CR 13 Izard Co. over Piney Creek


Source: National Bridge Inventory. Information not verified; use at your own risk.
Name:CR 13 Izard Co. over Piney Creek
Structure number:000000000004107
Location:7.55 MI NW SH 9
Purpose:Carries highway over waterway
Route classification:Major Collector (Rural) [07]
Length of largest span:89.9 ft. [27.4 m]
Total length:317.9 ft. [96.9 m]
Roadway width between curbs:14.1 ft. [4.3 m]
Deck width edge-to-edge:16.1 ft. [4.9 m]
Owner:County Highway Agency [02]
Year built:1951
Historic significance:Historical significance is not determinable at this time [4]
Design load:M 9 / H 10 [1]
Number of main spans:4
Main spans material:Steel continuous [4]
Main spans design:Stringer/Multi-beam or girder [02]
Deck type:Concrete Cast-in-Place [1]
Wearing surface:Monolithic Concrete (concurrently placed with structural deck) [1]

Latest Available Inspection: October 2018

Good/Fair/Poor Condition:Fair
Status:Posted for load [P]
Average daily traffic:63 [as of 1987]
Truck traffic:1% of total traffic
Deck condition:Satisfactory [6 out of 9]
Superstructure condition:Satisfactory [6 out of 9]
Substructure condition:Good [7 out of 9]
Structural appraisal:Meets minimum tolerable limits to be left in place as is [4]
Deck geometry appraisal:Equal to present minimum criteria [6]
Water adequacy appraisal:Equal to present desirable criteria [8]
Roadway alignment appraisal:Equal to present minimum criteria [6]
Channel protection:Bank is beginning to slump. River control devices and embankment protection have widespread minor damage. There is minor stream bed movement evident. Debris is restricting the channel slightly. [6]
Pier/abutment protection:Navigation protection not required [1]
Scour condition:Bridge foundations determined to be stable for the assessed or calculated scour condition. [8]
Sufficiency rating:53.2
Recommended work:Bridge rehabilitation because of general structure deterioration or inadequate strength. [35]
Estimated cost of work:$229,000

Previous Inspections

DateConditionDeckSuperstructureSubstructureADTSuff. Rating
October 2018FairSatisfactorySatisfactoryGood6353.2
October 2017FairSatisfactorySatisfactoryGood6353.2
October 2016FairSatisfactorySatisfactoryGood6353.2
October 2015FairSatisfactorySatisfactoryGood6344.1
October 2014FairGoodSatisfactoryGood6344.1
October 2013FairGoodSatisfactoryGood6344.1
October 2012FairGoodSatisfactoryGood6344.1
October 2011FairGoodSatisfactoryGood6344.1
October 2010GoodGoodGoodGood6344.1
December 2009GoodGoodGoodGood6344.1
November 2008GoodGoodGoodGood6344.1
January 2008GoodGoodGoodGood6344.1
January 2007GoodGoodGoodGood6344.1
December 2005GoodGoodGoodGood6344.1
October 2004GoodGoodGoodGood6344.1
November 2003GoodGoodGoodGood6343.8
December 2002GoodGoodGoodGood6343.8
November 2001GoodGoodGoodGood6343.8
December 2000GoodGoodGoodGood6343.8
November 1999GoodGoodGoodGood6343.8
December 1998GoodGoodGoodGood6343.8
November 1997GoodGoodGoodGood6343.8
December 1996GoodGoodGoodGood6343.8
December 1995GoodGoodGoodGood6343.8
December 1994GoodGoodGoodGood6343.8
December 1993GoodGoodGoodGood6343.8
December 1992GoodGoodGoodGood6341.7
December 1991GoodGoodGoodGood6341.7