Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) Historic

Bridge Number: 5718

Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT)Historic Bridge Management Plan

Executive SummaryBridge 5718 was constructed in 1948 to carry two lanes of vehicular traffic on TH 23 (now TH 123) over the Kettle River in Sandstone, Pine County. It is a three-span, steel, deck truss aligned on an east-west axis with an overall structure length of 403 feet and an out-to-out width of 39.6 feet. The center span has an arched lower chord and cantilevered arms with pinned connections to support the suspended end-spans. In 1984 the deck was rebuilt and widened and new railings were installed.

The bridge has adequate load capacity, nearly adequate vehicular deck width, modern light standards and reinforced-concrete railings. The deck is in fair condition with localized deterioration. The concrete slope protection is undermined at the edges. The superstructure and substructure have extensive graffiti.

The recommended future use of the bridge is rehabilitation for continued use on-site. No rehabilitation efforts are immediately necessary. Rehabilitation will be warranted in approximately 20 years.

Until the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) have signed a historic bridge Programmatic Agreement, all proposed work on this bridge (including maintenance, preservation and stabilization activities) needs to be sent to the Mn/DOT Cultural Resources Unit (CRU) for formal review.

JUNE 2006

Bridge Number: 5718


Table of Contents

I. II. III.IV.V.VI.

A.B.

C.

D.

Executive SummaryProject IntroductionBridge DataHistorical Data, including Statement of Significance and Character-Defining FeaturesEngineering DataExisting Conditions and Recommendations Projected Agency Costs, including Applicable Funding

Appendices Glossary of Preservation and Engineering TermsGuidelines for Bridge Maintenance and Rehabilitation Based on the Secretary of the Interior’s StandardsCurrent Mn/DOT Structure Inventory ReportCurrent Mn/DOT Bridge Inspection ReportPast Maintenance Reports (if available)Other Reports (if available)Cost Detail

JUNE 2006

I - Project Introduction Bridge Number: 5718


The Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT), in cooperation with the Minnesota State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), has committed to preserve selected historic bridges in Minnesota that are owned by the state and managed by Mn/DOT. In consultation with SHPO and FHWA, Mn/DOT selected 24 bridges as candidates for long-term preservation. Mn/DOT’s objective was to preserve the structural and historic integrity and serviceability of these bridges following the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (Standards) [36 CFR Part 68], and their adaptation for historic bridges by the Virginia Transportation Research Council as Guidelines for Bridge Maintenance and Rehabilitation Based on the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards (Guidelines). The character-defining features of each bridge received special attention. Mn/DOT also hopes to encourage other owners of historic bridges to follow its model for preservation.

The Glossary in the Appendix explains historic preservation terms used in this plan, such as historic integrity and character-defining features, and engineering terms, such as serviceability and deficiency.

Mn/DOT’s ongoing efforts to manage historic bridges are intended to comply with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, and Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act of 1966. This effort began with Robert M. Frame’s 1985 study and list of significant and endangered bridges in Minnesota and incorporates Jeffrey A. Hess’s 1995 survey and inventory of historic bridges in Minnesota that were built before 1956. That inventory identified the subject bridge as eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. Using the results of the 1995 study, Mn/DOT selected individual historic bridges for long-term preservation.

To achieve its preservation objectives, Mn/DOT retained the consultant team of Mead & Hunt and HNTB to develop management plans for 22 of the 24 selected bridges. The remaining two bridges have been addressed through separate projects.

Mn/DOT requested that the team consider a full range of options for each bridge and present the option that the team judged to be best for long-term preservation with due consideration given to transportation needs and reasonable costs. For example, if two options are explored that both result in an equivalent level of preservation for the bridge (e.g., retention of historically significant features and projected life span), but one option costs significantly more than the other, the less costly option will be recommended. In cases where one option results in a significantly better level of preservation than any other reasonable options but costs more, it will be the recommended action.

Preservation objectives call for conservation of as much of the existing historic fabric of the bridge as possible. However, safety, performance and practical considerations may have dictated replacement of historic fabric, especially of a minor feature, if such action improved the overall life expectancy of a bridge.

Options that were considered for the 22 historic bridges, listed from most to least preferred, are: 1. Rehabilitation for continued vehicular use on-site2. Rehabilitation for less-demanding use on-site, such as one-way vehicular or pedestrian/bicycle traffic 3. Relocation and rehabilitation for less-demanding use4. Closure and stabilization following construction of bypass structure5. Partial reconstruction while preserving substantial historic fabric

A recommended option was selected for each bridge through consultation among the consultant team, Mn/DOT and SHPO. Within the recommended option, the plan identifies stabilization, preservation and maintenance activities. Stabilization activities address immediate needs in order to maintain a bridge’s structural and historic integrity and serviceability. Preservation activities are near-term or long-term steps that need to be taken to maintain a bridge’s structural and historic integrity and serviceability for the foreseeable future. Preservation activities may include rehabilitation and replacement of components, as

Project Introduction I-1JUNE 2006

I - Project Introduction Bridge Number: 5718


needed, and remedial activities to address a deficiency. Maintenance activities, along with regular structural inspections and anticipated bridge component replacement activities, are routine practices directed toward continued serviceability. Mn/DOT is responsible for final decisions concerning activities recommended in the plan.

Recommendations are intended to be consistent with the Standards. The Standards are ten basic principles created to help preserve the distinctive character of a historic property and its site, while allowing for reasonable change to meet new needs. They recommend repairing, rather than replacing, deteriorated features when possible. The Standards were developed to apply to historic properties of all periods, styles, types, materials, and sizes. They also encompass the property's site and environment as well as attached, adjacent, or related new construction.

Because the Standards cannot be easily applied to historic bridges, the Virginia Transportation Research Council prepared Guidelines, which adapted the Standards to address the special requirements of historic bridges. The Guidelines, published in the Council’s 2001 Final Report: A Management Plan for Historic Bridges in Virginia, provide useful direction for undertaking historic bridge preservation and are included in the Appendix to this plan.

The individual bridge management plan draws from several existing data sources including: PONTIS, a bridge management system used by the Mn/DOT Bridge Office to manage its inventory of bridges statewide; the current Mn/DOT Structure Inventory Report and Mn/DOT Bridge Inspection Report for each bridge (the complete reports are included in the Appendix); database and inventory forms resulting from the 1995 statewide historic bridge inventory; past maintenance reports (if available, copy included in the Appendix); and other information provided by Mn/DOT. Because PONTIS uses System International (metric) units, data extracted from PONTIS are displayed in metric units.

The plan is based on information obtained from Mn/DOT in 2005, limited field examinations completed in 2005 for the purpose of making a qualitative assessment of the condition of the bridge, and current bridge design standards. Design exceptions are recommended where appropriate based on safety and traffic volume. The condition of a bridge and applicable design standards may change prior to plan implementation.

This plan includes a maintenance implementation summary at the end. This summary can be provided as a separate, stand-alone document for use by maintenance staff responsible for the bridge.

The plan for this individual bridge is part of a comprehensive effort led by Mn/DOT to manage the statewide population of historic bridges. The products of this management effort include:1. Minnesota Historic Bridge Management Plan 2. Individual management plans for 22 bridges 3. National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) nomination forms for 2 bridges4. Minnesota Historical Property Record (MHPR) documentation for 46 bridges

The first product, the Minnesota Historic Bridge Management Plan, is a general statewide management plan for historic bridges in Minnesota that are owned by the state, local governments or private parties. It is intended to be a single-source planning tool that will help bridge owners make management and preservation decisions relating to historic bridges. Approximately 240 historic bridges owned by parties other than Mn/DOT survive in the state as of 2005. Mn/DOT is developing this product to encourage owners of historic bridges to commit to their long-term preservation and offer guidance.

This individual plan represents the second product. The third and fourth products will be prepared as stand-alone documents.

Project Introduction I-2JUNE 2006

II - Bridge Data Bridge Number: 5718


09

Common Name (if any) 5718SHPO Inventory Number PN-SSC-018

Feature Crossed: Kettle River and Street

Feature Carried: TH 123

Descriptive Location: 1.5 Miles Northeast of S. Jct. 23

UTM Zone: 15

Easting: 511100 Northing: 5108170

USGS Quad Name: Sandstone North

NAD: 1927

Location

Structure Data

Main Span Type: Steel Continuous Truss - Deck Total Length: 403

Superstructure: 3-span, steel, rigid-connected, cantilevered, deck, Pratt truss with arched lower chord

Substructure: concrete abutments and piers

Floor/Deck: concrete deck carried by 8 rolled I-beam stringers

Other Features: upper chords: 2 channels with X-lacing; lower chords: 2 channels with X-lacing; verticals: single rolled I-beam; diagonals: single rolled I-beam; bottom-lateral bracing: crossed members consisting of 2 channels with V-lacing; concrete solid-parapet railings (topped by metal balustrade on south side, bordering sidewalk); steelmaker's mark: Illinois S-USA; bridge plate: on northeast approach ("Minnesota Bridge 5718 1948-1984")

Descriptive Information (or narrative as available)

Roadway Function: Mainline

Ownership: State

Custodian/Maint. Agency: State

Date of Construction 1948

Town or City: Sandstone

County: Pine

Narrative:

4

Bridge Data II-1JUNE 2006

III - Historical Data Bridge Number: 5718


Contractor A. Guthrie and Company, Inc., St. Paul, Minnesota

Designer/Engineer Minnesota Highway Department

Significance StatementLocated on the eastern edge of Sandstone, Bridge No. 5718 carries Minnesota Trunk Highway 123 (formerly Trunk Highway 23) over the Kettle River on an east-west alignment. The crossing is a three-span, rigid-connected, cantilevered, deck, Pratt truss with a concrete substructure and an arched bottom chord in the main center span. The span profile is 100-200-100 feet. The end spans consist of a 50-foot cantilever arm connected by means of a pinned hinge to a 50-foot suspended section; this arrangement was designed to accommodate anticipated settling of the abutments. The superstructure utilizes two truss webs, identically detailed. Top chords and bottom chords consist of two channel sections with X-lacing. Vertical and diagonal members are single rolled I-beams. The bridge's concrete deck rests on I-beam stringers and I-beam floor beams riveted to the superstructure. A metal plaque on the bridge's northeast approach bears the following inscription: "Minnesota Bridge 5718 1948-1984." The first date lists the year of the structure's completion; the second, the year of its remodeling. In 1984, the state highway department rebuilt the concrete abutments, replaced the original concrete deck with a five-foot wider slab in order to accommodate a 32-foot roadway with a sidewalk on the south side, and replaced the original open-balustrade metal railings with concrete solid-parapet railings (topped, on the south side, along the sidewalk, with a metal-balustrade section). Additional remodeling occurred in 1985, when the state reinforced the upper and lower chords of the truss with batten plates in order to counter section loss from rust. None of these alterations significantly affected the crossing's overall design. Bridge No. 5718 retains its historical integrity.

In 1933, the Minnesota Legislature radically expanded the state trunk highway system by adding 140 new routes covering about 5,000 miles of existing roadway. The Minnesota Highway Department had opposed the expansion, partly because many of the new routes were selected for political rather than for engineering reasons, and partly because the state lacked the funds to reconstruct the new routes according to trunk highway standards. Obsolete bridges were a particular problem, and the Kettle River Bridge on the newly designated Trunk Highway 23 near Sandstone was a case in point. Shortly after the state highway department assumed ownership of the structure, the citizens of Sandstone petitioned the agency to replace the old, rickety, 700-foot, steel-trestle structure with a modern crossing. The highway department declined, explaining that there were neither state nor federal monies available for the purpose. In 1939, however, the federal government opened a prison near Sandstone and found that the bridge impeded the delivery of supplies to the new institution. Federal funds for its replacement soon became available; in 1941, the state department completed plans for the project.

Instead of erecting a new 700-foot span, the highway department decided to cut down the sides of the river gorge at the bridge site and to use the excavated material to build extensive approaches, thereby reducing the length of the required superstructure to about 400 feet. Since the roadway would cross the gorge at a height of about 40 feet, there was sufficient vertical clearance to design the new span as a deck truss, which would economize on substructure costs. The optimum design seemed to be a three-span, continuous, deck truss of the Pratt configuration, displaying a span profile of 100-200-100 feet. The design also included a boldly arched lower chord in the main center span, which was not only more aesthetically pleasing than a flat lower chord, but also more economical in its overall use of structural steel.

In 1942, the state highway department completed the approaches for the new Kettle River crossing as planned, but wartime shortages in construction materials made it impossible to proceed with erection of

Historical Data III-1JUNE 2006



the span itself. From an engineering perspective, the delay was fortuitous, for it permitted the highway department to monitor the site and to discover that the approaches were settling. With this information in hand, the state engineers returned to their original design and inserted pinned hinges in the end spans of the superstructure to accommodate future substructure movement. This modification changed the proposed superstructure from a continuous truss to a cantilevered truss. As engineering student Stephen R. Brown explained in a case study of the bridge's design:

"The design of the truss itself was modified in such fashion that the expected abutment settlements would cause a minimum of structural distress to the bridge. This was accomplished by placing a pinned-joint hinge in the upper chord of the truss, 50 feet out from each abutment. The corresponding lower chord member was pin-connected at both ends, with one pin riding in a 12 inch long slot; due to the pin and slot arrangement this actually became a "false member" incapable of transmitting any axial thrust. The net result of these details is that the bridge, while having the elegant arch-like appearance of a continuous curved-chord truss, is in fact composed of three distinct units. The main center span is supported on the river piers and cantilevers toward the abutments; while the two suspended end spans are free to rotate downward about the pin at the cantilever end, in response to abutment settlements."

Because of continuing shortages of construction materials in the immediate post-war period, the highway department did not resume construction on the Kettle River Bridge until 1947, when it awarded contracts for the substructure and superstructure work to A. Guthrie and Company, Inc., St. Paul. The total cost was $225,321. The contractor completed the project in 1948. In the state highway department's bridge inventory, the new crossing was designated as Bridge No. 5718.

The Kettle River Bridge is eligible for the National Register under Criterion C in the area of engineering, within the historic context of "Iron and Steel Bridges in Minnesota." The Multiple Property Documentation Form (MPDF) associated with this context states that "some truss bridges may be significant because they embody characteristics not typical of standard applications. These may include special . . . elements of engineering design which allowed the bridge to meet unusual site conditions." With its cantilevered and hinged design, the Kettle River Bridge satisfies this criterion. The Kettle River Bridge is also eligible under Criterion C because it is a rare Minnesota example of a deck truss. As the MPDF states in Registration Criterion 9: "[Under Criterion C, a bridge may be eligible if it was or is] a deck truss bridge. Such bridges are very rare and represent a design solution to an unusual problem."

National Register Criteria CHistoric Context Historic Iron and Steel Bridges in Minnesota

ReferencesMinnesota Department of Transportation Computerized Bridge Database; Bridge No. 5718 File, in Minnesota Department of Transportation, Waters Edge Building, St. Paul; Bridge No. 5718 Storage File (plans, contract, correspondence), in Minnesota Department of Transportation, Record Storage Center, St. Paul; Stephen R. Brown, "Substructure Movement at Bridge 5718: A Case History," Civil Engineering Internship Paper, University of Minnesota, 1983, in Bridge No. 5718 File (also plans), in Minnesota Department of Transportation District 1 Office, Duluth, Minnesota; Fredric L, Quivik, "Iron and Steel Bridges in Minnesota," Multiple Property Documentation Form, 1988, Sec. F, 9, in State Historic Preservation Office, Minnesota Historical Society, St. Paul; field inspection by Chad Perkins, 23 September 1996.




Character-Defining Features

Feature 1. Design and construction of the cantilever deck truss in a Pratt configuration. A deck truss bridge is rare in Minnesota and represents a special engineering solution to a specific site situation. Included is the curved lower chord of the main span, giving the deck truss the design aesthetics of an arch bridge.

Feature 2. The pinned connection of the main span’s cantilever arms and the suspended end spans, which is specially designed to allow articulation of the end spans in response to abutment settlement and movement. This includes the lower chord's pin-connected “false member," which gives the bridge the appearance of a continuous truss.

Character-defining features are prominent or distinctive aspects, qualities, or characteristics of a historic property that contribute significantly to its physical character. Features may include materials, engineering design, and structural and decorative details.


IV - Engineering Data Bridge Number: 5718


Inspection Date 4/7/2004Sufficiency Rating [1] 78.5Operating Rating [1,2] 27.21Inventory Rating [1,2] 18.14

Posted Load [1] 0Design Load [1] 3Deficiency Rating Status [1] A

Deck: 6Superstructure: 5Substructure: 7Channel and Prot.: 8Culvert: N

Struct. Eval.: 5Deck Geometery: 4Underclearances: 4Waterway Adequacy: 8Appr. Alignment: 8

Condition Codes

Appraisal Ratings

Fracture Critical [1] YLast Inspection Date Y48200108

Waterway Data

Roadway DataADT Total: 2200Truck ADT Percentage: 5Bypass Detour Length [2]: 11.2651

Roadway ClearancesRoadway Width [2]: 9.7536Vert. Clearance Over Rdwy [2]: 99.99Vert. Clearance Under Rdwy [2]: 4.29768Lat. Under Clearance Right [2]: 3.048Lat. Under Clearance Left [2]:

Geometry CharacteristicsSkew: 0Structure Flared: 0

Smart Flag Data [1](A check indicates data items are listed on the Bridge Inspection Report)

[1] These items are defined in the glossary in Appendix A. [2] These items are provided in metric units.

Scour Code [1]: Bridge 5718 has countermeasures installed to correct a previous problem with scour. It has a scour code “P” and a Scour Action Plan is necessary for this bridge.

(Inspection and inventory data in this section was provided for this project by Mn/DOT in May 2005)

Engineering Data IV-1JUNE 2006

IV - Engineering Data Bridge Number: 5718


Location of Plans

District 1, Bridge Office

Roadway Characteristics

Floodplain Data

Lane Widths: 12'

Number of Lanes: 2

Shoulders Width: 4' Paved or Unpaved: Paved Comments: None

Guardrail Length: SW 150', SE 150', NE 200', NW 200' Comments: Estimated from videolog

Vertical Curves: Sag curves at each end of bridge with 6% + approach grades

Horizontal Curves: Tangent from RP 1.28 to 1.65

Sight distance: 1,390' W, 1,510' E

Other information: Development plans for this section of roadway, preservation only

Available data indicates that Bridge 5718 will not be overtopped with a Q100 event. Due to the deck truss configuration, lower chord elements will begin to be inundated with a Q10 event.

Accident DataThe Mn/DOT Accident Database reports four accidents associated with this bridge for the 15-year period of 1990-2004 including: 2 “property damage” accidents; 1 “injury-possible injury” accident; and 1 “injury-non-incapacitating injury” accident.

Engineering Data IV-2JUNE 2006

V - Existing Conditions / Recommendations Bridge Number: 5718


Existing Conditions

Serviceability Observations:Lane and shoulder widths are nearly adequate to meet minimum criteria as defined in Mn/DOT’s Bridge Preservation, Improvement and Replacement Guidelines. The gutter-line to gutter-line dimension of the existing deck is 32 feet with a 2004 average daily traffic (ADT) of 2050 vehicles per day. Mn/DOT’s current minimum criteria for vehicular deck width are 30 feet for bridges with an ADT between 400 and 2000, and 34 feet for bridges with an ADT between 2001 and 5000. The width of the vehicular deck is 2 feet less than required, but the ADT is extremely close to the cut off line between a 30-foot and 34-foot vehicular deck. The 1984 reinforced-concrete bridge railings are consistent with Mn/DOT’s bridge railing policy. The bridge carries a 5-foot-wide raised deck on the south side. Situated in a sag vertical curve, roadway drainage (potentially chloride laden) reaches the bridge from both approaches. The bridge is located on a tangent section of roadway. Minor erosion was noted on the north face of the foundation for Pier 1. Undermining has occurred along the edges of the concrete “quilted” slope protection utilized on both ends of the bridge.

Structural Condition Observations:The load capacity meets Mn/DOT’s criteria for Bridge Improvements. The deck is in fair condition with deterioration in the vicinity of the expansion joints, paving block, and the approach panels. The expansion joint gland at the west end of the bridge has failed. Expansion joint repairs are necessary to seal the deck and prevent additional deterioration of the superstructure and substructure. Interior deck joints have leaked, resulting in corroded floor beams. Aside from localized floorbeam deterioration below deck joints, the truss and floor system appear to be in relatively good condition. The 1984 paint system is beginning to fail with localized delaminations. The elastomeric bearings installed as part of the 1984 rehabilitation appear to be in excellent condition. Channels and plates recently added to the lower chord of the truss are not consistent with the Standards.

Non-Structural Observations:There is extensive graffiti on both the substructure and superstructure along with debris below the bridge. A gas line utility is carried outside the abutment wingwalls instead of penetrating through the abutment backwalls. The park on the west side of the river provides easy access to the bridge for climbers and vandals.

Date of Site VisitMay 27, 2005

Available information was reviewed prior to assessing the options for preservation of Bridge 5718 and visiting the bridge site. This information is cited in the Project Introduction section of this plan. A site visit was conducted to qualitatively establish the following:

1. General condition of structural members

2. Conformation to available extant plans

3. Roadway geometry and alignment

4. Bridge geometry and clearances

Existing Conditions / Recommendations V-1JUNE 2006



EXIST_COND_PICT1:

EXIST_COND_PICT2:

EXIST_COND_PICT3:

EXIST_COND_PICT4:Figure 4. Failed paint system on metal bridge railing on top of south parapet. Anchor bolt corrosion and grout pad deterioration.

Figure 3. Paint failure and steel deterioration below interior deck joints. Localized paint failures on the truss in other locations.

Figure 2. Looking west along the south side of the bridge.

Figure 1. Looking east at the bridge from the south shoulder. Note the Jersey safety barrier from the 1984 Rehab and widening. Modern light standards are incorporated into the south railing.




EXIST_COND_PICT7:

Figure 6. Concrete “quilt” slope protection is being undermined at the edges. There is a lot of graffiti on the bridge.

Figure 5. West approach panel deterioration and bituminous repairs. Paving block deterioration. Failed expansion joint gland.




Overall Recommendations

Recommended Future Use:Rehabilitation for continued vehicular use on-site.

Recommended Stabilization Activities:It is anticipated that preservation activities will not be implemented for several years. Therefore, the recommended stabilization activities are essentially aggressive maintenance activities that should be undertaken until preservation activities are completed.

1. Reset the abutment bearings to a vertical position at a temperature of 45 degrees Fahrenheit.

2. Repair expansion joints at each end of truss and interior deck joints in accordance with standard Mn/DOT details. Provide sealed joints at all locations.

3. Spot-paint steel members beneath deck joints and other areas as determined by inspection on a 10-year basis.

4. Repair undermined areas of the concrete “quilted” slope protection.

Recommended Preservation Activities:Rehabilitation efforts will likely be required within 20 years.

1. Repair damaged truss members, steel floor system members, bracing, and bearing elements as deemed necessary by detailed structural inspection. Members that cannot be repaired should be replaced in-kind to the extent possible.

2. Repair Concrete. Inspect exposed concrete to determine the extent and location of spalls, cracking, delamination or other types of deterioration. Complete concrete repair using standard Mn/DOT repair

The 32-foot wide vehicular deck nearly meets the meets the minimum width for Bridge Improvements as defined in Mn/DOT’s Bridge Preservation, Improvement and Replacement Guidelines. The structural capacity of the bridge exceeds the minimum requirements of HS 18. The bridge is adequate to accommodate the present traffic volume. The bridge has adequate traffic volume capacity for 20 years if there is no substantial increase in traffic volume.

The 1984 deck and barrier and railing system have a life expectancy of approximately 30 to 40 years. It is anticipated that the bridge will need to be repainted and the deck replaced near the end of the 20-year window (2025) considered for this management plan.

A review of available information indicates that Bridge 5718 can meet the anticipated transportation needs for the next 20 years. Based on the observed condition of the bridge, rehabilitation efforts will likely be required within the 20-year window of consideration and should be accomplished in a manner consistent with the long-term preservation of this historic structure.

Because the bridge is considered to a good candidate for continued use on-site with appropriate rehabilitation efforts, other alternates less sympathetic to preservation were not considered. Should additional or future information indicate that the bridge cannot meet the transportation needs due to traffic volumes or additional capacity requirements, the recommendations of this management plan should be revisited.




methods consistent with the National Park Service’s Preservation Brief 15 – Preservation of Historic Concrete. Consult with Mn/DOT’s Office of Bridges and Structures before making final determination of the means and methods of concrete repairs. Apply Mn/DOT special surface finish to exposed concrete subsequent to the repairs. Apply anti-graffiti coating to the areas of the concrete susceptible to graffiti.

3. Rivets that are corroded, damaged, or otherwise require replacement should be replaced with rivets of equal shank diameter. The replacement rivets should be hot-formed steel button-head rivets. Contemporary methods of rivet installation may be used. If replacement of rivets in-kind is deemed cost prohibitive, button head bolts of similar shank diameter should be used to replace those rivets which require replacement. It is likely that the rivets holes in the existing bridge will require reaming to ensure concentric holes in the joining members for bolting. Consideration should be given to the gage distance and physical access required for button head bolts because of the specialized equipment needed for their installation. If use of button head bolts is not feasible due to physical constraints, conventional structural steel bolts may be used.

4. Replace deck as deemed necessary using standard Mn/DOT practices. Consider widening the vehicular deck by 2 feet. Depending on the Mn/DOT standards for rehabilitation in place at the time of redecking, a design exception may be necessary. Deck widening considerations should be made with the understanding that there is little reserve structural capacity in the truss.

5. When the existing deck is replaced, the existing 1984 railing should also be replaced with one of the following options in compliance with the Standards: (a) a reconstruction of the original metal railing (see Minnesota Department of Highways plan sheets 15-16, 1943, and A.F. Wagner Iron Works plan sheets 1-5, 1947), altered only as necessary to meet current crash-test standards, and retaining general design, color, texture, and materials of the original; or (b) a reconstruction of the original metal railing (same plan sources) protected by low, metal, TL-4 intermediate barriers painted to match the railing. Railings on both sides of the bridge should be the same.

6. Metallize the upper chords, floorbeams, stringers and connections through field application of aluminum and/or zinc within a 4-foot longitudinal distance of deck joints if determined to be more economical than spot painting on a 10-year interval. Metallize subsequent to removal of the existing deck and prior to construction of the replacement deck and painting of the steel.

7. Paint the steel elements of the bridge consistent with standard Mn/DOT practices.

Routine:Inspections after rehabilitation:

1. Routine inspections of fracture critical members on an annual basis unless superseded by a more rigorous inspection. Implement resulting recommended maintenance efforts within a 12-month period.

2. In-depth, arm’s length inspection on a four-year interval. Implement resulting recommended maintenance or repair efforts within a 24-month period.

Projected Inspections to Monitor Bridge Condition

Special:The scour countermeasures should be inspected at least once every four years and after all major flows.

Recommended Maintenance Activities




Recommended Maintenance Activities1. Power wash and flush the entire bridge superstructure and substructure with water on an annual basis with particular attention paid to removal of pigeon guano from the bottom chords and truss web member connections.

2. Clean the drainage system of debris annually.

3. Lubricate the articulating truss panel details and bearings with a petroleum product at 5-year intervals.

4. Spot paint or spot metallize and paint the truss following standard Mn/DOT procedures at 10-year intervals unless superseded by complete repainting.

5. Repaint the truss and metal components with standard Mn/DOT procedures at 40-year intervals.

6. Provide routine maintenance, such as crack sealing, expansion joint repair/replacement and deck patching, as determined to be necessary by inspection.


VI - Projected Agency Costs Bridge Number: 5718


Applicable FundingThe majority of funding for the rehabilitation and reuse of historic bridges in the state of Minnesota is available through federal funding programs. The legislation authorizing the various federal funding programs is the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU).

SAFETEA-LU programs include the Transportation Enhancement (TE) Fund, the Surface Transportation Program (STP), the Highway Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation Program (HBRRP), National Highway System Funds, and the National Historic Covered-Bridge Preservation Program. A program not covered by SAFETEA-LU, the Save America’s Treasures Program, is also available for rehabilitation and reuse of historic bridges that have national significance.

Other than the Save America’s Treasures Program, the federal funds listed above are passed through Mn/DOT for purposes of funding eligible activities. While the criteria for determining eligible activities are determined largely by federal guidelines, Mn/DOT has more discretion in determining eligible activities under the TE fund.

The federal funding programs typically provide 80-percent federal funding and require a 20-percent state/local match. Typical eligible activities associated with these funds include replacement or rehabilitation of structurally deficient or functionally obsolete bridges for vehicular and, non-vehicular uses, painting, seismic retrofit, and preventive maintenance. If a historic bridge is relocated, the

Qualifier StatementThe opinions of probable costs provided below are in 2006 dollars. The costs were developed without benefit of preliminary plans and are based on the above identified tasks using engineering judgment and/or gross estimates of quantities and historic unit prices and are intended to provide a programming level of estimated costs. Refinement of the probable costs is recommended once preliminary plans have been developed. The estimated preservation costs include a 20% contingency and 5% mobilization allowance of the preservation activities, excluding soft costs (see Appendix D, Cost Detail, Item 5: Other). Actual costs may vary significantly from those opinions of cost provided herein.

For itemized activity listing and costs, see Appendix D.

Summarized CostsMaintenance costs: $46,900 annualized

Stabilization activities (not annualized)Superstructure: $30,000Substructure: $10,000 Railing: $1,000 Deck: $10,800 Other: $10,000 Total: $61,800

Preservation activities Superstructure: $497,000Substructure: $46,000Railing: $77,000Deck: $648,000Other: $239,000Contingency: $317,000Total: $1,824,000

Projected Agency Costs VI-1JUNE 2006

VI - Projected Agency Costs Bridge Number: 5718


estimated cost of demolition can be applied to its rehabilitation at a new site. It should be noted that the federal funds available for non-vehicular uses are limited to this estimated cost of demolition. However, TE funds can be applied to bridge rehabilitation for non-vehicular use.

State or federal bridge bond funds are available for eligible rehabilitation or reconstruction work on any publicly owned bridge or culvert longer than 20 feet. State bridge bond funds are available for up to 100 percent of the “abutment to abutment” cost for bridges or culverts longer than 10 feet that meet eligibility criteria.

A more in-depth discussion regarding funding can be found in the Minnesota Historic Bridge Management Plan.

Special Funding Note

N/A

Projected Agency Costs VI-2JUNE 2006

Appendices Bridge Number: 5718


Appendix A. Glossary of Preservation and Engineering Terms

JUNE 2006

Glossary A-1

Glossary Appraisal ratings – Five National Bridge Inventory (NBI) inspection ratings (structural evaluation, deck geometry, under-clearances, waterway adequacy, and approach alignment, as defined below), collectively called appraisal ratings, are used to evaluate a bridge’s overall structural condition and load-carrying capacity. The evaluated bridge is compared with a new bridge built to current design standards. Ratings range from a low of 0 (closed bridge) to a high of 9 (superior). Any appraisal item not applicable to a specific bridge it is coded N. Approach alignment – One of five NBI inspection ratings. This rating appraises a bridge’s functionality based on the alignment of its approaches. It incorporates a typical motorist’s speed reduction because of the horizontal or vertical alignment of the approach. Character-defining features – Prominent or distinctive aspects, qualities, or characteristics of a historic property that contribute significantly to its physical character. Features may include structural or decorative details and materials. Condition rating – Level of deterioration of bridge components and elements expressed on a numerical scale according to the NBI system. Components include the substructure, superstructure, deck, channel, and culvert. Elements are subsets of components, e.g., piers and abutments are elements of the component substructure. The evaluated bridge is compared with a new bridge built to current design standards. Component ratings range from 0 (failure) to 9 (new); element ratings range from 1 (poor) to 3 (good). In rating a bridge’s condition, Mn/DOT pairs the NBI system with the newer and more sophisticated Pontis element inspection information, which quantifies bridge elements in different condition states and is the basis for subsequent economic analysis. Deck geometry – One of five NBI inspection ratings. This rating appraises the functionality of a bridge’s roadway width and vertical clearance, taking into account the type of roadway, number of lanes, and Average Daily Traffic (ADT). Deficiency – The inadequacy of a bridge in terms of structure, serviceability, and/or function. Structural deficiency is determined through periodic inspections and is reflected in the ratings that are assigned to a bridge. Service deficiency is determined by comparing the facilities a bridge provides for vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian traffic with those that are desired. Functional deficiency is another term for functionally obsolete (see below). Remedial activities may be needed to address any or all of these deficiencies. Deficiency rating – A nonnumeric code indicating a bridge’s status as structurally deficient (SD) or functionally obsolete (FO). See below for the definitions of SD and FO. The deficiency rating status may be used as a basis for establishing a bridge’s eligibility and priority for replacement or rehabilitation.

Glossary A-2

Design exception – A deviation from standard bridge design practices that takes into account environmental, scenic, aesthetic, historic, and community factors that may have bearing upon a transportation project. A design exception is used for federally funded projects where federal standards are not met. Approval requires appropriate justification and documentation that concerns for safety, durability, and economy of maintenance have been met. Design load – The usable live-load capacity that a bridge was designed to carry, expressed in metric tons according to the allowable stress, load factor, or load resistance factor rating methods. An additional code was recently added to assess design load by a rating factor instead of tons. This code is used to determine if a bridge has sufficient strength to accommodate traffic demands. A bridge that is posted for load restrictions may not be adequate to accommodate present or expected truck traffic. Fracture critical – Classification of a bridge having primary superstructure or substructure components subject to tension stresses and which are non-redundant. A failure of one of these components could lead to collapse of a span or the bridge. Tension members of truss bridges are often fracture critical. The associated inspection date is a numerical code that includes frequency of inspection in months, followed by year, and month of last inspection. Functionally obsolete (FO) – The FHWA classification of a bridge that cannot meet current or projected traffic needs because of inadequate horizontal or vertical clearance, inadequate load-carrying capacity, and/or insufficient opening to accommodate water flow under the bridge. Historic fabric – The material in a bridge that was part of original construction or a subsequent alteration within the historic period (e.g., more than 50 years old) that has significance in and of itself. Historic fabric includes both character-defining and minor features. Minor features have less importance and may be replaced more readily. Historic bridge – A bridge that is listed in, or eligible for listing in, the National Register of Historic Places. Historic integrity – The authenticity of a bridge’s historic identity, evidenced by the survival and/or restoration of physical characteristics that existed during the bridge’s historic period. A bridge may have integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. Inspections – Periodic field assessments and subsequent consideration of the fitness of a structure and the associated approaches and amenities to continue to function safely. Inventory rating – The load level a bridge can safely carry for an indefinite amount of time expressed in metric tons or by the rating factor described in design load (see above). Inventory rating values typically correspond to the original design load for a bridge without deterioration. Maintenance – Work of a routine nature to prevent or control the process of deterioration of a bridge.

Glossary A-3

Minnesota Historical Property Record (MHPR) – A documentary record of an important architectural, engineering, or industrial site, maintained by the MHS as part of the state’s commitment to historic preservation. MHPR typically includes large-format photographs and written history, and may also include historic photographs, drawings, and/or plans. This state-level documentation program is modeled after a federal program known as the Historic American Buildings Survey/Historic American Engineering Record (HABS/HAER). National Bridge Inventory – Bridge inventory and appraisal data collected by the FHWA to fulfill the requirements of the National Bridge Inspection Standards (NBIS). Each state maintains an inventory of its bridges subject to NBIS and sends an annual update to the FHWA. National Bridge Inspection Standards – Federal requirements for procedures and frequency of inspections, qualifications of personnel, inspection reports, and preparation and maintenance of state bridge inventories. NBIS applies to bridges located on public roads. National Register of Historic Places – The official inventory of districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects significant in American history, architecture, archaeology, and culture, which is maintained by the Secretary of the Interior under the authority of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (as amended). Non-vehicular traffic – Pedestrians, non-motorized recreational vehicles, and small motorized recreational vehicles moving along a transportation route that does not serve automobiles and trucks. Includes bicycles and snowmobiles. Operating rating – Maximum permissible load level to which a bridge may be subjected based on a specific vehicle type, expressed in metric tons or by the rating factor described in design load (see above). Posted load – Legal live-load capacity for a bridge usually associated with the operating or inventory ratings as determined by a state transportation agency. A bridge posted for load restrictions may be inadequate for truck traffic. Pontis – Computer-based bridge management system to store inventory and inspection data and assist in other bridge data management tasks. Preservation – Preservation, as used in this report, refers to historic preservation that is consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. Historic preservation means saving from destruction or deterioration old and historic buildings, sites, structures, and objects, and providing for their continued use by means of restoration, rehabilitation, or adaptive reuse. It is the act or process of applying measures to sustain the existing form, integrity, and material of a historic building or structure, and its site and setting. Mn/DOT’s Bridge Preservation, Improvement and Replacement Guidelines (BPIRG) describe preservation differently, focusing on repairing or delaying the

deterioration of a bridge without significantly improving its function and without considerations for its historic integrity.

Glossary A-4

Preventive maintenance – The planned strategy of cost-effective treatments that preserve a bridge, retard future deterioration, and maintain or improve its functional condition without increasing structural capacity. Reconstruction – The act or process of depicting, by means of new construction, the form, features, and detailing of a non-surviving site, landscape, building, structure, or object for the purpose of replicating its appearance at a specific period of time and in its historic location. Activities should be consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties.

Rehabilitation – The act or process of returning a historic property to a state of utility through repair or alteration which makes possible an efficient contemporary use, while preserving those portions or features of the property that are significant to its historical, architectural, and cultural values. Historic rehabilitation, as used in this report, refers to implementing activities that are consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. As such, rehabilitation retains historic fabric and is different from replacement. However, Mn/DOT’s Bridge Preservation, Improvement and Replacement Guidelines (BPIRG) describe rehabilitation and replacement in similar terms. Restoration – The act or process of accurately depicting the form, features, and character of a property as it appeared at a particular period of time. Activities should be consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties.

Scour – Removal of material from a river’s bed or bank by flowing water, compromising the strength, stability, and serviceability of a bridge. Scour critical rating – A measure of bridge’s vulnerability to scour (see above), ranging from 0 (scour critical, failed, and closed to traffic) to 9 (foundations are on dry land well above flood water elevations). This code can also be expressed as U (unknown), N (bridge is not over a waterway), or T (bridge is over tidal waters and considered low risk). Serviceability – Level of facilities a bridge provides for vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian traffic, compared with current design standards. Smart flag – Special Pontis inspection element used to report the condition assessment of a deficiency that cannot be modeled, such as cracks, section loss, and steel fatigue. Stabilization – The act or process of sustaining a bridge by means of making minor repairs until a more permanent repair or rehabilitation can be completed. Structurally deficient – Classification indicating NBI condition rating of 4 or less for any of the following: deck condition, superstructure condition, substructure condition, or culvert condition. A structurally deficient bridge is restricted to lightweight vehicles; requires immediate rehabilitation to remain open to traffic; or requires maintenance, rehabilitation, or replacement.

Glossary A-5

Structural evaluation – Condition of a bridge designed to carry vehicular loads, expressed as a numeric value and based on the condition of the superstructure and substructure, the inventory load rating, and the ADT. Sufficiency rating – Rating of a bridge’s structural adequacy and safety for public use, and its serviceability and function, expressed on a numeric scale ranging from a low of 0 to a high of 100. It is a relative measure of a bridge’s deterioration, load capacity deficiency, or functional obsolescence. Mn/DOT may use the rating as a basis for establishing eligibility and priority for replacement or rehabilitation. Typically, bridges rated between 50 and 80 are eligible for rehabilitation and those rated 50 and below are eligible for replacement. Under-clearances – One of five NBI inspection ratings. This rating appraises the suitability of the horizontal and vertical clearances of a grade-separation structure, taking into account whether traffic beneath the structure is one- or two-way. Variance - A deviation from standard bridge design practices that takes into account environmental, scenic, aesthetic, historic, and community factors that may have bearing upon a transportation project. A design variance is used for projects using state aid funds. Approval requires appropriate justification and documentation that concerns for safety, durability and economy of maintenance have been met. Vehicular traffic – The passage of automobiles and trucks along a transportation route. Waterway adequacy – One of five NBI inspection ratings. This rating appraises a bridge’s waterway opening and passage of flow through the bridge, frequency of roadway overtopping, and typical duration of an overtopping event.



Appendix B. Guidelines for Bridge Maintenance and Rehabilitation Based on the Secretary of the Interior's Standards

JUNE 2006

Guidelines for Bridge Maintenance and Rehabilitation Based on the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards

1. The original character-defining qualities or elements of a bridge, its site, and its

environment should be respected. The removal, concealment, or alteration of any historic material or distinctive engineering or architectural feature should be avoided.

2. All bridges shall be recognized as products of their own time. Alterations that have no historical basis and that seek to create a false historical appearance shall not be undertaken.

3. Most properties change over time; those changes that have acquired historic significance in their own right shall be retained and preserved.

4. Distinctive engineering and stylistic features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize an historic property shall be preserved.

5. Deteriorated structural members and architectural features shall be retained and repaired, rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive element, the new element should match the old in design, texture, and other visual qualities and where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features shall be substantiated by documentary, physical, or pictorial evidence.

6. Chemical and physical treatments that cause damage to historic materials shall not be used. The surface cleaning of structures, if appropriate, shall be undertaken using the most environmentally sensitive means possible.

7. Significant archaeological and cultural resources affected by a project shall be protected and preserved. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures shall be undertaken.

8. New additions, exterior alterations, structural reinforcements, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment.

9. New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall be undertaken in such a manner that if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired.

Source: Ann Miller, et al. A Management Plan for Historic Bridges in Virginia. Charlottesville, Va.: Virginia Transportation Research Council, 2001.



Appendix C. Current Mn/DOT Structure Inventory Report

Current Mn/DOT Bridge Inspection Report

Past Maintenance Reports (if available)

Other Reports (if available)

JUNE 2006

Bridge ID:

* IDENTIFICATION * (RS 1) -

* ROADWAY DATA *

District County City Township Placecode

Maint. Area PINE

Desc. Loc. Sect. Lat.

Year Built

1.5 MI NE OF S JCT 23 Tnsp. Range 042N

46d 07m 44s Long. 92d 51m 22s

Year Remod.

Custodian Owner

STATE STATE

Temp. Skew Plan Avail. CENTRAL

Def. Status Suff. Rating ADEQ

* INSPECTION DATA *

Deck Superstruct. Substruct. Chan. & Prot. Culvert

Struct. Eval. Deck Geometry Underclearances Waterway Adeq'cy Appr. Alignment

Inspection Date (ARDB) Inspection Frequency Inspector DISTRICT1

Condition Codes Appraisal Ratings

Other Inspection Codes Open, Posted, Clsd. Pier Protection Scour Critical

Rail Rating Appr. Guardrail Appr. Trans. Appr. Term.

UTM-X UTM-Y

* BRIDGE SIGNS * Posted Load Traffic Horizontal Vertical

NO SIGNS DELINEATORS NOT APPL

* PAINT DATA *

* CAPACITY RATINGS *

* IMPROVEMENT DATA *

Year Painted Total Painted Area Primer Type Finish Type

Pct.Unsound

ORGANIC ZINC RICH VINYL

Design Load

Operating Rating Inventory Rating Posting Rtg Date

HS15

Veh: Semi: Dbl:

Inspector DISTRICT 1

SANDSTONE

Prop. Work

Prop. Structure Length Width Appr. Rdwy. Work Bridge Cost Approach Cost Project Cost Data - Year/Method

REPLACE COND.

BRIDGE

1,114,000 111,000

1,671,000 COMPUTER

1A

3460

1948

66,680 sq ft

402.0 ft 44.0 ft

* WATERWAY DATA * Drng. Area Wtrwy. Opening 99,999 sq ft Navigation Control NO PERM REQD Nav. Vert./Hrz Clr. Nav. Vert. Lift Clr. MN Scour Code P-STBL;PROT INPL Scour Eval. Year 2005

30.0 20.0

Mn/DOT STRUCTURE INVENTORY REPORT Date: 01/04/2006

Toll Bridge (Road) NO

Agency Br. No.

* STRUCTURE DATA * Service On HWY;PED Service Under HWY;STREAM

MN Main Span 404 STL CNT/DK TRUSS

Route System (Fed) MNTH Mn. Route System MNTH

MN Appr. Span

Route Number

Roadway Function MAINLINE Roadway Name MN 123

Culvert Type Barrel Length

Roadway Type 2 WAY TRAF Control Section 5802

No. Main Spans No. Appr.Span Total Spans NBI Len. (?) 3 YES

BDG. Reference Point

Detour Length 7 mi

001+00.488

Abut. Mat'l. Abut. Fnd. Type

CONCRETE SPRD/SOIL

Date Opened to Traffic

Lanes ON BRIDGE (1)

Main Span Length 200.0 ft Structure Length 402.8 ft

Pier Mat'l. Pier Fnd. Type

CONCRETE FTNG/PILE

ADT ADT Year Functional Class

HCADT 164

Nat'l. Hwy. System RUR/MAJOR COLL

NOT NHS

Deck Width 39.6 ft Deck Material CIP CONC

STRAHNET Truck Net Fed. Lands Hwy.

NOT STRAHNET NOT TRUCKNET

N/A OnBaseNet NOT BASENET

Wear Surf. Type

Deck Rebars

MONO CONC

EPOXY REBAR Deck Membrane NONE

Deck Rebars Inst. Yr.

* ROADWAY CLEARANCES * If Divided NB-EB SB-WB

Rdwy. Wid. Rd 1/Rd 2 Vrt. Clr. Ovr. Rd 1/Rd 2 Max Vert Clr Rd 1/ Rd 2

Lat UndClr Left/Right Horz U/Clr - Rd 1/Rd 2

32.0 ft

Wr. Crs/Fill Depth

Structure Area Roadway Area

15,951 sq ft 12,895 sq ft

RR UndClr Vert/Lat Appr. Surface Width 45.0 ft Median Width

Swk Width L/R Curb Ht. L/R Rail L/R/FHWA YES Ped. Fencing

0.6 ft 5.0 ft 0.8 ft

Hist. Significance Bird Nests (?)

NATL REGISTER YES

* ROADWAY TIS DATA * TIS 1st KEY TIS 2nd KEY

Route System Route Number High End Low End

Interchg. Elem. Reference Pt. Direction

202 202

NO SIGNS

MN MSpn Det Def

MN ASpn Det Def

PRATT

03 00000123

001+00.488 E

TH 123 OVER KETTLE RIVER & ST

Yr Fed Rehab 1984

5718

01 (115)

58396

15 20W

511096.23 5108385.79

0

3 0

123

09-01-1984

2 2,050

2004

78.5

05-09-2005 12

6 5 7 8 N

5 4 4 8 8

A

7

1 1

1 1

In Depth Inspections

Frac. Critical Pinned Asbly. Underwater Spec. Feat.

Y 48 08/2001 Y/N Freq. Last Insp.

02-01-1988

1991

Work By CONTRACT

Deck Pct. Unsnd.

* MISC. BRIDGE DATA * Struct. Flared Parallel Struct. Field Conn. ID Cantilever ID Permit Code A Permit Code B Permit Code C Permit Code Fut.

NONE RIVETED P-PINNED

1 1 1

Wear Surf. Inst. Yr.

1984

MN HS HS

1984

22 22

1

58

BMU Agreement No

Bridge ID:

* IDENTIFICATION * (RS 2) -

* ROADWAY DATA *

District County City Township Placecode

Maint. Area PINE

Desc. Loc. Sect. Lat.

Year Built

1.5 MI NE OF S JCT 23 Tnsp. Range 042N

46d 07m 44s Long. 92d 51m 22s

Year Remod.

Custodian Owner

STATE STATE

Temp. Skew Plan Avail. CENTRAL

Def. Status Suff. Rating ADEQ

* INSPECTION DATA *

Deck Superstruct. Substruct. Chan. & Prot. Culvert

Struct. Eval. Deck Geometry Underclearances Waterway Adeq'cy Appr. Alignment

Inspection Date (ARDB) Inspection Frequency Inspector DISTRICT1

Condition Codes Appraisal Ratings

Other Inspection Codes Open, Posted, Clsd. Pier Protection Scour Critical

Rail Rating Appr. Guardrail Appr. Trans. Appr. Term.

UTM-X UTM-Y

* BRIDGE SIGNS * Posted Load Traffic Horizontal Vertical

NO SIGNS DELINEATORS NOT APPL

* PAINT DATA *

* CAPACITY RATINGS *

* IMPROVEMENT DATA *

Year Painted Total Painted Area Primer Type Finish Type

Pct.Unsound

ORGANIC ZINC RICH VINYL

Design Load

Operating Rating Inventory Rating Posting Rtg Date

HS15

Veh: Semi: Dbl:

Inspector DISTRICT 1

SANDSTONE

Prop. Work

Prop. Structure Length Width Appr. Rdwy. Work Bridge Cost Approach Cost Project Cost Data - Year/Method

REPLACE COND.

BRIDGE

1,114,000 111,000

1,671,000 COMPUTER

1A

3460

1948

66,680 sq ft

402.0 ft 44.0 ft

* WATERWAY DATA * Drng. Area Wtrwy. Opening 99,999 sq ft Navigation Control NO PERM REQD Nav. Vert./Hrz Clr. Nav. Vert. Lift Clr. MN Scour Code P-STBL;PROT INPL Scour Eval. Year 2005

30.0 20.0

Mn/DOT STRUCTURE INVENTORY REPORT Date: 01/04/2006

Toll Bridge (Road) NO

Agency Br. No.

* STRUCTURE DATA * Service On HWY;PED Service Under HWY;STREAM

MN Main Span 404 STL CNT/DK TRUSS

Route System (Fed) MUN Mn. Route System CITY

MN Appr. Span

Route Number

Roadway Function MAINLINE Roadway Name MUN 32

Culvert Type Barrel Length

Roadway Type 2 WAY TRAF Control Section

No. Main Spans No. Appr.Span Total Spans NBI Len. (?) 3 YES

BDG. Reference Point

Detour Length 7 mi

Abut. Mat'l. Abut. Fnd. Type

CONCRETE SPRD/SOIL

Date Opened to Traffic

Lanes UNDER BRIDGE (2)

Main Span Length 200.0 ft Structure Length 402.8 ft

Pier Mat'l. Pier Fnd. Type

CONCRETE FTNG/PILE

ADT ADT Year Functional Class

HCADT

Nat'l. Hwy. System RURAL LOCAL

NOT NHS

Deck Width 39.6 ft Deck Material CIP CONC

STRAHNET Truck Net Fed. Lands Hwy.

NOT STRAHNET NOT TRUCKNET

N/A OnBaseNet NOT BASENET

Wear Surf. Type

Deck Rebars

MONO CONC

EPOXY REBAR Deck Membrane NONE

Deck Rebars Inst. Yr.

* ROADWAY CLEARANCES * If Divided NB-EB SB-WB

Rdwy. Wid. Rd 1/Rd 2 Vrt. Clr. Ovr. Rd 1/Rd 2 Max Vert Clr Rd 1/ Rd 2

Lat UndClr Left/Right Horz U/Clr - Rd 1/Rd 2

12.0 ft 14.1 ft 14.1 ft 22.0 ft

10.0 ft

Wr. Crs/Fill Depth

Structure Area Roadway Area

15,951 sq ft 12,895 sq ft

RR UndClr Vert/Lat Appr. Surface Width 12.0 ft Median Width

Swk Width L/R Curb Ht. L/R Rail L/R/FHWA YES Ped. Fencing

0.6 ft 5.0 ft 0.8 ft

Hist. Significance Bird Nests (?)

NATL REGISTER YES

* ROADWAY TIS DATA * TIS 1st KEY TIS 2nd KEY

Route System Route Number High End Low End

Interchg. Elem. Reference Pt. Direction

202 202

NO SIGNS

MN MSpn Det Def

MN ASpn Det Def

PRATT

10 34600032

001+00.040

TH 123 OVER KETTLE RIVER & ST

Yr Fed Rehab 1984

5718

01 (115)

58396

15 20W

511096.23 5108385.79

0

3 0

32

01-01-1948

1 49 1980

78.5

05-09-2005 12

6 5 7 8 N

5 4 4 8 8

A

7

1 1

1 1

In Depth Inspections

Frac. Critical Pinned Asbly. Underwater Spec. Feat.

Y 48 08/2001 Y/N Freq. Last Insp.

02-01-1988

1991

Work By CONTRACT

Deck Pct. Unsnd.

* MISC. BRIDGE DATA * Struct. Flared Parallel Struct. Field Conn. ID Cantilever ID Permit Code A Permit Code B Permit Code C Permit Code Fut.

NONE RIVETED P-PINNED

1 1 1

Wear Surf. Inst. Yr.

1984

MN HS HS

1984

22 22

2

58

BMU Agreement No

Mn/DOT BRIDGE INSPECTION REPORT 01/04/2006 Page 1 of 3

BRIDGE 5718 TH 123 OVER KETTLE RIVER & ST INSP. DATE: 05-09-2005 Inspector: DISTRICT1

County: City: Township:

PINE SANDSTONE

Section: 15 Township: 042N Range: 20W

Location: Route: Control Section:

Ref. Pt.: Maint. Area:

1.5 MI NE OF S JCT 23 MNTH 123 001+00.488

5802 1A

Length: Deck Width: Rdwy. Area / Pct. Unsnd: Paint Area / Pct. Unsnd:

402.8 ft 39.6 ft

12,895 sq ft 66,680 sq ft

MN Scour Code: NBI Deck: 6 Super: 5 Sub: 7 Chan: 8 Culv: N Appraisal Ratings - Approach: 8 Waterway: 8 P-STBL;PROT INPL

Local Agency Bridge Nbr:

Def. Stat: Suff. Rate: 78.5 ADEQ Load Posting: NO SIGNS Traffic Signs: NO SIGNS Horiz. Cntl. Signs: DELINEATORS Vert. Cntl. Signs: NOT APPL

STL CNT / DK TRUSS Span Type: OPEN Open, Posted, Closed:

NBR ELEM

ELEMENT NAME UNIT STR

ENV INSP. DATE QUANTITY CS 1 QTY

CS 2 QTY

CS 3 QTY

CS 4 QTY

CS 5 QTY

STRUCTURE UNIT: 0

26 CONC DECK-EPOXY BARS 0 2 15,951 SF 0 0 0 0 15,951 05-09-2005 15,951 SF 0 0 0 0 15,951 04-07-2004

Notes:

300 STRIP SEAL JOINT 0 2 80 LF 0 1 N/A N/A 79 05-09-2005 80 LF 0 1 N/A N/A 79 04-07-2004

Notes: NW cover plate has one bolt broken off. South has a one foot tear. No strip seal has closed to 1/2 in.

301 POURED DECK JOINT 0 2 80 LF 0 80 N/A N/A 0 05-09-2005 80 LF 0 80 N/A N/A 0 04-07-2004

Notes: North and South have deteriorated and lost adhesion 100% at the app. to head block with some spalls.

321 CONC APPROACH SLAB 0 2 2 EA 2 0 0 N/A 0 05-09-2005 2 EA 2 0 0 N/A 0 04-07-2004

Notes: South has 27 lineal feet of scale to 16 in. wide x 3 in. deep at head block. The end of the north approach has a 24 ft. x 18 in. scale filled with bituminous.

331 CONCRETE RAILING 0 2 402 LF 0 0 0 N/A 402 05-09-2005 402 LF 0 0 0 N/A 402 04-07-2004

Notes:

333 RAILING - OTHER 0 2 402 LF 80 0 N/A N/A 322 05-09-2005 402 LF 80 0 N/A N/A 322 04-07-2004

Notes: One bolt missing in top conection. 5/8 by 2 inches.

113 PAINT STEEL STRINGER 0 2 3,216 LF 322 482 0 0 2,412 05-09-2005 3,216 LF 322 482 0 0 2,412 04-07-2004

Notes: Some of the stringers are rusted on the top flange from water leaking through the deck. 5% of the stringer areas at cracks in the deck are rusted.

131 PAINT STL DECK TRUSS 0 2 1,200 LF 360 240 77 0 523 05-09-2005 1,200 LF 360 240 77 0 523 04-07-2004

Notes: The gussett plates on the pier legs to the diagonals and lateral braces are bowed out 1/2 to 3/4 inch at the riveted connections due to pack rust, which has been removed. The lower batten plates of the bottom chord, at midspan 2, has only 1/8 inch remaining along the chord channel connections. Batten plates near point 10 on the arch chord have 1/4 in. LOS along the connection to the truss channel plus steel plates were placed near the piers on the lower chord in 1984 to strengthen the weakened sections. The span 2 lower chord bottom batten plates are heavily rusted. Some are almost rusted through at the connections to the chord angles. (cont. in misc.)

152 PAINT STL FLOORBEAM 0 2 1,000 LF 200 100 100 0 600 05-09-2005 1,000 LF 200 100 100 0 600 04-07-2004

Notes: Several of the floor beams have 1/4 inch loss of section on the webs on the outer 4 feet. The floor beams have new rusting at the deck cracks. The south bearing stiffener of floor beam 7 has the lower 2 in. rusted away on the east side of the floor beam. Some rusting on the south end of the floor beams. 35% of the bottom flanges rusted.

310 ELASTOMERIC BEARING 0 2 2 EA 0 0 N/A N/A 2 05-09-2005 2 EA 0 0 N/A N/A 2 04-07-2004

Notes: Elastomeric bearings tipped as in exp.1 1/2 in.



NBR ELEM



CS 2 QTY

CS 3 QTY

CS 4 QTY

CS 5 QTY

STRUCTURE UNIT: 0

311 EXPANSION BEARING 0 2 4 EA 0 0 N/A N/A 4 05-09-2005 4 EA 0 0 N/A N/A 4 04-07-2004

Notes: The pins are rotating in the west abutment rockers. The bearings were greased in 1993.

313 FIXED BEARING 0 2 2 EA 2 0 N/A N/A 0 05-09-2005 2 EA 2 0 N/A N/A 0 04-07-2004

Notes: Slightly rusted.

215 CONCRETE ABUTMENT 0 2 79 LF 4 0 0 N/A 75 05-09-2005 79 LF 4 0 0 N/A 75 04-07-2004

Notes: Scale at app and headblock north and south.

234 CONCRETE CAP 0 2 79 LF 0 0 0 N/A 79 05-09-2005 79 LF 0 0 0 N/A 79 04-07-2004

Notes:

387 CONCRETE WINGWALL 0 2 4 EA 0 0 0 N/A 4 05-09-2005 4 EA 0 0 0 N/A 4 04-07-2004

Notes:

357 PACK RUST 0 2 1 EA 1 0 0 N/A 0 05-09-2005 1 EA 1 0 0 N/A 0 04-07-2004

Notes: Pack rust at some lattis connections.

358 CONC DECK CRACKING 0 2 1 EA 1 0 0 N/A 0 05-09-2005 1 EA 1 0 0 N/A 0 04-07-2004

Notes: The deck has transverse cracks at 6 in. to 2 ft. intervals near the west end, which need to be sealed. The EBL has heavy map cracking.

359 CONC DECK UNDERSIDE 0 2 1 EA 0 1 0 0 0 05-09-2005 1 EA 0 1 0 0 0 04-07-2004

Notes: Under side cracked 2-4 ft. intervals with rust.

360 SETTLEMENT 0 2 1 EA 0 0 N/A N/A 1 05-09-2005 1 EA 0 0 N/A N/A 1 04-07-2004

Notes: The west abutment has settled 1/2 in. since it was constructed.

361 SCOUR 0 2 1 EA 0 0 N/A N/A 1 05-09-2005 1 EA 0 0 N/A N/A 1 04-07-2004

Notes: P - Stable due to protection. Inspect countermeasures.

964 CRITICAL FINDING 0 2 1 EA 0 N/A N/A N/A 1 05-09-2005 1 EA 0 N/A N/A N/A 1 04-07-2004

Notes: DO NOT DELETE THIS CRITICAL FINDING SMART FLAG.

966 FRACTURE CRITICAL 0 2 1 EA 0 0 N/A N/A 1 05-09-2005 1 EA 0 0 N/A N/A 1 04-07-2004

Notes:

984 DRAINAGE 0 1 1 EA 0 0 N/A N/A 1 05-09-2005

Notes: Southeast top back of drain is broken.

988 MISCELLANEOUS 0 1 1 EA 0 0 N/A N/A 1 05-09-2005



NBR ELEM



CS 2 QTY

CS 3 QTY

CS 4 QTY

CS 5 QTY

STRUCTURE UNIT: 0

Notes: Element 131 (cont.) The sway bracing at the piers are heavily pitted, some severed. All truss members at F/B 7 are heavily pitted. The upper chord, upper channel legs have heavy loss of section at the lacing connections. Most of the exterior gussett plates are bent due to pack rust between the plates and the other structural members. Vertical L3 prime, lower vertical gussett plates have over 50% loss of section at the lower chord connection. Most lower chord channels are heavily pitted on the webs. Most severe areas were repaired when painted in 1985. Starting to show active corrosion. The 4 inch gas line hanger on the south side of Pier 2 has a bolt and roller gone near the east end of the span. Graffitti in both abutments. 2 in. phone in condition rail.

General Notes: F/C inspection by Peter Wilson and Bill Nelson on 8-6-01. Separate report is on file. The diagonals are tension members and several have spot welds. Pigeon dung should be cleaned on the bottom chord at the vertical and diagonal connections. Tack welds were found on all diagonal members on each side of main span. One crack was found in weld at top diagonal at U4. Weld was ground out and checked with dye penetrant. Crack seemed to be gone. Crack was checked with Steve Ryan. Paint is beginning to peel off in several areas leaving primer. L10 has 2 cracked welds south truss bottom batten plate, ground to see how far cracks went. Area is built up. (See sketch). 2003: Water is 18.5 ft. from CL of Pier 2. 3 ft. more of riprap. 2005 Inspection: M. Chell/ R. Saralampi Inspected by reg. snooper inspection 6-9-05 - D. Rychalk & R. Taylor. Fracture critical team supposedly inspect bridge 3 weeks earlier.

Reviewer's Signature / Date Inspector's Signature



Appendix D. Cost Detail

JUNE 2006

Programmatic Stabilization Costs

Mn/DOT Historic Bridge Management PlanBRIDGE No. 5718 MAINTENANCE/STABILIZATION/PRESERVATION (M/S/P) Activity Listing and Costs

Notes: 1 Costs are presented in 2006 dollars.2 Unit costs are presented to the dollar or cent depending on the precision of the specific value.3 Stabilization costs are expected to continue on an annual basis until preservation activities can begin.

Therefore, annual costs for stabilization are included in addition to total costs. Each annual cost forstabilization is based on the expected life cycle for the item referenced.

STABILIZATION COST SUMMARYITEM COSTS Annual

Cost1.00 SUPERSTRUCTURE 30,000$ 6,000$ 2.00 SUBSTRUCTURE 10,000$ 2,400$ 3.00 RAILINGS 1,000$ 1,000$ 4.00 DECK 10,800$ 2,800$ 5.00 OTHER 10,000$ 300$

61,800$ 12,500$

1.00 SUPERSTRUCTURE

REF. ITEM / DESCRIPTION OF WORK EXPECTED LIFE ITEM QTY UNIT ITEM ANNUALNo. CYCLE - YEARS QTY UNIT COST TOTAL COST1.05 Power wash / flush truss 1 66680 SF 0.05$ 3,038$ 3,038$ 1.10 Power wash / flush bearings 1 8 Each 53.05$ 424$ 424$ 1.15 Lubricate bearings & articulating details 5 1 LS 1,373.80$ 1,374$ 275$ 1.20 Spot paint selected areas 10 1 LS 25,000.00$ 25,000$ 2,500$ 1.25 -$ -$ -$ 1.30 -$ -$ -$ 1.35 -$ -$ -$ 1.40 -$ -$ -$ 1.45 -$ -$ -$ 1.50 -$ -$ -$

29,836$ 6,237$ 2.00 SUBSTRUCTURE

REF. ITEM / DESCRIPTION OF WORK EXPECTED LIFE ITEM QTY UNIT ITEM ANNUALNo. CYCLE - YEARS QTY UNIT COST TOTAL COST2.05 Power wash / flush bridge seats 1 1 Each 800.00$ 800$ 800$ 2.10 Power wash / flush vertical concrete 1 1 Each 1,200.00$ 1,200$ 1,200$ 2.15 Power wash slope protection 5 1 Each 1,000.00$ 1,000$ 200$ 2.20 Reset abutment bearings 40 1 LS 6,979.40$ 6,979$ 174$ 2.25 -$ -$ -$ 2.30 -$ -$ -$ 2.35 -$ -$ -$ 2.40 -$ -$ -$ 2.45 -$ -$ -$ 2.50 -$ -$ -$

9,979$ 2,374$ 3.00 RAILINGS

REF. ITEM / DESCRIPTION OF WORK EXPECTED LIFE ITEM QTY UNIT ITEM ANNUALNo. CYCLE - YEARS QTY UNIT COST TOTAL COST3.05 Power wash / flush railing 1 406 LF 1.54$ 624$ 624$ 3.10 -$ -$ -$ 3.15 -$ -$ -$ 3.20 -$ -$ -$ 3.25 -$ -$ -$ 3.30 -$ -$ -$ 3.35 -$ -$ -$ 3.40 -$ -$ -$ 3.45 -$ -$ -$ 3.50 -$ -$ -$

624$ 624$ 4.00 DECK

REF. ITEM / DESCRIPTION OF WORK EXPECTED LIFE ITEM QTY UNIT ITEM ANNUALNo. CYCLE - YEARS QTY UNIT COST TOTAL COST4.05 Power wash / flush deck & drains 1 14000 SF 0.14$ 1,993$ 1,993$ 4.10 Power wash / flush expansion joints 1 172 LF 1.38$ 237$ 237$ 4.15 Rehabilitate exp. joints (seals & sealing) 15 172 LF 50.00$ 8,600$ 573$ 4.20 -$ -$ -$ 4.25 -$ -$ -$ 4.30 -$ -$ -$ 4.35 -$ -$ -$ 4.40 -$ -$ -$ 4.45 -$ -$ -$ 4.50 -$ -$ -$

10,830$ 2,804$ 5.00 OTHER

REF. ITEM / DESCRIPTION OF WORK EXPECTED LIFE ITEM QTY UNIT ITEM ANNUALNo. CYCLE - YEARS QTY UNIT COST TOTAL COST5.05 Repair Slope Protection Undemining 40 1 LS 10,000.00$ 10,000$ 250$ 5.10 -$ -$ -$ 5.15 -$ -$ -$ 5.20 -$ -$ -$ 5.25 -$ -$ -$ 5.30 -$ -$ -$ 5.35 -$ -$ -$

10,000$ 250$

Programmatic Preservation Costs


Notes: 1 Costs are presented in 2006 dollars.2 Unit costs are presented to the dollar or cent depending on the precision of the specific value.

PRESERVATION COST SUMMARYITEM COSTS

1.00 SUPERSTRUCTURE 497,000$ 2.00 SUBSTRUCTURE 46,000$ 3.00 RAILINGS 77,000$ 4.00 DECK 648,000$ 5.00 OTHER 239,000$

1,507,000$ Mobilization @ 5% and 20% Contingency: 317,000$

1,824,000$

1.00 SUPERSTRUCTURE

REF. ITEM / DESCRIPTION OF WORK EXPECTED LIFE ITEM QTY UNIT ITEMNo. CYCLE - YEARS QTY UNIT COST TOTAL1.05 Repair floorbeams at joints 75 4 Each 3,000$ 12,000$ 1.10 Paint steel 40 66680 SF 6.75$ 450,090$ 1.15 Metallizing 60 1334 SF 26.25$ 35,005$ 1.20 -$ -$ 1.25 -$ -$ 1.30 -$ -$ 1.35 -$ -$ 1.40 -$ -$ 1.45 -$ -$ 1.50 -$ -$

497,095$ 2.00 SUBSTRUCTURE

REF. ITEM / DESCRIPTION OF WORK EXPECTED LIFE ITEM QTY UNIT ITEMNo. CYCLE - YEARS QTY UNIT COST TOTAL2.05 Concrete Repair 50 400 SF 60.00$ 24,000$ 2.10 Repair rip rap on the N. edge of Pier 1 50 1 LS 1,508.80$ 1,509$ 2.15 Special Surface Finish 50 4000 SF 1.85$ 7,400$ 2.20 Anti-Graffiti Coating 15 2000 SF 6.50$ 13,000$ 2.25 -$ -$ 2.30 -$ -$ 2.35 -$ -$ 2.40 -$ -$ 2.45 -$ -$ 2.50 -$ -$

45,909$ 3.00 RAILINGS

REF. ITEM / DESCRIPTION OF WORK EXPECTED LIFE ITEM QTY UNIT ITEMNo. CYCLE - YEARS QTY UNIT COST TOTAL3.05 Replace concrete railings 50 812 LF 75.00$ 60,900$ 3.10 Replace steel railing 50 406 LF 40.00$ 16,240$ 3.15 -$ -$ 3.20 -$ -$ 3.25 -$ -$ 3.30 -$ -$ 3.35 -$ -$ 3.40 -$ -$ 3.45 -$ -$ 3.50 -$ -$

77,140$ 4.00 DECK

REF. ITEM / DESCRIPTION OF WORK EXPECTED LIFE ITEM QTY UNIT ITEMNo. CYCLE - YEARS QTY UNIT COST TOTAL4.05 Repair Approach Panels 50 500 SF 35.00$ 17,500$ 4.10 New exp. jnts - ends & interior 50 172 LF 116.28$ 20,000$ 4.15 Replace deck 40 14892 SF 30.00$ 446,760$ 4.20 Remove bridge deck 40 14892 SF 11.00$ 163,812$ 4.25 -$ -$ 4.30 -$ -$ 4.35 -$ -$ 4.40 -$ -$ 4.45 -$ -$ 4.50 -$ -$

648,072$ 5.00 OTHER

REF. ITEM / DESCRIPTION OF WORK EXPECTED LIFE ITEM QTY UNIT ITEMNo. CYCLE - YEARS QTY UNIT COST TOTAL5.05 Reconfigure gas line at abutments 75 1 LS 10,000.00$ 10,000$ 5.10 Field Inspection N.A. 1 LS 46,572.00$ 46,572$ 5.15 Develop Preservation Plan Set N.A. 1 LS 182,076.00$ 182,076$ 5.20 -$ -$ 5.25 -$ -$ 5.30 -$ -$ 5.35 -$ -$

238,648$

Programmatic Maintenance Costs


Notes: 1 Costs are presented in 2006 dollars.2 Unit costs are presented to the dollar or cent depending on the precision of the specific value.

MAINTENANCE COST SUMMARYITEM ANNUAL COSTS

1.00 SUPERSTRUCTURE 20,000$ 2.00 SUBSTRUCTURE 2,500$ 3.00 RAILINGS 900$ 4.00 DECK 18,100$ 5.00 OTHER 5,400$

46,900$

1.00 SUPERSTRUCTURE

REF. ITEM / DESCRIPTION OF WORK EXPECTED LIFE ITEM QTY UNIT ITEM ANNUALNo. CYCLE - YEARS QTY UNIT COST TOTAL COST1.05 Power wash / flush truss 1 66680 SF 0.05$ 3,038$ 3,038$ 1.10 Power wash / flush bearings 1 8 Each 53.05$ 424$ 424$ 1.15 Lubricate bearings & articulating details 5 8 Each 171.73$ 1,374$ 275$ 1.20 Spot paint selected areas 5 1 LS 25,000.00$ 25,000$ 5,000$ 1.25 Paint Superstructure 40 66680 SF 6.75$ 450,000$ 11,250$ 1.30 -$ -$ -$ 1.35 -$ -$ -$ 1.40 -$ -$ -$ 1.45 -$ -$ -$ 1.50 -$ -$ -$

479,836$ 19,987$ 2.00 SUBSTRUCTURE

REF. ITEM / DESCRIPTION OF WORK EXPECTED LIFE ITEM QTY UNIT ITEM ANNUALNo. CYCLE - YEARS QTY UNIT COST TOTAL COST2.05 Power wash / flush bridge seats 1 1 Each 800.00$ 800$ 800$ 2.10 Power wash / flush vertical concrete 1 1 Each 1,200.00$ 1,200$ 1,200$ 2.15 Clear vegetation 1 1 Each 250.00$ 250$ 250$ 2.20 Power wash slope protection 5 1 Each 1,000.00$ 1,000$ 200$ 2.25 -$ -$ -$ 2.30 -$ -$ -$ 2.35 -$ -$ -$ 2.40 -$ -$ -$ 2.45 -$ -$ -$ 2.50 -$ -$ -$

3,250$ 2,450$ 3.00 RAILINGS

REF. ITEM / DESCRIPTION OF WORK EXPECTED LIFE ITEM QTY UNIT ITEM ANNUALNo. CYCLE - YEARS QTY UNIT COST TOTAL COST3.05 Power wash / flush railing 1 406 LF 1.54$ 624$ 624$ 3.10 Spot paint railing 10 406 LF 6.57$ 2,668$ 267$ 3.15 -$ -$ -$ 3.20 -$ -$ -$ 3.25 -$ -$ -$ 3.30 -$ -$ -$ 3.35 -$ -$ -$ 3.40 -$ -$ -$ 3.45 -$ -$ -$ 3.50 -$ -$ -$

3,292$ 891$ 4.00 DECK

REF. ITEM / DESCRIPTION OF WORK EXPECTED LIFE ITEM QTY UNIT ITEM ANNUALNo. CYCLE - YEARS QTY UNIT COST TOTAL COST4.05 Power wash / flush deck & drains 1 14000 SF 0.14$ 1,993$ 1,993$ 4.10 Power wash / flush expansion joints 1 172 LF 1.38$ 237$ 237$ 4.15 Rehabilitate exp. joints (seals & sealing) 15 172 LF 50.00$ 8,600$ 573$ 4.20 Replace deck 40 14892 SF 30.00$ 446,760$ 11,169$ 4.25 Remove bridge deck 40 14892 SF 11.00$ 163,812$ 4,095$ 4.30 -$ -$ -$ 4.35 -$ -$ -$ 4.40 -$ -$ -$ 4.45 -$ -$ -$ 4.50 -$ -$ -$

621,402$ 18,068$ 5.00 OTHER

REF. ITEM / DESCRIPTION OF WORK EXPECTED LIFE ITEM QTY UNIT ITEM ANNUALNo. CYCLE - YEARS QTY UNIT COST TOTAL COST5.05 Routine fracture critical inspection 1 1 Each 3,267.20$ 3,267$ 3,267$ 5.10 In-depth arm's length inspection 4 1 Each 8,336.00$ 8,336$ 2,084$ 5.15 -$ -$ -$ 5.20 -$ -$ -$ 5.25 -$ -$ -$ 5.30 -$ -$ -$ 5.35 -$ -$ -$

11,603$ 5,351$

Documents

Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) Historic