SR 322,28TH DIV.HY over OVER PATCHELL RUN
Map
Coordinates:
+41.41452, -79.8546941°24'52" N, 79°51'17" W
Facts
Source: National Bridge Inventory. Information not verified; use at your own risk.
Name: | SR 322,28TH DIV.HY over OVER PATCHELL RUN |
Structure number: | 000000000033749 |
Old structure number: | 600322021022110 (from 1992 edition) |
Location: | SUGAR CREEK BOROUGH |
Purpose: | Carries highway over waterway |
Route classification: | Other Principal Arterial (Urban) [14] |
Length of largest span: | 46.9 ft. [14.3 m] |
Total length: | 49.9 ft. [15.2 m] |
Roadway width between curbs: | 38.4 ft. [11.7 m] |
Deck width edge-to-edge: | 41.7 ft. [12.7 m] |
Skew angle: | 45° |
Owner: | State Highway Agency [01] |
Year built: | 1941 |
Historic significance: | Bridge is not eligible for the National Register of Historic Places [5] |
Design load: | M 18 / H 20 [4] |
Main span material: | Concrete [1] |
Main span design: | Tee beam [04] |
Deck type: | Not applicable [N] |
Wearing surface: | Bituminous [6] |
Latest Available Inspection: March 2017
Good/Fair/Poor Condition: | Fair |
Status: | Open, no restriction [A] |
Average daily traffic: | 5,239 [as of 2016] |
Truck traffic: | 5% of total traffic |
Deck condition: | Satisfactory [6 out of 9] |
Superstructure condition: | Fair [5 out of 9] |
Substructure condition: | Fair [5 out of 9] |
Structural appraisal: | Somewhat better than minimum adequacy to tolerate being left in place as is [5] |
Deck geometry appraisal: | Somewhat better than minimum adequacy to tolerate being left in place as is [5] |
Water adequacy appraisal: | Equal to present minimum criteria [6] |
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] |
Scour condition: | Bridge foundations determined to be stable for assessed or calculated scour condition. [5] |
Sufficiency rating: | 81.7 |
Recommended work: | Bridge rehabilitation because of general structure deterioration or inadequate strength. [35] |
Estimated cost of work: | $189,000 |
Previous Inspections
Date | Condition | Deck | Superstructure | Substructure | ADT | Suff. Rating |
---|
March 2017 | Fair | Satisfactory | Fair | Fair | 5239 | 81.7 |
March 2015 | Fair | Satisfactory | Fair | Fair | 5969 | 83.4 |
March 2013 | Fair | Satisfactory | Fair | Fair | 5659 | 83.5 |
March 2011 | Fair | Satisfactory | Satisfactory | Fair | 5486 | 83.6 |
March 2009 | Fair | Fair | Fair | Fair | 5809 | 81.4 |
March 2007 | Fair | Fair | Fair | Fair | 6438 | 81.2 |
March 2005 | Fair | Fair | Fair | Fair | 6374 | 81.2 |
March 2003 | Fair | Fair | Fair | Fair | 6196 | 79.3 |
March 2001 | Fair | Satisfactory | Fair | Fair | 6196 | 80.3 |
April 1999 | Fair | Satisfactory | Fair | Fair | 4767 | 80.9 |
April 1997 | Fair | Satisfactory | Fair | Fair | 6293 | 80.3 |
March 1995 | Fair | Satisfactory | Fair | Fair | 6031 | 80.4 |
March 1993 | Fair | Satisfactory | Fair | Fair | 5279 | 82.7 |
February 1991 | Fair | Satisfactory | Fair | Fair | 5109 | 82.8 |
Element Data
Source: National Bridge Elements dataset, 2019 edition. This feature is experimental.
Element | Units | Quantity | 1-Good | 2-Fair | 3-Poor | 4-Serious |
---|
Superstructure |
Reinforced Concrete Girder/Beam | linear ft. | 432 | 380 | 2 | 50 | 0 |
Deck |
Reinforced Concrete Deck | sq. ft. | 2,100 | 1,323 | 0 | 777 | 0 |
Wearing Surfaces | sq. ft. | 1,900 | 1,900 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Substructure |
Reinforced Concrete Abutment | linear ft. | 162 | 156 | 2 | 4 | 0 |
Bearings |
Movable Bearing | each | 9 | 0 | 0 | 9 | 0 |
Steel Protective Coating | sq. ft. | 10,753 | 10,753 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Fixed Bearing | each | 9 | 9 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Steel Protective Coating | sq. ft. | 10,753 | 10,753 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Bridge Rail |
Other Material Bridge Rail | linear ft. | 100 | 99 | 1 | 0 | 0 |