Mary Ross Park Structural Assessment Report

STRUCTURAL ASSESSMENT REPORT MARY ROSS WATERFRONT PARK

Brunswick, Georgia March 7, 2014

306 COMMERCIAL DRIVE, SUITE B SAVANNAH, GA 31406 (912) 201-1807 www.hk-engr.com

http://www.bellingham-marine.com/fullsizepics/3isleofhope040403.jpg

City of Brunswick Mary Ross Waterfront Park March 7, 2014 Brunswick, GA H+K Engineering Group

Structural Assessment 1 | P a g e

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 2

2.0 DOCK ASSESSMENT ........................................................................................ 3

2.1. CONCRETE DOCK SYSTEM ................................................................................................................... 3

2.1.1. CONCRETE DECK .....................................................................................................4

2.1.2. DOCK HARDWARE ..................................................................................................9

2.1.3. FENDERSYSTEM ................................................................................................... 10

2.1.4. CONCRETE PILING ................................................................................................ 13

2.1.5. CONCRETE PILE CAPS........................................................................................... 16

2.1.6. CONCRETE BULKHEAD ......................................................................................... 19

2.2. GAZEBO ...................................................................................................................................................... 21

2.3. PAVILION ................................................................................................................................................... 23

2.4. RESTROOMS ............................................................................................................................................. 25

2.5. PARKING .................................................................................................................................................... 28

2.6. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................................................................... 31

2.6.1. TABLE 1 – SUMMARY OF REPAIR NEEDS ............................................................. 32

2.6.2. PROBABLE COST OF REPAIRS – PEDESTRAIN USE ONLY ..................................... 33

2.6.3. PROBABLE COST OF REPAIRS – HS 20 VEHICLE LOADING ................................... 34

MARINA ASSESSMENT DRAWINGS .................................................................................. 35


H+K ENGINEERING GROUP

1.0 INTRODUCTION

H+K Engineering Group, LLC (H+K) has been retained by the City of Brunswick to perform a

structural assessment and inventory of the facilities at Mary Ross Waterfront Park in Brunswick,

GA. This report will pertain to the visual examination and evaluation of the physical facilities

and structural considerations at the facility that is located at Bay & Gloucester Street in Glynn

County, Brunswick, Georgia. H+K’s specific assignment was to conduct the visual examination

and complete an overview of the as-built facilities and complete engineering and structural

studies from the standpoint of determining if any outstanding issues exist structurally with the

concrete dock infrastructure with respect to life safety or instability and if any issues have been

overlooked, misinterpreted or left undefined. H+K’s primary focus was on the immediate

structural and stability aspects of the physical features of the facility, with a secondary emphasis

on the long term operations issues. Since this study was preliminary in nature, the operations

and assessments were only cursory in nature. This report will also address the visual

examination and evaluation of the physical facilities located at the park. The structures included

in this portion of the assessment are the gazebo, pavilion, public restrooms and parking

facilities. The purpose of this assessment is to present the structural condition of each of the

facilities, outlining any deficiencies, as well as recommendations for needed repairs and an

estimate of probable cost for the recommended repairs.

On January 23, 2014 Mr. William Huffman and Mr. William Eubank of H+K visited the Mary Ross

Waterfront Park in Brunswick, Georgia. Mr. Arne Glaeser of the City of Brunswick was in

attendance and is the City’s Representative for the project. The inspection included a visual and

photographic analysis of all structures. On February 6, 2014, Mr. Huffman returned to the Park

to perform further inspection and analysis of the concrete dock, pier and piling infrastructure.

Mr. Huffman used a personal watercraft to go underneath the dock structure and visually

inspect the infrastructure along with developing a photographic log and assessment data sheet.


H+K ENGINEERING GROUP

2.0 DOCKASSESSMENT

H+K personnel visited the site on January 23, 2014 and February 6, 2014 to perform investigations and

assessment of the onsite conditions of the dock, gazebo, pavilion, public restrooms and parking

facilities. Mr. William Eubank and Mr. William Huffman of H+K spoke with Mr. Arne Glaeser, the

Planning and Development Manager for the City of Brunswick and the City representative for the

project, who provided H+K with information regarding the facilities including a previous inspection

report performed by Custom Dock Manufacturing, Inc. The date of the report is unknown but Mr.

Glaeser estimated the date as sometime in 2004. Additionally, Mr. Glaeser provided documentation of

the repairs to the fender system completed in December 2002.

Each of the sections below gives a general overview of the analyzed structure, a list of observed

deficiencies with recommended repairs. The deficiencies are separated into 4 categories. These

categories are identified as: Immediate Repairs (IM) ‐ items that may not meet current code

requirements and should be immediately addressed.; Life Safety (LS) ‐ repairs needed from deferred

maintenance but are needed to prevent harm to the general public, staff, customers and service people;

Engineering Recommendations (RM) –items related to large scale issues such as the additions of items

or replacement systems.; Deferred Maintenance (DM) – items involving all types of repairs that should

be performed as part of a proper on‐going maintenance program. Section 2.6 outlines each of the

deficiencies in a tabular form and presents an estimation of probable repairs cost for each.

2.1. CONCRETEDOCKSYSTEMThe concrete dock structure consists of precast‐prestressed concrete piling, concrete pile caps, a

concrete bulkhead, concrete deck, a timber fender system and dock hardware. This structure is

estimated to have been built in or around 1975 because the cast date on the piling is February 21, 1975.

Piling of this size and length are usually cast for specific projects meaning the project was most likely

constructed shortly after the casting of the piles.

Due to the construction techniques utilized, the size of piling, caps and decking, as well as the size of the

mooring bollards and cleats, it appears that this concrete dock system was built to handle medium sized

ocean going vessels from a berthing and mooring standpoint, as well as the associated high capacity

loading and off‐loading vehicles, truck cranes and heavy equipment.

Dock structures as this one are also called fixed piers, quays or concrete wharfs and are typically

designed as a rigid structure in which lateral forces are taken by batter piling or by rigid‐frame action.

Because of elastic deformation and bending, some movement may take place, but this is usually ignored

in absorbing the impact of the ship. Some installations are designed to be flexible, to absorb the docking

impact. Wood pile clusters or dolphins are an example of this type of flexible structure and there are

two located at the corners for just this reason as well as the timber fendering on the face of the dock.

They absorb some of the energy of the impact through the large movement they are capable of

undergoing without permanent distortion taking place. Their use is usually confined to docks for barges

and small vessels since larger vessels are usually restrained by utilizing a system of structural steel H



piling with timber facing. Therefore this facility was probably designed for barges and medium sized

vessels, including shrimp boats.

2.1.1. CONCRETE DECK

A. OVERVIEW – The existing concrete deck is 600 feet long by 28 feet wide. It was

constructed in two parts, the first being pre-cast concrete slabs of undetermined thickness that

were placed on top of the pile caps. These slabs are approximately 4 feet wide and 20 feet long.

The second part of construction was the pouring of a cast-in-place concrete slab on top of the

precast slabs to create the surface of the dock. This top slab was poured with expansion joints

every 100 feet. The thickness of this slab was not determined via site investigation. While the

deck needs improvements and general maintenance, it shows normal signs of deterioration for

a structure of its advanced age and appears to be in relatively sound condition.

B. DEFICIENCIES

1. Exposed Reinforcing Steel - In several areas the concrete has eroded away

leaving the reinforcing steel exposed. Examples of the exposed steel are shown in

Photographs 1 and 2 below.

Photograph 1



Photograph 2

2. Longitudinal Cracking – There are longitudinal cracks spanning the length of the

deck visible from both the top of the slab. Photographs 3 and 4 show examples of these

cracks. These cracks appear to be located directly above the joints between the precast

concrete slabs underneath. These joints can be seen in Photographs 5 and 6 below.

Photograph 3



Photograph 4

Photograph 5



Photograph 6

3. Lateral Cracking – There are lateral cracks in the slab that span the width of the

entire deck that appear to be at the center of the 20 foot wide sections. Photo 7 below

shows one example.

Photograph 7



4. JOINT SEALS - The joints between the individual slabs and between the slabs

and the bulkhead have deteriorated. Photo 8 below shows an example.

Photograph 8

5. MISCELLANEOUS CRACKING AND DISPLACEMENT – There are several locations

where minor cracking has led to displacement of fragments of the slabs. One example is

seen in Photo 9 below. Most of these are adjacent to joints between the slabs or at the

bulkhead.

Photograph 9



2.1.2. DOCK HARDWARE

A. OVERVIEW – The dock includes three main types of hardware; cleats, mooring bollards

and a concrete curb. An example of each is shown below in Photographs 10 – 11

Photograph 10

Photograph 11

B. DEFICIENCIES

Steel Cleats and Bollards - In most of the hardware, there are signs of corrosion and each of

these components should be thoroughly mechanically brushed and coated with a dual coating

of Coal-Tar epoxy with a minimum final DFT of 16 mils.



2.1.3. FENDER SYSTEM

A. OVERVIEW – The principal function of a dock fender is to prevent a ship or dock from

being damaged during mooring. Under ideal conditions and perfect control, a ship might

approach a dock without striking a severe blow, but it is still essential to separate it from the

dock with some form of fending strips of timber or rubber. Such a strip will also prevent the

ship’s hull and paint from damaged because of the relative motion between the dock and the

ship caused by wind and waves. In its simplest form, a fender may be a system of horizontal

wood members or a number of vertical members, timber piling or timbers hung from the dock

down to the water line. The timber, in itself, can absorb a certain amount of energy because it is

compressed. If the timber is members are built up substantially in thickness, the force of the

impact will be considerably reduced.

The dock fender system investigated was improved in 2002 and is in good general condition. It

is constructed of both square and round marine timber piling, timber bracing and has two

timber pile dolphins at each end. It abuts the concrete dock with rubber compression sleeves

and is attached with a chain system to prevent rebound after compression. Overall the fender

system is in good shape with the hardware appearing to have been recently painted. Photos 12-

15 show some general views of the fender system.

Photograph 12



Photograph 13

B. DEFICIENCIES

1. The first visible deficiency to the fender system is that the tops of some of the

piling were damaged and/or rotting. Photo 14 shows an example of this deficiency.

This problem is due to the loss of the protective coating from the top of the pile.

Photograph 14



2. The second deficiency with the fender system is a buildup of marine growth and

organisms. This can be seen in Photo 15.

Photograph 15



2.1.4. CONCRETE PILING

A. OVERVIEW – Precast-prestressed concrete piling are used to support the dock facility.

There are 31 rows of piling spaced 20 feet apart. Each row contains (3) three 18” x 18” piling

spaced +/- 8 feet apart except for the rows of piling underneath the concrete expansion joints of

the top deck. These rows contain two sets of 14” x 14” piling also spaced +/- 8 feet apart. There

are 26 rows of 18” x 18” piling with three piles in each row for a total of seventy-eight 18” x 18”

piling. There are five rows of the double piling with six 14” x 14” piling in each for a total of

thirty 14” x 14” piling. The concrete piling that support the dock have visible signs of age as

they are approaching 40 years of age.

B. DEFICIENCIES

1. Nearly all of the concrete piling are showing signs of exterior cracking including

some that have a loss of exterior concrete and in some cases extreme exposure of the

reinforcing steel. Varying degrees of pile deficiency can be seen in Photos 16 – 20 which

are very serious in nature as the longitudinal steel strands are under attack from

chloride corrosion which reduces the load carrying capacity.

Photograph 16



Photograph 17

Photograph 18

2. The second deficiency with the pile support system is the loss of overall cross

sectional area which reduces the overall load capacity. This can be seen in Photo 18

above.



Photograph 19

Photograph 20



2.1.5. CONCRETE PILE CAPS

A. OVERVIEW – The concrete pile caps were cast-in-place and are 32” wide x 16” high x 28

feet long concrete load bearing elements. They are located every 20 feet underneath the dock

centered on the concrete piling. At each expansion joint of the top slab, there is a double row of

piling to support a double pile cap. In all there are 26 individual caps supported by three 18” x

18” piling and 5 double caps supported by six 14” x 14” piling. The final support for the caps is

the concrete bulkhead. The caps were connected to the bulkhead by casting concrete around

reinforcing steel that extended into the bulkhead. The concrete pile caps show advanced signs

of age and severe deterioration and are in danger of failure if loaded, specifically at their

connection with the concrete bulkhead. These caps were installed by casting concrete around

reinforcing steel that extended into the bulkhead. While this was a popular procedure at the

time in order to reduce the number of support piling, the connection of one element that has

horizontal movement, with another providing vertical support, generally results in differential

cracking and long term corrosion of steel if not properly maintained in a timely manner. It can

deteriorate unknowingly and then collapse without warning if not inspected and repaired on a

regular basis.

B. DEFICIENCIES

1. The major deficiency for the concrete pile caps is at their connection with the

concrete bulkhead. The concrete at several of the connections has been lost and the

reinforcing steel has been exposed, severely impacting the load bearing capacity of the

deck and the structure in total. Photos 21 – 23 show varying degrees of this deficiency.

Photograph 21



Photograph 22

Photograph 23



2. In addition to the problems at the connection with the bulkhead, the concrete

pile caps have also experienced some loss of concrete and exposure of reinforcing steel

in other areas. Examples of this deficiency can be seen in Photos 24 and 25 below.

Photograph 24

Photograph 25



2.1.6. CONCRETE BULKHEAD

A. OVERVIEW – The concrete bulkhead which encompasses the landward perimeter of the

dock structure is composed of precast wall panels and a cast-in-place concrete retaining cap

with most likely a main system of tie backs that extends landward of the bulkhead to large

concrete deadman or pre driven concrete pile anchors. It is not known who developed the

design of this wall or who the marine contractor that installed it.

Typically, cast-in-place concrete structures would be expected to be designed with the following 28

day concrete strengths in the components and assumed soils values:

Footings – 4,000 psi

Vertical Wall – 4,000 psi

Toe Slabs – 4,000 psi

Allowable Soil Pressure – 3,000 psf

This style of bulkhead construction was very popular in 70’s and 80’s, and it has served well for the

number of years it has been in service. It could not be determined if this wall system has a tie rod

connection in the cap as none was apparent and none of the staff were in the area during original

construction to ask questions. The predominant issue appears to be in the bulkhead face wall with

minor temperature cracks and delamination and spalling some of the expansion joints. The most

likely cause for this deficiency is lack of concrete cover over steel during original casting operations.

Reinforcing steel which is contained in concrete in marine applications should have a minimum of 3

inches of cover in order to lessen the effects of chlorides reaching the steel from the continuous

water spray or water contact. While this wall will have to be sealed and the joint spalls repaired, the

degree of repair is not expected to be a significant item.

Photograph 26



Photograph 27

B. DEFICIENCIES

1. The first visible deficiency to the bulkhead system is that the concrete sheet piling

expansion joint is damaged and allowing material to be lost through the wall. Photo 27 shows

an example of this deficiency. This problem is due to horizontal movement and the loss of the

elastomeric expansion joint material between the precast concrete sheet piling.



2.2. GAZEBO The Gazebo structure at the park is a two-story timber framed structure with 2 x 4 stud walls

with intermediate blocking and header blocks above door and window openings. Photographs

28 – 31 show exterior and interior views of the general construction of the gazebo.

Photograph 28

Photograph 29



Photograph 30

Photograph 31



2.3. PAVILION The Pavilion is an open air structure made of timber frames construction on a poured concrete

slab with anchor bolts attaching the framing to the foundation.

Photograph 32

Photograph 33



Photograph 34

Photograph 35



2.4. RESTROOMS Photograph 36

Photograph 37



Photograph 38

Photograph 39



Photograph 40



2.5. PARKING There are two separate parking areas for the park. The first area is adjacent to the pavilion and

is parking for vendors and other personnel providing services at the pavilion. Photographs 41 –

43 show some detail of this parking area. The parking area shows some signs of age but does

not present any problems that require immediate attention.

Photograph 41

Photograph 42



Photograph 43

The second parking area is the main parking for patrons and visitors to the park and its facilities.

Photographs 44 – 46 show details of the main parking area. This parking area shows some signs

of age and wear including some alligator cracking, oil spots, displaced curbing, areas of pooling

water, and disrupted drainage around drop inlets. None of these problems pose an immediate

need for repair, but they may lead to problems in the next 5 to 10 years. They could be

addressed with future resurfacing and small patches once they become larger problems.

Photograph 44



Photograph 45

Photograph 46



2.6. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on the site visits, we have developed a list of items that require attention and have also

estimated the probable cost to repair the items listed below. We have used a Lump Sum Cost to

develop a probable cost for repairs. Based on H+K site review, it was determined that the major

items to be concerned with are the repairs to the concrete pile caps, repairing the concrete

support piling spalls, sealing the bulkhead expansion joints, sealing the exposed steel rebar and

repairing the concrete deck slab. It was also determined that there are voids behind the

bulkhead that were created from loss of soils through the wall that should be filled as well.

Other repair costs have been developed based upon general hourly rates for each trade and an

estimate of the labor and materials needed for each repair. Total costs are broken down into

four categories.

Code Issues Requiring Immediate Work (IM) – These repairs include items that may not meet current code requirements and should be immediately addressed. Major structural deficiencies, ADA code compliance, concrete repairs, improperly constructed and dangerous conditions are included in this category.

Life Safety Issues (LS) – These repairs relate to repairs of concrete decks, walkways, and unsafe areas such as voids behind the wall. These repairs result from deferred maintenance but are needed to prevent harm to the general public, staff, customers and service people.

Engineering Recommendations (RM) – These items related to large scale issues such as the additions of items or replacement systems. These items are needed as part of the proper design of such systems and should be completed in 1-5 years.

Deferred Maintenance (DM) – These items involve all types of repairs that should be performed as part of a proper on-going maintenance program.



2.6.1. TABLE 1 – SUMMARY OF REPAIR NEEDS

MARY ROSS WATERFRONT PARK DEFICIENCIES STRUCTURE ITEM DESCRIPTION ACTION

CONCRETE DOCK

Concrete Deck 1 CHIP OUT AND COAT EXPOSED REBAR WITH INHIBITOR IM

2 REPAIR LONGITUDINAL TEMPERATURE CRACKS IM

3 POUR NEW CONRETE TOPPING ON DECK SURFACE IM

Dock Hardware 4 ABRADE RUST AND CORROSION FROMCLEATS & BOLLARDS RM

5 COAT ALL HARDWARE WITH CORROSION INHIBITOR RM

Fender System 6 SEAL VERTICAL FENDER PILING TOPS RM

7 INSPECT AND REPLACE DAMAGED TIMBERS YEARLY DM

Concrete Piling 8 ABRADE AND CHIP OFF ALL SPALLS FROM DAMAGED PILING IM

9 COAT ALL REBAR AND STRANDS WITH CORROSION INHIBITOR IM

10 REAPAIR DAMAGED PILING WITH HIGH STRENGTH GROUT IM

Concrete Pile Caps 11 ABRADE AND CHIP OFF ALL SPALLS FROM DAMAGED CAPS IM

12 COAT ALL REBAR WITH CORROSION INHIBITOR IM

13 REPAIR DAMAGED CAPS WITH HIGH STRENGTH GROUT IM

Concrete Bulkhead 14 REPLACE EXPANSION JOINT MATERIAL AND REPAIR SPALLS IM

15 REPAIR CONCRETE CAP WHERE CRACKED IM

16 FILL VOIDS BEHIND WALL AT ENTIRE LANDSIDE PERIMETER LS

GAZEBO 17 COAT RUST ON METAL ROOFING WITH ROOFING SEALANT DM

18 INSPECT STRUCTURE YEARLY AND PAINT AS NECESSARY RM

PAVILLION 19 COAT RUST ON METAL ROOFING WITH ROOFING SEALANT DM

20 INSPECT TIMBERS YEARLY AND NOTE ANY DETERIORATION RM

PUBLIC RESTROOMS 21 COAT RUST ON METAL ROOFING WITH ROOFING SEALANT DM

22 INSPECT STRUCTURE YEARLY AND PAINT AS NECESSARY RM

PARKING 23 COAT PARKING LOT WITH ASPHALT SEALER RM

24 REPLACE CRACKED SECTIONS OF CURBING DM



MARY ROSS WATERFRONT PARK OPINION OF PROBABLE COST FOR RECOMMENDED REPAIRS

2.6.2. PROBABLE COST OF REPAIRS – PEDESTRAIN USE ONLY

IMMEDIATE/LIFE SAFETY- probable cost to repair is as follows:

REPAIR SEPARATED EXPANSION JOINTS AT BULKHEAD WALLS $8,000.00

PATCH CRACKS IN BULKHEAD CAP ALONG PERIMETER $4,500.00

REPAIR SINK HOLE ALONG BULKHEAD ALONG LANDSIDE PERIMETER $8,500.00

ABRADE CONCRETE DECK AT EXPOSED REBAR AND COAT WITH CORROSION INHIBITOR $7,500.00

CHIP OUT AND SEAL COAT TEMPERATURE CRACKS IN DOCK SLAB $5,500.00

APPLY CONCRETE SEALANT TO PROTECT DECK $4,000.00

ABRADE AND CHIP OFF ALL SPALLS ON DAMAGED PILE CAPS $10,500.00

COAT ALL PILE CAP REBAR WITH CORROSION INHIBITOR $7,000.00

PATCH DAMAGED CAPS WITH HIGH STRENGTH GROUT $6,500.00

ABRADE AND CHIP OFF ALL SPALLS FROM DAMAGED PILING $10,500.00

COAT ALL REBAR AND STRANDS WITH CORROSION INHIBITOR $8,000.00

PATCH DAMAGED PILING WITH HIGH STRENGTH GROUT $9,000.00

Total Probable Cost of Repairs – $89,500.00

THIS OPTION IS THE MINIMAL AMOUNT TO BE CONSIDERED AND ADDRESSES ONLY IMMEDIATE

LIFE SAFETY ISSUES SO THAT THE DOCK FACILITY CAN SAFELY BE USED FOR PEDESTRIANS



MARY ROSS WATERFRONT PARK OPINION OF PROBABLE COST FOR RECOMMENDED REPAIRS

2.6.3. PROBABLE COST OF REPAIRS – HS 20 VEHICLE LOADING

IMMEDIATE/LIFE SAFETY- probable cost to repair is as follows:

REPAIR SEPARATED EXPANSION JOINTS AT BULKHEAD WALLS $8,000.00

PATCH CRACKS IN BULKHEAD CAP ALONG PERIMETER $4,500.00

REPAIR SINK HOLE ALONG BULKHEAD ALONG LANDSIDE PERIMETER $8,500.00

ABRADE CONCRETE DECK AT EXPOSED REBAR AND COAT WITH CORROSION INHIBITOR $7,500.00

CHIP OUT AND SEAL COAT TEMPERATURE CRACKS IN DOCK SLAB $5,500.00

POUR NEW CONCRETE TOPPING TO SEAL & PROTECT DECK FROM FURTHER CORROSION $33,000.00

ABRADE AND CHIP OFF ALL SPALLS ON DAMAGED PILE CAPS AND ADJOINING BULKHEAD CAP CONNECTION INCLUDING MAJOR DEMOLITION OF CONCRETE

$62,500.00

COAT ALL PILE CAP REBAR WITH CORROSION INHIBITOR $27,000.00

FULLY REPAIR DAMAGED CAPS AND BULKHEAD CONNECTION CAP WITH HIGH STRENGTH CONCRETE AND EPOXY GROUT

$80,500.00

ABRADE AND CHIP OFF ALL SPALLS FROM DAMAGED PILING $10,500.00

COAT ALL REBAR AND STRANDS WITH CORROSION INHIBITOR $8,000.00

REPAIR ALL DAMAGED PILING WITH HIGH STRENGTH GROUT AND COAT REMAINING CONCRETE PILING WITH PROTECTIVE WRAP

$49,000.00

Total Probable Cost of Repairs – $304,500.00

THIS OPTION IS THE FULL AMOUNT TO BE CONSIDERED AND ADDRESSES ALL IMMEDIATE LIFE

SAFETY ISSUES SO THAT THE DOCK FACILITY IS RETURNED TO ITS ORIGINAL DESIGN FUNCTION

AND CAN SAFELY BE USED FOR ALL HS 20 VEHICULAR TRAFFIC



APPENDIX A

DOCK ASSESSMENT DRAWINGS

ENGI

NEE

RIN

G GR

OU

P30

6 CO

MM

ERCI

AL D

RIVE

, SU

ITE

BSA

VAN

NAH

, GEO

RGIA

314

06PH

ON

E: (9

12) 2

01-1

807

FAX:

(912

) 201

-170

3

H+K

PRO

JECT

NO

. - B

1500

.001

MAR

CH 7

, 201

4

STRU

CTU

RAL

INVE

NTO

RY A

ND

ASSE

SSM

ENT

MAR

Y RO

SS W

ATER

FRO

NT

PARK

CITY

OF

BRU

NSW

ICK

GLYN

N C

OU

NTY

, GEO

RGIA

DOCK

SCH

EMAT

IC

A1

Feet

0 50 100

PHOTOGRAPH REFERENCE TABLEPHOTOGRAPH

NUMBERPHOTOGRAPH

LOCATION16 4B

17 10A

18 9C

19 29D

20 3C

21 30D

22 30D

23 11D

24 15A

25 31A

26 24C

27 11D

ENGI

NEE

RIN

G GR

OU

P30

6 CO

MM

ERCI

AL D

RIVE

, SU

ITE

BSA

VAN

NAH

, GEO

RGIA

314

06PH

ON

E: (9

12) 2

01-1

807

FAX:

(912

) 201

-170

3

H+K

PRO

JECT

NO

. - B

1500

.001

MAR

CH 7

, 201

4

STRU

CTU

RAL

INVE

NTO

RY A

ND

ASSE

SSM

ENT

MAR

Y RO

SS W

ATER

FRO

NT

PARK

CITY

OF

BRU

NSW

ICK

GLYN

N C

OU

NTY

, GEO

RGIA

DOCK

SCH

EMAT

IC

A2

Documents

Mary Ross Park Structural Assessment Report