ST9301A-SY 890725WEAVER CONSTRUCTIOH COMPANY 5956 SHERRY LANE SUITE 1600 DALLAS. TEXAS 75225-6522
[214] 373-9611
Mr. Russell Doyle
City Engineer
City of Coppell
5010Doar~r. Do,lo:
Pl~so find onclosod, a photocop~ of an on~neorin~ roport proparod b~ Howard
Ro~dlos T~on & Bor~ondoff on the Sand~ hako Road Brid~o ovor the Elm Fork of
the Trinit7 Rivor. I co~iss~onod this roport whilo in tho procoss of
ro~ostin~ zonin~ from tho C~t~ of Carro~lton.
I thought tho Cit~ of Coppell would liko to havo this ~nformation for
roforonce in tho futuro.
Sincerely,
Huel H. Woaver, ,Jr.
ttI~: na
Encl.
SANDY LAKE ROAD BRIDGE
OVER
ELM FORK OF THE TRINITY RIVER
BRIDGE INSPECTION
STRUCTURAL EVALUATION
& REHABILITATION RECOMMENDATIONS
Howard Needles Tammen & Bergendoff
May 4, 1989
HeWeR[2 NEEDLES TAMMEN ~,. SERGENDC21=I:: 14114 ~ ~
ARCHITE~--TS ENGINEERS RI. ANNERS ~te 630
~ T,~a¢ 75240
(214) 661-5626
(214) 661-5614
FAX
May 4, 1989
Mr. Huel Weaver
Weaver Construction Company
5956 Sherry Lane, Suite 1600
Dallas, Texas 75225
Attention: Mr. Bert Elsey, P.E.
Reference:- SANDY LAKE ROAD BRIDGE INSPECTION
Dear Mr. Elsey:
In accordance with the agreement between Weaver Construction Company and
Howard Needles Tammem & Bergendoff (HNTB), we are pleased to submit, here-
with, the inspection and evaluation report for the Sandy Lake Road bridge
over the Elm Fork of the Trinity River. This work was performed in accor-
dance with Phase A of the proposal for professional services.
This report is the culmination of observations made of the physical condi-
tion of the bridge on April 28, 1989, structural
subsequent
evaluations,
and recommendations for future rehabilitation efforts to increase the
bridge live load capacity to HS-15. Inspection of the structure covered
only those portions of the structure accessible without the use of special
equipment and visible above the ground or water line.
The level of inspection which forms the basis for the report was determined
bv the agreement for the inspection services. The opinions, statements,
and recommendations made in the report are based solely on conditions re-
vealed bv ~he inspection. No representation or warranty is made that all
defects have been discovered or that defects will not later appear.
Nothing contained in the report shall be deemed to give any third parry a
claim or right of action against HNTB nor to create a duty on behalf of
HNTB to such third party.
13313(21)00
Weaver Construction Company -2- Bridge Inspection
Dallas, Texas 75225 May 4, 1989
We are pleased to have been of service to Weaver Construction Company. As
stated in our professional services proposal, we would like to offer our
services for Phase B, the detailed design, preparation of contract docu-
ments, and development of a cost estimate for a rehablitation or replace-
ment of the existing Sandy Lake Road bridge. If we may be of any further
assistance, please feel free to call.
Very truly yours.
HOWARD NEEDLES TAMMEN & BERGENDOFF
Daniel F. Becker, P.E.
Associate
DFB/mab
Enc.
]
SANDY LAKEROADBRID~g
EI2/ PORK OF THE TRINITY RIVER
INTRODUCTION
The existing Sandy Lake Road Bridge across the Elm Pork of the Trinity
River in Dallas County, Texas, vas designed and built in the early 1950's.
This structure has experienced moderate deterioration caused by extended
exposure to the elements and repeated loadings over its 40-year life.
Although there is deterioration, it is not considered unusual for a
structure of that age. Through the efforts of the State Department of
~ighways and Public Transportation's (SDHPT) Bridge Inventory~ Inspection
and Appraisal (BRINSAP) Program, most deficiencies have previously been
noted.
The initial SDHPT BRINSAP inspection was conducted in 1980. During that
inspection~ it vas noted that diagonal cracks had formed in the ends of the
concrete girders, as will be discussed later herein. Since 1980, BRINSAP
inspections have been conducted approximately every two years and the
condition of the cracks in the concrete girders recorded.
In April 1989 another close visual inspection of the structure was made to
determine the condition of the structure, to establish the safe load
carrying capacity of the bridge, and, if necessary, to determine if steps
could be taken to increase the capacity.
DESCRIPTION OF BRIDGE
The Sandy Lake Road Bridge is a seven-span, simply supported structure
approximately 286 feet in length. The bridge is arranged in three units of
approximately 64 feet, 126 feet, and 96 feet, as measured from the west end
of the structure. Each of the two units
approach
span
are
comprised
of
32-foot cast-in-place concrete slab -and girder spans. A two-span,
non-composite, rolled steel beam unit comprises the main river crossing.
The bridge carries two 12-foot traffic lanes on a 6-inch reinforced
concrete deck with 6-inch curbs topped with 6-inch diameter pipe rails.
The overall width of the bridge is 27-feet - 10-inches. Sketches of the
bridge elevation and sections are included in Appendix A.
INSPECTION PROCEDURES
The Sandy Lake Road Bridge was inspected by two staff engineers on April
28, 1989. This inspection was conducted in accordance with the SDHPT
"BRINSAP Manual of Procedures" and the findings recorded on the appropriate
SDHPT inspection forms. A copy of the findings is included in Appendix B.
During the inspection, selected plan dimensions were verified and areas of
special interest and concern were photographed for future reference. The
photographs are included in Appendix C.
CONDITION
The SDHPT has developed a numerical system for recording the condition
rating of major bridge components. Although this system vas developed
primarily to provide consistency in ratings from bridge to bridge, the
establishment of condition ratings is somewhat subjective and is a matter
of some engineering Judgement. The system does however, provide a more
definitive rating than that obtained through previous ratings of good,
fair, or poor.
The bridge roadway components are generally in fair condition although
there is some potential for major maintenance activity. Random cracks are
the surface of the bridge deck throughout the structure with
apparent
on
the most severe cracking in the steel spans. There does not appear to be
any significant evidence of cracking on the underside of the deck.
.1 The condition of the sealed expansion joints is another roadway item of
concern. These seals are torn and missing in places allowing
incompressible materials into the space between spans. The joint seals are
not an immediate structural problem; however, if deterioration is allowed
to continue, additional structural distress may occur.
The bridge superstructure deck girders and beams, although not rated lower
than the roadway deck slab, are probably the most critical of all items
noted during the inspection. Of primary concern is the condition of the
approach unit concrete girder ends near the supports. In several
locations, the girders are cracked above the bearings. The cracks begin
near the interior edge of the steel bearings and extend diagonally upward
toward the end of the beams. These cracks appear to have originated as a
result of axial tension contraction of the and
generated
by
superstructure
improperly functioning expansion bearings.
I The bridge substructure appears to be in generally good condition with a
need for only minor maintenance activity. Areas of concern are small
spalls and abrasions on exposed concrete surfaces and the protective
coating on the steel piles.
The river channel appears to satisfactorily carry the volume of water
typically present with only minor scour of the channel banks above the
i waterline. The abutment riprap slopes have settled slightly, creating a
one-half inch gap at both abutments.
The approach roadway remains in good condition with only minor transverse
cracks present in the asphalt pavement.
RATING
At the conclusion of the field inspection, a load rating analysis was
performed on the bridge. Existing bridge plans were obtained and the data
shown on the plans was used to determine the materials used and the
placement and size of reinforcing steel. The load rating was performed in
accordance with the American Association of State Righway and
Transportation Officials (AASHTO) "Standard Specifications for Highway
Bridges", 1983 edition with interims through 1988, and the AASHTO "Manual
for Maintenance Inspection of Bridges", 1983 edition with interims through
1988.
The bridge deck and superstructure were analyzed for both H and HS truck
live loadings as defined in the AASHTO Specifications. The substructure
vas not analyzed since the field inspection showed no significant visible
signs of deterioration caused by age or traffic.
Analysis of the simply supported river spans indicates that the steel beams
are satisfactory for an H-21 or HS-15 loading; however, the 6-1/4 inch
thick concrete deck controls the river span rating at H-14 or HS-14.
The concrete T-girder approach spans rate at H-21 or HS-18 in bending.
Shear analysis, assuming no shear capacity in the concrete, produces an
H-12 or HS-8 rating for the exterior T-girders. As recommended in the
AASHTO "Manual for Maintenance Inspection of Bridges", the shear taken by
the concrete was considered negligible due to visible diagonal cracking in
the members at the supports. The shear rating is based on the shear
capacity available only in the stirrups.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Shear in the concrete T-girders controls the bridge rating at H-12 or HS-8.
It is therefore recommended that the bridge be posted with sign R12-4Tb for
17,500 lbs. axle or tandem and 24,000 lbs.
gross.
Epoxy injection of the tensile cracks near the girder' ends may be
considered as an option to increase the overall rating of the structure;
however, this method is only a repair of the symptoms. To alleviate
additional tensile cracking the bearings should be repaired or replaced so
that expansion and contraction may occur without causing undue stresses in
the bridge. If the repairs to the girders and bearings are made, the 6-1/4
inch deck will then control the rating. As previously stated, the steel
unit deck inventory rating is H-14 or HS-I4, the equivalent of a 22,400 lb.
tandem axle and 50,000 lbs. gross.
Considering the rating of the steel span deck as the limiting load, the
most economical method to raise the rating would then be to replace the
concrete deck.
l
The next load limiting components are the approach span decks. These
decks, cast monolithically vith the concrete girders, have an inventory
rating of H-15 or HS-1S, the equivalent of a 24,000 lb. tandem axle and
S4,000 lb. gross.
The HS-15 (54,000 lb.) rating vas the target load for our reviev and
rating is knovn as the inventory' rating and is
recoeunendations.
That
defined as the ~aximum load vhich could be expected to use the structure
under normal traffic conditions. This bridge is approaching its design
life. As the structure age increases deterioration viii occur more rapidly
than in the past. This is an expected occurrence and does not generally
present serious problems vith a periodic inspection and maintenance
program.
In stunmary, although the Sandy Lake Road Bridge vas designed for an A~$HTO
H-20 loading, it is possible to increase the rating of the superstructure
to an AAS~TO HS-15 loading by performing the rehabilitation
described above. That effort should include repair or replacement o[ the
bearings in the concrete approach spans, epoxy injection of the cracks in
the concrete girder ends, replacement of the concrete deck in the steel
girder unit, and miscellaneous additional deck patching as ~ay be required.
banO04/40
1
1
1
m
APPgNI)IX A
BRIDGg SI~CTIONS AND gLI~A~ON
]
]
]
]
l
I
!
I
!
1
I INSPF. CT'ION FINDINGS
]
] .
]
1
l
1
I
]
1
1
STA'FE DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS
AND I~IBUC TRANSPORTATION ~,~k~
Fomt536.1--10-S5 Bridge Inventory Record
District I~ .County 057 Cont.-Sec. ~o7~-/¢~ Structure oo$ Route 5ANO'/ ~ ~/3.
Bridge Name 5~/vov ~A ~_ ~o~o a vr_-,~ ~_~ ~o,~ ~,~, ,zy ~ , ~F_,~
Odometer Reading at beginning of Road $//./~-/ At Bridge Milepoint 5,/o
General Description ~Ev~./v ~,o,~v /z,v~.n ~oct,,~
Clear Width between Curbs 2 ~ ~ Approach Roadway Width Excluding Shoulders
Type Deck & Surfacing c~,,,,~_.zz~ ~_ ~_-,.~ . /~ ~,~ (~,~)
Stringers: Spans /, ~., ~, ~, 7
Type &o~cn;rr T- ~ Size /3'~ ~'/e" ,~,~,¢~ Number
Spacing
Controlling Span Length (C-C Bearings) 3
Stringers: Spans ~, ~
Type sT~g~ EE~ Size ~~o e~,~,o~ Number
Spacing & ' ~" Controlling Span Length (C-C Bearings) ~/ '-
Stringers: Spans
Type Size Number
Spacing Controlling Span Length (C-C Bearings)
Remarks ~~ ~c,~,4 5/~,~ ~ ~o~r~ ~,~ o~ ~r
DateBuilt Iq$~ Inventoried by ~n~ A,
Advisory Speed ~ ~p~ ~o~ ~) Date of Inventory ~- ~g-E~
Posted Load Restriction no~4 Sheet No. I of Sheets
AND ?~JB~C TRANSPORTATION
.Bridge Inspection Record
Oi~ri~ I~ ~unw ~ 7 Cont-Sec ~07Z -I~ Stmc~re 0o~ Route ~ANOV ~EE ~0.
Description . EF~ ~/~ ~ ~ ~ ~ c~c~ErE ~E~ ~ ~ ~ ~c~ s~ ~N~ ~
2
~/~o.~n ~PP/~ o,~¢u £/~,~v~c Inspector's Signature M/~/2~c ~. ~o~,/~,4 Date /4-
9- New condition
8- Good condition--no repairs needed
7-- Generally good condition--potential exists for minor maintenance
6 -- Fair condition--potential exists for major maintenance
5--Generally fair condition--potential exists for minor rehabilitation
4-- Marginal condition--potential exists for major rehabilitation 6,~ o~n s ~u~?~_~.c~
3- Poor condition--repair or rehabilitation required immediately 70 /~o/t 7#
2--Critical condition--bridge should be closed until repairs are complete
1 --Critical condition--bridge closed but repairable
I -- condition--bridge closed and beyond repair
0
Critical
N-- Not applicable
I Enter a rating fo~ each element of each component. The rating should equal or exceed the minimum rating listed to
the left of each element. The overall Component Rating should equal the lowest rating of any element of the
component. Fully supportive comments are to be made hereon or on attachments for all ratings of 7 or betow.
I I Roadway (Item 58) Condition Superstructure (Item 59)t Condition
Min. Rating Min. Rating
1 Deck 0 Main Members-- Steel
6 Wearing Surface~o .... "-'f ~-''' --'-; ~.' ~'~) 0 Main Members Concrete
6 Joints, Expansion, Open 0 Main Members--Timber
6 Joints, Expansion, Sealed 0 Main Member Connections
6 Joints, Other c~v~;~,=7,,,~ ,:~x~f. 1 Floor System Members
6 Drainage System 1 Floor System Connections
6 Curbs. Sidewalks & Paraoets 5 Secondary Members
6 Median Barder 5 Secondary Member Connections
i 6 Railings 6 Exoansion Beadngs
7 Railing Protective Coating 6 Fixed Bearings
7 Delineation (curve markers) 6 Steel Protective Coating
Other Other
Comments: Comments:
~o~'f~ o~ ~ 2. ,s M- Ye" ~,o~
County 0~? C,~-..Sec I¢ Structure. ""'""o3 Route
District
~oTz-
Substm~re (Item 60) ~nd~ion Retaining Walls (Item 62)
Min. Rang Min. Rating
0 Abutments
Caps ~ 5 Ab~ment Backwalls & Wingwalls
Above Ground ~ ~ I 5 Embankment Retaining Walls
Below Ground or Foundation 5 Culve~ Headwails & Wingwalls
0 Intermediate Suppo~s Other
Caps-- Concrete
Caps- Steel Component Rating
Caps-- ~mber
Above Ground -- Concrete Comments:
Above Ground-- Timber
Above Ground-- Mason~
~low Ground or Foundation
5 Collision Protection Sy~em
6 Steel Protective Coating
Component Rating ~ ~ Approaches (Item 65) I ~ion
Min. Rating
Comments:
,-P,~( :~cr,o~5 ComDonentRating
Channel (Item 611 Cond~ion Comments:
4 ChannelBanks ~FP~cv'~[ /~ =o~/~ ~ g' co~G
5 Rip RaD '
5 Je~ies Miscellaneous CondRion
Other ~/t~: w~,/ Min, Rating
Component Rating ~ 7 Signs
7 Illumination
Comments: 7 Warning Devices
F~ 1086.2--10-85
STATE DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS
AND PUBUC TRANSPORTATION
,asT-t- o 5 'Bridge Appraisal Worksheet
District /8 County O5 ? Cont-Sec ~O7Z ·/~ Structure ~:;~3 Route .~o~,~,/ z,4~ /to
Appraiser's Signature ~4~,~/z/< ~. ~,,~v~ Date ~-~- Z ~'-
.] I General Features (Items 67 through 72)
Items 67 through 72 are assigned a one-digit rating on the reverse side of this form. The following scale is used in
accordance with Section 3.2 of the 8RIN$,~P Manual.
9-- Condition superior to present desirable criteria
8-- Condition equal to present desirable criteria
7- Condition better than present minimum criteria
6- Condition equal to present minimum criteria
5-- Condition somewhat better than minimum adequacy to tolerate being left in place as is
4-- Condition meeting minimum tolerable limits to be left in place as is
3- Basically intolerable condition requiring high priority of repair or reconstruction
2-- Basically intolerable condition requiring high priority to replace the structure
1 -- Immediate repair or reconstruction necessary to put the structure back in service
O-- Immediate replacement of the structure necessary to put back in service
N-- Not applicable
Traffic Safety Features (Item 36)
The four Traffic Safety Features are assigned a one-digit rating in the space below. The following scale is used in
accordance with Section 3.3 of the BRINS,4P Manual.
1 -- Feature meets currently acceptable standards
O-- Feature does not meet currently acceptable standards
N-- Not applicable
I [ Bridge Railing (1st Digit) J I Transitions (2nd Digit)
1
i Rating-- ~ Rating -- ['~
I Approach Guardrail (3rd Digit) J I Approach Guardrail Terminal (4th Digit)I
District //~ County 05 ? CorOt-Sec ~o72 -/8 Structure 6~6>~ Route -~,~)'/
I Structural Condition (Item 67) I ~ Safe Load Capa~ty (Item 70)
I Roadway Geometry (Item 68) I i Waterway Adequacy (Item
z ul '-0" I'~,C"x ~..~E~ C.~,f~5 ~ '/f~ ~
I t Underclearance (Item 69) I I Approach Roadway Alignment (Item 72) I
I
i
I ".,'.,-FI ".".,-FI
Foem 1367-2--
I
APPENDIX C
PHOTOGRAPHS
District: 18 Count~: (057) Dallas Bridge' 8072-003
IBridge Name: Sand'/ Lake Road over Elm Fork of Trinity River
Roll
Frame'
12
Date' ,
04-2S-~9
?ho~c
Label'
g072-733
Profile of the bridge as seen from the easu side of the channel south of :ne bridge
?,oii'
west along £andv Lake Road towards ~he !)ridge.
, HNTB
District' 18 County' (057) Dallas Bridge: 8072-003
Bridge Name' Sandy Lake Road over Elm Fork of Trinity River
Roil.
Frame
Pho~
Labe-
'~- ~: :3072-
Underside ~f ~he bridge in span 2 looking towarcs ~he :test abutment.
:aEa '
2hors
laDel.
Under-sidle of nhe bridge in span 3 Looking east.
HNTB
District' 18 County:' (057) Dallas Bridge' 8072-003
Bridge Name: Sandy Lake Road over Elm Fork of Trinit7 River
Roll:
Frame
I
Date:
Pho [c
Label:
3072-
Transverse deck crack at mid-span in span 2.
Roil:
Frame
?hote
Lab e l
S072-
Typical view of surface scour and senerai ,,,ec,x ,:racking in span 3.
HNTB '
District' 18 County: (057) Dallas Bridge' 8072-003
Bridge Name' Sandy Lake Road over Elm Fork of Trinity River
Roll:
Frame~
5
Data'
04-25-~9
Phone
Label'
8072-i03
* ' 'ziew of surface scour and general deck cracking in soan 4.
~ypicaz
Label
random cracking [n the approach span decks as seen in span
HNTB
District: 18 County: (057) Dallas Bridge: 8072-003
Bridge Name: Sandy Lake Road over Elm Fork of Trinity River
_~.. -.., .
. ...~:.:.~ .~ ~-::~:. ~ram~ '
. · .~_~ ~.~.~.::~ ~ , 6
.... ~I .... :' ~'.',~ '
:':: ~ - ,.. ~. ~' . ......
I '-
'T'.~ ~~ _~ -' . ..~ ·
~' ... ~~~- ~/:. ~:~~
~ - . .-~, , ~,.]~.,
---~/''-' ' ':- "' ~' r , - "~ ~ ~*--~
Labei
~07.2 -.
I
Lar.? soalls with exposed rebar Ln the span 7 sou[h parapet, curb.
HNTB
District: 18 County; (057) Dallas Bridge: 8072-003
Bridge Name' Sandy Lake Road over Elm Fork of Trinity River
Roll
Frame
9
Date:
04- 28 -
Photo
Label i
3072-'33
I Detail of the east soall in the span 7 sou~h parapet/curb.
Roll'
Photo
Lab e i
S072
Detail of ~he spal!ed curb/parapet over ~he ou~ ~u~ of bent 3.
HNTB
District: 18 County ~ (057) Dallas Bridge: 8072-003
I Bridge Name' Sandy Lake Road over Elm Fork of Trinity River
!
Roll:
Frame
] ~-:,~ ! Pho~c
I +/- i/8" wide diagonal crack in the north ext. girder of soan 5 over the west suppcrz.
]
Zoil '
Frame
Date'
Label.
-"-~-"'~' :~s :{072-
crack tn the north exterior girder of span . over ~he ~est abutment.
HNTB
District' 18 County' (057) Dallas Brid~e' 8072-003
Bridge Name: Sand'/ Lake Road over Elm Fork of Trinity River
Ro 11 '
Frame .'
Date ·
04-2g- ~9
i ~.~. ~ Pho t o
Label:
8072 - ~
1
I Diagonal crack in the north exterior girder of span 7 over the west suppor-_ .bent
?tame
13
PhoEe
LabeL:
3072
Cracki::~ in 7he easu span-~ south exterior diaphragm .~t the exterior girder web.
tiNTB