Share:

FAU 5042 over TEN MILE CREEK

Map 

Coordinates:
+35.04417, -89.91667
35°02'39" N, 89°55'00" W
Source: National Bridge Inventory
Information not verified. Use at your own risk.

Facts 

Name:FAU 5042 over TEN MILE CREEK
Structure number:790B9800001
Location:HUNGERFORD RD - MEMPHIS
Purpose:Carries highway over waterway
Route classification:Collector (Urban) [17]
Length of largest span:25.9 ft. [7.9 m]
Total length:73.2 ft. [22.3 m]
Roadway width between curbs:21.3 ft. [6.5 m]
Deck width edge-to-edge:23.6 ft. [7.2 m]
Skew angle:40°
Owner:City or Municipal Highway Agency [04]
Year built:1950
Historic significance:Historical significance is not determinable at this time [4]
Number of main spans:3
Main spans material:Concrete [1]
Main spans design:Tee beam [04]
Deck type:Concrete Cast-in-Place [1]
Wearing surface:Bituminous [6]

Latest Available Inspection: April 2015 

Status:Open, no restriction [A]
Average daily traffic:5,070 [as of 2016]
Truck traffic:24% of total traffic
Deck condition:Satisfactory [6 out of 9]
Superstructure condition:Satisfactory [6 out of 9]
Substructure condition:Good [7 out of 9]
Structural appraisal:Equal to present minimum criteria [6]
Deck geometry appraisal:Basically intolerable requiring high priority of replacement [2]
Water adequacy appraisal:Equal to present desirable criteria [8]
Roadway alignment appraisal:Equal to present desirable criteria [8]
Channel protection:Bank protection is in need of minor repairs. River control devices and embankment protection have a little minor damage. Banks and/or channel have minor amounts of drift. [7]
Scour condition:Bridge foundations determined to be stable for the assessed or calculated scour condition. [8]
Operating rating:39.6 tons [36.0 metric tons]
Inventory rating:26.7 tons [24.3 metric tons]
Evaluation:Functionally obsolete [2]
Sufficiency rating:70.5
Recommended work:Widening of existing bridge or other major structure without deck rehabilitation or replacement [33]
Estimated cost of work:$515,000

Previous Inspections 

DateSuff. ratingEvaluationDeckSuper.Sub.ADT
April 201570.5Functionally obsoleteSatisfactorySatisfactoryGood5070
April 201370.5Functionally obsoleteSatisfactoryGoodGood5070
May 201170.5Functionally obsoleteSatisfactoryGoodGood5070
June 200970.5Functionally obsoleteSatisfactoryGoodGood5070
November 200770.5Functionally obsoleteSatisfactoryGoodSatisfactory5070
October 200570.4Functionally obsoleteSatisfactoryGoodSatisfactory5460
October 200344.8Structurally deficientSatisfactoryGoodPoor4510
November 200144.7Structurally deficientSatisfactoryGoodPoor4760
March 200059.1Functionally obsoleteSatisfactoryGoodFair5470
May 199860.4Functionally obsoleteSatisfactoryGoodFair4450
June 199871.9Functionally obsoleteSatisfactoryGoodGood2750
December 199579.4Functionally obsoleteSatisfactorySatisfactorySatisfactory3150
September 199379.6Functionally obsoleteSatisfactorySatisfactorySatisfactory2200
December 199193.0Not deficientSatisfactorySatisfactorySatisfactory100