The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About; AGUA HEDIONDA CREEK; AGUA HEDIONDA CREEK STATE BRIDGE REPORTS; 1984-06-06STATE OF CA...CORNiA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SUPPLEMENTARY BRIDGE REPORT ON.OS M19 IREv. If741 57C-191 BridgeNo.................................... Location ................11—SD--FAU .S344.-Cbd DI.t-Co-Rt.PMCItY Date of Invest igation .... Name ..........P.IONP....CREEK(.l .Cmi.no.... CONDITION RATING: . APPRAISAL RATING: Deck Superstructure 8 Substr. & Pipes 8 Overall 8 7 N Channel & Channel Protection Retaining Walls - PRIORITY Widenable? Yes M No D Conditional A - Immediate Action B - Early Scheduling Action Required by City Yes 0 No . - Routine Maint. 0 - For Record Only REVISION: ,. Owner - City of Carlsbad Custodian - City of Carlsbad CONDITION OF STRUCTURE: The structure is in good condition. WORK RECOMMENDED: None RECOMMENDED POSTING: None FJW:pdh AeJff 141WI-Arell cc: DRHiggins (2) Frank J. Walliser City of Carlsbad (2) C-19767 1 3-f 1.1 STATE OF CA_FORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SUPPLEMENTARY BRIDGE REPORT OH.OSM$9IREV 1/741 Bridge No.................. 11—SD—FAtJ S1O1—Cbd Location..................................................................... Di,tCo-Rt,-PM..-City Date of Investigation.—...... AQUA HEDIONDA LAGOON (.9 Name ......................................................5' Carlsba d Blvd..-A...0.± ... ........ ...........lQXtbLy....Q.f Cannon Rd., FAU-S349) CONDITION RATING: APPRAISAL RATING: Deck Superstructure 2 Substr. & Pipes 3 Overall 2 Channel & Channel Protection 8 Retaining Walls N PRIORITY Widenable? Yes No CR Conditional . A - Immediate Action B - Early Scheduling Action Required by City Yes No 0 C - Routine Maint. 0 - For Record Only EXISTING POSTING: The signs for the Type I posting of 20 TONS PER VEHICLE 30 TONS PER SEMI-TRAILER-COMBINATION 40 TONS PER TRUCK AND FULL TRAILER are in place at both approaches as per DIrector's order dated June 7,,-1976. .LOAb CAPACITY: The inventory, operating and permit ratings shown were obtained through the "Frame Rate" programusing the load factor (LF) method of analysis. CONDITION OF STRUCTURE: There is general deterioration throughout the structure, primarily because of delamination cind spalling of the concrete throughout the structure. The cause of the delamination and spalling is the corrosion of the bar reinforcing steel. RECOMMENDATION: Make a cost effect study comparing the cost of rehabilitation vs. the cost of replacement. WORK RECOMMENDED: None (at this time, until the study .--.is- completed.). (1) DATE._ June1984 ( RECOMMENDED POSTING: Retain exisitng posting. Frank J. Walliser CTl9767 FJW:pdh cc: DRHiggins (2) City of Carlsbad (2) FORM 01-4.05 MIS - - CST. 816,. 2t7oI.BOO 2-74 3M 08P STTE OF CALIFORNIA 4 OtPARTMENTOFTRANSPOF ION BRIDGE REPORT Bridge No. .............. ?:rP..33 ... .. .............................. - .......... OS.M58 (REV. I751 Other No ........................................................................................... S REVISED P.U.C. No ........- ................._......... ............................... Location ........ . ... 1D-FAIJ .s.1Q1.:cjd........... DIet -Co - Rto - PM-Clty Date of Investigation .......... !T147...T, 1982 ........ .... Name.qA..HEDIONDA ..LAGOON...JCarlsbad*Blvd.- 1.0 mile ni of Cannon ., FAU S39) Lat. ..N 33Q&Z!. Long. ...L.u7..aQ...5!.._ STRUCTURAL DATA AND HISTORY Year BuiIt....J93 .....By ............ .P.Y1510fl....Oil ..&1ZS...........Contract No. ...L.................. Date of Revisions .............1953 Modified .- ................................................... Designed by: B.D. f ....__ ---------------- .. ......................;. .............................. . ....... —Plans Avail. @ ..... DeScription: Continuous .RC "T" Beam W . girder spans on RC pile (3) column bents and RC winged abutments.- Spans ................ ....@4P.c/c .... . ......................................... .................. Length ....... ..6 .Skew...........3Rt .Design LL ............................ .. Ratings: Inventory ......HL.!.4LLP ......... ..Operating •.JS .12 ii' - Permit .......Qc...xX.. DESCRIPTION - ON STRUCTURE . . . Bridge Width ........ (W)O.8 ... 0.8..r ...: .. TotalWidth .... . .............. . ... ' ............................... . ...................... ..........................Lanes ....... .2 Tracks...._. None ...... Concrete baluster Median ..............Nne .... •. ..........Rail Type ......................(Q.OQQL._.... Vert. Clearance over deck ........... .Unimp.i red ...........................Appr Rdwy. Width .......;....41.. Wearing Surface ...........AC (.3.j). ..................................... - Deck Seal ..............None .. - Alignment ...............Tangent ......... DESCRIPTION — UNDER STRUCTURE . Roadway Section .......................None .... Clearances: Vert . ............ ............................... Horiz.; ................................... Lt. ......................................................... Rt. (A Lanes ...................... .Tracks ............................. Pumpplant: None See Br. No. ............ .................... Facilities Crossed..... .goon ....................... cc: (1)CON'T. 9 a- STATr. 01 (.ALIrORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION BRIDGE REPORT Bridge No ............. DS.M SeA (REV. I.175 ......7, .1982 Date ..................... DESCRIPTION - HYDRAULICS Channel at nentS . Navigable: Yea 'No J Clearances: Vert . ......... ........ . ...................................... Horlz .......... N................. MAINTENANCE - Custodian .........çl.ty .of ...................................... Owner ..............CIty 2t ..Carlsbad ORIGINAL . . ORIGINAL CONDITION RATING . APPRAISAL. Deck . Overall 2 Superstructure . 2 Deck Geometry 7 Substructure & Pipes -- - Underclearances Vert N Channel & Channel Protection _8 Horiz......... Retaining Walls N . Safe Load Capacity : ---------- - Approach Rdwy. Alignment' __________ . Waterway Adequacy 8 Estimated Remaining Life 10 - . Approach Rdwy. Alignment 9 - City Widenable? Yes 0 No 0 Conditional . Action Required by IJUUfK Yes No 0 AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: . . . 12,000 (estimated 1982). . . . . BYPASS DETOUR LENGTH: 4 miles. . . . . ENCROACHMENTS: 12" diameter pipe attached to the easterly side of the bridge. SEISMIC RETROFIT:. . . This is a multiple simple span bridge and should be considered for seismic retrofitting. . .. CONDITION OF STRUCTURE:• . . . There is general deterioration throughout the structure, primarily because of delamination and spalling of the concrete throughout the-- (2) BRmCEI s_3L JiL 198?__ CONDITION OF STRUCTURE: (Cont.) structure. The cause of the delamination and spalling is the corrosion of the bar reinforcing steel. RECOMMENDATION: Make a cost effect study comparing the cost of rehabilitation vs. the cost of replacement. LOAD CAPACITY: The inventor, operatin§ and permit ratings shown were obtained through the 'Frame Bate program using the load factor (t,) method of analysis. EXISTING POSTING: The signs for the Type I posting of 20 TONS PER VEHICLE 30 TONS PER SEMI-TRAILER COMBINATION 10 TONS PER TRUCK AND FULL TRAILER are in place at both approaches as per Director's order dated June 7, 1976. • • RECOMMENDED POSTING: Retain existing posting. • 'owl Frank J. Walliser .C19767 FJW:cd cc: DRHiggins (2) •: Cityof Carlsbad (2) FORM OH-OS M18 • EST. 1267. 3I70I.5 2.74 ZN OSP 'S. . dIBIT 05-la 1978-1 FIELD REVIEW FORM Date 9/7/79 District 11-SD Federal Route fi FAU6004 Local Agency City of Carlsbad State Route # N.A. Road Name Carlsbad Boulevard County Road # N.A. Federal-Aid System FAU Bridge Name Agua Hedionda Lagoon Area Urban/Urbanized/Rural Bridge # 57C-133 LItITS Carlsbad Boulevard from Tamarack to Cannon over Agua Hedionda Lagoon Outi (attach a sketch Vicinity map) -. PROPOSED IMPROVE?1ENTGr., Surf. and Struct. NET LENGTH MILES (0.0) (Gr. Surf. Drainage, Structures, Etc.) PROPOSED FUNDING: Federal-Aid (FAS, FAt.), etc.)FAU and HBRR State Highway Funds zfto Matching ratios (%) State City 20 County Other COST BREAKDOWN • Preliminary Engineering TotalCost FederalPartic.* Preliminary R/W work __Yes1Pk - Design __ Advertise and Award _ Construction _ Constr. Engr. __ R/W Acq. No. of Pcls RAP No. of Fmls _ No. of Bus. ____ Utilities (Not contrac _ t items) TOTAL PARTICIPATING COST $Th..I5 DESCRIPTION*. EXISTING FACILITY PROPOSED FACILITY When Constructed 1934modified1953 Surface Type Asphaltic _concrete __over conc. A.C. over Conc. Deck Surface Width 41'6'7eck Number of Lanes 4 Shoulder Widths B' ____________________ Median Width - None None Buildings Affected 10 Relocation Housing Study Required WNo Access Control Yes/No Possible Exceptions to AASHTO Design Standards or Approved Modifications Possible use of 8' shoulders for bike lane across bridge TERRAIN flat coastal beach (Flat, Rolling, Hountainous) TRAFFIC DATA Present ADT 11,200Year 1977 Future ADT 22,000 Year 1995 Design Speed--75— DHV =,800 Percent 1?iiks 4 Remarks: t Describe non-participating work and limits under"Remarks- on )'age Attach a sketch of a typical section for both existing and proposed. Yes Yes a Yes Yes Yes Yes Ye Yes EXHIBIT 05-i.c 1978-1 8. DEFICIENCIES OF EXISTILG FACILITY Structural Grade Culverts 0 Alignment ED Accident Record E3 Bridge 0 Remarks: the deck and girder soffits are badly deteriorated by extensive spalling and reinforcement corrosion. In addition, the two lane structure has a high traffic count from 4 lane approaches 9. DESCRIPTION OF CONTIGUOUS SECTION S/W end Surface Type AC Surface Width Sho. Width NF end Surface Type AC Surface Width _______ Sho. Width ______ Remarks: AGENCIES AFFECTED (Check and describe, under remarks or on attached sheets) Telephone Co. X Irrig. Dist.______ Communities______________ Sanitary Co. Water Develop._X Power Co. A Red. Dist. Assessment Out. involved ______________________ Other (Describe) Dept. of Päks and Rec.; Dept. of Fish and Game; SLJti&L Remarks: The highway is adjacent to a state park and the lagoon is a public fishing tacinty. me San -Diego ias and Electric Lo. Encino 1'owe-r -vfant uses the laqoon water for cooling purposes MAJOR UTILITY ADJUSTMENTS: water/seer line Remarks: High Risk Facilities: gas PERMITS REQUIRED: Fish & Wildlife Resources X Coastal Protective Zone X Corps of Englneers(404) State Land Commission_______________ Navigable Stream (Coast Guard)_____ X EXHIBIT 05-le 1978-1 13 • ENVIRONMENTAL: Envir. Impact Statement x Wetlands (E.fl. 11990) x Negative Declaration Historical Properties (106) Non Major Action (List Type) Public Recreation Land (4(f)) Exemption (List Class) REGIONAL PLANNING AGENCY (FHPM 4-4-2) ComprehensivePlanningOrganization(S.D.) CLEARINGHOUSE NOTICES (A-95): StatexfiledafterFieldReview11-79 Areawidex _tiled _after _Field _Review _11-19 PUBLIC HEARING: Public hearing or opportunity for a public hearing is , Azxxvptx required. EXPLAIN:. (Discuss alternatives) publichearingisrequiredforenvironmental review TRAFFIC SIGNALS N.A.(_j(If new, attach Warrant Sheets ) NO. OF MAJOR STRUCTURES 1 (See description on attached form) RAILROADS N.A.. (See description on attached form) AIRPORTS N.A. (See description on attached form) TRANSIT DISTRICT(S) No. County _Transit District FLOOD PLAIN ENCROACHMENT (See FHPM 6-7-3-2) VAKINo UNUSUAL DRAINAGE PROBLEMS Yes/No ADMINISTRATION BY: Prepare PS&E City ofCarlsbad/Cnsultant Right-of-Way Acquisition NoneRequired Advertise & Award by City of Carlsbad Provide Resident Engineer for: Roadwork City Bridges Cityor State Pay Contractor City of Carlsbad Maintain City of Carlsbad EXHIBIT 05-Ig 1978-1 PROPOSED ADVERTISING DATE: Spring, 1981 REMARKS:PS&E to startinNovember1979tobecompleteby December, 1980 by City of Carlsbad FIELD REVIEW REPRESENTATIVES CONCURRENCE Local Agency: Date_______________________ ALTRANS District: Date______________________ FHWA: Date______________________ LIST OF ATTACHMENTS (Examples of Attachments 1-5 are included) xl. Protection of Wetlands Statement (if applicable) X2. Major Structure Data Sheet (if applicable) N.A.3, Railroad Grade Crossing Data Sheet (If applicable) N.A4. Airport. Data Sheet (if applicable) x 5. Field Review Attendance Roster X6. Vicinity Map x7. Typical Section(s) x 8. A sketch of each Alternate of the Proposed Improvement N.A.g Signal Warrants (if applicable) )q 0. Environmental Evaluation NJi. Public Interest Statement to do work by other than contract (See Section 22 of this manual.) EXHIBIT 05-1h 1978-1 11-SD Dist-Co-Rte Fed. No. Carlsbad Boulevard Road Name A1T!Uff PROTECTION. OF WETLANDS STATEMENT (To be included in Non-Major Action Projects involving wetlands) Wetlands, as defined in Executive Order11990, are involved in this project and there is no practicable alternative to such construction. the proposed action Includes all practicable measure to minimize harm to wetlands which may result from such use. FHWA Area Engineer Date FHWA Division Administrator Date AUAQI'EUT2 EXHIBIT 05-1 1978-1 MAJOR STRUCTURE DATA (Separate sheet for each structure) BRIDGE MAIIE Agua Hedionda Lagoon BR.UO. 57C-133 ROAD NAME Carlsbad Boulevard - Old 101 LOCATION at Lagoon Outlet STRUCTURE: Type Width Length Spans (No. & Length) Sidewalks or bikeways Rail Type APPROACH WIDTH' Existing Proposed Reinforced Concrete Reinforced Conc/PSC 41' - 1011 78' - 0 160' 180' 4 @ 40' 3 @ 45'-90'-45' 2' sidewalk both sides shoulder Ornamental R.C. R.C. Jersey Rail 40' j1 J 4t UTILITIES AT SITE: Gas, Sewer, future water and telephone HIGH RISK UNDERGROUND FACILITIES AT SITE: yes, 6" gas line FOUNDATION INVESTIGATION BY: Preliminary based on existing structure, final by City of Carlsbad HYDROLOGY STUDY BY: Preliminary based on existing studies; final by City through Cutct DETOUR, STAGE CONSTRUCTION, OR CLOSE ROAD: stage construction Total ESTIMATED STRUCTURE RELATED COSTS: tRi ght-of-Way Acquisition *Utility Relocation *Preliminary Engineering *Approach Roadway Touchdown Structure Items Detour/Stage Construction Bridge Removal *Construction Engineering -l' •1 i None requirells -,usII oil - —, uoff :01 off BIII1l __________ I.,•11I1III PROPOSED ADVERTISING DATE: Spring, 1981 • AGENCY PROVIDING R.E. FOR BRIDGE WORK:City of Carlsbad with consultant REMARKS: assistant R.E. approved by the State *Complete when funded by Highway Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation Program. U APPENDIX C EXHIBIT A Sheet l.of 3 INITI!t. S11JDY District 11-SD Road Name FAU-6004 Local Agency City of Carlsbad State Rte, # N.A. Project Number County Road #._N.A. Bridge Name _Agua Hedionda Lagoon Bridge # 57C-133 LIMITS Carlsbad Blvd. from Tamarack to Cannon over Agua Hedionda Lagoon Outlet PROPOSED IMPROVEMENT Gr., Surf. & Struát.NET LENGTH MILES (0.0) (Gr. Surf. Drainage Structures, Etc.) • Poten- Not tially Deter- NO Yes mined 1. Does it have the potential to effect significantly the quality of, or curtail the range of, the environment? X Will it substantially affect a rare or endangered species of animal or plant, or habitat, or cause substantial interference with the movement of any resident or migratory fish or wildlife species? x Will it result in significant effect on: air quality x water quality x ambient noise levels x public water supply system X Will it cause substantial flooding, erosions, or si:tation? • x Is the project subject to major geologic hazards? Does it appear that any feature of the project,-including aesthetics, will generate major pubic controversy? • x C-i APPENDIX C EXHIBIT A Is the action likely to be controversial on environmental grounds? Will any archaeological, cultural, historical, recreational, or scenic sites be affected? Will the action have any effect on prop- erties protected under Section 4(f) of the DOT Act or Section 106 of the Historic Preservation Act? Is the action Inconsistent with any Federal, State or-Local law or regulation relating to the environment? Will It result in the need for public services, Including utilities, beyond those presently available or proposed in the near -future? Will it have a significant growth-inducing impact? Is any part of the project subject to inunda- tion or located in or near a flood plain? Sheet 2 of 3 Poten- Not tially Deter- NO Yes mined x x x x Is the proposed project within an agricultural preserve and/or under an agricultural contract with the County? Does it appear to be controversial with respect to the availability of adequate relocation housing? X WIll the project cause a significant increase In traffic congestion? Will the project cause a significant division or disruption of an established community or disrupt orderly, planned devel- opment, or is determined to be significantly Inconsistent with plans or goals that have been adopted by the community in which the project Is located, as determined by a responsible official(s)? x C-2 APPENDIX C EXHIBIT A Sheet 3 of 3 18. Will there be a cumulative impact by this project and successive projects of the. same class in the same place over time? Poten- Not tially Deter- NO Yes mined x Will the project affect rivers on the Wild and Scenic Rivers System? x Will a Fish and Game form "Notification of Removal of Material and/or Alteration of Lake. River or Streambed Bottom or "Margin" be filed? x Does the project affect any wetlands? x Based on this evaluation, it is concluded that this project is a LT Major Action (FHPM 772) /T Nonmajor Action (FHPM 772) /7 Categorically Exempt Class Section 1510 (State EIR Guidelines) Signature - Local Agency Date Signature - District Local Assistance Date (District ) Signature - FlIWA Date NOTE: A. Data to support the conclusions of this check list should be on file with the sponsoring agency. (Particularly for areas with potential Section 106, and Section 4(f) involvement.) B. If wetlands are impacted, a nonmajor action may be applicable; however, compliance with Executive Order 11990 is required. When wetlands are involved, the FHWA Division Administrator will endorse nonmajor actions. C-3 j ..4 B,'/iZ'E 4 72f&164 77 2- OT r CIZ i . ±H ".. I 4a907?1&VTS 7b Re, df57i1V& . - . -.- -.- --'--------'------- 4 t '4. • ..•t-. . - 4.. .. .. t -- . . .[ : I- I I: 'f h:f: TiTT7'i 6,7 J•-• - - : s%ePcWoP .. -- •... . .. is17N -.1 Ivawillr I . .4'. . •N - ;.4 8orrO/1' 4 - I •-..-•--.-------.-..-..-•--.--.'---_------- _______.._,______._••..-.•__..___4.•. - 4 i •h_: ;:- 1 - - . . . • . I ! .• •• . 1 - ' • • .4 . - . 4 - I I - . --' I P II ••l It 1 I .,-j•:.. P11r2 ,i . . I . . - i.... I I • - : -. •. : I I .: . - . .. • ;- L a 2-5P4A/ P14A1s . • I • ,. 1 I - .1. . H ,: .:: . - - '•' .1 • -. H . 725 C -.-.-- .-.. .- - -- ------- . 1. _- --------_ - I • • ,. 4 ; 'I B077-CH ow -1s' :.: ''' :: ''.j ; I , • _i :I -i ' ! n .• • - I t . _;. ,. '•.l . • •1 -. I. I•.. . , .• . ' • I • 4 * 4 ;.•-. •-t i• .1 - j1 •' 410 II '' { 'I : - - •1 /0' - . - L I 7177 09 C,€o-s5 ,S&77OA( MCA - . .- .. • Lb I ,• :'.;.I x ; i ---. • •• i 1 -'.,t•-- . ! I .- I I .1 -1 . I - :. i - . .. I • l..... I II I I . • I . - I . • I . . •I - 1 . I I I •• 1•• -I . I I1II ..IX 1 • • I IL I co QD ' 1 i •- : . ... ;..-' I .. .'-. r-rr•--i.- - I.'-'! .• ' :. I I 4 I r I Ii '•l '- 4 - T.. - - -. - _____________ _______ - - — I • .' j I - . — • . ' t - 'T'.T •, . - • --•. : -, - 4H L.O'.. _._, $a'. • • - , ...— i -4• • . I .. - • PcPc'5 Dece 4PEM • - -I •- • I I - • I ( I I -. •1 C9R'-&W &. V6- 4Qj4 • • , I 4.. - • •. .-..-4I..'--. s •- j..I .. -1 4 • STATE OF CALIFORNIA Btdg. N. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SUPPLEMENTARY IRIDGP REPORT Location 014.0$ NIP Inev. 11741 October Dlst Ci- Is •1- bIW bat. of Investigation 197.8 Name N -.....................................................................................-.....--........ CONDITION RATING: APPRAISAL RATING: Dock 4 Superstructure (2) Substr. & pip.. 3 ov.,.0 (2) Channel S Channel Protection 9 _Retaining Wails Widenable? Yes No Conditional D City Action Required by AMROM Yes t!3 No 0 EXISTING POSTING: An order establishing a load limit of: 20 TONS PER VEHICLE 30 TONS PER SE)41-TRAILER CC$IBI)UITION 40 TONS PER TRUCK AND FULL TRAILER was determined and declared on June 7, 1976. However, there were no load limit signs erected at the bridge site on this date. CONDITION OF STRUCTURE: The structure appears to be in the same badly deteriorated condition as previously reported in Supplementary Bridge Report, dated April 278 1976. The exposed girder reinforcing steel and bottom deck slab steel which in heavily corroded was inaccessible for inspection, but continued section loss is suspected. RATING CHANGE ORIGINAL CONDITION RATING: Superstructure 2, Retaining Walls N ORIGINAL APPRAISAL: Overall 2 ECc11MENDATIONS Erect the load limiting signs in accordance with the provisions of Section 35752 of the Vehicle Code for the following Type 1 LOAD POSTING: (1) BBIDcE. ___5710-133 Oc 978- 20 TONS PER VEHICLE • 30 TONS PER SEMI-TRAILER COMBINATION 40 TONS PER TRUCK AND.FULL TRAILER S • Origiza1 gi by JHD:mb • James H. Dunphy, P.E. ** cc: ]DIStS 11 Local Ass't C-23816 City of Oarl3bad (2) . • • • S • • S • . S •• •• FORM OH-OS MIS • • • BT. 1117. 21701.5002-743M OSP STATE OF CALIFORNIA Bridge No . DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SUPPLEMENTARY BRIDGE REPORT Location ............ .D.1'M6O049.22 OH-OS M19 (REV. 1/741 - - - Date of Investigation ........ Name ........ AQ .JDIQT&.1 QON. ............................................. . ..... ........... .. .................. . ...... ..... . .......... ---........ CONDITION RATING: APPRAISAL RATING: Deck I Superstructure 3 Substr. & Pipes 3 overall 3 Channel & Channel Protection 9 —Retaining Walls memo long= -MMOO The structure was inspected for changes in condition and advance of deterioration. CONDITION OF STRUCTURE: The bridge railings are badly cracked and spelled and with severely rusted reinforcing steel. The deck has an A.C. cover and in in apparently good condition. The deck soffit is hidden from view and cannot be inspected without the use of special equipment but is assumed to be in a condition similar to that of the previous (June 1975) inspection. The girder reinforcing steel was previously heavily corroded. It is inaccessible to measurement, but new rust formation and the deep pitting dictate reducing sections in any stress analysis. The lower bars and the outer sides of the upper tension bars are fully visible to ground inspection. A newly formed wide vertical crack is found at the northerly quarter point of girder number 2 of the south span. It is. cpen approximately 3/8 inch at the girder soffit where it merges with a new deep and wide longitudinal sofiit cracks • It ends above the mid..uheighth of the girder and near other finer vertical cracks none of which can be seen on the westerly side of the girder. The west girder .ABM soffit patch is separated from. the girder at approvlt.ly k inches from the bottom corners and may be expected to fall free. The structure is in a noticeably rapid deterioration stage throughout. DISCUSSION: The City of Carlsbad has temporarily posted the structure in accordance with Section 35751 of the California Vehicle Code. Upon written request from the City, a new evaluation of the deterioration was necessary for comparison to the findings of 1973 and 1975. Adjustments were made to the former stress calculations, incorporating these changes, and the revisions in rating procedures. These revisions are found in the AASIO "Manuel for Maintenance Inspection of Bridges - 1974", the guide to assign- ing materials strengths, and which standardizes-new loadings for typical legal. trucks. (1) DISCUSSION: BRIDGE DAI 1791_______ The adjusted calculations indicate that the reduced steel section in the girder has made them deficient for the typical legal loads with impact. Ibwever, elimination of impact will make these loads tolerable. The reinforcing steel of the lower deck mat is reduced to rust stains over large areas, as noted during the 1975 "in depth" inspection, The upper mat is presumed to remain intact and has been carrying loads satisfactorily in the past. It has been the experience of others that failures in deck slabs are gradual, with ample warning of impending failure and that failures do not occur with drastic results. However, in view of rapid progress of deterioration in the girder steel, it is considered esseütial that some action be diligently undertaken; The structure must be thoroughly inspected at intervals of less than 6 months. These may be by the State Bridge Maintenance Engineer at the City's request, but the City should also continue a program of frequent inspection and monitoring. The structure should be legally posted, 13mlting either the speeds of certain vehicles or their weight. The roadway and structure alignment may encourage violation of the restrictions and frequent patrolling may be necessary for enforcement. The standard wording for posting should be used. For speed only the wording is or, for load 1iiiti the wording Is 15 MPH ON BRIDGE FOR TRUCKS AND BUSES 20 TONS PER VEHICLE 30 TONS PER SEMI-TRAILER ko TONS PER TRUCK AND FULL TRAILER 20 TONS PER VEHICLE 30 TONS PER SEMI-TRAILER COMBINATION leO TONS PER TRUCK AND FULL TRAILER RECOMMENDATIONS: Post the structure: MI. 16 Fog Registered Civil Engtheer CE 12695 PORN DH.OS Mt IS?. Iii?. 2I76I.ICO 2-I4 IN OIP / STATE OF CALIFORNIA Bridge DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SUPPLEMENTARY BRIDGE REPORT Location ----------11 600449,22 DS11119 (REV. 2/15) DIst - Co - Rts . PM - City Date of Investigation ...... Jun-eL3Q,]975........................... Name ...................... AqUA IDI0ND& -4GQQN -(Hedionda Creek) CONDITION RATING: APPRAISAL RATING: Deck Superstructure 3 Substr. & Pipes 3 Overall 3 Channel & Channel Protection 9 Retaining Walls --a Widenable? Yes No Conditional D The structure was inspected in depth upon written request of Mr. H. S. Keta.y Utilities/Maintenance Director of the City of Carlsbad (Letter dated May 28, 1975) The investigation was carried out on this date by D. B. Jennings and M. I. Fogel of Caltrans Office of Structures, Bridge Maintenance& Access was by the State ained personnel platform "Siapersnooper". Widening of the structure is not advised because of age and condition. CONDITION OF STRUCTURE: The damaged areas are shown on the attached bridge layout The Condition of Structure noted in the Bridge Report of April 12, 1973, is verified in this investigation and a significant exten- sion of deterioration is indicated. Deck soffit spelling is severe in areas of spans 1 2, and 11, and In parts of the sidewalk underside. Two large flakes of span 14 deck soffit was easily removed with a chipping hmmer, exposing varying losses of the bottom deck reinforcing steel. Corrosion reduced the bare from 50 to a total loss. The loose flakes were approximately 3 inches in maximum thickness, extending to above the reinforcing steel mat. The girder soffit and side deterioration as shown on the layaat In also in various stages, the most advanced being in th south- erly and northerly spans where the soffit concrete has fallen free. The north span bottom 1 1/14 inch square girder bare have been reduced to 1 inch square and have lost bond with the concrete. The upper outer bars which have been exposed by side spelling are similarly without bond and reduced equally. The bottom section of the original 1/2 inch square stirrups are .10 st entirely over many of the exposed steel areas of the girder bottoms, progressing to good material up the girder aides. The exposed bottom bars of the southerly span are reduced to 1 inch square and are firmly bonded, With stirrup losses similar to those in the northerly span. (1) BRmi D.--__57C-133 DA _June 30, 1975 - Girder bottoms and sides of spans 2 and 3 are varyingly cracked and ipalled as are the diaphragms,, railing brackets, and railing beams. Section of loose concrete have been chipped tree exposing heavy to light corrosion. The Pier caps have loose top corners along the southerly edges which are probably the result of corroding dowels. The soffits are loose to the level of the bottom reinforcing steel with heavily corroded steel and loss of bond in some areas *' Two aides of most columns are loose to or beyond the 1 i/k inch square reinforcing bars • At those sides that were chipped free, the bars were reduced to 1 inch squares and the column ties (1/2 Inch squares) were non...exietant The columns which were originally 15 ft • to 16 . • ft • in clear heighth are now approximately 4 feet as modified in 1953. The northerly abutment has a deep crack near the easterly end and minor spalls are scattered over both abutments. The steel bearings and bearing pads are heavily corroded. Those of Pier No. 14 are tilted out of plumb one inch in the 14 inch height. DISCUSSION: The City provided an air compressor a chipping hammer and lane closures as necessary, and an operator, flagman, a photographer, and other support personnel as needed. The personnel platform was made available through State channels. Various spailed or loose concrete was necessarily removed to evaluate the reinforcing steel and to determine the extent of deterioration of the concrete. The structure was completed in 19311 with modifications to the substruct-ure in 1953 • It receives almost continuous washing by salt spray and ocean waves • Small areas which were repaired with air blown mortar have again failed because of steel corrosion. It is evident that a sealant must be provided to inhibit the penetration of salts to the reinforcing steel which causes the corrosive expansion and concrete spalling. It is imperative that immediate action toward replacement of the structure or major repair to the existing structure be implemented. A program of repair. would include: 1. Provision of adequate access to various members of the structure for the proper performance of restora- tive work. Traffic should be diverted from the lane above when work is being performed on the girders of the north span. FORM OH-OS MIS EST. ele,. 21701.500 2-74 CM osP BBD 0 7C133 -- SHEEr___ ___ DA1 June 30, 1975 Removal of all loose or deteriorating concrete which has been noted or which can be found during the progress of the work. A thorough cleaning of the concrete surfaces to which repairs are to be made by chipping and sand-blasting, providing keying and development of the reinforcing steel. 4 A thorough cleaning of the exposed bar reinforcing steel by sandblasting. Replacement of reinforcing steel lost, by supple-menting with new material of such dimension as will compensate for the losses. The material can be added by welding, lap splicing, and a combination of welding and lap splicing. Patching all areas with air blown mortar to encase the reinforcing steel in not less than 2 inches of cover, and hand trimming and shaping the surfaces to acceptable lines. Thoroughly clean all of the unpatched surfaces of the struct.. ure below the bottoms of the railings for protective coating from further salt action. Apply a protective coating of epoxy paint, chlorinated rubber,0 cUring compound, or such other material as my be considered substantial. Clean the bearing pads and rockers by sandblasting and protect them with primer and paint. Estimated Cost: Excluding Traffic Control $ 95,000 Completion of the above work should prolong the life expectancy of the structure by an estimated 10 years. The railings which are variously cracked and deteriorated have not been included in this report. It may be desireable to Include their repair in a restoration. The structure is currently carrying legal loads with no visible signs of distress. Original signed by MIF:ah M, I. Fogel FORM OH-OS MIS EST. etsl. 2I70-5002-742M asp '•1' I f/_F. S'ATE OF CALIFORNIA. Bridge No - DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SUPPLEMENTARY BRIDGE REPORT Location 19bd OH-OS M19 (REV. 1/74) Dist - Co - Rte - PM - City Date of Investigation ------------J5fl-517 7J975 Name -------------------- A &..}ThI01WA.----1sbavd) CONDITION RATING: .- . APPRAISAL RATING: Deck 6-F7 Superstructure Substr & Pipes 5-F5 Overall 3F5 Channel & Channel Protection 9-F8 Retaining Walls : - N& Railings 0,__O,_ O 0 Widenable? Yes a No El Conditional El City -. Action Required by JWMX Yes No The structure was inventoried by State forces in 1973 • Refer to Bridge Report dated April 12-1973 by W. R.. Schott. The 173 report recommended posting the structure for less than legal loads. The recommendation was later rescinded however, when the calculations were. reviewed and an omission was discovered. (See bridge report-dated August 17, 1973 by A. M. Newton) CO-JDITION OF STRUCTURE: - The structure was. vl.ewedfrorn the. top and the sides only. A boat Inspection should be made in the near future so that thnderside of deck and the interior girders can be more thoroughly inspected. The deteriorated condition of the concrete and the corrosion of the exposed reinforcement appears to be about the same as detailed in the report of April 12, 1973. A photo taken of the west exterior girder in span ZL on this date looks identical to a photo taken in 1973. CONDITION OF STRUCTURE: Although no visible change was observed in the condition the corrosion is progressing due to the exposure to the elements. DISCUSSION: Certainly the remaining service life of this-structure-is being shortened because of the exposed reinforcement. Corrective methods such as cleaning all steel to bare meal - and reconstructing the concrete cover would not stop the corrosion but would inhibit it and 1enghen the active service life. cc: Carlsbad (2)1- (1) id . . •. Brn.o ---------- 57U3_. DA CAPACITY EATING: . . . . . When a boat inspection is Made and the extent of corrosion in the girder reinforcement can be measured, the effect on the structure's capacity canb evaluated. • : ...: .........• At this time the structure is considered safe for legal loads. RECOMMENDATIONS:. None •: • • 1OriiU signed bY - W.R.Baker' :WRB:ah . . . •. FORM H-SO M IS • . EST. 44e. IC640.500 M OSP STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SUPPLEMENTARY BRIDGE REPORT OH-OS M19 (REV. 1/74) BridgeNo............. i r9J,................................................ C*il/ Erm. Location D.P&11i.8..4........................... Dist - Co - Rte - PM - City Date of Investigation ---------- Numb ..2L .... l914 Name ............................. AGULJI1D1ONDA ... CREEE. ................................................................ ......................................... CONDITION RATING: APPRAISAL RATING: Deck 8 Superstructure 9 Substr. & Pipes 9 Overall 8 Channel & Channel Protection 9 Retaining Walls NA WWI Refer to Bridge Report dated Deèember jA4, 1971. by Bernard S. Lapedis, CONDITION OR aTaucunE : No change from condition Deported previously. CAPACITY: The structure is capable of carrying legal loads. RECOMMENDATIONS.- None Original signed by W. R.. Baker WRB: ah ce: San Diego County (2) / (1) STATE OF CALIFORNIA bridge No - ---------- - 19i:.......................................................... DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SUPPLEMENTARY BRIDGE REPORT Location ....... DR-OS M19 (REV. 1/74) Dist - Co - Ate- PM - City Date of Investigation ......... -rir'øh28, .1974 Name.............................. AGIAiiEflOND ... BK ................ ................................................. ................................. CONDITION RATING: APPRAISAL RATING: Deck 8 Superstructure 9 Substr. & Pipes 9 Overall 8 Channel & Channel Protection 9 Retaining Walls NA Refer to Bztdae Reprt dated Dodember 14, 971 by Bernard S. Lapedla. CONDITION OF $TRUCTUBE: - No Ch3uC from c0ndtti'rn reported pze1y. CAPACITY: The StrUcture is capable of carrying legal 10a65, IUCOMMNDATXONS None Original signed by W. B. Baker WItB:ah cc: San Diego County (2)/ (1) Shee .....1............... of ----------- .............. Bridge No .....52133 4- -3 Date of Investigation ................... Location )I ST-CO. -RyE. - CITY - P.M. STATE OF CLtFORNlA- BRIDGE REPORT. Name...AQUA .HEDIONDALP.GOON(HediondaCreek)............ Location.-.2n ...Car..sbad .Blvd Palomar .AirportRd.& Vista .Way Latitude ............... Longitude DOD Rd ........................- Br. ...... - ............ SECTION LETTER Custodian .Carisiad............Owner .Cit.y ... o----c.rL.sb.ad CLASSIFICATION - Federal .Aid System --------------------------- Administrative ........Li. -_.._.._.. Functional STRUCTURAL DATA AND HISTORY odified 1953 . . 411 vcn . Year Built .A9.3 ------Cont. FAP No. - Designed by State ................ .. Plans Avail __.&__._.. at Spans ........................................................................................ .. Length...... Skew......30.?...Rt. RC T-beam Description ()....onRC (3) .columr--wafl 2- 'PC wall abutments all .2' ------------- On Structure Roadway Section .............. - Total Width ..... - Conc. . Rail Type Lt!2. ..... Median..... Lanes .....a... TracksNo Clearances: Vert. Unhirpaired .Horiz592.0---------------... puc Design -------15 ------------------------- Capacity Rating ................... Under Structure Roadway Section ........................................ Lanes .-.-----Tracks NO. NO. Clearances: Vert . ........................................ ...Horiz. .............................. - ........PUC No....._....... HYDRAULIC STRUCTURE Report? Yes XI No. i: Nay. Control Yes El No. IXJ Clear. Diag. Yes [] N IZI Relief Structures ........ .-:--- .......................................................................................................................... - .- APPRAISAL OF NON-STRUCTURAL FACTORS Deck Geometry 6............................................................Approach Alig ent ........... . ............................................ - Waterway Adequacy ...... . ............................................. Clearances: Vert. ..9.....................Horiz........8 c County 121 HO.M7O (11 17 11 Sh...... . ......... of ... 4........ STATE OF CALIFORNIA Bridge No. ...5:?.c•:.]33............ BRIDGE REPORT Date of Investigation ADT ............. 14...AP9.9.. Year RATING OF CONDITION:. p Deck 0 Superstructure 3 Substructure _________________________ Overall 3 PLANS: The substructure was modified by the San Diego Gas & Electric Co in 1,053 as a part of the construction of their .Encina Power Plant. Th mod1cations are shown on four drawings entitled "Alterations to Hedionda Creek Highway Bridge." The project number is 1311-7122-AS. The revisions. are shown on drawing numbers AA-62338-D & AA-55554. The San Diego Gas & Electric Co. has microfilms of.these drawings on file in their office in downtown San Diego. PREVIOUS REPORTS: Refer to report dated July25, 1938 by R. A. Wagner and Supplementary Reports dated through 1953. This structure was formerly numbered 57-I1. . . . . . . .XIS TING POSTING: There, is no reord.of posting and there are no. limiting signs at the structure. . CONDITION OF STRUCTURE: There is approximately 1 inch of AC over the deck. •The AC is raveled at the transverse deck joints and also at the edge of the roadway. The arored deck joints are corroded. The concrete ,rail is extensively cracked and spalled;rebar is exosed and also is corroded. FORM HBD-M70A Bnmcc No.7~23.1___ Si -Of CONDITION OF STRUCTURE (Cont'd) The deck soffit in spans 1, 2 & 3 is in fair condition. In Span 4 there are several large spalls, approximately 15 to 30 square feet in area and of unknown depth. These spalls have separated approximately 1 to 2 inches. The deck rebar was not visible but is assumed to have extensive corrosion and a 15 per cent loss of section. The concrete girder stems have deteriorated quite extensively. The Span 1 (South end) stems are cracked and spalled with the cracks open to inch. The soffit cover is falling away. The longitudinal rebar is corroded with approximately 40 loss of section in the lower rebar layer. The stirrups have corroded extensively with some stirrups broken entirely through. The Span 2 stems have longitudinal cracks which are open to 1/4 inch. Span 3 was not inspected closely, but appears to be sinilliar to Span 2 stems. The Span 11. stems are similiar to those of Span 1 with a larger area of spalling of the stem soffit and several stirrups broken entirely through. The edge beams have extensive cracking and spalling. The bent caps have horizontal cracks 3 to 4 inches from the top and the bottom on both sides. These cracks are open 1/8 to 1/2 inch and some are rust stained. The columns have vertical cracks approximately 2 inched from the corners. Some of these cracks are rust stained. The pier walls have large rust stains but the cracking is -random and minor at this inspection. The concrete is in poor condition overall and the rebar is also in very poor condition. These problems are considered a result of the age of the structure and its salt water environment. The re-inforcement corrodes and the resultant expansive forces crack andepall the concrete. The structure has been repaired in the past with gunite, but this type of repair is. not permanent. FORM H-90 P.1 18 - EST. 45I. 1:64-3 2-73 22M osp Biut _57 C- 133 SHM - DATEJ12__.....____ E•NCR0ACHENTS: 1 - 12 inch iron pipe suspended from Easterly deck cantilever. 1 - 5 inch wrapped pipe in Bay 4 supported by the diaphragms. CRAJTNEL: There is an improved earth channel at this structure. The channel is subject to tidal flow. Rock slope protection has been placed on both sides of this structure. There is a large lagoon to the East of this structure. The channel was dredged by San Diego Gas & Electric Co. in 1953 to provide an adequate supply of cooling water for their Encina Power Plant located South of.this structure. CAPACITY: Calculations show this structure to be incapable of carry-ing. legal loads safely. The calculations show the following litiitations based on shear: Type 3 16.1 tons per vehicle Type 3S2 24.0 tons per semi trailer combination Type 3-3 28.2 tons per truck & full trailer. POSTING RECOMMENDATION: Type I 15 tons per vehicle • 24 tons per semi-trailer combination. • • 28 tons per truck & full trailer • _ • W. R. Schott C. E..Lic. No. 13592 CM K-SD M i8 EST. 4341. 2060400 -73 214 CP STATE OF CALIFORNIA BRIDGE REPORT Sheet ................of ........................ Bridge No. ...... .7.c.:A.1 ........ ................ Date of Investigation ...... 1971 Location .11:SD..FA.S..i.4.. )IST-CORTE. - CITY - P.M. Name....... .Ag Qreek ...........:............................................................................ Location ............NW of Jc..h.IA.S .11$.CaminoRea..near Calaveras Road Latitude 30.Longitude 117.°...................DOD Rd ..........................Br SECTION LETTER Custodian Owner ..cMY.2f.~1bad.... CLASSIFICATION . Federal Aid System .............. 08..Administrative ............... 4................... Functional ............... STRUCTURAL DATA AND HISTORY Year Built J.LI........By..C..Ud$Jate...........Cont. No. .U-.1t8Q............FAP No. S.-S.U-1411(2).. Designed by .............. Plans Avail ..Ye ...............at ..Stte..Brid..Dep.arxmeit.. Spans ..... Z!cic.......... .• ......................................................................Length....U3.'............Skew...NO1Q. Description ...RC ...units ..2LcPQPc.'.hAC..cp...p1..jçnts ICt .q.ab c.p&c!.va1.......................................................................... On Structure 80'sh,1@11.7',1@12.2',1407'm,1@12.2',1@11.7,7.7'sh o o' Roadway Sectioa.................................................................................TtaI Width ............................... Mt1 Mt1 clear-it Rail Type Lt.T"1 . ........Rt.1'' .......................................Median turn.lapeLanes .... NO.. Tracks ..NLA.... Clearances: Vert. Horiz. .JPL°.°...........................PUC No................................... Design ....................... Capacity Rating Le Under Structure Roadway Section .................................................................................................Lanes Tracks Clearances: Vert .......N/A Horiz..................................... PUC No. ......... .N/A HYDRAULIC STRUCTURE Report? Yes No. J Nay. Control Yes No. Clear. Diag. Yes EJ N J Relief Structures ..........................................None . APPRAISAL OF NON-STRUCTURAL FACTORS Deck Geometry .............................................................Approach Aligmnent .....................................9 Waterway Adequacy ................. . ................................... Clearances: Vert . ....... .9 ................. Horiz. ............ ......... cc: County (2) HBO-M70 911/71) Sheet ..Z. of .... a....... STATE OF CALIFORNIA Bridge No. ..?c.:A1.................. BRIDGE REPORT Date of Investigation Deeuthex. 14, 1971 ADT................. Year .......... RATING OF CONDITION: Deck 8 Substructure 9 Superstructure ..! Overall 8 EXISTING POSTING: . There is no record of any restrictive posting for load or speed by the Director and there are no limiting signs posted at the bxidge site; CONDITION OF STRUCTURE: Soffits of precast slab units have varying amounts of camber and present a very, non-uniform appearance. Slab units have fine longitudinal cracks within center third of spans. CIP deck surface also has fine crazed cracking primarily in right lanes. Roadwork was still being performed on approaches on day of investigation. Right downlog shoulder was not paved with AC as yet. U-walls are spalling at approach railing anchoring connections. ENCROACHMENTS: Four and one-half inch P.O. D. welded steel pipe line is in place behind left railing along curb recess. Pipe line is supported from steel hanger plates cast in outside face of RC curb. WATERWAY: Channel has a sandy bottom and appears to be adequate. Water was flowing in channel on day of investigation, FORM HBO.M70A I € No. SHEET 3 of L._...._.._. DATE - December 14, 1971 .CAPACITY: . .. Bridge is good for legal loads by design and inspection. POSTINGRECOMMENDATION None. BERNARD S. LAPEDIS Associate Bridge Engineer P.E. lAo. No. C-170e7 FORM H.813 M 18 EST. 019. 57774.500 11-71 SM OSP BRIDNO./' N. Z4-5 'I DIST. CO . Rn, BktIL)G '4'Qt/e? Led_ij' d6c Cee i O.F1Lid7 SIDE pcLj i1'') ' -. \ • From BB Horz. WértO lei Comment ..i_!4 Y/ _____________ /1/ ___________________ _________ ________ /3i ______________ r / • • • -_ _______ I-,__/ - / 74__4 77O frF %e fr,cJ - • •• .r /C. 7 ' ytJe ,-• - -1 d -i -/e.