RT J E over MUSSEL FK
Map
Coordinates:
+39.95925, -92.8490939°57'33" N, 92°50'57" W
Facts
Source: National Bridge Inventory. Information not verified; use at your own risk.
Name: | RT J E over MUSSEL FK |
Structure number: | 6868 |
Old structure number: | N 251 1 (from 1992 edition) |
Location: | S 6 T 59 N R 17 W |
Purpose: | Carries highway over waterway |
Route classification: | Major Collector (Rural) [07] |
Length of largest span: | 80.1 ft. [24.4 m] |
Total length: | 173.9 ft. [53.0 m] |
Roadway width between curbs: | 20.0 ft. [6.1 m] |
Deck width edge-to-edge: | 24.0 ft. [7.3 m] |
Skew angle: | 46° |
Owner: | State Highway Agency [01] |
Year built: | 1958 |
Historic significance: | Bridge is not eligible for the National Register of Historic Places [5] |
Design load: | M 9 / H 10 [1] |
Main span material: | Steel [3] |
Main span design: | Truss - Thru [10] |
Deck type: | Concrete Cast-in-Place [1] |
Wearing surface: | Bituminous [6] |
Latest Available Inspection: April 2017
Good/Fair/Poor Condition: | Poor |
Status: | Posted for load [P] |
Average daily traffic: | 139 [as of 2016] |
Truck traffic: | 9% of total traffic |
Deck condition: | Serious [3 out of 9] |
Superstructure condition: | Fair [5 out of 9] |
Substructure condition: | Satisfactory [6 out of 9] |
Structural appraisal: | Basically intolerable requiring high priority of replacement [2] |
Deck geometry appraisal: | Meets minimum tolerable limits to be left in place as is [4] |
Water adequacy appraisal: | Somewhat better than minimum adequacy to tolerate being left in place as is [5] |
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] |
Scour condition: | Bridge foundations determined to be stable for the assessed or calculated scour condition. [8] |
Sufficiency rating: | 39.6 |
Recommended work: | Replacement of bridge or other structure because of substandard load carrying capacity or substantial bridge roadway geometry. [31] |
Estimated cost of work: | $968,000 |
Previous Inspections
Date | Condition | Deck | Superstructure | Substructure | ADT | Suff. Rating |
---|
April 2017 | Poor | Serious | Fair | Satisfactory | 139 | 39.6 |
April 2015 | Poor | Serious | Poor | Satisfactory | 178 | 30.0 |
September 2014 | Poor | Poor | Poor | Satisfactory | 174 | 32.4 |
September 2013 | Poor | Poor | Poor | Satisfactory | 142 | 32.9 |
September 2012 | Poor | Poor | Poor | Satisfactory | 144 | 32.8 |
September 2011 | Poor | Poor | Poor | Fair | 144 | 32.8 |
September 2010 | Poor | Poor | Poor | Fair | 154 | 32.7 |
October 2009 | Poor | Poor | Poor | Fair | 152 | 32.7 |
November 2008 | Poor | Poor | Poor | Good | 162 | 32.6 |
December 2007 | Poor | Poor | Poor | Good | 164 | 32.5 |
January 2007 | Poor | Poor | Good | Good | 162 | 43.6 |
December 2005 | Poor | Poor | Good | Good | 208 | 43.3 |
October 2004 | Poor | Poor | Good | Good | 214 | 43.2 |
December 2003 | Poor | Poor | Good | Good | 214 | 43.2 |
December 2002 | Poor | Poor | Good | Good | 188 | 43.4 |
January 2002 | Fair | Fair | Good | Good | 188 | 46.5 |
November 1999 | Fair | Fair | Good | Good | 120 | 40.3 |
December 1998 | Fair | Fair | Good | Good | 120 | 40.3 |
October 1997 | Fair | Satisfactory | Satisfactory | Good | 120 | 41.4 |
October 1996 | Fair | Satisfactory | Satisfactory | Good | 86 | 48.3 |
November 1995 | Fair | Satisfactory | Good | Very Good | 86 | 48.3 |
October 1994 | Fair | Satisfactory | Good | Very Good | 82 | 48.3 |
December 1993 | Fair | Satisfactory | Good | Very Good | 95 | 48.2 |
September 1992 | Fair | Satisfactory | Good | Very Good | 95 | 48.2 |
October 1991 | Fair | Satisfactory | Good | Very Good | 90 | 48.3 |