BMS No. 02 7421 0000 9061
Submitted By:
Michael Baker Jr., Inc.
100 Airside Drive
Coraopolis, Pennsylvania 15108
September, 2011
STRUCTURE B.M.S. NUMBER: 02 7421 0000 9061
BRIDGE NAME: Chartiers Creek Bridge
LOCATION: Crafton, Pennsylvania
INSPECTION DATE: June 23, 2011
INSPECTED BY:
PREPARED FOR: Port Authority of Allegheny County
PREPARED BY: Michael Baker Jr., Inc.
Written By: Joseph E. Salvadori, E.I.T.
Reviewed By: Raymond A. Hartle, P.E.
PORT AUTHORITY AGREEMENT NUMBER: 11-08
OWNER OF BRIDGE: Port Authority of Allegheny County
COST INFORMATION:
DATE SUBMITTED: (Seal removed for BIRM)
Figure A.1: Location Map (No Scale)
REPORT ON THE INITIAL NBIS INSPECTION OF CHARTIERS CREEK BRIDGE PORT AUTHORITY OF ALLEGHENY COUNTY
Located in the Borough of Crafton, the Chartiers Creek Bridge carries two (2) lanes of the Port Authority of Allegheny County’s West Busway over Chartiers Creek, and the Pittsburgh Industrial Railroad, Inc.
The approximate date of the original construction of the Chartiers Creek Bridge is 1948. The structure was built by the Pennsylvania Railroad Company. Rehabilitation was completed in July 1997.
None required.
The Chartiers Creek Bridge is a three (3) span, non-composite, riveted and bolted built-up plate girder bridge with a total length of 253’- 11" (see photo no. 1). The 3 spans consist of one (1) main simple span 124’-0", one (1) simple south end span 55’-3", and one (1) simple north end span 68’-3" long. The span lengths are measured between centerline of bearings. The skew angle measured between the centerline of the abutment and West Busway is 900. There are AT&T conduits mounted under the deck, and light poles mounted on top of the concrete parapets (see photo no.’s 8 & 2, respectively).
The superstructure consists of four girders spaced at 7’-0" — 6’-0" — 7’-0" on centers, are laterally restrained with angle cross framing, and support an
8 1/2" reinforced concrete deck. The deck thickness includes a 1/2" integral-wearing surface. The deck measures 28’-0" between the reinforced concrete parapets present on both sides of the structure. Galvanized stay-in-place deck forms are present on the underside of the deck (see photo no. 8).
Span 1 girders are made up of a 5’-11" deep by 1/2" thick web plates, and 18" wide by 3/4" thick top and bottom flange plates (see photo no. 8). The main span consists of a 10’- 4 1/2" deep by 1/2" thick web plate, and top and bottom flange plates varying from 20" wide by 7/8" thick, to 20" wide by 1" thick (see photo no. 9). Span 3 girders are made up of a 6’- 10 1/2" deep by 1/2" thick web plate, and 18" wide by 3/4" and 7/8" thick top and bottom flange plates (see photo no. 10). New knee brackets, bolted to the fascia girders, measure 4’-9" wide, from the centerline of existing fascia girders to the centerline of the new W24x55 fascia stringers, with 1/2" thick web plates, and 6" wide by 1/2" thick top and bottom flange plates (see photo no. 4). Lateral bracing and diaphragms consist of angles, and angle x-bracing, respectively. Laminated elastomeric bearing pads are present at the girder ends.
The main span vertical underclearance, from the existing concrete channel bottom, at the centerline of the railroad measures 60’-9" and 36’-7" in span 1.
Gravity type substructures consist of a combination of original stone construction with newly constructed reinforced concrete abutment backwalls and pier caps (see photo no.’s 4 to 7).
Michael Baker Jr., Inc. performed this initial inspection, which follows NBIS procedures, on June 23, 2011, via a UB-40 underbridge inspection crane. In general, the structure was in good condition with a few minor problems.
Several conduits at the south abutment and in span 1 have severely buckled segments, and broken couplers and/or adapters (see photo no.’s 12 & 13). In addition, a conduit in span 3 is split and leaking water (see photo no. 14). These problems are due to the junction boxes being allowed to fill with rainwater during construction.
The north and south approach roadway and slabs are newly constructed with no deficiencies noted.
No deficiencies noted — new construction (see photo no. 11). All PennDOT Type 1 scuppers are in excellent condition. A few scuppers exhibit minor debris accumulation but are fully functional (see photo no. 15). Random hairline (< 0.01") shrinkage cracks along the length of the concrete parapets are present (see photo no. 16). Deck expansion joints consist of strip seals in good condition with minor debris accumulation (see photo no. 17).
The superstructure has no visible structural deficiencies. Girders, fascia stringers, knee brackets, and lateral bracing are newly painted. The paint shows no visual defects, but the girders and bracing exhibit evidence of prior minor section loss and member pitting. Fascia stringers and knee brackets are in new condition with no deficiencies noted (see photo no. 4). Diaphragms are in good condition, but show areas of freckled surface rust under the broken conduit in span 1. Approximately 50% of lateral bracing connections between girders 3 & 4, in span 2, were not painted with final paint coat (see photo no. 18). Laminated elastomeric bearing pads are functioning properly with no problems noted.
The north and south abutments are in good condition, with a few minor problems noted. Both abutments have newly constructed reinforced concrete backwalls, bridge seats, and wingwalls with no visual deficiencies noted (see photo no.’s 4 & 5). The stem tops consist of new reinforced concrete construction, also with no visual deficiencies noted, and are attached to the existing stone masonry bases. Some locations of the stone masonry show minor cracking and loosening of mortar.
Piers 1 & 2 are in good condition with minor cracking and loosening of mortar on the existing stone masonry portion of the stems. The bridge seats, caps, and stem tops are newly constructed reinforced concrete with no visual deficiencies noted (see photo no.’s 6 & 7).
Photo No. 1: General Elevation (Upstream)
Photo No.2: South Approach (near)
Photo No.3: North Approach (far)
Photo No.4: South Abutment (near) - Elevation
Photo No.5: North Abutment (far) - Elevation
Photo No.6: Pier 1 - North Face (Looking South)
Photo No.7: Pier 2 - North Face (Looking South), note electrical lines
Photo No.8: General Underside View — Span 1
Photo No.9: General Underside View — Span 2
Photo No. 10: General Underside View — Span 3
Photo No. 11: General Deck View
Photo No. 12: Conduit, Span 1 — note longitudinal crack/split
Photo No. 13: Conduit and Couplers, Span 1 — note bend in conduit, and coupler separation
Photo No. 14: Conduit, Span 3 — note conduit is split and leaking water
Photo No. 15: Typical PennDOT Type 1 Scupper
Photo No. 16: Typical parapet crack
Photo No. 17: Strip Seal at North Abutment (typ.) — note minor debris accumulation
Photo No. 18: Lateral bracing connection between beam #3 and #4, in span 2 — note no final paint coat, and rust freckles
| LOAD FACTOR | H | HS | ML | P |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Inventory w/o F.W.S |
115 |
159 |
152 |
--- |
Inventory w/ F.W.S |
112 |
155 |
148 |
--- |
Operating w/o F.W.S |
191 |
265 |
253 |
346 |
Operating w/ F.W.S |
187 |
259 |
247 |
338 |
Table A.1: Bridge Load Ratings (Tons)
Note:
| Item | Estimated Quantity | Unit Cost | Total Cost |
|---|---|---|---|
Drain junction boxes, and conduits filled with water. Repair bent conduits, and broken couplers/adapters. |
N/A |
Lump Sum |
$7,500.00 |
Paint locations requiring final paint coat between girders 3 & 4 in span 2. |
20 SF |
Lump Sum |
$1,500.00 |
TOTAL COST $9,000.00
Table A.2: Repairs
Note: The above costs are only for the items listed and do not include additional costs which would be incurred when the work is performed, such as mobilization, maintenance and traffic protection, engineering, etc.
Figure A.1: Example Bridge Inspection Report
Figure A.1: Example Bridge Inspection Report (continued)
Figure A.1: Example Bridge Inspection Report (continued)
Figure A.1: Example Bridge Inspection Report (continued)
Figure A.1: Example Bridge Inspection Report (continued)
Figure A.1: Example Bridge Inspection Report (continued)
Figure A.1: Example Bridge Inspection Report (continued)
Figure A.1: Example Bridge Inspection Report (continued)
Figure A.1: Example Bridge Inspection Report (continued)
Note: The Appendix section for this report is not included here. The BMS 491 Forms for PENNDOT are that state’s version of the FHWA SI&A sheet with additional state items. The documents included in the report are typically red marked revisions to the file copy and reflect changes identified during the inspection.