencies noted above the waterline: CS2 = Pile 1-1, SE corner, 18in. below cap, vertical crack aft. long x 1/64in. wide - NO CHANGE. Pile 1-5, NE corner, aft. below cap, vertical crack with corrosion staining lft. Bin. long x 1/64in. wide - INCREASE. Pile 1-8, NE corner, Oft. below cap, vertical crack 2 1/2ft. long x 1/64in. wide - NEW. Pile 2-1, SE corner, at cap, vertical crack lft. long x 1/64in. wide - NO CHANGE. Pile 6-2, NW corner, Oft. below cap, vertical crack 2ft. long x 1/64in. wide - NO CHANGE. Pile 6-3, NW corner, aft. below cap, vertical crack aft. long x 1/64in. wide - NO CHANGE. CS3 = Pile 1-5, NE corner, 3 1/2ft. below cap, lft. Bin. long x 1/64in. wide vertical crack with corrosion staining - NEW. Pile 1-6, NE corner, corrosion stains in grout patch - NO CHANGE. Pile 1-7, SE corner, Oft. below cap, vertical crack with corrosion stains 2ft. long x 1/16in. wide - NO CHANGE. Refer to photo 13. Pile 2-3, NW corner, 5ft. below cap, delamination 5ft. bin. x 15in. - INCREASE. Refer to photo 14. Pile 4-2, NE corner, 9ft. below cap, delamination 5ft. bin. x lft. bin. - INCREASE. Refer to photo 15. Pile 6-1, NW corner, Oft. below cap, vertical crack/delamination with corrosion stains Oft. long x 1/32in. wide - NO CHANGE. Pile 6-4, NW corner, 18in. below cap, vertical crack that extends up through grout patch, 5ft. long x 1/32in. wide - NO CHANGE. Pile 6-4, W face, aft. Bin. below cap, delamination 1ft. bin. long x Bin. wide - NEW. Pile 6-6, NW corner, 2ft. below cap, vertical crack with corrosion stains Oft. long x 1/32in. wide - NO CHANGE. Page 8 of 26 FL' ~IDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPOR" TION BRIDGE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM BRIDGE INSPECTION REPORT Bridge No: 930227 Inspection Date: 2/14/07 ELEMENT NOTES Element Category: 204 P/S Conc Column (Continued) The following was noted by the underwater inspectors: Piles 1-2, 1-4, 6-1, and 6-4: There are 1/32in. wide cracks that extend a maximum of 12in. into the marine growth with corrosion bleed out above water - NO CHANGE. Element Category: 475 R/Conc Walls The following was noted by the underwater inspectors: The south piling on the NE and NW wingwalls have a 1/16in. wide crack with corrosion bleed out. The north pile on the NE wingwall has a delamination/patch extending bin. into the marine growth, Bin. below the cap, 5ft. x 17in. - NO CHANGE. Retaining Wall: At Abutments 1 and 6, there is concrete fill between the piling that extends down within Bin. of the groundline. Below this concrete a ruler can be probed back to the original wail - NO CHANGE. On the west wall, north side of Pile 1-4, there is a void in the fill, 7ft. bin. below the cap, Sin. x Sin. x 3-1/tin. - NEW. On the west wall, south side of Pile 1-7, there is a void in the fill, 8ft. below the cap, Sin. x Sin. x tin. - NEW. On the west wall, north side of Pile 1-8, there is a void in the fill, 8ft. below the cap, Sin. x Sin. x Sin. - NEW. On the east wall, north side of Pile 6-l, there is a void in the fill, 8ft. below the cap, tin. x 3-1/tin. x 3-1/tin. Previously noted as south side of Pile 6-1 - NO CHANGE. On the east wall, south side of Pile 6-3, there is a void in the fill, 8ft. bin. below the cap, tin. x Sin. x 18in. - NEW. On the east wall, south side of Pile 6-6, there is a void in the fill, 8ft. below the cap, tin. x 12in. x 3-1/2in..- NO CHANGE. Page 9 of 26 FL `IDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPOR TION BRIDGE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM BRIDGE INSPECTION REPORT Bridge No: 930227 Inspection Date: 1/15/08 PHOTO SECTION *~ ;~ .. h ~.. -~.~. Photo #2 Page 10 of 26 riiuw ~l r~lement yy - slab unit z-4 aelaminated patch and Slab Unit 2-5 spall and delamination with exposed rebar near center r~leiueii~ yy - slab units L- / and ~-F3 delaminated patches FL 'IDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPOR TION BRIDGE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM BRIDGE INSPECTION REPORT Bridge No: 930227 Inspection Date: 1/15/08 PHOTO SECTION ~ ~ _ _. ~Fti t ~: ~~'~ ~;' ~ P ~ 3 '.g~ .. .. '." ~. .k} w '~ < ,. re. ~,- ` 9 Photo #4 Element 9h - Lelamination with corrosion staining in cast-in-place curb along the edge of Slab Unit 4-9 Page 1 Y of 26 ~••~~~ n~ ~~_~«_~~~ ~~ - uelamliiaLea patcnea area in cast-in-place curb along the edge of Slab Unit 2-3 FL ;IDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPOF TION BRIDGE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM BRIDGE INSPECTION REPORT Bridge No: 930227 Inspection Date: 1/15/08 Photo #5 e •~ PHOTO SECTION -.,~ ~ f. ~. ~~ ~~''; »~ ~, -~- -~. '~ Element 99 - Typical view of heavily corroded utility conduits on the north side of the bridge showing PVC repair sleeve in-place 'c . ~. a ti 7>u v ~. ~ t,~ ik ru- X` n ~ ~ ~ n ~~ ~~ _"t ,v`r - .. ~ stK r ~ r' y '~ ` .,tea t' ' ~ h e b ''K6''~~" J ~- a~~___. -.:. _ - -s. ~L"ry` _'"" "-- Photo #6 Element 99 - Delaminated patched area in the top of the north sidewalk at Abutment 1 Page 12 of 26 FL '.IDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPOR' TION BRIDGE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM BRIDGE INSPECTION REPORT Bridge No: 930227 Inspection Date: 1/15/08 PHOTO SECTION riio~o ~ i Photo # ~iemenr yy - span with exposed rebar in the top of the north sidewalk of Span 1 - ~ ~ ,.~ - ~~ .~~ ri ... ~ , :„ ;; ~;,~ ~ - ,:, ~r_: ~ alemeii~ yy - 5pallea ana aelaminated area with exposed rebar and corrosion staining in the underside of Sidewalk Slab Unit 3-8 Page 13 of 26 FL ?IDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPOR" TION BRIDGE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM BRIDGE INSPECTION REPORT PHOTO SECTION r M. .. ~.:;_ ~' Photo #10 -a.; ~, ;~ .~:w ~; , ~ Element 301 - Typical view of deteriorated sidewalk joint sealant Bridge No: 930227 Inspection Date: 1/15/08 ~ ~ _, ,. ___._ . ~ ;~~~~ Page 14 of 26 ___ ____ ____...,_.,.. ..,,..~..~ .y ~,. ~.,~ u..~.~~~~~.~ of Sidewalk Slab Unit 3-9 FL ',IDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPOR TION BRIDGE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM BRIDGE INSPECTION REPORT Bridge No: 930227 Inspection Date: 1/15/08 PHOTO SECTION 1F _ Photo ~., . .,_ ;;~. _! ;~ .~ ~. Photo #12 <f 1, <~.. y r: y s,~ ±. ~'_ ~~ Element 331 - Typical spall with exposed rebar in bridge rail post (Post 4-5 left shown) Page 15 of 26 nil L' 1C1llClll. ..»1 - ryplcal aelaminatea triage rail post (Post 3-4 left shown) FL '.IDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPOR' TION BRIDGE MANAGEMENT SYSTEIIh BRIDGE INSPECTION REPORT FL `.IDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPOR TION BRIDGE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM BRIDGE INSPECTION REPORT Bridge No: 930227 Inspection Date: 1/15/08 PHOTO SECTION Photo #15 ,~ Element 204 - DelaminationXin Pile 4-2 Page 17 of 26 ,,~- - ~ ~,. Photo #16 Element 215 - Delaminated patch in Abutment 1 cap FL :IDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPOR TION BRIDGE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM BRIDGE INSPECTION REPORT Bridge No: 930227 Inspection Date: 1/15/08 PHOTO SECTION Page 18 of 26 Photo #17 Element 234 - Typical vegetation growth on end of the bent caps Bent 2 cap at the south end FL `.IDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPOR TION BRIDGE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM BRIDGE INSPECTION REPORT Bridge No: 930227 Inspection Date: 1/15/08 PHOTO SECTION ~ '' .~ ~ ~. ~~~ z.h .s n Photo #20 Page 19 of 26 Photo #19 Element 234 - Delaminated patch west face of Bent 4 cap at Pile 4-1 clement ei~ - uetaminated patch in northwest retaining wall cap FL `IDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPOR TION BRIDGE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM BRIDGE INSPECTION REPORT Bridge No: 930227 Inspection Date: 1/15/08 PHOTO SECTION T ~~~ _~ s .~' n. .. - - ~~ . , e f .. ~ ; ,~ .~ x s ~ .. ~~. 4.,,, ,,~ y pY ~p. ~L~ jf Y~` ~ rP rr ~ .1 .. -.. ..~ 7:p. ~ '•~' Photo #21 Element 475 - Spall with exposed rebar in the northeast retaining wall cap Y< _. _. ~ i ~ ^ r Photo #22 ~.` _ ,~ t ~ ~ ~ M'~ s !! ~ Element 475 - Delamination with corrosion staining in northeast retaining wall support pile Page 20 of 26 FL 'IDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPOR TION BRIDGE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM BRIDGE INSPECTION REPORT Bridge No: 930227 Inspection Date: 1/15108 PHOTO SECTION ___,. _ ____ _____._.._.__ _~...~.~,.~..y wall Page 21 of 26 FL ~.IDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPOR TION BRIDGE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM BRIDGE INSPECTION REPORT Bridge No: 930227 Inspection Date: 1/15/08 RECOMMENDED REPAIRS Element Category: 99 PS Concrete Slab Repair all delaminated (unsound) and spalled concrete throughout the underside of the bridge. This includes all delaminated areas, patches and spalls in the slab unit underside, the sidewalk slab units underside and the underside of cast-in-place curb sections. Repair the utility conduits along the north side of the bridge. Repair all top of sidewalk delaminations and spalls. 301 Pourable Joint Seal Clean and seal the expansion joints. 331 Conc Bridge Railing Repair all bridge post spalls with exposed rebar. 204 P/S Conc Column Clean and repair Piles 1-l, 1-2, 1-3, 1-4, 1-6, 1-7, 2-l, 2-3, 4-2, 6-l, 6-2, 6-4 and 6-6. 215 R/Conc Abutment Repair the delaminations and delaminated patches in Abutment 1 and 6 caps. 234 R/Conc Cap Remove vegetation from intermediate bent caps. Repair all spalled and delaminated areas, including patches, in the bent caps. 475 R/Conc Walls Repair the delaminated patches, spalls and delaminations in the retaining wall caps, sheet piling and support piles. Repair the washout in the slope behind the northwest retaining wall. nnn !.L ____~ Backfill and stabilize the erosion at the ends of the northwest and southwest retaining walls. Page 22 of 26 FL 'IDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPOR TION BRIDGE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM BRIDGE INSPECTION REPORT Bridge No: 930227 Inspection Date: 1/15/08 SCOUR EVALUATION LEFT SIDE 10/01/89 01/28/06 01/15/08 Chan e Abutment 1 18.0 18.3 17.5 0.8 Bent 2 21.3 21.6 21.1 0.5 Bent 3 23.3 24.3 23.7 0.6 Bent 4 23.6 24.6 24.0 0.6 Bent 5 21.0 22.5 21.9 0.6 Abutment 6 16.7 18.0 17.4 0.6 Waterline at Bent 3 15.0 15.0 RIGHT SIDE 10/01/89 01/28/06 01/15/08 Chan e Abutment 1 18.0 17.6 17.4 0.2 Bent 2 21.3 22.0 21.6 0.4 Bent 3 23.3 23.6 22.9 0.7 Bent 4 23.6 24.1 23.6 0.5 Bent 5 21.3 21.8 21.5 0.3 Abutment 6 16.7 17.7 17.0 0.7 Waterline at Bent 3 15.0 15.0 LEFT OFFSETS (100ft.) 01 /01 /96 01 /28/06 01 /15/08 Chan e 20.7 20.7 20.8 -0.1 20.7 20.7 20.9 -0.2 21.7 22.0 22.0 0.0 22.0 22.0 21.8 0.2 23.0 22.7 22.5 0.2 23.0 23.0 22.9 0.1 RIGHT OFFSETS (100ft.) 01/01/96 01/28/06 01/15/08 Chan e 23.0 23.0 23.0 0.0 23.6 23.4 23.6 -0.2 24.0 24.5 24.1 0.4 24.0 25.0 25.0 0.0 23.6 24.0 23.8 0.2 22.6 23.3 23.2 0.1 NOTE: - = An increase in degradation. Blank box = No previous measurement available. Relative Channel Plots Are Not To Scale. Any Vertical Curvature Of Datum Point Is Not Reflective In Plot. The waterline and mudline measurements, in reference to the top of the bridge rails, are provided for future comparison. All measurements are in feet. Page 23 of 26 FL `.IDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPOR TION BRIDGE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM BRIDGE INSPECTION REPORT SCOUR EVALUATION 00 5.0 10.0 d 15.0 O 20.0 25.0 30.0 0.0 5.0 10.0 Bridge No: 930227 Inspection Date: 1/15/08 Left Side Profile ,- --'-~-10/01/89 -~--0128/06 -X01/15/08 E ^' E m m ~ ~' Q° Right Side Profile @ --~-.-10/01/89 -+-0128/06 -~-01/15/08 E N p m m m ~ 15.0 0 Y Y 20.0 25.0 30.0 E m ~ °a Relative Channel Plots Are Not To Scale. Any Vertical Curvature Of Datum Point Is Not Reflective In Plot. Page 24 of 26 FL' ~IDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPOR~'TION BRIDGE MANAGEMENT SYSTENt BRIDGE INSPECTION REPORT 00 s.o 10.0 x 15.0 c t 20.0 25.0 30.0 0.0 5.0 10.0 r d L 15.0 D C 20.0 25.0 30.0 SCOUR EVALUATION Left Offset Profile -- - 01/01/96 ~ 01/28/06 -0-- 01/15/08 E a ~ ~ m Bridge No: 930227 Inspection Date: 1/15/08 E m" E °~ °a Right Offset Profile 0vov9s -w-olna/as ~ov1s/os N °a m" ~ ~' Relative Channel Plots Are Not To Scale. Any Vertical Curvature Of Datum Point Is Not Reflective In Plot. Page 25 of 26 FL IDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPOR" TION BRIDGE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM BRIDGE INSPECTION REPORT Bridge No: 930227 Inspection Date: 1/15/08 SCOUR EVALUATION f _. South channel ,~ k: a::' North channel Page 26 of 26 No Text ~M~MAHON Apri115, 2008 VIA E-MAIL/US MAIL Mr. Thomas C. Jensen, P.E. Associate Vice President ARCADIS, U.S., Inc. 2081 Vista Parkway West Palm Beach, FL 33411 RE: Village of Tequesta Origin -Destination Study McMahon Project No. M08219.QP Dear Mr. Jensen: PRINCIPALS Joseph W. McAAahon, P.E. Rodney P. Plourde, Ph.D., P.E. Joseph J. DeSantis, P.E., PTOE John S. DePalma Wlltiam T. Steffens Casey A, Moore, P.E. ASSOCIATES Gary R. McNaughton, P.E., PTOE John J. Mitchell, P.E. Christopher J. Williams, P.E. John F. Yacapsin, P.E. Thomas A. Hall Mark A. Roth, P.E. McMahon Associates, Inc. (McMahon) is pleased to provide this proposal for traffic engineering services. We propose to determine the use of the Tequesta Drive Bridge, over the Loxahatchee River, by residents of other jurisdictions, including Palm Beach County and Martin County. This will help the Village of Tequesta in determining the appropriate share of costs for rebuilding the Tequesta Drive Bridge. SCOPE OF WORK TASK 1 -METHODOLOGY -The origin-destination study methodology will be based on Traffic Engineering, Third Edition, and Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Manual of Transportation Engineering Studies. Based on the objective of this study, vehicles need to be tracked through the study area to identify if the vehicles are accessing the Tequesta Drive Bridge. Hence, the License-Plate study was selected, as the methodology is commensurate with the result needs. As a vehicle passes each station, the last three digits of the license-plate number is rernrded, which permits vehicles to be tracked through the study area. Data-collection locations will be identified by McMahon. McMahon proposes to meet with Village of Tequesta staff, if requested by the Village, to discuss the data collection locations and adjust the scope according to Village comments. A preliminary investigation of the study area indicated that there will be 17 data-collection locations. These locations are strategically selected to track the vehicles from specific jurisdictions to destinations taking them cross the bridge. TASK 2 -DATA-COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS -Based on the identified data-collection locations, the license-plate information will be conducted for a 3-hour period (6:30 AM to 9:30 AM). As most of the land uses in and surrounding the Village of Tequesta aze residential in McMAHON ASSOCIATES, tNC. 7741 N. Military Trait (Suite 5 ~ Palm Beach Gardens, fL 33410 p 561-840-8650 t f 561-840-8590 www.mcmtrans.com Corporate Headquarters: Fort Washington, Pennsylvania Serving the East Coast from 11 offices throughout New England, the Mid-Atlantic, and Florida Mr. Thomas C. Jensen, P.E. April 15, 2008 Page 2 nature, the data collected during the aforementioned 3-hour period will include most of the residential origin trips. The data thus collected will be input into Microsoft Excel spreadsheets. The license-plate information from all data-collection locations will be matched with the license-plate information at Tequesta Drive Bridge to determine the proportion of traffic from each data-collection location utilizing the bridge. TASK 3 -DOCUMENTATION -The analysis and its conclusions will be summarized in a report, which will include appropriate narrative, tables, and figures. A draft copy of the report will be forwarded to the Village of Tequesta for review. Five (5) copies of the final report, signed and sealed by a State of Florida Registered Professional Engineer, will be forwarded to Village of Tequesta within two weeks after the receipt of comments (if any). TASK 4 -COORDINATION -McMahon will present the results of the study to the Village of Tequesta. This will include a discussion with Village staff and a public hearing for the Village Council (assume two (2) meetings). McMahon will also be available to accompanying Village of Tequesta representatives at meetings with the other jurisdictions. We recommend that a public involvement agent of the Village organize meetings with Palm Beach County and Martin County to discuss the results of this Origin/Destination Study (assume two (2) meetings). McMahon will provide display graphics and technical support at those meetings. We have assumed attendance at up to four (4) meetings for the purposes of this scope and associated fee. FEE The maximum fee for the foregoing analysis is not to exceed $47,500.00, plus out of pocket expenses. Invoices wiIl reflect aII expenses including reproduction, postage, and reimbursement of local personal automobile use at $0.505 per mile. If services are requested by the client that exceed those identified in this Scope of Work, McMahon will notify the client and proceed only upon approval of an Extra Work Authorization. Except where noted, the cost of the analysis does not include expenses associated with meeting attendance. Meeting attendance, as necessary, will be provided on a time and materials basis and will be charged at our standard hourly rates in effect at the time of contract execution. SCHEDULE We are prepared to initiate work on the project upon receipt of written authorization to proceed. We expect that the report can be submitted within approximately four (4) weeks after receipt of a signed copy of this proposal. In any event, McMahon will use its best efforts to meet all time schedules reasonably established by the Village of Tequesta. Mr. Thomas C. Jensen, P.E. Apri115, 2008 Page 3 TERMINATION This agreement may be terminated by the authorized representative effective immediately on receipt of written notice. Payment will be due for services rendered through the date written notice is received. BINDING STATUS The client and McMahon bind themselves, their partners, successors, assigns, heirs, and/or legal representatives to the other party to the Agreement, and to the partners, successors, assigns and legal representatives of such other party with respect to all covenants of the proposal. TERMS The conditions of this agreement call for the execution of this contract in the space provided below. Invoices for services will be submitted monthly and are payable within 30 days of issuance. All invoices not paid within 30 days are subject to a 1.5% monthly interest charge, and alI projects with overdue balances exceeding 90 days will be subject to a stoppage of all work. Any changes in the specific work program described above will result in an adjustment of the conditions and fees. If the terms of this contract, as contained herein are agreeable to you, please execute it below in the space provided and return one of the original signed copies to me. If you have any questions or require further information, please feel free to contact me. We greatly appreciate the opportunity to present our proposal on this project and look forward to working with you. Sincerely, ~ ~~ R. Trent Ebersole, P.E. General Manager -Palm Beach Gardens cc: John S. DePalma, Vice President, Regional Manager -Florida RTE/jth Attachment Mr. Thomas C. Jensen, P.E. Apri115, 2008 Page 4 Accepted for Village of Tequesta: By: Title: Date: (Signature of Authorized Representative) (Printed Name of Authorized Representative) Please fill in the following, for accounting purposes: Send invoice to: Contact Person: Phone/Fax: E-mail: Date of invoice cycle: F:1FL1082I 9M~082 19M_OP\propTJ041508.doc ~M~MAHON MCMAHON ASSOCIATES, INC. STANDARD PROVISIONS FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES JANUARY 1, 2008 SERVICES McMahon Assodates, Inc reserves the right to make adjustments for individuals within these classifications as may be desirable in its opinion by reason of promotion, demotion, or change in wage rates. Such adjustments will be limited to the manner in which charges are computed and billed and will not unless so stated in writing, affect other terms of an agreement, such as estimated total cost. The following rates will apply to actual time devoted by McMahon Associates, Inc. staff to this project rnmputed to the nearest one-half hour. PERSONNEL FIOURLY RATES Principal Senior Associate $~.~ $~.~ Senior EngineerJPlanner VIII/Associate $215.00 Senior Engineer/Planner VII/Associate $200,00 Senior Engineer/Planner VI/Associate $185.00 Senior Engineer/Planner V/Associate $165.00 Senior Engineer/Planner IV/Associate $160.00 Senior Engineer/Planner III $145.00 Senior Engineer/Planner II $135.00 Senior Engineer/Planner I $130.00 Chief of Surveeyys $145 00 Traffic Control/Constnution Specialist $125.00 Party Chief $105.00 Engineer VI $120.00 Engineer V $115.00 Engineer IV $105.00 Engineer III $100.00 En~~r II $ 95.00 g'~ $90.00 Technieian/Word Processor IV $85,00 TechnicianiWord Processor III $50.00 Technician/Word Processor II $ 75.00 Technician/Word Processor I $65.00 Survey Technician $65.00 Field Traffic Count Personnel $40.00 TERMS 1. Invoices -Invoices will be provided on a monthly basis and will be based upon percentage of rnmpletion or actual hours, plus expenses. Payment is due to McMahon Associates, Inc. within 30 days of the invoice date. Unpaid balances beyond 30 days are subject to interest at the rate of 1.5% per month. This is an annual percentage rate of 18%. 2. ConJSdentiality -Technical and pricing information in this proposal is the rnnfidential and proprietary property of McMahon Associates, Inc. and is not to be disclosed oe made available to third parties without the written consent of McMahon Associates, Inc. 3. Commitments -Fee and schedule commitments will be subject to renegotiation for delays caused by the client's failure to provide specified facilities or information, or any other unpredictable occurrences. 4. Expenses -Automatic Traffic Rewrder equipment usage will be billed at $25.00 per 24-hour count. Incidental expenses are reimbu rsable at arst plus an administration fee of 10%. These include subaansultants, reproduction, postage, graphics, reimbursement of automobile usage at $.505 per mile, parking and tolls. Expenses which by company policy are not billed as reimbursable expenses to clients and therefore, wil l not be billed as part of this contract include the following: air travel, rental car, lodging, meals, and long distance phone charges between McMahon Associates offices. If it beamtes necessary during the murse of this project to travel elsewhere, those travel costs will be treated as reimbursable expenses. These expenses will be reflected in the monthly invoices. 5. Attorney's Fees - Tn connection with any litigation arising from the terms of this agreement the prevailing party shall be entitled to all assts including reasonable attorneys fees at both the trial and appellate levels. 6. Osvne-sltip and Use of Documents -All original drawings and information are to remain the property of McMahon Associates Inc. The client will be provided with mpies of final drawings and/or reports for information and reference purposes. 7. Insurance -McMahon Associates, Inc. will maintain at its own expense Workman's Compensation Insurance, Comprehensive General Liability Insurance and Professional Liability Insurance and, upon request will famish the client a certificate to verify same. 8. Terming#on -This agreement may be terminated by the authorized representative effective immediately on reaript of written fwtice. Payment will be due for services rendered through the date written notice is received. 9. Binding Status -The client and McMahon Associates, Inc. bind themselves, their partners, succe~ors, assigns, heirs, andJnr legal representatives to the other party to this Agreement and to the partners, successors, assigns and legal representatives of such other party with respect to all covenants of this Contract, P:\ FL\(%nnera! Office Do~vments\McM Templates 2002\StandardProv20~\Stuip~a~0120Ianuary 20pg.doc