Share: 
CR 428 Searcy Co. over Beaver Creek
Facts
Source: National Bridge Inventory. Information not verified; use at your own risk.
| Name: | CR 428 Searcy Co. over Beaver Creek |
| Structure number: | 000000000021583 |
| Location: | 1.33 MI N CR 45 |
| Purpose: | Carries highway over waterway |
| Route classification: | Local (Rural) [09] |
| Length of largest span: | 8.9 ft. [2.7 m] |
| Total length: | 21.0 ft. [6.4 m] |
| Skew angle: | 30° |
| Owner: | County Highway Agency [02] |
| Year built: | 1995 |
| Historic significance: | Historical significance is not determinable at this time [4] |
| Number of main spans: | 2 |
| Main spans material: | Steel [3] |
| Main spans design: | Culvert [19] |
| Deck type: | Not applicable [N] |
Latest Available Inspection: November 2018
| Good/Fair/Poor Condition: | Good |
| Status: | Open, no restriction [A] |
| Average daily traffic: | 30 [as of 1987] |
| Truck traffic: | 1% of total traffic |
| Structural appraisal: | Better than present minimum criteria [7] |
| Water adequacy appraisal: | Better than present minimum criteria [7] |
| Roadway alignment appraisal: | Equal to present minimum criteria [6] |
| Channel protection: | Bank protection is being eroded. River control devices and/or embankment have major damage. Trees and rush restrict the channel. [5] |
| Pier/abutment protection: | Navigation protection not required [1] |
| Culvert condition: | Shrinkage cracks, light scaling and insignificant spalling which does not expose reinforcing steel. Insignificant damage caused by drift with no misalignment and not requiring corrective action. Some minor scouring has occured near curtain walls, wingwalls or pipes. Metal culverts have a smooth symmetrical curvature with superficial corrosion and no pitting. [7] |
| Scour condition: | Bridge foundations determined to be stable for the assessed or calculated scour condition. [8] |
| Sufficiency rating: | 100.0 |
Previous Inspections
| Date | Condition | Culvert Condition | ADT | Suff. Rating |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| November 2018 | Good | 7 out of 10 | 30 | 100.0 |
| November 2016 | Good | 7 out of 10 | 30 | 100.0 |
| November 2014 | Good | 7 out of 10 | 30 | 79.7 |
| December 2012 | Good | 7 out of 10 | 30 | 79.7 |
| December 2010 | Good | 7 out of 10 | 30 | 79.7 |
| June 2009 | Good | 7 out of 10 | 30 | 79.7 |
| July 2007 | Good | 7 out of 10 | 30 | 79.7 |
| July 2005 | Good | 7 out of 10 | 30 | 79.7 |
| July 2003 | Good | 7 out of 10 | 30 | 79.5 |
| July 2001 | Good | 7 out of 10 | 30 | 79.5 |
| July 1999 | Good | 7 out of 10 | 30 | 79.5 |
| July 1997 | Fair | 6 out of 10 | 30 | 79.5 |
| June 1995 | Fair | 6 out of 10 | 30 | 79.5 |
© Copyright 2012-20, James Baughn
Disclaimer: All data is taken from the National Bridge Inventory and has not been verified.
This page's URL is http://bridgereports.com/1024193
Disclaimer: All data is taken from the National Bridge Inventory and has not been verified.
This page's URL is http://bridgereports.com/1024193