California Department of Transportation Division of Maintenance Structure Maintenance and Investigations B RIDGE I NSPECTION R ECORDS I NFORMATION S YSTEM The requested documents have been generated by BIRIS. These documents are the property of the California Department of Transportation and should be handled in accordance with Deputy Directive 55 and the State Administrative Manual. Records for “Confidential” bridges may only be released outside the Department of Transportation upon execution of a confidentiality agreement. Structure Maintenance & Investigations BRIDGE MAINTENANCE STRATEGY FACT SHEET Interstate 10 Tex Wash, Br. No: 56-0576R& L July 20, 2015 Project Location 08-RIV-10-PM-R102.63 These parallel 90-foot-long bridges carry Interstate 10 over Tex Wash in Riverside County near the community of Desert Center, about 50 miles west of Blythe. The three span bridges, which were built in 1967, feature continuous reinforced concrete (RC) slabs with open end diaphragm abutments and RC pier walls on spread footings. The bridge carries an average of more than 11,200 vehicles a day of which 40% are trucks. Event Description A Structure Maintenance & Investigations (SM&I) Bridge Maintenance Strategy session was convened on July 20, 2015 to determine the appropriate strategy to repair the parallel bridges carrying I-10 over Tex Wash. Attendees included SM&I Chief Dolores Valls, Bridge Asset Management Chief Pete Whitfield, Design and Analysis Chief Kevin Keady, Investigations South Chief Ching Chao, Senior Bridge Engineers Jeff Johnson, Michael J. Lee, Steve Sahs, and HQ Program Advisor Nancy Bruton. The two bridges were damaged on the evening of July 19, 2015 by floodwaters spawned by remnants of Tropical Storm Dolores rolled through California’s southeastern desert area. The eastbound I-10 bridge was built in 1967 on spread footings. Following collapse of the structure, I-10 was closed in both directions. Area Bridge Maintenance Engineer Terence Cheung of SM&I’s South Investigations Office performed an emergency inspection of the two bridges on July 20. The flash flooding undermined the supports of the eastbound I-10 Tex Wash bridge, causing one of the structure’s three spans to collapse. Two motorists were rescued from a pickup truck that came to rest hanging over the collapsed span. There were no fatalities. In addition to the damage to the eastbound bridge, Cheung found that the flooding had undermined the Abutment 4 foundation on the westbound I-10 bridge. Interstate 10 was closed in both directions following the collapse. Cheung confirmed that the upstream, right bridge carrying eastbound I-10 collapsed due to loss of support at Abutment 4. Riverside County/Route 10 The bridge carries more than 11,200 vehicles a day on eastbound Interstate 10 of which 40% are trucks. While the freeway is closed, traffic will be detoured around the closed portion of I-10 onto Highways 62 and 177. Bridge Numbers 56-0576R&L Page 1 Structure Maintenance & Investigations BRIDGE MAINTENANCE STRATEGY FACT SHEET Interstate 10 Tex Wash, Br. No: 56-0576R& L July 20, 2015 Neither of the bridges was classified as scour critical. The bridges had last been inspected in March 2015. The Bridge Maintenance Strategy Session participants focused their discussion on whether to repair or replace the eastbound I-10 bridge and how to repair the westbound bridge to allow reopening of the I-10 westbound structure. Engineers determined that the undamaged portion of the bridge could be incorporated into the permanent repair. One span and the abutment collapsed in the flood. Erosion at the footings of the I-10 westbound Tex Wash bridge. Riverside County/Route 10 Bridge Numbers 56-0576R&L Page 2 Structure Maintenance & Investigations BRIDGE MAINTENANCE STRATEGY FACT SHEET Interstate 10 Tex Wash, Br. No: 56-0576R& L July 20, 2015 Alternatives Considered 1) Do nothing - This alternative was not considered. 2) Repair the Bridges – This alternative would involve District 8 proceeding with an emergency repair that would involve: a) Replacing the collapsed span and abutment on the eastbound I-10 Tex Wash Bridge with a new abutment and span. b) Backfill the footings and approach roadway on the westbound I-10 bridge and provide rock protection around the footings on the westbound I-10 Tex Wash Bridge. c) Develop a project to investigate whether replacement of the two I-10 Tex Wash Bridges may be necessary in the future. 3) Replace the Eastbound I-10 Bridge – This alternative was considered and rejected at this time over concerns that a new bridge would alter the flow in the channel and could increase the scour potential at the westbound I-10 and county owned Ragsdale Road bridges. A detailed hydraulic analysis is needed before proceeding with any bridge replacement alternative that could impact the flow of flood waters in Tex Wash. Recommended Action The Bridge Maintenance Strategy session participants unanimously recommended that District 8 take the following action: 1) Rebuild the westbound I-10 Tex Wash Bridge by backfilling the footings and approach roadway and placing additional rock protection around the footings. With completion of this repair, the bridge could be reopened and used to provide one lane of traffic eastbound and westbound on I-10 until repair of the parallel bridge is completed. 2) Initiate an emergency contract to reconstruct the damaged portions of the eastbound I-10 Tex Wash Bridge and place engineered rock protection at the abutments. …. Riverside County/Route 10 Bridge Numbers 56-0576R&L Page 3 56 0576R TEX WASH 07/20/2015 102 1' I Photo No. Slab bridge deck in Span 3 collapsed. Page 1 of 5 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Bridge Number 56 057612 Structure Maintenance Investigations Facility Carried: INTERSTATE 10 Location Man: City Inspection Date 07/20/2015 Inspection Type Bridge Inspection Report Routine FC Underwater Special Other :Flood TR NAME: TEX WASH Year Built 1967 Skew (degrees): 10 Year Widened: No. of Joints 0 Length 27.4 No. of Hinges 0 Structure Description:Continuous, 3 span, RC slab with open-end diaphragm abutments and RC piers, all on spread footings. Span Configuration 3 9.15m (E) Design Live Load: OR Inventory Rating: 29.8 metric tons Calculation Method: LOAD FACTOR Operating Rating: 49.6 metric tons Calculation Method: LOAD FACTOR Permit Rating Posting Load Type 3:Lega1 Type 382:Legal Type 3-3:Legal WE. Deck X-Section: (N) 0.03m br, 1.52m s, 2 3.66m, 3.05m 5, 0.30m br (S) Total Width: 12.5 Net Width: 11.9 No. of Lanes: 2 Speed: 70 Min. Vertical Clearancerhimpaired Overlay Thickness: 3.5 Inches Rail Code: 9111 Rail Type Location Length (ft)Rail Modifications L_Type 9 Right/Left 260 DESCRIPTION UNDER STRUCTURE Channel Description: Desert wash, sandy bed, steep slope, high velocity, at abutments. NOTICE The bridge inspection condition assessment used for this inspection is based on the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Bridge Element Inspection Manual 2013 as defined in Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century federal law. The new element inspection methodology may result in changes to related condition and appraisal ratings on the bridge without significant physical changes at the bridge. The element condition information contained in this report represents the current condition of the bridge based on the most recent routine and special inspections. Some of the notes presented below may be from an inepection that occurred prior to the date noted in this report. Refer to the Scope and Access section of this inspection report for a description of which portions of the bridge were inspected on this date. INSPECTION COMMENTARY SCOPE AND ACCESS On July 19, 2015, Span #3 and the easterly abutment #4 collapsed due to a storm of 24 hours duration of 6 inches rain. The route was closed. District 8 Bridge crew supervisor John Vasquez notified personnel. On July 20, 2015 Monday, a special post flood damage inspection was performed. The bridge remained closed during this inspection. Printed on:Monday 08/03/2015 04:42 PM 56 - Page 2 of 5 INSPECTION COMMENTARY The easterly abutment #4 and Span 3 were impacted due to the bend in the wash from east to north adjacent to bridge easterly abutment The remaining portions of the structure were not impacted. All the bridge elements corrections were made to the new element inspection ratings based on the routine inspection dated 3/17/2015. HISTORY The original structure was built in 1967 on contract #11037544. REVISIONS The Item 113 'Scour Critical Bridges' code has been changed from 6 to 8. MISCELLANEOUS The final repair strategy will be recommended by Structure Maintenance and Investigation, Structure Design, and Structure Policy and Innovation. DECK AND ROADWAY The east side of slab bridge deck in Span #3 collapsed because the easterly abutment which supported the east side of the bridge, was undermined and washed away. Slab bridge deck in Span #2 was also damaged and rebar were exposed above the Pier The original deck was overlaid with approximately 4 inches thick asphalt concrete. SUBSTRUCTURE Easterly abutment #4 and slab bridge deck in Span 3 collapsed due to undermine and scour. The slope protection for the easterly abutment was washed away. The erosion area is about 180 feet 60 feet 20 feet H. Pier 3 is sound and plumb with minor spalling on the north at the connection to the deck. The soffit of slab bridge of Span 3 was fractured adjacent to Pier 3. SCOUR This report summarizes the results of the inspection and scour evaluation performed by the Structure Hydraulics Office. The scour analysis was done using information from this inspection, prior bridge inspections, channel cross?sections, photographs and as-built plans. Potential scour conditions at the bridge foundations were determined in accordance with FHWA Technical Advisory T5140.23, "Evaluating Scour at Bridges", and within current Caltrans guidelines. The bridge was determined to be not scour critical. The Item 113 code is 8, "Bridge foundations determined to be stable for calculated scour conditions; calculated scour is above top of footing". There has been approximately 1 meter of degradation in spans 2 and 3 since construction in 1967. This is attributed to contraction of the channel at the bridge opening and the fact that the channel turns at the bridge, causing incision on the outside of the bend. Although the channel bed appears to have stabilized, further degradation may be cause for re?evaluation, so the channel needs to be monitored. A channel cross?section was recorded at the bridge; a plot of historical channel cross? sections is attached. RECOMMENDATIONS A peer review was conducted by Division of Structure Maintenance and Investigation, Structure Design (DES), and Structure Policy and Innovation, it was recommended to replace the damaged span 3 and construct the easterly abutment 4 with pile foundation. However, District 8 has decided to replace entire bridge with slope protection at the easterly abutment. Printed on:Monday 08/03/2015 04:42 PM 56 - INSPECTION COMMENTARY Inspect conditions under the bridge routinely. Take a channel crossdsection at least every 10 years and additionally after high flows. Forward this information to the Structure Hydraulics Office for review. Elem Defect Defect ELEMENT INSPECTION RATINGS AND COMMENTARY Element Description Page 3 of 5 Env Total Units Qty in each Condition State There are longitudinal cracks with light white and brown efflorescence. No. /Prot Qty StSlab?RC 1 330 sq.m 305 25 0 0 1120 Efflorescence/Rust Staining 5 0 5 0 1130 Cracking (RC and Other7000 Damage 1 110 0 0 0 110 (38?1120) (38?1130) There are longitudinal cracks widths less than 0.02 inches and more than 3 feet. (38?7000) The east side of slab bridge deck in Span #3 collapsed to the ground because the easterly abutment which supported the east side of the bridge, was washed away. Slab bridge deck in Span #2 was also damaged and rebar were exposed above the bent 210 Printed on:Monday 08/03/2015 04:42 PM There are vertical cracks widths less than 0.02 inches and more than 3 feet spacing. Pier Wall-1130 Cracking (RC and other) 2 2 0 2 0 (210-1130) There are vertical cracks widths less than 0.02 inches and more than 3 feet spacing. 215 Abutment-1120 Efflorescence/Rust Staining 2 4 0 4 0 0 1130 Cracking (RC and Other) 2 6 0 6 0 6000 Scour 2 12 0 0 0 12 (215?1120) There are vertical cracks widths with white and brown efflorescence. (215?1130) There are vertical cracks widths less than 0.02 inches and more than 3 feet spacing. (215-6000) The whole easterly abutment #4 was washed away by the fast flood. 256 Slope Protection 2 2 ea. 1 0 0 6000 Scour 2 0 1 (256?6000) The whole easterly abutment #4 slope protection was washed away by the fast flood. 333 Railing?Other 1 70 64 6 0 0 1130 Cracking (RC and Other7000 Damage 1 64 41 0 0 23 (333-1130) 56 ELEMENT INSPECTION RATINGS AND COMMENTARY Elem Defect Defect No. [Prot Element Description Page 4 of 5 Env Total Units Qty in each Condition State Qty St(333-7000) Rails at Span 3 was damaged by slab bridge collapsed due to erosion caused by fast flood. WQRE RECQMMENDATIQNS RecDate: 07/20/2015 EstCost: $1,500,000 Action Super?Replace StrTarget: EMERGENCY Work By: MAINT. CONTRACT DistTarget: Status AWARDED EA: RecDate: 07/20/2015 EstCost: $234,000 Action Sub?Scour Mitigate StrTarget EMERGENCY Work By: DISTRICT DistTarget: Status AWARDED EA: 1G510 RecDate: 07/01/2012 $129,560 Action Railing?Upgrade StrTarget: 4 YEARS Work By: STRAIN DistTarget: Status AWARDED EA: Team Leader Terence Cheung it was recommended to replace the damaged span 3 and construct the easterly abutment 4 with pile foundation. However, District 8 has decided to replace entire bridge with slope protection at the easterly abutment. Per Peer review, Construct a new concrete slope protection at the easterly abutment Install a wire mesh to cover the westerly abutment #1 riprap and shotcrete the wire mesh to have better protection against fast flood. Place wire mesh on the embankment ripraps between left and right bridges abutment #4 and shotcrete the wire mesh to have better protection against flash flood. Upgrade Type 9 rail to current standards. (LAT) Report Author Terence Cheung Terence Inspected By T.Cheung/J.Johnson ?Jun? 8,3? E3123). '9 12/31/2016 Terence Cheung (Registered Citil Engineer) (Date) Printed on:Monday 08/03/2015 04:42 PM - 56 Page 5 of 5 STRUCTURE INVENTORY AND APPRAISAL REPORT IDENTIFICATION SUFFICIENCY RATING 95.6 (1) STATE CALIFORNIA 069 STATUS (8) STRUCTURE NUMBER 56 0576R (5) INVENTORY ON 111000100 HEALTH INDEX 92-9 (2) HIGHWAY AGENCY DISTRICT 03 PAINT CONDITION INDEX (6) FEATURE TEX WASH (112) NBIS BRIDGE YES (7) FACILITY INTERSTATE 10 (104) HIGHWAY ROUTE ON NHS 1 (9) LOCATION- (26) FUNCTIONAL CLASS- INTSTAT PRIN ART RURAL 01 (11) 102.53 (100) DEFENSE HIGHWAY- STRAHNET 1 (12) BASE HIGHWAY PART OF NET 1 (101) PARALLEL STRUCTURE- RIGHT STRUCTURE (13) LRs INVENTORY ROUTE SUBROUTE 000000001001 (102) DIRECTION OF 1 WAY I (16) LATITUDE 33 DEG 42 MIN 14.73 SEC (103) TEMPORARY (17) LONGITUDE 115 DEG 26 MIN 31.7 SEC (105) NOT APPLICABLE 0 (93) BORDER BRIDGE STATE CODE 55 SHARE (110) DESIGNATED NATIONAL NETWORK - PART OF NET 1 (99) BORDER BRIDGE STRUCTURE NUMBER ?20) ON FREE ROAD 3 (21) STATE HIGHWAY AGENCY 01 STRUCTURE TYPE AND MATERIAL (22) OWNER- STATE HIGHWAY AGENCY 01 (43) STRUCTURE TYPE CONCRETE CONT (37) HISTORICAL NOT ELIGIBLE 5 TYPE- SLAB CODE 201 (44) STRUCTURE TYPE CONDITION CODE CODE 000 (53) DECK 7 (45) NUMBER OF SPANS IN MAIN UNIT 3 (59) SUPERSTRUCTURE 7 (46) NUMBER OF APPROACH SPANS 0 (50) SUBSTRUCTURE 5 (107) DECK STRUCTURE TYPE- CIP CONCRETE CODE 1 (61) CHANNEL CHANNEL PROTECTION 8 (108) WEARING SURFACE PROTECTIVE SYSTEM: (62) CULVERTS A) TYPE OF WEARING BITUMINOUS CODE 6 LOAD RATING AND POSTING CODE B) TYPE OF NONE CODE 0 (31) DESIGN MS-18 0R HS-20 5 C) TYPE OF DECK NONE CODE 0 (63) OPERATING RATING LOAD FACTOR 1 AND (27) YEAR BUILT 1957 (65) INVENTORY RATING LOAD FACTOR 1 (105) YEAR RECONSTRUCTED 0000 (56) INVENTORY (42) TYPE OF HIGHWAY (70) BRIDGE EQUAL TO OR ABOVE LEGAL LOADS 5 (28) LANES ON STRUCTURE STRUCTURE 00 (41) STRUCTURE OPEN, POSTED OR (29) AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC 11250 DESCRIPTION- CLOSED TO ALL TRAFFIC (30) YEAR OF ADT 2012 (109) TRUCK ADT 40 APPRAISAL CODE (19) BYPASS, DETOUR LENGTH 2 KM (67) STRUCTURAL EVALUATION 6 (48) LENGTH OF MAXIMUM SPAN 9.1 (69) UNDERCLEARANCES, VERTICAL HORIZONTAL (49) STRUCTURE LENGTH 27.4 (71) WATER ADEQUACY 3 (50) CURB OR SIDEWALK: LEFT 0.0 RIGHT 0.0 (72) APPROACH ROADWAY ALIGNMENT 8 (51) BRIDGE ROADWAY WIDTH CURB To CURB 11.9 (36) TRAFFIC SAFETY FEATURES 0111 (52) DECK WIDTH OUT To OUT 12.5 (113) SCOUR CRITICAL BRIDGES (32) APPROACH ROADWAY WIDTH 11.9 PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS (33) BRIDGE NO MEDIAN 0 (75) TYPE OF WORK- CODE (34) SKEW 10 DEG (35) STRUCTURE FLARED NO (76) LENGTH OF STRUCTURE IMPROVEMENT (10) INVENTORY ROUTE MIN VERT CLEAR 99.99 (94) BRIDGE IMPROVEMENT COST (47) INVENTORY ROUTE TOTAL CLEAR 11.9 (95) ROADWAY IMPROVEMENT COST (53) MIN VERT CLEAR OVER BRIDGE RDWY 99.99 (96) TOTAL PROJECT COST i223 (97) YEAR OF (114) FUTURE ADT 19000 (56) MIN LAT UNDERCLEAR LT 0.0 (115) YEAR OF FUTURE ADT 2032 *i-k-k-k-k-k'k-k'k-kiri'i'i NTR NAVIGATION CONTROL 0 CO 0 CODE 0 (90) INSPECTION DATE 03/15 (91) FREQUENCY 72 MO PIER CODE (92) CRITICAL FEATURE INSPECTION: (93) CF: DATE (39) NAVIGATION VERTICAL CLEARANCE 0,0 (116) VERT LIFT BRIDGE MIN VERT CLEAR A) FRACTURE GRIT DETAIL- N0 M0 A) (40) NAVIGATION HORIZONTAL CLEARANCE B) UNDERWATER N0 M0 B) 0'0 c) OTHER SPECIAL INSP- N0 M0 C) Printed on:Monday 08/03/2015 04:42 PM 56 56 0576R TEX WASH 07/20/2015 116 PHOTO?Sub?Scour/Evaluation Photo No. 2 The whole easterly abutment 4 and slope protection were washed away(erosion 56 0576R TEX WASH 07/20/2015 102 Photo No. 3 Slab bridge deck in Span #2 was damaged and rebar were exposed above the Pier 56 0576R TEX WASH 07/20/2015 102 Photo No. 4 Eastbound traffic was closed because bridge deck Span 3 collapsed.