Share: 
CTH K over PINE RIVER
Map
Coordinates:
+44.20732, -89.20777
44°12'26" N, 89°12'28" W
+44.20732, -89.20777
44°12'26" N, 89°12'28" W
Facts
Source: National Bridge Inventory. Information not verified; use at your own risk.
| Name: | CTH K over PINE RIVER |
| Structure number: | P69090500000000 |
| Location: | 1.5M N JCT CTH A |
| Purpose: | Carries highway over waterway |
| Route classification: | Local (Rural) [09] |
| Length of largest span: | 11.2 ft. [3.4 m] |
| Total length: | 26.9 ft. [8.2 m] |
| Owner: | County Highway Agency [02] |
| Year built: | 1973 |
| Historic significance: | Bridge is not eligible for the National Register of Historic Places [5] |
| Design load: | M 13.5 / H 15 [2] |
| Number of main spans: | 2 |
| Main spans material: | Steel [3] |
| Main spans design: | Culvert [19] |
| Deck type: | Corrugated Steel [6] |
| Wearing surface: | Bituminous [6] |
Latest Available Inspection: May 2017
| Good/Fair/Poor Condition: | Good |
| Status: | Open, no restriction [A] |
| Average daily traffic: | 1,118 [as of 2015] |
| Structural appraisal: | Equal to present minimum criteria [6] |
| Water adequacy appraisal: | Equal to present desirable criteria [8] |
| Roadway alignment appraisal: | Equal to present desirable criteria [8] |
| Channel protection: | Bank protection is being eroded. River control devices and/or embankment have major damage. Trees and rush restrict the channel. [5] |
| 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: | 89.0 |
Previous Inspections
| Date | Condition | Culvert Condition | ADT | Suff. Rating |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 2017 | Good | 7 out of 10 | 1118 | 89.0 |
| May 2016 | Good | 7 out of 10 | 1118 | 89.0 |
| May 2014 | Good | 7 out of 10 | 1070 | 89.1 |
| May 2012 | Good | 7 out of 10 | 1070 | 89.1 |
| June 2010 | Good | 7 out of 10 | 1070 | 89.1 |
| July 2008 | Good | 7 out of 10 | 1070 | 89.1 |
| May 2006 | Good | 7 out of 10 | 1070 | 89.1 |
| June 2004 | Good | 8 out of 10 | 870 | 89.1 |
| May 2002 | Good | 8 out of 10 | 750 | 89.2 |
| May 2000 | Good | 8 out of 10 | 750 | 89.2 |
| May 1998 | Good | 8 out of 10 | 750 | 89.2 |
| May 1996 | Good | 8 out of 10 | 750 | 89.2 |
| May 1994 | Good | 8 out of 10 | 750 | 89.2 |
| May 1992 | Good | 8 out of 10 | 750 | 89.2 |
| May 1990 | Good | 8 out of 10 | 750 | 83.2 |
© 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/1610895
Disclaimer: All data is taken from the National Bridge Inventory and has not been verified.
This page's URL is http://bridgereports.com/1610895