1. Approaches to Historic Bridge Rehabilitation Case Study #3
Yaquina River (Eddyville) Bridge (Pony Truss) by
Ray Bottenberg, Oregon Department of Transportation

2. Yaquina River (Eddyville) Bridge
Case study #3
Yaquina River (Eddyville) Bridge
Location
Milepoint on US 20 in Eddyville, Oregon
Description of Setting
Town of <1000 in rural, forested area
Description of Bridge
Date
Original construction 1923
Widened 1962
Length
132 Feet
Span Type (s)
80 foot steel pony truss
Precast reinforced concrete channels in approaches

3. Yaquina River (Eddyville) Bridge
Case study #3
Yaquina River (Eddyville) Bridge
Date and Cost of Rehab
2006
$424,000
Designer
ODOT – Ray Bottenberg
Client/Owner
ODOT
Contractor
S&K Painting

4. Case study #3
Load Rating Issue
Bridge and old alignment of US 20 to be given to Lincoln County.
County wanted load rating before accepting bridge and roadway.

5. How Load Rating Issue Was Resolved
Case study #3
How Load Rating Issue Was Resolved
Field visit with rebar locator to recreate As-Built data
Field visit with Portable Hardness Tester to verify material strength
~14% increase in strength over design values
Strain gage survey
Left: Strain Gage Monitoring Right: Typical Strain Gage Installation

6. How Load Rating Issue Was Resolved
Case study #3
Removal of 4-6” Asphalt concrete wearing surface and replacement with 2” wearing surface
This eliminated enough dead load to solve the load rating issue

7. Case study #3
Corrosion Issues
Bridge and old alignment of US 20 to be given to Lincoln County.
County wanted corrosion damage addressed.
Sufficiency rating of 26.8 partially a result of corrosion damage and paint condition.
Coating was approximately 40 years old.
Left: Lower chord tie plate corrosion Right: Corrosion of floor beam connection above bearing

8. Left: Lower chord tie plate corrosion damage
Case study #3
Left: Lower chord tie plate corrosion damage
Right: Section loss in lower chord connection plate

9. How Corrosion Issue Was Resolved
Case study #3
How Corrosion Issue Was Resolved
40-year-old Lead-Based Coating System replaced with 3-coat cured urethane system after abrasive blasting.
corroded tie plates and lacing bars were replaced in-kind.
Lower chord connections and end floor beam connections received extra intermediate coat of urethane-tar.

10. How was Section 106 handled
Case study #3
How was Section 106 handled
Bridge was determined “Potentially Eligible” under Section 106.
Project cleaned and recoated the bridge and repaired minor corrosion issues.
Repair details were designed as “In-Kind” replacement of corroded components.
Repair details were reviewed and concurred by State Historic Preservation Office.
Original bridge color (black) determined from 1923 files, project specified black color.
“No Adverse Effect.”

11. How was Section 4(f) handled
Case study #3
How was Section 4(f) handled
Section 4(f) was largely a non-issue for this project.
The historic bridge was not demolished.
“No Adverse Effect” on historic quality.

12. Lessons Learned/Conclusions
Case study #3
Lessons Learned/Conclusions
Hardness testing and strain gage testing are reasonable steps to refine load rating, when bridge shows no signs of overload distress.
Remove excess ACWS.
Minor rehabilitation work and change in use can significantly improve sufficiency rating.