manual of bridge inspection 2014 v8 without appendix

Ohio Department of Transportation

Manual of Bridge Inspection

ORC 5501.47Published 1973

Revised 2014 (v.8)

ii

2014 Revision The 2014 Manual of Bridge Inspection Revision was written to accommodate significant, fundamental

changes in National Regulations, National Quality Assurance Procedures and State policies. The most

notable changes in the inspection program since the 2010 include:

Federal Element Level requirement in MAP‐21, 2012 converting Ohio’s 1‐4 Individual

components into National Bridge Elements (NBE), Bridge Management Elements (BME) and

Agency Developed Elements (ADE)

Federal Highway Agency’s 23 Metric Quality Assurance protocol, 2011 with revisions in 2012

and 2013

Introduction of Ohio’s new Structure Management System (SMS), 2014

Revisions to the following manuals:

o AASHTO Manual for Bridge Evaluation and its reference in the National Bridge

Inspection Standards, 2010, 2013

o AASHTO Element Level Manual, 2011, 2013

o FHWA Bridge Inspectors Reference Manual, 2012

o Ohio Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (OMUTCD), 2012

The notable changes include the reorganization of the administrative chapters and a consolidation of

the prescriptive condition rating and condition state charts. Also, Element Level inspection

requirements on the NBIS National Highway System introduced not a new way to inspect bridges but a

more rigorous way to collect inspection and inventory data. In order to keep two systems of inspection

consistent with one‐another and in order to incorporate the element level quantities users of this

revision will notice new, revised and redefined inspection items. Changes to the BR‐86, now called

simply the Field Report, can be found in Chapter 7 and in the Appendix.

The Working Group for the 2014 Manual of Bridge Inspection Revision consisted of FHWA, ODOT, CEAO

and consultant stakeholders.

iii

Table of Contents

Table of Contents ................................................................................................................................ iii

List of Tables ....................................................................................................................................... vi

List of Figures ...................................................................................................................................... ix

Chapter 1: Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 1

Purpose ............................................................................................................................................ 1

Scope ................................................................................................................................................ 1

Responsibility and Regulation .......................................................................................................... 2

Quality Measures ........................................................................................................................... 16

Definitions & Terminology ............................................................................................................. 32

References ..................................................................................................................................... 36

Chapter 2: Restrictions ....................................................................................................................... 37

Emergency Conditions ................................................................................................................... 37

Load Rating .................................................................................................................................... 40

Clearance ....................................................................................................................................... 47

Chapter 3: Files .................................................................................................................................. 51

Ohio Structure Management System (SMS) .................................................................................. 51

Purpose of Inspection Records and Files ....................................................................................... 52

Record Retention Period ................................................................................................................ 53

Inspection Organization Unit File ................................................................................................... 53

Individual Structure Inspection File Contents ................................................................................ 54

Chapter 4: Inspection Types ............................................................................................................... 61

Frequency ...................................................................................................................................... 61

Initial Inspections ........................................................................................................................... 63

Routine Inspections ....................................................................................................................... 64

In‐Depth Inspections ...................................................................................................................... 66

Damage Inspections ....................................................................................................................... 68

Fracture Critical Inspections .......................................................................................................... 70

Underwater Inspections ................................................................................................................ 76

iv

Special/Interim/Miscellaneous Inspections ................................................................................... 83

Safety (Cursory) Inspection ............................................................................................................ 84

Quality Assurance (QA) Review Inspection .................................................................................... 85

Complex Bridge Inspections ........................................................................................................... 86

Chapter 5: Qualifications .................................................................................................................... 89

ODOT Bridge Inspection Training ................................................................................................... 89

Qualifications: NBIS Program Manager ......................................................................................... 91

Qualifications: Reviewer ................................................................................................................ 92

Qualifications: Team Leader .......................................................................................................... 92

Qualifications: Team Member ....................................................................................................... 94

Qualifications: Underwater Diver .................................................................................................. 94

Qualifications: ODOT Consultant Prequalification ......................................................................... 95

Chapter 6: Safety & Equipment .......................................................................................................... 97

Safety ............................................................................................................................................. 97

Personal Protective Equipment and High Visibility Apparel ........................................................ 101

Inspection Tools and Equipment ................................................................................................. 104

Chapter 7: Field Evaluation .............................................................................................................. 107

Nomenclature .............................................................................................................................. 109

Inspection Walking Limits ............................................................................................................ 112

Field Report .................................................................................................................................. 113

Coding the Field Report ............................................................................................................... 115

Coding the Summary Items .......................................................................................................... 116

Coding the Safety Features .......................................................................................................... 119

Chapter 8: Assigning Condition Ratings to the 1‐4 Items ................................................................... 125

Condition Rating Materials .......................................................................................................... 125

Coding Condition ratings with dedicated Charts ......................................................................... 136

Chapter 9: Assigning Element Level Condition States to the 1‐4 Items .............................................. 157

Total Quantity .............................................................................................................................. 159

Element Level Materials .............................................................................................................. 183

Element Level Condition State Items with Dedicated Guidance ................................................. 199

Chapter 10: Component Commentary ............................................................................................. 211

v

Approach ...................................................................................................................................... 211

Deck ............................................................................................................................................. 218

Superstructure ............................................................................................................................. 226

Substructure ................................................................................................................................ 252

Culvert Items ................................................................................................................................ 264

Channel Items .............................................................................................................................. 283

Sign and Utility Items ................................................................................................................... 288

Supplemental Items ..................................................................................................................... 293

Appendix

A. ODOT Manual of Bridge Inspection Revision History

B. Select Bridge Inspection Ohio Revised Codes

C. Quality Assurance and Quality Control Forms

D. Fatigue Prone Details

E. Fracture Critical Plan

F. Underwater Inspection Procedure Checklist

G. Over‐Height Steel Beam Bridge Strike Form (SAC4SR7 Funds)

H. Scour Critical Susceptibility Plan of Action (POA) Template

I. Scour Critical Assessment Checklist

J. Cross Channel Profile Measurements

K. Confined Space Flow Chart & Confined Space Alternate Entry Form(s)

L. Non Destructive Testing Standards

M. Coding Safety Features (36. A,B,C & D)

N. Movable Bearing Form

O. Pin and Hanger Form

P. Measurements of Corrugated Metal Culverts

Q. Snooper Operations Manual

R. Field Inspection Forms

vi

List of Tables Table 1 – 2013 Control Authorities in Ohio .................................................................................................. 3 Table 2 ‐ Bridge Inspection Program Responsibility Matrix .......................................................................... 6 Table 3 ‐ Ohio Regulation, AG Opinion and Federal Regulation ................................................................. 15 Table 4 ‐ Metric #1: Bridge inspection organization ................................................................................... 18 Table 5 ‐ Metric #2: Qualifications of personnel – Program Manager ....................................................... 18 Table 6 ‐ Metric #3: Qualifications of personnel – Team Leader(s) ............................................................ 19 Table 7 ‐ Metric #4: Qualifications of personnel – Load Rating Engineer ................................................... 19 Table 8 ‐ Metric #5: Qualifications of personnel – UW Bridge Inspection Diver ........................................ 20 Table 9 ‐ Metric #6: Inspection frequency – Routine – Lower risk bridges ................................................ 20 Table 10 ‐ Metric #7: Inspection frequency – Routine – Higher risk bridges.............................................. 21 Table 11 ‐ Metric #8: Inspection frequency – Underwater – Lower risk bridges ....................................... 21 Table 12 ‐ Metric #9: Inspection frequency – Underwater – Higher risk bridges ....................................... 22 Table 13 ‐ Metric #10: Inspection frequency – Fracture Critical Member ................................................. 22 Table 14 ‐ Metric #11: Inspection frequency – Frequency criteria ............................................................. 23 Table 15 ‐ Metric #12: Inspection procedures – Quality Inspections ......................................................... 23 Table 16 ‐ Metric #13: Inspection procedures – Load Rating ..................................................................... 24 Table 17 ‐ Metric #14: Inspection procedures – Post or Restrict ............................................................... 24 Table 18 ‐ Metric #15: Inspection procedures – Bridge Files ...................................................................... 24 Table 19 ‐ Metric #16: Inspection procedures – Fracture Critical Members .............................................. 25 Table 20 ‐ Metric #17: Inspection procedures – Underwater..................................................................... 25 Table 21 ‐ Metric #18: Inspection procedures – Scour Critical Bridges ...................................................... 26 Table 22 ‐ Metric #19: Inspection procedures – Complex Bridges ............................................................. 26 Table 23 ‐ Metric #20: Inspection procedures – QC/QA ............................................................................. 27 Table 24 ‐ Metric #21: Inspection procedures – Critical Findings ............................................................... 27 Table 25 ‐ Metric #22: Inventory – Prepare and Maintain ......................................................................... 28 Table 26 ‐ Metric #23: Inventory – Timely Updating of Data ..................................................................... 28 Table 27 – Basic QA SI&A items .................................................................................................................. 30 Table 28 ‐ Clear Span Measurements (ft) with Skew Angles and Span ...................................................... 34 Table 29‐ Ohio Legal Loads ......................................................................................................................... 40 Table 30 ‐ Rating Factors and Posting or Closing (Ref. BDM 900) .............................................................. 43 Table 31 ‐ Inspection Type and Frequency ................................................................................................. 62 Table 32 ‐ Railroad Bridge Over Highway ROW .......................................................................................... 85 Table 33 ‐ Inspection Equipment Checklist ............................................................................................... 106 Table 34 ‐ Condition .................................................................................................................................. 117 Table 35 ‐ Condition Rating Material: Concrete ....................................................................................... 127 Table 36 ‐ Condition Rating Material: Wearing Surface ........................................................................... 128 Table 37 ‐ Condition Rating Material: Steel .............................................................................................. 129 Table 38 ‐ Condition Rating Material: Prestressed Concrete .................................................................... 131 Table 39 ‐ Condition Rating Material: Timber........................................................................................... 133 Table 40 ‐ Condition Rating Material: Masonry ........................................................................................ 134 Table 41 ‐ Condition Rating Material: MSE ............................................................................................... 135 Table 42 ‐ Condition Rating: Approach Embankment .............................................................................. 136 Table 43 ‐ Condition Rating: Deck Drainage ............................................................................................. 136 Table 44 ‐ Condition Rating: Deck Expansion Joints ................................................................................. 137 Table 45 ‐ Condition Rating: Superstructure Alignment ........................................................................... 138 Table 46 ‐ Condition Rating: Superstructure Gusset Plates ...................................................................... 139

vii

Table 47 ‐ Condition Rating: Superstructure Bearing Devices .................................................................. 140 Table 48 ‐ Condition Rating: Superstructure Protective Coating System ................................................. 141 Table 49 ‐ Condition Rating: Superstructure Pins/Hangers/Hinges .......................................................... 142 Table 50 ‐ Condition Rating: Superstructure Fatigue ................................................................................ 143 Table 51 ‐ Condition Rating: Substructure Shallow Foundations Scour ................................................... 144 Table 52 ‐ Condition Rating: Substructure Deep Foundations Scour ....................................................... 145 Table 53 ‐ Condition Rating: Substructure Slope Protection .................................................................... 146 Table 54 ‐ Condition Rating: Culvert Alignment ....................................................................................... 147 Table 55 ‐ Condition Rating: Culvert Shape .............................................................................................. 148 Table 56 ‐ Condition Rating: Culvert Metal Seams ................................................................................... 149 Table 57 ‐ Condition Rating: Culvert Concrete Seams .............................................................................. 150 Table 58 ‐ Condition Rating: Culvert Scour ............................................................................................... 151 Table 59 ‐ Condition Rating: Channel Alignment ...................................................................................... 152 Table 60 ‐ Condition Rating: Channel Protection ...................................................................................... 153 Table 61 ‐ Condition Rating: Channel Hydraulic Opening ......................................................................... 154 Table 62 ‐ Condition Rating: Navigation Lights ......................................................................................... 155 Table 63 ‐ Condition Rating: Signs, Sign Supports and Utilities ................................................................ 155 Table 64 ‐ Element Level Generic Rating .................................................................................................. 158 Table 65 ‐ Approach Item Quantities ........................................................................................................ 160 Table 66 ‐ Deck Items Quantities .............................................................................................................. 162 Table 67 ‐ Superstructure Item Quantities ............................................................................................... 165 Table 68 ‐ Substructure Item Quantities ................................................................................................... 171 Table 69 ‐ Culvert Item Quantities ............................................................................................................ 176 Table 70 ‐ Channel Item Quantities .......................................................................................................... 178 Table 71 ‐ Sign/Utilities Quantities ........................................................................................................... 180 Table 72 ‐ Element Level Material: Reinforced Concrete ......................................................................... 186 Table 73 ‐ Element Level Material: Asphalt .............................................................................................. 188 Table 74 ‐ Element Level Material: Prestressed Concrete ........................................................................ 190 Table 75 ‐ Element Level Material: Steel .................................................................................................. 192 Table 76 ‐ Element Level Material: Timber ............................................................................................... 194 Table 77 ‐ Element Level Material: Masonry ............................................................................................ 196 Table 78 ‐ Element Level Material: MSE ................................................................................................... 198 Table 79 –Element Level Approach Embankment .................................................................................... 199 Table 80 – Element Level Deck Drainage .................................................................................................. 199 Table 81 – Element Level Deck Expansion Joint ....................................................................................... 200 Table 82 ‐ Superstructure Gusset Plates Element Level ........................................................................... 201 Table 83 – Element Level Superstructure Bearing Devices ...................................................................... 202 Table 84 – Element Level Superstructure Protective Coating System ...................................................... 203 Table 85 – Element Level Superstructure Pins/Hangers/Hinges .............................................................. 204 Table 86 – Element Level Superstructure Fatigue .................................................................................... 205 Table 87 – Element Level Substructure Scour .......................................................................................... 206 Table 88 – Element Level Substructure Slope Protection ......................................................................... 206 Table 89 ‐ Element Level Culvert Alignment ............................................................................................. 207 Table 90 ‐ Element Level Culvert Shape .................................................................................................... 207 Table 91 ‐ Element Level Culvert Seams ................................................................................................... 207 Table 92 ‐ Element Level Culvert Scour .................................................................................................... 208 Table 93 ‐ Element Level Channel Alignment ........................................................................................... 209 Table 94 ‐ Element Level Channel Protection ........................................................................................... 209

viii

Table 95‐ Element Level Channel Hydraulic Opening ............................................................................... 210 Table 96‐ Element Level Navigation Lights, Signs, Sign Supports, Utilities ............................................... 210 Table 97 ‐ Approach Items ........................................................................................................................ 211 Table 98 ‐ Deck Items ................................................................................................................................ 218 Table 99 ‐ Visual Coloring for Weathering Steel ....................................................................................... 246 Table 100 ‐ Substructure Items ................................................................................................................. 253 Table 101 ‐ CMP Shape Change ................................................................................................................ 272 Table 102 ‐ Moisture Infiltration Concrete Seam ..................................................................................... 277 Table 103 ‐ Seam Cracking in CMP ............................................................................................................ 277 Table 104 ‐ Inspection and Prevention of Undercutting is Essential for CMPs ........................................ 278 Table 105 ‐ Channel Items ........................................................................................................................ 284 Table 106‐ Channel Summary ................................................................................................................... 288

ix

List of Figures Figure 1 ‐ Bridge Inspection Program Organization ...................................................................................... 4 Figure 2 – Ohio Bridge Definition and Clear Span ......................................................................................... 5 Figure 3 ‐ Ohio DOT District Boundaries ....................................................................................................... 9 Figure 4 ‐ Ohio Turnpike ............................................................................................................................. 10 Figure 5 – 88 Ohio Counties ........................................................................................................................ 11 Figure 6 ‐ Ohio Municipalities ..................................................................................................................... 12 Figure 7 ‐ QA Bridge Inspection Organization for Public Entities with Bridges carrying Public Vehicular Traffic .......................................................................................................................................................... 16 Figure 8 ‐ Bridge‐Culvert Clear Span ........................................................................................................... 32 Figure 9 ‐ Small Structures on a Skew as Bridges........................................................................................ 33 Figure 10 ‐ Critical Finding Flowchart ......................................................................................................... 37 Figure 11 ‐ SMS Critical Finding Inspection Forms ...................................................................................... 38 Figure 12 ‐ Critical Finding of Undermined Pier .......................................................................................... 38 Figure 13 ‐ Silhouetted Weight Limit Sign .................................................................................................. 41 Figure 14 ‐ Weight Limit Sign (not permitted on State routes) .................................................................. 42 Figure 15 ‐ Bridge Must be Closed for loads less than 3T and fractions or decimals shall not be used. .... 43 Figure 16 – Sign Examples from the OMUTCD 2B‐29 ................................................................................. 45 Figure 17 – Example of % Reduced Sign. % Signs were Removed from the OMUTCD January 1, 1997 .... 46 Figure 18 ‐ One Lane Bridge Sign ................................................................................................................ 47 Figure 19 ‐ Narrow Bridge Sign ................................................................................................................... 48 Figure 20 ‐ Chevron Signs ............................................................................................................................ 48 Figure 21 ‐ 1‐ft "No‐Fly" Zone. Note 14'‐6" moves up to 16' for certain routes. ....................................... 49 Figure 22 ‐ Vertical Clearance Sign ............................................................................................................. 49 Figure 23 – Excessive Restriction Signing can be distracting ...................................................................... 49 Figure 24 – SMS In‐Progress Inspection Report > Review Form ................................................................. 50 Figure 25 ‐ SMS Inventory > Clearances Form ............................................................................................ 50 Figure 26 ‐ SMS Main Dashboard ................................................................................................................ 51 Figure 27 ‐ SMS Log‐in................................................................................................................................. 52 Figure 28 – Best Practice: Individual File Structure Example 1 ................................................................... 54 Figure 29 – Best Practice: Individual File Structure Example 2 ................................................................... 55 Figure 30 ‐ Submit and Approve Final Reports ........................................................................................... 56 Figure 31 ‐ Inspection Procedures in SMS within the Inspection/Review tab ............................................ 57 Figure 33 ‐ In‐depth Inspection of Suspension Cable ................................................................................. 67 Figure 34 ‐ Damage inspection ................................................................................................................... 68 Figure 35 ‐ Flood Inspection Signage .......................................................................................................... 69 Figure 36 ‐ Deck Truss with Fracture Critical Members .............................................................................. 71 Figure 37 ‐ Fracture Critical Girder and Floorbeam .................................................................................... 72 Figure 38 ‐ Fracture Critical Steel Pier Cap with Confined Space Entry ...................................................... 73 Figure 39 ‐ Plug Weld .................................................................................................................................. 74 Figure 40 ‐ SMS Screen‐Shot of an In‐Progress Inspection > Review Tab .................................................. 76 Figure 41 ‐ Cross Channel Profile ................................................................................................................ 81 Figure 42 ‐ Overhead Conveyer Structure .................................................................................................. 84 Figure 43 ‐ Overhead Pedestrian Non‐Highway Structure ......................................................................... 84 Figure 44 ‐ Complex Inspection 1 ................................................................................................................ 86 Figure 45 ‐ Complex Bridge Inspection 2 .................................................................................................... 87 Figure 46 ‐ Inspector Rappelling the Cable Stay ......................................................................................... 88

x

Figure 47 ‐ LTAP .......................................................................................................................................... 89 Figure 48 ‐ Program Manager ..................................................................................................................... 91 Figure 49 ‐ Team Leader Qualifications ...................................................................................................... 93 Figure 50 ‐ Vegetation May Threaten Safety .............................................................................................. 98 Figure 51 ‐ Temporary Traffic Control, from MUTCD ................................................................................. 99 Figure 52 ‐ Temporary Traffic Control, Flagger, from MUTCD .................................................................. 100 Figure 53 ‐ Hard hat Expiration ................................................................................................................. 101 Figure 54 ‐ Class 2 Safety Vest .................................................................................................................. 101 Figure 55 ‐ Safety Gloves ........................................................................................................................... 102 Figure 56 ‐ Biology of Histoplasmosis, Courtesy Center for Disease Control ........................................... 102 Figure 57 ‐ Breathing Masks ..................................................................................................................... 103 Figure 58 ‐ Confined Space ....................................................................................................................... 103 Figure 59 ‐ Hammer .................................................................................................................................. 104 Figure 60 ‐ Inspection Equipment and Vehicle ......................................................................................... 105 Figure 61 ‐ Bifocals required ..................................................................................................................... 107 Figure 62 – Redundant Superstructure: 4 load paths ............................................................................... 108 Figure 63 – Non‐redundant Superstructure: 2 load paths ........................................................................ 108 Figure 64‐ Beam Nomenclature ................................................................................................................ 109 Figure 65 ‐ Cardinal and Non‐Cardinal Nomenclature .............................................................................. 110 Figure 66 ‐ Span Numbering Over Mainline ............................................................................................. 111 Figure 67 ‐ Bridge Inspection Field Report ................................................................................................ 114 Figure 68 ‐ Field Report ............................................................................................................................. 115 Figure 69 ‐ Safety Feature Approach Rail and Transition ......................................................................... 120 Figure 70 ‐ Safety Features Approach Rail and Termination .................................................................... 120 Figure 71 ‐ Bridge Inspection Field Report Using Condition Ratings ........................................................ 125 Figure 72 ‐ Composite and Noncomposite PSBB ...................................................................................... 132 Figure 73 – SF quantity ............................................................................................................................. 158 Figure 74 ‐ Bridge Inspection Field Report with Highlighted Quantities .................................................. 159 Figure 75 ‐ Bridge Inspection Field Report Quantities .............................................................................. 159 Figure 76 ‐ Approach Wearing Surface and Slab Quantities ..................................................................... 160 Figure 77 ‐ Approach embankment 1 of 2 ................................................................................................ 161 Figure 78 ‐ Quantity Example: Embankment 1 of 2 .................................................................................. 161 Figure 79 ‐ Culvert Embankment .............................................................................................................. 161 Figure 80 ‐ Quantity Example: Railing, Expansion Joint, Wearing Surface ............................................... 162 Figure 81 ‐ Quantity: Edge of Floor/Slab ................................................................................................... 163 Figure 82 ‐ Quantity Example: Drainage ................................................................................................... 163 Figure 83 ‐ Quantity Example: Prestressed Box Beams ............................................................................ 165 Figure 84 ‐ Quantity Example: Truss Members ......................................................................................... 166 Figure 85 ‐ Quantity Example: Truss Gusset Plates .................................................................................. 166 Figure 86 ‐ Quantity Example: Crossframes, Steel Beams, PCS, Fatigue .................................................. 167 Figure 87 ‐ Quantity Example: Pins/Hangers/Hinges ................................................................................ 167 Figure 88 ‐ Quantity Example: Arch and Spandrel Wall ............................................................................ 168 Figure 89 ‐ Quantity Example: Floorbeams and Stringers ........................................................................ 168 Figure 90 ‐ Quantity Example: Stringers ................................................................................................... 169 Figure 91 ‐ Protective Coating System for Truss Bridges .......................................................................... 170 Figure 92 ‐ Quantity Example: Pier Caps, Pier Columns and Pier Walls ................................................... 171 Figure 93 ‐ Quantity Example: Pier Walls, Abutment Walls ..................................................................... 172 Figure 94 ‐ Quantity Example: Pier Wall and Pier Cap .............................................................................. 172

xi

Figure 95 ‐ Quantity Example: Pier Bents, Scour ...................................................................................... 173 Figure 96 ‐ Quantity Example: Pier Columns ............................................................................................ 173 Figure 97 ‐ Quantity Example: Pier Columns and Pier Caps ..................................................................... 174 Figure 98 ‐ Quantity Example Abutment Wall .......................................................................................... 174 Figure 99 ‐ Quantity Example: Slope Protection ....................................................................................... 175 Figure 100 ‐ Quantity Example: Scour ...................................................................................................... 176 Figure 101 ‐ Quantity Example: Culvert General, Alignment and Shape .................................................. 177 Figure 102 ‐ Quantity Example: Hydraulic Opening .................................................................................. 178 Figure 103 ‐ Quantity Example: Channel Alignment and Protection ........................................................ 179 Figure 104 ‐ Quantity Example: Channel Alignment and Protection ........................................................ 179 Figure 105 ‐ Quantity Example: Utilities ................................................................................................... 180 Figure 106 ‐ 1/8" Wide Crack in Concrete with 1/16" Offset ................................................................... 181 Figure 107 ‐ Bridge Inspection Field Report Using Element Level ............................................................ 182 Figure 108 ‐ Concrete Structural Cracking ................................................................................................ 183 Figure 109 ‐ Approach ............................................................................................................................... 187 Figure 110 – Wearing Surface CS4 ............................................................................................................ 187 Figure 111 ‐ Asphalt in CS4 ....................................................................................................................... 188 Figure 112 ‐ PSBB Top Side Cracking Between Keys ................................................................................. 189 Figure 113 ‐ PSBB underside, loss of strand capacity (same bridge) ........................................................ 189 Figure 114 ‐ corrosion holes ..................................................................................................................... 191 Figure 115 ‐ Steel CS4 ............................................................................................................................... 191 Figure 116 ‐ CS 4 Axial Member Buckled .................................................................................................. 192 Figure 117 – Timber: Loss of Cap Capacity, CS4 ....................................................................................... 193 Figure 118 – Timber: Splitting of Piles reduced capacity, CS4 .................................................................. 193 Figure 119 – Masonry Deficiencies that have reduced capacity in CS4 .................................................... 195 Figure 120 ‐ MSE CS4 ................................................................................................................................ 197 Figure 121 ‐ Concrete Approach Pavement with Asphalt Patching .......................................................... 213 Figure 122 ‐ Approach Slab ....................................................................................................................... 213 Figure 123 ‐ Roadway Pressure and Relief Joint ....................................................................................... 214 Figure 124 – Failed Approach Embankment ............................................................................................. 215 Figure 125 ‐ Embankment Limits .............................................................................................................. 215 Figure 126 ‐ Embankment CS4 .................................................................................................................. 216 Figure 127 ‐ Embankment ......................................................................................................................... 216 Figure 128 ‐ Approach Safety Features ..................................................................................................... 217 Figure 129 ‐ Deck Edge Spalling ................................................................................................................ 218 Figure 130 ‐ Edge of Floor Deterioration 1 of 2 ........................................................................................ 219 Figure 131 ‐ Safety Features Concrete Bridge Rail .................................................................................... 222 Figure 132 ‐ Drainage Partially Clogged .................................................................................................... 223 Figure 133 ‐ Ponding in shoulder .............................................................................................................. 223 Figure 134 – Expansion Joint ..................................................................................................................... 224 Figure 135 ‐ Expansion Joint Anchorage ................................................................................................... 225 Figure 136 ‐ Alignment .............................................................................................................................. 226 Figure 138 ‐ PSBB Top Side Cracking Between Keys ................................................................................. 228 Figure 137 ‐ Composite and Noncomposite PSBB .................................................................................... 228 Figure 139 ‐ PSBB underside, loss of strand capacity (same bridge ......................................................... 229 Figure 140 ‐ Deck Edge .............................................................................................................................. 230 Figure 141 ‐ Steel corrosion holes............................................................................................................. 230 Figure 142 ‐ Beam Nomenclature ............................................................................................................. 231

xii

Figure 143 ‐ Semi‐Integral Abutment ....................................................................................................... 232 Figure 144 ‐ Integral Abutment ................................................................................................................. 232 Figure 145 ‐ Floorsystem ........................................................................................................................... 233 Figure 146 ‐ Truss Nomenclature .............................................................................................................. 234 Figure 147 – Station Road Whipple Truss in Cuyahoga Valley National Park ........................................... 235 Figure 148 ‐ Gusset Plate .......................................................................................................................... 236 Figure 149 ‐ Gusset Plate Primary Stresses ............................................................................................... 237 Figure 150 ‐ Evidence of Slip Since Last Inspection .................................................................................. 238 Figure 151 ‐ Gusset Plates in Bridges Closed due to the Gusset Plates .................................................... 238 Figure 152 ‐ Through‐truss bracing ........................................................................................................... 239 Figure 153 ‐ Movable Bearing Loads ......................................................................................................... 240 Figure 154 ‐ Sliding Plate (left) and Pinned Rocker (right) Bearings ......................................................... 241 Figure 155 ‐ Misaligned Bearing Device .................................................................................................... 241 Figure 156 ‐ Underside of Masonry Plate ................................................................................................. 241 Figure 157 – Open Spandrel Deck Arch with Arch Columns ..................................................................... 242 Figure 158 ‐ Through Arch with Hangers .................................................................................................. 242 Figure 159 ‐ Filled Arch Nomenclature ..................................................................................................... 243 Figure 160 – Culvert with more than 24” of fill and a railing support offset ............................................ 243 Figure 161 ‐ Masonry CS4 ......................................................................................................................... 244 Figure 162 ‐ Pin and Hanger Offset ........................................................................................................... 247 Figure 163 ‐ Distortion Induced Fatigue ................................................................................................... 248 Figure 164 – Inspecting Web gaps for Distortion Induced Fatigue ........................................................... 249 Figure 165 ‐ Lateral Bracing Connection Distance from Web ................................................................... 250 Figure 166 – Lateral Bracing Height from Flange ...................................................................................... 250 Figure 167 ‐ Fatigue Prone Detail (Welded Cover Plate) .......................................................................... 251 Figure 168 ‐ Fatigue Crack Propagation (Welded Cover Plate) ................................................................. 251 Figure 169 ‐ Fatigue Prone Detail (Welded Splice) ................................................................................... 251 Figure 170 ‐ Full Height Abutment ............................................................................................................ 253 Figure 171 ‐ Stub Abutment ...................................................................................................................... 253 Figure 172 ‐ Semi‐Integral Abutment ....................................................................................................... 254 Figure 173 ‐ Abutment Support Failure .................................................................................................... 256 Figure 174 ‐ Masonry Abutment Walls with Advanced Deficiencies ........................................................ 256 Figure 175 ‐ Steel Capped Bent Abutment with Timber Lagging .............................................................. 257 Figure 176 ‐ Pier Wall ................................................................................................................................ 257 Figure 177 ‐ Capped Bile Bent .................................................................................................................. 258 Figure 178 ‐ Concrete Capped Column and Hammerhead Cantilever Pier .............................................. 258 Figure 179 ‐ Pier Bents without Reinforcing Cage .................................................................................... 258 Figure 180 ‐ Backwall ................................................................................................................................ 259 Figure 181 ‐ Deteriorated Wingwalls ........................................................................................................ 260 Figure 182 ‐ Undermining ......................................................................................................................... 261 Figure 183 ‐ Exposed Foundations ............................................................................................................ 262 Figure 184 ‐ MSE Backfill Escaping Confinement ...................................................................................... 262 Figure 185 – MSE Walls Coded as Slope Protection vs. Abutment Walls ................................................. 263 Figure 186 ‐ MSE Wall with the Bridge Abutments on Deep Foundations ............................................... 263 Figure 187 ‐ Concrete Rigid Frame (171) .................................................................................................. 265 Figure 188 ‐ Concrete Culvert and Not a Concrete Arch .......................................................................... 265 Figure 189 – Failed Concrete Invert .......................................................................................................... 267 Figure 190 – Failure of CMP ...................................................................................................................... 268

xiii

Figure 191 ‐ Culvert Alignment ................................................................................................................. 268 Figure 192 – Failed Invert ......................................................................................................................... 268 Figure 193 ‐ Culvert Alignment ................................................................................................................. 269 Figure 194 ‐ Flexible Culvert Installation .................................................................................................. 272 Figure 195 ‐ Culvert Seam Failure ............................................................................................................. 275 Figure 196 ‐ Concrete Seam Vertical Offset .............................................................................................. 276 Figure 197 ‐ Concrete Seam Vertical Offset .............................................................................................. 276 Figure 198 ‐ Concrete Seam Gap/Longitudinal‐Offset .............................................................................. 276 Figure 199 ‐ Knick point ............................................................................................................................ 281 Figure 200 ‐ Undermining ......................................................................................................................... 281 Figure 201 ‐ Bridge‐Culvert Abutment ...................................................................................................... 282 Figure 202 ‐ Channel Alignment ................................................................................................................ 284 Figure 203 ‐ Channel Alignment ................................................................................................................ 285 Figure 204 ‐ Undermined Channel Protection .......................................................................................... 285 Figure 205 ‐ Hydraulic Opening ................................................................................................................ 286 Figure 206 ‐ Hydraulic Opening ................................................................................................................ 287 Figure 207 ‐ Debris Pile Influencing Alignment and Scour ........................................................................ 288 Figure 208 – Example of Sign Support ...................................................................................................... 290 Figure 209 ‐ Utility on Bridge .................................................................................................................... 291 Figure 210 ‐ PT End Cap ............................................................................................................................ 294 Figure 211 ‐ PT Box Exterior Faces ............................................................................................................ 294 Figure 212 ‐ PT External Tendons and PT Segmental Box Interior Faces .................................................. 294 Figure 213 ‐ Main Cable Sheathing Removal In‐Depth Inspection ........................................................... 295 Figure 214 ‐ Suspension Bridge Tower ...................................................................................................... 296 Figure 215 ‐ Dampener ............................................................................................................................. 298 Figure 216 ‐ Veterans Glass City Skyway Cable Stay ................................................................................. 299

Manual of Bridge Inspection 2014

Page 1

Chapter1:IntroductionPurpose

This Manual of Bridge Inspection has been prepared in accordance with the provisions of Section

5501.47 of the Ohio Revised Code which became effective September 28, 1973, and it is in compliance

with the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 650.307 subpart C. These State and Federal requirements

provide for regular and systematic inspection of bridges on, under or over public highways and streets in

the interest of public safety and protection of the public investment in such structures.

The purpose of systematic periodic bridge inspections and supplemental inspections immediately

following any natural or accidental occurrence which might lessen the integrity of a bridge is to:

Provide an information base for immediate action to limit use of or close to traffic any bridge

which is revealed by inspection to be hazardous to public safety.

Determine the extent of any weakness or structural damage, critical or minor, resulting from

normal deterioration or any other cause.

Enable bridge maintenance, repair or replacement to be programmed more effectively through

early detection of structural deficiencies by which the public investment in the highway system

will be safeguarded and repair cost minimized.

Scope

The provisions of this Manual are intended for the inspection and management of Ohio bridges involving

highways ("Highway" means those highway systems in section 5535.01 of the Revised Code, highways,

streets, and roads within municipalities, and any other highway, street, and road on which the public

travels). This Manual provides guidance on the following aspects:

Responsibilities of various parties for bridge safety inspections

Administrative requirements to meet State and Federal regulations regarding recording and

reporting inspection information

Technical standards and specifications for bridge inspections

Provisions are not included for structures not on above or below a highway. For structures not fully

covered herein, the provisions of this Manual may be applied, as augmented with additional inspection

and rating criteria where required.


Page 2

This Manual is not intended to supplant proper training or the exercise of judgment by the Inspector or

Engineer, and communicates only the minimum requirements necessary to provide for public safety.

The Engineer may require the sophistication of inspection, load rating or the testing of materials to be

higher than the minimum requirements.

Responsibility and Regulation

Bridge Inspectors Responsibility: The bridge inspector’s job is very important. In their daily duties,

inspectors ensure the safety of the traveling public in a very tangible way. This opportunity comes with

responsibilities. The five general responsibilities are as follows:

1. Ensure public safety and confidence

2. Protect the public investment

3. Identify and assess structure needs

4. Provide accurate structure records

5. Fulfill legal responsibilities

Public Entity with Bridge Inspection Program Responsibility: Entities with bridges are responsible for the

proper inspection and inventory and all associated regulations and measures regarding the bridges in

their jurisdiction. The bridge inspection program is mandated by Federal Regulation and delegated by

the Ohio Revised Code and this manual to ensure the safety of the traveling public. Each entity shall

have one person who is delegated such responsibility by state law. The title for this person that this

manual will use is the Control Authority. There are no minimum NBIS qualifications; however, the

Control Authority is responsible by state law for the proper inspection, and inventory for the bridges

(self, staff or contract) in their jurisdiction. Each ODOT District, Turnpike Commission, County,

Municipality, Park District, Local Transit Authority, University (Table 1) etc. has a Control Authority and

they are held responsible for the inspection program within their respective jurisdictions.


Page 3

ODOT Bridge Inspection Program Responsibility: FHWA holds the Administrator of the ODOT Office of

Structural Engineering Central Office, as the central contact for the state, or the NBIS Statewide

Program Manager. FHWA will hold the State DOT ultimately responsible for ensuring the requirements

of the NBIS are followed and subject to potential withholding of Federal‐aid authorizations. The highest

degree of action can be taken to maintain the safety of the traveling public.

NBIS Statewide Program Manager is responsible for:

Developing and maintaining procedures and practices that provide for and promote the

professional inspection of bridges

Prepare, maintain and update a Manual of Bridge Inspection

Develop and furnish inspection forms

Initiate, collect, retain and report Structure Inventory and Appraisal (SI&A) data to FHWA

Make SI&A data available to internal and external officials and agencies.

Table 1 – 2013 Control Authorities in Ohio


Page 4

Figure 1 ‐ Bridge Inspection Program Organization

Federal Regulation established The National Bridge Inspection Standards (NBIS) after the 1968 Federal

Highway Act became effective. It was first published as a notice in the Federal Register, Volume 36, No.

81, Page 7851 on April 27, 1971. The NBIS has been amended several times by the Federal Highway

Administration to include new provisions for inspector training, load rating code, inclusion of manuals,

fracture critical inspections, scour evaluations, and underwater inspections.

The NBIS is intended to ensure the proper inspection of the nation's bridges (NBIS defines a bridge as a

structure with a clear span more than 20 feet in length on public roads). The National Bridge Inspection

Standards are included in the Code of Federal Regulations in subpart C of Part 650 of Code of Federal

Regulations, Title 23 – Highways.

FHWA responsibilities include:

1) Annual Report to Congress on the condition of the nation’s bridges

2) Establishment of criteria for NBI data (Recording and Coding Guide)


Page 5

3) Collection and compilation of NBI data for all states

4) Verification of NBIS compliance (23 Metrics)

5) Provision of federal monies for bridge inspection

6) Inspection of Federal Lands bridges

State Regulations within the Ohio Revised Code (ORC) further specify minimum requirements pertaining

to the bridge inspection program. Bridge inspections in Ohio require more conservative inspection

measures, by state law, when compared to the Federal regulation, in three notable ways:

The definition of a bridge in

Ohio is a structure with a

clear span greater than or

equal to ten‐feet instead of

greater than twenty‐feet

An annual inspection is

required in Ohio instead of

twenty‐four month per NBIS.

Inspections are supervised by

a Professional Engineer in

Ohio

Primary Inspection responsibility is

delegated to the primary entity

before the dash “/” and the cursory

or safety inspection (as defined in

Chapter 4 “Safety (Cursory)

Inspections”) is performed by the

secondary entity after the dash “/”. The matrix does not pertain directly to major or routine

maintenance and repair of bridges. For further clarification or entities not in table 2 a list of applicable

regulations may be found in Table 3 at the end of this section for reference.

Figure 2 – Ohio Bridge Definition and Clear Span


Page 6

INSPECTION PROGRAM

RESPONSIBILITY* (Primary/Secondary

when elected)

Traffic "ON" (Inside or Outside a Municipality)

Feature Intersected or Traffic "UNDER"

County Highway System

State Highway System

Railroad Local Street (City or Village) Inside a Municipality

County Highway System

County State DOT Railroad/County City or Village

23CFR650c & ORC5543.20

23CFR650c & ORC5501.47

49CFRpart237(FRA) & ORC4907.44

23CFR650c & ORC723.54

State Highway System

State DOT State DOT Railroad/State DOT State DOT

23CFR650c & ORC5501.47

23CFR650c & ORC5501.47

49CFRpart237(FRA) & ORC4907.44 & ORC5523.17

23CFR650c & ORC5501.47

Local Street (City or Village) inside Municipality Boundary

County State DOT Railroad/City or Village

City or Village

23CFR650c & ORC5543.20

23CFR650c & ORC5501.47


23CFR650c & ORC723.54

Turnpike System Turnpike Turnpike Railroad/Turnpike Turnpike

23CFR650c & ORC5537.17

23CFR650c & ORC5537.17


23CFR650c & ORC5537.17

Railroad County/Railroad State DOT/Railroad Railroad City or Village/ Railroad

23CFR650c & ORC5543.20

23CFR650c & ORC5501.47 & ORC5523.17


23CFR650c & ORC723.54

Waterway/Other County State DOT Railroad City or Village

23CFR650c & ORC5543.20

23CFR650c & ORC5501.47

49CFRpart237(FRA) 23CFR650c & ORC723.54

Table 2 ‐ Bridge Inspection Program Responsibility Matrix

*Per regulation when no agreement exists, all other traffic refer to later sections in this chapter

Shared or Unknown Responsibility – The ORC delegates responsibility for the inspection and

maintenance of public‐use bridges outside or inside municipal corporation limits on, over or under

highway systems. The lines of responsibility may appear blurred on overlapping routes when municipals

are incorporated, routes are vacated or even responsibilities are ignored. Responsibility is determined

by regulation, agreement or the appropriate legal authorities.

A valuable resource is the regularly updated Local Road Inventory available within the ODOT Technical

Services. The State, County or Township Highway System or Local Street determination will govern

responsibility


Page 7

(http://www.dot.state.oh.us/Divisions/Planning/TechServ/TIM/Pages/LocalRoadsInventory.aspx). All

matters are to be handled in light of public safety and must be resolved in a timely manner.

Inconclusive matters that are involving the State Highway System may be submitted to ODOT Office of

ODOT Office of Chief Legal Counsel / Telephone: 614‐466‐3664, Fax: 614‐387‐7431

Other perpetually unresolved matters may be submitted to the Ohio Attorney General. It is of the

utmost importance that entities with shared maintenance or inspection activities are proactive in

communicating bridge emergencies, physical conditions and maintenance needs to each other in

order to ensure public safety and to protect public investment.

Non‐Vehicular, Non‐Railroad Structures – Pedestrian structures, closed bridges etc. over public vehicular

roadways shall be inspected to ensure such structures do not pose an unacceptable safety risk.

Inspectors representing the roadway beneath the non‐vehicular structure should primarily be concerned

with those portions of the structure which would directly affect the right‐of‐way and public traffic

underneath. Any problems requiring immediate attention should be shared with the entities that

perform maintenance tasks. Those not over public vehicular traffic are encouraged to be inspected and

inventoried but are not required to be added to the bridge database.

Railroad Bridges – Open or closed RR bridges over public vehicular roadways shall be inspected to

ensure such structures do not pose an unacceptable safety risk. Federal Regulation, 49 CFR part 237

(FRA), requires track owners to inspect each bridge each calendar year. Entities responsible for the safe

passage of public traffic underneath the railroad structure should focus on portions of the structure

which would directly affect the right‐of‐way. Any problems requiring immediate attention should be

relayed to the Control Authority of the bridge from the Control Authority of the overlapping right‐of‐

way. Additionally ORC 4907.44 requires track owners to send PUCO the annual inspection report. If at

any time a bridge is found to be dangerous or unfit for transportation of passengers, freight, or railroad

crews, the railroad shall immediately report the condition of the bridge to the public utilities

commission. When the bridge passes over a public highway, such report shall also be given to the public

authority having jurisdiction over such highway. Varying levels of Quality Assurance is performed by the

Federal Rail Administration, Public Utilities Commission of Ohio, and the Railroad Company/Track Owner

in accordance with regulation and the American Railway Engineering and Maintenance‐of‐Way

Association (AREMA) Bridge Inspection Handbook.


Page 8

State Highway System – The inspection of Public vehicular bridges on the State Highway System shall be

the responsibility of the Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT). ODOT is a decentralized agency

divided among twelve districts with one Central Office. Quality Assurance is performed by FHWA (in

accordance with the 23 Metrics) and the ODOT Central Office.

Central Office, Office of Structural Engineering responsibilities include:

1) Develop and maintain procedures and practices that provide for and promote the

professional inspection of bridges (ex. prepare, maintain and update a Manual of Bridge

Inspection, develop and furnish inspection forms)

2) The NBIS Program Manager, the Administrator of the Office of Structural Engineering, has

general responsibility for initiating, developing and maintaining procedures that promote

the National Bridge Inspection Standards.

3) Compile bridge inventory and inspection data for all public roads in Ohio and make data

available to internal and external officials and agencies

4) Develop bridge information for statewide planning needs

5) Report NBI data to FHWA

6) Administer the contract, with ODOT IT, the State Structure Management System (SMS)

7) Execute Quality Assurance (QA) for the Bridge Inspection Program

8) Provide comprehensive and periodic refresher training

9) Operate and maintain ODOT’s bridge inspection Snooper fleet (see Appendix for the

Snooper Operations Procedure)

10) Support Districts in Load Rating in accordance with the ODOT Bridge Design Manual

11) Assist and cooperate with governmental units, upon request (such assistance may be in the

form of contracts with counties or municipal corporations for transportation department

inspection services)

a. with inspection,

b. disseminate information to appropriate governmental officials and agencies with regard

to responsibility and inspection practices, and

c. confer with public officials and other individuals on inspection of bridges;


Page 9

District responsibilities include:

1) Inspect or cause to inspect bridges in their jurisdiction.

2) Identify Bridge safety issues (i.e. bridge closure, posting, critical findings and overdue

inspections) in their jurisdiction.

3) Execute NBIS compliance in accordance with FHWA Metrics for all of the bridges in the

jurisdiction

4) Enter data into SMS (within 90 days after an inspection) and maintain proper bridge files

5) Review and approve bridge posting and clearance restrictions

6) Assist and cooperate with governmental units, upon request

Figure 3 ‐ Ohio DOT District Boundaries


Page 10

Turnpike ‐ Public vehicular bridges part of a Turnpike Project shall be inspected by the Ohio Turnpike

Commission. Quality Assurance is performed by FHWA 23 Metrics and ODOT Central Office.

Turnpike responsibilities include:

1) Inspect or cause to inspect, by in‐house staff or by contract, the professional inventory and

inspection of Turnpike bridges

2) Identification of Bridge needs and Critical Findings

3) Execute NBIS compliance in accordance with FHWA Metrics for all of the bridges for their

jurisdiction

4) Enter data into SMS (within 90 days after an inspection) and maintaining proper bridge files

5) Review, approve and maintain bridge posting and clearance restrictions

6) Maintain and keep in good repair each turnpike project that is open to traffic

County & Township Highway Systems ‐ The county engineer shall inspect all bridges or portions thereof

on the county highway system (The County Highway system includes routes “into” or “through” a

municipality not on the State Highway System) inside and outside of municipalities, bridges on township

roads, and other bridges or portions of bridges for which responsibility for inspection is by law or

agreement assigned to the county. If the responsibility for inspection of a bridge is not fixed by law or

agreement and the county performs the largest share of maintenance on a bridge, inspection shall be

made by the engineer. The Board of Township Trustees is not prohibited from inspecting bridges within

a township.

There are eighty‐eight counties in Ohio each having a County Engineer and unless delegated to a deputy

or capable staff member, the County Engineer will function as the Control Authority for the county

bridges inside their jurisdiction. Quality Assurance is performed by FHWA, ODOT Central Office and the

County Engineers Association of Ohio (CEAO).

Figure 4 ‐ Ohio Turnpike


Page 11

County responsibilities include:

1) Inspect or cause to inspect, by in‐house staff or by contract, the professional inventory and

inspection of County & Township Highway System bridges

2) Identification of Bridge needs and Critical Findings

3) Execute NBIS compliance in accordance with FHWA Metrics for all of the bridges for their

jurisdiction

4) Enter data into SMS (90 days for NBIS NHS bridges and 180 days for all others) and

maintaining proper bridge files. The annual submission should be made by March 15 for the

previous years’ inspections.

5) Review, approve and maintain bridge posting and clearance restrictions

Figure 5 – 88 Ohio Counties


Page 12

6) The engineer shall maintain an updated inventory of all bridges in the county, except those

on the state highway system and those within a municipality for which the engineer has no

duty to inspect, and indicate on the inventory record who is responsible for inspection and

for maintenance, and the authority for such responsibilities. On those bridges where there

exists joint maintenance responsibility, the County shall furnish a copy of reports to each

party responsible for a share of maintenance.

Local Streets – The legislative authority of a municipality shall designate a municipal official to have

responsibility for inspection of all or portions of bridges within such municipality, except for bridges on

the state highway system and the county highway system. Such municipal official shall be called the

Control Authority even when consent legislation or contract consults inspection program activities.

A local street is a route not on the State, County or Township Highway Systems. There are more than

two hundred and fifty local municipalities (Cities and Villages) of varying size and capabilities. The

municipality is not prohibited from inspecting any bridge within its limits. Quality Assurance is

performed by FHWA and ODOT Central Office.

Municipality responsibilities include:

1) Inspect or cause to inspect, by in‐house

staff or by contract, the professional

inventory and inspection of bridges on

local streets

2) Identification of Bridge needs and Critical

Findings

3) Execute NBIS compliance in accordance

with FHWA Metrics for all of the bridges

for their jurisdiction

4) Enter data into SMS (within 90 days for

NBIS NHS bridges and 180 days for all

others) and maintaining proper bridge files

5) Review, approve and maintain bridge posting and clearance restrictions for Municipal

Streets

Figure 6 ‐ Ohio Municipalities


Page 13

6) On those bridges where there exists joint maintenance responsibility, the City shall furnish a

copy of reports to each party responsible for a share of maintenance per ORC 723.54.

List of regulations ‐ The following regulations establish the framework and delegates inspection and

maintenance program responsibilities in the State of Ohio. Inspection personnel are expected to have a

good understand of the regulations pertinent to their highway system. Where discrepancies exist, the

more conservative regulation will govern and when one is updated or revised the most recent version

shall govern. Where separate agreements exist the entities shall follow the direction in such agreement.

Full text for regulations * are in the appendix and all others may be found online:

http://codes.ohio.gov/

http://www.ohioattorneygeneral.gov/About‐AG/Organizational‐Structure/Opinions

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/nbis.htm

http://www.archives.gov/federal‐register/cfr/

Regulator Code Designation

Regulatory Code or Opinion Title

Date Entity Task

49 CFR part 237 (FRA)

Bridge Safety Standards 7/15/2010 Railroad Maintenance, Inspection

23 CFR 650 subpart C

National Bridge Inspection Standards

12/14/2004 All Maintenance, Inspection

ORC 723.01 Municipal Bridges 4/9/2003 Municipal General

ORC 723.54* Streets; Public Grounds 11/20/1985 Municipality Inspection

ORC 5543.20* Duties of County Engineer 9/28/1973 County, Township Inspection

ORC 5501.48* Department of Transportation 9/28/1973 Toll Bridge Operator Inspection

ORC 5501.47* Department of Transportation 9/28/1973 State Inspection

ORC 4907.44 Public Utilities Commission ‐ Railroad Powers

6/11/1968 Railroad Inspection

ORC 4907.45 Public Utilities Commission – Repair of Defect Tracks

10/1/1953 Railroad Maintenance

ORC 4955.20 Highway Crossings and Sidewalks ‐ Maintenance and Repair

10/1/1953Railroad, Municipality, County, State

Maintenance

ORC 5515.02 Removal of Structures Constituting Obstructions or Interferences

4/5/2001 Railroad, State Maintenance

ORC 5537.17 Turnpike Commission 3/29/2007Turnpike, State, County, Municipality

Maintenance, Inspection


Page 14



Date Entity Task

ORC 5523.17 Grade Crossings 9/28/1973 State, Railroad Maintenance, Inspection

ORC 5535.01* Types of Highways 10/1/1953State, County, Township

General

ORC 5511.01 State Highway System 4/9/2003 State General

ORC 5501.01 Department of Transportation 6/29/1999 General General

OAG 74‐07 Village Bridges 4/1/1974 Village General

OAG 2000‐012 Opinion 2/15/2000County, Railroad, Township

General

OAG 1994‐025 Opinion 5/17/1994 Township General

ORC 5591.25 County Bridges 10/1/1953 County Maintenance

ORC 5591.24 County Bridges 10/1/1953 County, Township Maintenance



ORC 5591.02 County Bridges 7/3/2007 County, Municipality Maintenance

ORC 5561.12 County Road Grade Crossings 10/1/1953 County, Railroad Maintenance

ORC 5553.02 County Roads ‐ Establishment; Alteration; Vacation

9/28/1973 County Maintenance

ORC 5543.01 Duties of County Engineer 9/20/1999 County Maintenance

ORC 5537.051 Turnpike Commission 6/29/2011Turnpike, County, Municipality

Maintenance

ORC 5523.20 Grade Crossings 9/28/1973 State, Railroad Maintenance

ORC 5523.19 Grade Crossings 9/28/1973 State, Railroad Maintenance

ORC 5501.49* Department of Transportation 7/3/2007State, County, Municipality

Maintenance

ORC 5501.11 Department of Transportation 3/29/2012 State Maintenance

ORC 4957.24 Elimination of Crossings 10/1/1953 Municipality, Railroad Maintenance

ORC 4957.06 Elimination of Crossings 10/1/1953 County, Railroad Maintenance

ORC 4957.01 Elimination of Crossings 10/1/1953 County, Muni, RR Maintenance

OAG 60‐1841 Opinion 11/22/1960 State, County Maintenance

OAG 51‐471 Opinion 7/5/1951 County, Municipality Maintenance


OAG 28‐2834 Opinion 1/1/1928 State, County, Maintenance


Page 15



Date Entity Task

Municipality, Railroad


OAG 2012‐0009 Opinion 3/29/2012State, County, Township

Maintenance

OAG 2006‐051 Opinion 12/19/2006State, County, Township

Maintenance

OAG 2000‐012 Opinion 2/15/2000 County, Railroad Maintenance

Table 3 ‐ Ohio Regulation, AG Opinion and Federal Regulation


Page 16

Quality Measures

Bridge inspection data is the foundation for the entire bridge management operation and the structure

management system. Information obtained during the inspection will be used for determining needed

maintenance and repairs, for prioritizing rehabilitations and replacements, for allocating resources, and

for evaluating and improving design for new bridges. The accuracy and consistency of the inspection and

documentation is vital because it not only impacts programming and funding appropriations but also

affects public safety.

The Ohio Revised Code delegates inspection and maintenance responsibility to agencies within their

jurisdiction. FHWA will however hold the State DOT ultimately responsible for ensuring the

requirements of the NBIS are followed. Failure to be fully compliant with the NBIS could result in

withholding of Federal‐aid authorizations.

Figure 7 ‐ QA Bridge Inspection Organization for Public Entities with Bridges carrying Public Vehicular Traffic

Entities and Quality Assurance:

ODOT – ODOT Central Office and FHWA

Turnpike – ODOT Central Office and FHWA

County – CEAO contract, ODOT Central Office and FHWA

Municipality – ODOT Central Office and FHWA

Other – ODOT Central Office, FHWA; PUCO and FRA for Railroads


Page 17

Quality Assurance (QA): QA is the use of sampling and other measures to assure the adequacy of quality

control procedures in order to verify or measure the quality level of the entire bridge inspection,

inventory, and load rating program. Quality Assurance is performed by FHWA, ODOT Central Office and

CEAO to ensure that the programs are in compliance with State and Federal regulation. Program

compliance is achieved by fulfilling legal requirements and updating SMS data in accordance with the

Manual of Bridge Inspection, Bridge Inventory and Appraisal Coding Guide, Bridge Design Manual

Section 900 and the 23 NBIS Metrics from FHWA. In short, the inspection program entails more than just

the field inspection.

A bridge safety initiative was introduced by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) in 2011 with

subsequent revisions to systematically perform QA. The initiative measures are a data‐driven, risk‐based

review, and analysis of 23 metrics that determine how States are performing their bridge inspection

programs.

FHWA determines the following Compliance Levels for each of the 23 metrics by sampling and data‐

mining bridge inspection and inventory information across the entire state:

Compliance

Substantial

Conditional

Non Compliance

Each entity is responsible for maintaining compliance for the staff and bridges in their jurisdiction.

Updates to the Metrics and more detail may be found on the ODOT Office of Structural

Engineering\Bridge Inspection website within the NBIP PY Metrics 1‐23 document. The metrics are

represent 5 groups:

Metric 1 – Organization

Metrics 2‐5 – Qualifications of personnel

Metrics 6 – 11 – Inspection Frequency

Metrics 12 – 21 – Inspection Procedures

Metrics 22 & 23 ‐ Inventory


Page 18

Metric (rev. 4/1/2013) Population Compliance

Metric #1: Bridge inspection organization Population: Inspection Manual and Ohio Revised Code.

• The organization is effective as indicated by assessment of the other 22 metrics.

NBIS Reference: 23 CFR 650.307 – Bridge inspection organization

• Organizational roles and responsibilities are clearly defined and documented.

Criteria • Delegated functions are clearly defined with the necessary authority established.

• An organization is in place to inspect, or cause to inspect, all highway bridges on public roads.

• Responsibility for the NBIS is assigned to a PM.

• Organizational roles and responsibilities are clearly defined and documented for each of the following aspects of the NBIS: policies and procedures, QC/QA, preparation and maintenance of a bridge inventory, bridge inspections, reports, and load ratings.

• Functions delegated to other agencies are clearly defined and the necessary authority is established to take needed action to ensure NBIS compliance.

• A program manager (PM) is assigned the responsibility for the NBIS.

Table 4 ‐ Metric #1: Bridge inspection organization


Metric #2: Qualifications of personnel – Program Manager

Population: The Administrator of the Office of Structural Engineering.

• The PM has the required qualifications.

NBIS Reference: 23 CFR 650.309 (a) – Program Manager and 650.313 (g) QC/QA

• The PM has completed periodic bridge inspection refresher training according to State policy.

Criteria

• The Program Manager (PM) is either a registered professional engineer or has ten‐years of bridge inspection experience.

• The PM has successfully completed FHWA approved comprehensive bridge inspection training.

• The PM has completed periodic bridge inspection refresher training according to State policy.

Table 5 ‐ Metric #2: Qualifications of personnel – Program Manager


Page 19


Metric #3: Qualifications of personnel – Team Leader(s)

Population: Lead Inspector on the Bridge Inspection Report for that review‐year

• All team leaders have the required qualifications and have successfully completed FHWA approved comprehensive bridge inspection training.

NBIS Reference: 23 CFR 650.309 (b) ‐ Team leader(s) and 650.313 (g) QC/QA

• All TLs have completed periodic bridge inspection refresher training according to State policy.

Criteria

Each Team Leader (TL) must have at least one of the following qualifications:

• PE registration

• Five‐years of bridge inspection experience

• NICET Level III or IV Bridge Safety Inspector certification

• Bachelor degree in engineering from ABET accredited college or university, a passing score on the Fundamentals of Engineering Exam, and two‐years of bridge inspection experience.

• Associate Degree in engineering from ABET accredited college or university and four‐years of bridge inspection experience.

In addition to the above qualifications, TLs must have the following training:

• Successful completion of FHWA approved comprehensive bridge inspection training.

• Completion of periodic bridge inspection refresher training according to State policy.

Table 6 ‐ Metric #3: Qualifications of personnel – Team Leader(s)


Metric #4: Qualifications of personnel – Load Rating Engineer

Population: The Load Rating Engineer in the Office of Structural Engineer charged with overall responsibility for load rating bridges.

The LRE is a registered professional engineer.

NBIS Reference: 23 CFR 650.309 (c) ‐ Individual responsible for load ratings

Criteria

The individual charged with overall responsibility for load rating bridges, the Load Rating Engineer (LRE), is a registered professional engineer.

Population: The individual charged with overall responsibility for load rating bridges.

Table 7 ‐ Metric #4: Qualifications of personnel – Load Rating Engineer


Page 20


Metric #5: Qualifications of personnel – UW Bridge Inspection Diver

Population: All divers inspecting those bridges from January 1 of the calendar year prior to the beginning of the review year.

• All divers have successfully completed FHWA approved comprehensive bridge inspection training or FHWA approved underwater bridge inspection diver training.

NBIS Reference: 23 CFR 650.309 (d) – Underwater Bridge Inspection Diver

Criteria

Underwater bridge inspection divers are qualified by having successfully completed at least one of the following training courses:

• FHWA approved comprehensive bridge inspection training course

• FHWA approved underwater bridge inspection diver training course

Table 8 ‐ Metric #5: Qualifications of personnel – UW Bridge Inspection Diver


Metric #6: Inspection frequency – Routine – Lower risk bridges

Population: Lower risk bridges for the entire State or selected geographic/owner subset that are open to traffic, and whose inspection dates have changed since the previous year’s NBI submission or whose inspections are overdue.

• All bridges are inspected within the federally required NTE 24 or 48‐month interval, as applicable, unless documented unusual circumstances have caused a 1‐month delay for any inspections.

NBIS Reference: 23 CFR 650.311 (a) – Routine inspections

• All sampled 1‐month delayed bridge inspections are documented for unusual circumstances.

Criteria

• Routine inspections are performed at regular intervals not to exceed (NTE) 24‐months, or NTE 48‐months when adhering to FHWA approved criteria.

• Lower risk bridges are defined for this metric as those with superstructure and substructure, or culvert, condition ratings of fair or better, and not requiring load restriction.

Table 9 ‐ Metric #6: Inspection frequency – Routine – Lower risk bridges


Page 21


Metric #7: Inspection frequency – Routine – Higher risk bridges

Population: Higher risk bridges for the entire State or selected geographic/owner subset that are open to traffic and whose inspection dates have changed since the previous year’s NBI submission or whose inspections are overdue.

• All bridges are inspected within the federally requiremed NTE 24‐month interval, unless documented unusual circumstances have caused a 1‐month delay for any inspections.

NBIS Reference: 23 CFR 650.311 (a) – Routine inspections

• All sampled 1‐month delayed bridge inspections are documented for unusual circumstances.

Criteria

• Routine inspections are performed at regular intervals not to exceed (NTE) 24‐months.

• Higher risk bridges are defined for this metric as those with a superstructure or substructure, or culvert, condition rating of poor or worse, or require load restriction.

Table 10 ‐ Metric #7: Inspection frequency – Routine – Higher risk bridges


Metric #8: Inspection frequency – Underwater – Lower risk bridges

Population: Lower risk bridges for the entire state or selected geographic/owner subset that require UW inspections, are open to traffic, and whose UW inspection dates have changed since the previous year’s NBI submission or whose UW inspections are overdue.

• All UW inspections are done within the required NTE 60‐ or 72‐month interval, as applicable, unless documented unusual circumstances have caused a 1‐month delay for any inspections.

NBIS Reference: 23 CFR 650.311 (b) – Underwater (UW) inspections

• All sampled 1‐month delayed UW inspections are documented for unusual circumstances.

Criteria

• UW inspections are performed at regular intervals not to exceed (NTE) 60‐months, or NTE 72‐months when adhering to FHWA approved UW criteria.

• Lower risk bridges are defined for this metric as those with a substructure or culvert condition rating of fair or better, and evaluated as not scour critical.

Table 11 ‐ Metric #8: Inspection frequency – Underwater – Lower risk bridges


Page 22


Metric #9: Inspection frequency – Underwater – Higher risk bridges

Population: Higher risk bridges for the entire State or selected geographic/owner subset that require UW inspections, are open to traffic, and whose UW inspection dates have changed since the previous year’s NBI submission or whose inspection UW inspections are overdue.

• All UW inspections are performed within the required NTE 60‐month interval, unless documented unusual circumstances have caused a 1‐month delay for any UW inspections.

NBIS Reference: 23 CFR 650.311 (b) – Underwater (UW) inspections

• All sampled 1‐month delayed UW inspections are documented for unusual circumstances.

Criteria

• UW inspections are performed at regular intervals not to exceed (NTE) 60‐months.

• Higher risk bridges are defined for this metric as those with a substructure or culvert condition rating of poor or worse, or evaluated as scour critical.

Table 12 ‐ Metric #9: Inspection frequency – Underwater – Higher risk bridges


Metric #10: Inspection frequency – Fracture Critical Member

Population: Bridges for the entire State or selected geographic/owner subset that require FCM inspections, are open to traffic, and whose FCM inspection dates have changed since the previous year’s NBI submission or whose FCM inspections are overdue.

• All FCM inspections are performed within the required NTE 24‐month interval, unless documented unusual circumstances have caused a 1‐month delay for any FCM inspections.

NBIS Reference: 23 CFR 650.311 (c) – Fracture critical member (FCM)

• All sampled 1‐month delayed FCM inspections are documented for unusual circumstances.

Criteria

FCMs are inspected at regular intervals not to exceed (NTE) 24‐months.

Table 13 ‐ Metric #10: Inspection frequency – Fracture Critical Member


Page 23


Metric #11: Inspection frequency – Frequency criteria

Population: Bridges for the entire State or selected geographic/owner subset that meet established criteria, are open to traffic, and whose inspection dates have changed since the previous year’s NBI submission.

• All level of inspection and frequency criteria are established.

NBIS Reference: 23 CFR 650.311 (a)(2), (b)(2), (c)2, (d) – Frequency criteria

• Records for all sampled bridges indicate the appropriate level of inspection and frequency in accordance with the established criteria.

Criteria

Criteria is established to determine level of inspection, and frequency for all of the following inspection types where appropriate:

o Routine inspections

o FCM inspections

o Underwater inspections

o Damage inspections

o In‐depth inspections

o Special inspections

Table 14 ‐ Metric #11: Inspection frequency – Frequency criteria


Metric #12: Inspection procedures – Quality Inspections

Population: All bridges randomly sampled for Metrics 13 through 19, and 21.

• Inspection reports meet criteria for quality assessments, ratings, and documentation.

NBIS Reference: 23 CFR 650.313 (a) & (b) Inspection procedures – Quality inspections

• A qualified team leader is on site for 100% of inspections.

Criteria Refer to the field review form in Appendix. Quality Assurance and Quality Control Forms

• Each bridge is inspected in accordance with the nationally recognized procedures in the AASHTO Manual for Bridge Evaluation (MBE) contributing to quality assessments, ratings, and documentation, as measured by the following criteria:

o condition codes within generally acceptable tolerances,

o all notable bridge deficiencies identified, and

o condition codes supported by narrative that appropriately justifies and documents the rating or condition state assignment.

• A qualified team leader is at the bridge at all times during each initial, routine, in‐depth, fracture critical member and underwater inspection.

Table 15 ‐ Metric #12: Inspection procedures – Quality Inspections


Page 24


Metric #13: Inspection procedures – Load Rating Population: For Intermediate and In‐depth Assessments: all bridges in the entire State or selected geographic/owner subset.

• All higher and lower risk bridges have a load rating in accordance with the MBE.

NBIS Reference: 23 CFR 650.313 (c) – Rate each bridge

• All higher and lower risk bridge load ratings are accurate for current conditions.

Criteria

• Bridges are rated for their safe load carrying capacity

• Load ratings are accurate for current conditions.

Table 16 ‐ Metric #13: Inspection procedures – Load Rating


Metric #14: Inspection procedures – Post or Restrict

Population: For Intermediate and In‐depth Assessments: bridges requiring posting for the entire State, or selected geographic/owner subset

• All bridges are properly posted or restricted as required.

NBIS Reference: 23 CFR 650.313 (c) Inspection procedures – Post or restrict bridges

• All posting/closing compliance deficiencies are promptly resolved. Criteria

• Bridges are posted or restricted in accordance with State law, when the maximum unrestricted legal loads or State routine permit loads exceed that allowed under the operating rating or equivalent rating factor.

• Posting deficiencies are promptly resolved.

Table 17 ‐ Metric #14: Inspection procedures – Post or Restrict


Metric #15: Inspection procedures – Bridge Files Population: Bridges for the entire State or selected geographic/owner subset.

• All bridges have files.

NBIS Reference: 23 CFR 650.313 (d) – Prepare bridge files

• All files have the applicable significant components. Criteria

Bridge files are prepared to maintain and record the following:

o Significant bridge file components

o Results of bridge inspections together with notations of any action taken to address the findings of such inspections

o Relevant maintenance and inspection data to allow assessment of current bridge condition

o Findings and results of bridge inspections

Table 18 ‐ Metric #15: Inspection procedures – Bridge Files


Page 25


Metric #16: Inspection procedures – Fracture Critical Members

Population: Bridges for the entire State, or selected geographic/owner subset, with FCMs.

• All bridges with FCMs have written inspection procedures.

NBIS Reference: 23 CFR 650.313 (e) (1) – Bridges with fracture critical members (FCM)

• All bridges with FCMs are inspected according to those procedures. Criteria

• Bridges with FCMs have written inspection procedures which clearly identify the location of all FCMs, specify the frequency of inspection, describe any specific risk factors unique to the bridge, and clearly detail inspection methods and equipment to be employed.

• FCMs are inspected according to those procedures.

Table 19 ‐ Metric #16: Inspection procedures – Fracture Critical Members


Metric #17: Inspection procedures – Underwater Population: Bridges for the entire State, or selected geographic/owner subset, requiring underwater inspection.

• All bridges requiring UW inspection have written inspection procedures.

NBIS Reference: 23 CFR 650.313 (e) & (e)(1) – Bridges requiring underwater (UW) inspections

• All bridges requiring UW inspections are inspected according to those procedures.

Criteria

• Bridges requiring UW inspections have written inspection procedures which clearly identify the location of all UW elements, specify the frequency of inspection, describe any specific risk factors, and clearly detail inspection methods and equipment to be employed.

• UW elements are inspected according to those procedures.

Table 20 ‐ Metric #17: Inspection procedures – Underwater


Page 26


Metric #18: Inspection procedures – Scour Critical Bridges

Population: Bridges for the entire State, or selected geographic/owner subset, that are scour critical, scour vulnerable, tidal, or have unknown foundations.

• All bridges over water have a documented scour evaluation.

NBIS Reference: 23 CFR 650.313 (e) Bridges that are scour critical

• All bridges that are scour critical, scour vulnerable, or have unknown foundations have a scour POA prepared to monitor and/or address critical findings.

Criteria • All bridges are monitored in accordance with the POA, as appropriate.

• Bridges over water have a documented evaluation of scour vulnerability.

• Bridges that are scour critical have a scour plan of action (POA) prepared to monitor known and potential deficiencies and to address scour critical findings.

• Bridges that are scour critical are monitored in accordance with the POA.

Table 21 ‐ Metric #18: Inspection procedures – Scour Critical Bridges


Metric #19: Inspection procedures – Complex Bridges

Population: Bridges for the entire State or selected geographic/owner subset that are complex bridge types.

• All complex bridges have specialized written inspection procedures and have any required additional inspector training and experience identified.

NBIS Reference: 23 CFR 650.313 (f) – Complex bridges

• All complex bridges are inspected according to the specialized procedures, and inspectors of those bridges have the identified additional training and experience.

Criteria

• Complex bridges have the following identified:

o Specialized inspection procedures which clearly identify the complex features, specify the frequency of inspection of those features, describe any specific risk factors unique to the bridge, and clearly detail inspection methods and equipment to be employed.

o Additional inspector training and experience required to inspect complex bridges.

• Complex bridges are inspected according to those procedures.

Table 22 ‐ Metric #19: Inspection procedures – Complex Bridges


Page 27


Metric #20: Inspection procedures – QC/QA Population: None (or as determined to be appropriate by the reviewer).

• QC/QA procedures are established and implemented.

NBIS Reference: 23 CFR 650.313 (g) – QC/QA • Procedures include periodic field review of inspection teams, periodic refresher training requirements, and independent review of inspection reports, computations, and NBI data.

Criteria

• Systematic quality control (QC) and quality assurance (QA) procedures are used to maintain a high degree of accuracy and consistency in the inspection program.

• QC/QA procedures include periodic field review of inspection teams, periodic refresher training requirements, and independent review of inspection reports and computations.

Table 23 ‐ Metric #20: Inspection procedures – QC/QA


Metric #21: Inspection procedures – Critical Findings

Population: All bridges identified as having an unresolved active critical finding at the time of the last assessment and any identified since the last assessment.

• A documented procedure has been established and implemented to assure critical findings are addressed in a timely manner.

NBIS Reference: 23 CFR 650.313 (h) – Follow‐up on critical findings

• The period for FHWA notification of actions taken is established and followed.

Criteria • All critical findings are addressed and documented in accordance with the procedure.

• A procedure is established to assure that critical findings, as defined in 650.305, are addressed in a timely manner.

• FHWA is periodically notified of the actions taken to resolve or monitor critical findings.

Table 24 ‐ Metric #21: Inspection procedures – Critical Findings


Page 28


Metric #22: Inventory – Prepare and Maintain Population: All bridges randomly sampled for Metrics 13 through 19, and 21.

• The inventory items are within the acceptable tolerances.

NBIS Reference: 23 CFR 650.315 (a) – Prepare and maintain an inventory

• All identified items not within the acceptable tolerances have been corrected.

Criteria • FHWA data checks did not identify any bridges with data errors.

• An inventory of all bridges subject to the NBIS is prepared and maintained.

• Data collected is in accordance with that required for the Structure Inventory and Appraisal (SI&A) sheet.

• Data is recorded according to FHWA procedures and available for collection by FHWA as requested.

Table 25 ‐ Metric #22: Inventory – Prepare and Maintain


Metric #23: Inventory – Timely Updating of Data Population: Bridges in the entire State or selected geographic/ owner.

• SI&A data is submitted to the FHWA NBI by the requested date with no errors preventing FHWA acceptance of the data.

NBIS Reference: 23 CFR 650.315 (a), (b), (c) & (d) – Updating data in the inventory

• State is able to verify SI&A data is updated in the State inventory within 90/180 days.

Criteria • SI&A data is updated in the State inventory and the local NHS within 90/180 days after inspection, modification, or change in load restriction.

• Structure Inventory and Appraisal (SI&A) data is submitted to the FHWA NBI as requested using FHWA established procedures.

• SI&A data is entered in the State’s inventory within 90 days of the date for State owned bridges and within 180 days of the date for all other bridges for the following events:

o routine, in‐depth, fracture critical member, underwater, damage and special inspections

o existing bridge modifications that alter previously recorded data and for new bridges

o load restriction or closure status

Table 26 ‐ Metric #23: Inventory – Timely Updating of Data


Page 29

Quality Assurance Schedule

Field and office reviews are conducted by Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), ODOT Central Office

and the County Engineers Association (CEAO) according to the following timetable:

State: Each ODOT District once every three years. The Turnpike Commission will receive a QA

review once every three years as well.

County: Each County Engineers Office once every five years

Municipality: ODOT OSE will perform a QA Office and Field Review on each consulting firm on

both the second and third cycle of the awarded Local Bridge Inspection Task Order Contract.

Data driven shelf QA reviews will be performed on those municipalities who do not opt into the

program.

Railroad: The Federal Railway Administration (FRA) and the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio

(PUCO) coordinate QA for track owners carrying freight. The Federal Transit Authority (FTA)

coordinates QA for passenger freight track owners.

Consultants: Engineering firms who perform inspection program activities for public entities are

expected to attend the QA reviews when invited by the public entity receiving the QA.

Office Reviews: The office review will largely encompass an assessment on the 23 Metrics. The Office

review form is available in Appendix Quality Assurance and Quality Control Forms.

The Field Reviews: The field reviews shall be performed, at a minimum, by a qualified Program Manager

with bridge inspection experience. The field review form is available in Appendix. Quality Assurance and

Quality Control Forms. A number of bridges will be either independently reviewed or assessed as a

team (or combination). The current inspection report and SI&A form will be compared. The selection of

bridges will consider:

Whether the bridge is or is not posted

Bridge's deficiency status

Bridge’s functional status

Whether the bridge is programmed for rehab or replacement

Whether the bridge has had critical findings and the status of any follow‐up action

Bridges with unusual changes in condition ratings (e.g. more than 1 appraisal rating change

from previous inspection)

Bridges that require special inspections (underwater, fracture critical, other special)


Page 30

Location of bridge

Emphasis will be placed on the following Structure Inventory and Appraisal Items:

Quality Control (QC) – Quality Control procedures are intended to maintain the quality of a bridge

inspection and load rating at or above a specified level.

Quality Control ‐ Public entities (ex. County Engineer, ODOT District, Consultant, City) shall implement

their own quality control measures in order to maintain the accuracy and consistency of inspections and

inspection data. When written measures are not available this list of Ohio bridge inspection policy or

regulation will be the default list of minimum Quality Control (QC) currently in place for each entity as

compared to FHWA NBIS measures:

1. Professional Engineering license on every bridge inspection report. For the vast majority of

bridge inspection reports, when the inspector does not have a P.E. license, this P.E.

assessment serves as a second independent office review.

2. Program Managers and Team Leaders attend a refresher training course at least once every

5‐years

Condition Ratings NBIS Inventory Items

Item 58 – Deck Summary 61 ‐ Channel/Channel Protection / ±1 code

Wearing Surface 72 – Approach Roadway Alignment / ±1 code

Item 59 – Superstructure Summary 92A – Fracture Critical Details / N/A

Protective Coating System 92B ‐ Underwater Inspection / N/A

Item 60 – Substructure Summary 92C – Other Special Inspections / N/A

Item 62 ‐ Culvert Summary 103 ‐ Temporary Structure Designation / N/A

Load Rating and Posting 104 ‐ Highway System of Inventory Rte

41 – Posting Status 112 ‐ NBIS Bridge Length / N/A

63 – O.R. Method 113 – Scour Critical Bridges / N/A

64 – O.R. Item 10 – Inventory Route Underclrnce (Card)

65 – I.R. Method Item 10 – Inventory Route Underclrnce (NonC)

66 – I.R. Item 32 ‐ Approach Roadway Width / +‐ 5 feet

70 – Bridge Posting Item 36A – Traffic Safety Features – Bridge Rail

NBIS Inventory Items Item 36B – Traffic Safety Features – Transition

43B – Type of Design/Construction Item 36C – Traffic Safety Features – Guard Rail

16 ‐ Latitude / ±6 Seconds Item 36D – Traffic Safety Features – Termination

17 ‐ Longitude / ±6 Seconds Item 42A – Type of Service On Bridge

28A ‐ Lanes on Structure / N/A Item 108A – Type of Wearing Surface

41‐ Operating Status Deck Width Out‐to‐Out

43A – Kind of Material/Design / N/A Overall Structure Length

Table 27 – Basic QA SI&A items


Page 31

3. Periodic field review performed by FHWA (23 Metrics), CEAO and ODOT Central Office

4. Annual Inspection on every bridge

5. Bridges greater than or equal to 10‐foot and less than or equal to 20 feet are inventoried

and inspected

6. General Appraisal ratings that drop to a 4‐Poor or lower are considered for another load

rating analysis

The following are QC tools currently in place within ODOT on State routes:

1. Inspect structures less than 10‐feet clear span on a regular schedule in accordance with the

Culvert Management Manual

2. NBIS Decals placed on bridges within each District for inspectors to find and report upon

discovery

3. Bridge Specialist 1’s are required to attend Confined Space Training and Bridge Climbing

Training prior to hiring or promotion to a Bridge Specialist 2 (NBIS Team Leader)

4. Annual meeting or training with inspection program staff to communicate new

qualifications, procedures or equipment

5. Independent review of load rating calculations, section 900 of the BDM

The following are QC tools not adopted statewide but are models of best‐practices:

1. Professional Engineer field review of 2‐10% of bridges within the jurisdiction

2. No team leader inspects the same bridge two years in a row (Rotate inspections by a

different inspector or team each year)

3. Sample bridge‐set is swapped and inspected across jurisdictional boundaries

4. Maintenance supervisor assist in performing inspections

5. Close out meeting with Maintenance superintendant upon completion of inspections within

their jurisdiction

6. Independent inspection by a peer inspection team

7. Inspection of control bridges as part of periodic workshop or training

8. Always work in teams of 2 or more

9. Control Authority or Program Manager visit each bridge with a Summary Rating of a 4‐Poor.


Page 32

Definitions & Terminology

Bridge: Any structure including intermediate supports, of 10 feet or greater clear span (distance

between interior faces of extreme ends), or 10 feet or greater diameter, on, above, or below a highway

upon which railroad locomotives or cars may travel. Multiple openings shall be grouped as one bridge

when the distance between extreme ends of the adjacent openings is 10 feet or more with the clear

distance between openings less than half of the clear span or diameter of the smaller opening in the

group. All distances in this definition are to be measured along the center line of the highway. In order

to be under the jurisdiction of the NBIS, and part of the NBI, the bridge must be a highway bridge and its

bridge opening must be greater than 20 feet, measured along the centerline of roadway. Bridges with

openings less than the NBIS length are not governed by the NBIS; however there are statutory

requirements for their inventory and inspection. Bridges less than or equal to 20 feet behave in a similar

manner to those meeting the NBIS length definition and can present significant risks to public safety.

Moreover, these bridges may represent a large portion of the infrastructure that owners have to

maintain (Ohio Revised Code Section 5501.74 defines a Bridge as, “ … any structure of ten feet or more

clear span or ten feet or more in diameter on, above, or below a highway, including structures upon

which railroad locomotives or cars may travel.”). Thus, bridge owners shall inventory and inspect 10

feet.‐20 feet bridges at the same level of scrutiny as NBIS‐length bridges.

Clear Span (or NBIS bridge length): Distance

measured parallel to traffic between

extreme ends of a structure, ie. face‐to‐face

of abutment.

Control Authority (CA): The one person who

is the designated (by ORC, CFR or policy)

representative employed by the public

entity who takes an active role (acting as

Program Manager or administering

contracts) completing bridge inspection

activities. The CA cannot be contracted out.

Culverts (Clear Span < 10 feet.): Structures

(or culverts) less than 10 feet in clear span

are a lesser concern because the Figure 8 ‐ Bridge‐Culvert Clear Span


Page 33

risks to public safety are generally lower. These are inspected and inventoried in accordance with the

Departments Culvert Management Manual. Note on the distinction between Culverts and Storm

Sewers: While culverts and storm sewers serve a similar function, they vary greatly in regard to

their design methodology and flow characteristics. Because of these differences, culverts are

considered to be of higher risk then storm sewers. For purposes at ODOT, culverts and storm

sewers may be differentiated based upon their inlet end condition. Structures with closed end inlet

conditions (catch basins, inlets. etc.) can be considered storm sewer, while structures with open

ended inlets are classified as culverts.

Culvert (Clear Span >=10‐ft) A type of bridge 10 feet or more in span which conveys water or forms a

passageway through an embankment and is designed to support super‐imposed loads of earth or other

fill material plus a live load. These structures are to be inspected and inventoried in accordance with

this Manual.

Multiple cell culverts under a fill with a distance of 10 feet or more between extreme ends of openings,

measured along the center line of the roadway, including multiple pipes where the clear distance

between openings is less than half of the diameter of the smaller opening, will be regarded as a culvert‐

bridge. For structures less than 10 feet clear span measured along the centerline (regardless of fill

depth), entities should refer to the Ohio Department of Transportation Culvert Management Manual for

guidance.

Figure 9 ‐ Small Structures on a Skew as Bridges


Page 34

Span (perpendicular to abutment wall) Skew (deg)

84 in 90 in 96 in 102 in 108 in 114 in 7.0 ft 7.5 ft 8.0 ft 8.5 ft 9.0 ft 9.5 ft

5 7 8 8 9 9 10 10 7 8 8 9 9 10 15 7 8 8 9 9 10 20 7 8 9 9 10 10 25 8 8 9 9 10 10 30 8 9 9 10 10 11 35 9 9 10 10 11 12

Table 28 ‐ Clear Span Measurements (ft) with Skew Angles and Span

Highways: A highway is a system named in Section 5535.01 of the Ohio Revised Code (highways, streets,

and roads within municipalities, and any other highway, street, or road used for public conveyance). A

highway is a publicly maintained roadway open to the public for the purposes of motor vehicle traffic. A

highway is publicly ordained as such through State statute or local ordinance. The term “public road”

may be used interchangeably with the term “highways”.

Major Bridge: A Major Bridge, per funding source policy no. 16‐003(P) is on the State Highway System

and meets one or more of the following criteria:

• More than 1000 feet in length

• Single bridge with a deck area of 81,000 square feet (9000 square yards) or greater

• Twin bridges with a deck area of 135,000 square feet (15,000 square yards) or greater

• Spans the Ohio River

• Movable bridge

• Continuous/cantilever truss bridge

• Suspension bridge

Program Managers: At a minimum PM’s:

1. Must have attended and passed a comprehensive two‐week training course such as the

FHWA “Safety Inspection of In‐Service Bridges” (NHI Course Number 130055), or the ODOT

Bridge Inspection Training Level I and Level II.

AND

2. Must be a registered professional engineer in the State of Ohio with appropriate

training and experience OR ten years bridge inspection experience Reviewers: Each inspection

report needs to be inspected or reviewed by a Professional Engineer. Most Program Managers

in Ohio are P.E.’s but these roles may be filled by two different people in the same entity.


Page 35

Team Leader: There are five ways to qualify as a Team Leader. A Team Leader must, at a minimum:

1. Have Program Manager Qualifications, or

2. Have five years bridge inspection experience and have successfully completed an FHWA

approved comprehensive bridge inspection training course; or

3. Be certified as a Level III or IV Bridge Safety Inspector under the National Society of

Professional Engineer's program for National Certification in Engineering Technologies (NICET)

and have successfully completed an FHWA approved comprehensive bridge inspection training

course, or

4. Have all of the following:

a. A bachelor’s degree in Engineering from a College or University accredited by or

determined as substantially equivalent by the Accreditation Board for Engineering and

Technology;

b. Successfully passed the National Council of Examiners for Engineering and

Surveying Fundamentals of Engineering examination (EIT);

c. Two years of bridge inspection experience; and

d. Successfully completed an FHWA approved comprehensive bridge inspection

training course, or


a. An associate’s degree in engineering or engineering technology from a college

or university accredited by or determined to be substantially equivalent by the

Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology;

b. Four years of bridge inspection experience; and

c. Successfully completed an FHWA approved comprehensive bridge inspection

training course.

NOTE: Ohio Department of Transportation Team leaders i.e. Bridge Specialist 2’s shall attend the

Department’s Bridge Climbing Course and Confined Space training.


Page 36

References

The following specifications were used in developing this Manual.

ODOT Bridge Design Manual (BDM)

Publication No. FHWA NHI 03‐001, Bridge Inspectors Reference Manual, October 2002 with

revision 2003, 2012

The Manual for Bridge Evaluation, American Association of State Highway and Transportation

Officials, second Edition 2011 with 2013 revisions

Recording and Coding Guide for the Structure Inventory and Appraisal of the Nation’s Bridges,

Federal Highway Administration, 1995 with revision 2000

AASHTO Guide Manual for Bridge Element Inspection, second edition 2013

Bridge Inventory and Appraisal Coding Guide, Ohio Department of Transportation, most recent

revision

Ohio Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), 2012

FHWA/NCHRP reports supplementing bridge inspection training guidelines

www.national‐academies.org/trb/bookstore

For corrections or modifications found in please provide the following in a correspondence to the Bridge

Inspection Engineer within the Office of Structural Engineer:

section to be modified

proposed language to be used, and a

narrative of why the proposed modification is needed

To this address:

Ohio Department of Transportation

Attn: Bridge Inspection Engineer

1980 West Broad St., 3rd Floor

Mail Stop 5180

Columbus OH, 43223


Page 37

The Reviewer completes the "Critical

Finding Follow Up" in the normal review

process.

90/180 days

Normally Scheduled Inspection

Critical Finding Discovered

Control Authority Responsibility Team Leader Responsibility

Contacts the necessary public safety authorities

so the immediate threat to public safety is

averted

Ensures immediate, if necessary, corrective or

protective measures are implemented to

safeguard the traveling public

Team Leader resets Critical Finding to "No Critical

Finding Discovered" at the next scheduled inspection.

Team Leader

Immediate conversation with the Control Authority Program Manager to

reach consensus

NO: not

critical finding

YES: consensus

Short Term Ensures corrective or protective measures

are implemented in a timely manner to

safeguard the traveling public

Two W

eeks

Submits the completed inspection report to

the Reviewer with Critical Finding Coded

"OPEN" within 2‐weeks of discovery

FHWA

Periodic FHWA periodically reviews Critical Findings

to share with other agencies responsible for

bridges with similar details and conditions

Reviewer

Chapter2:RestrictionsEmergency Conditions

Immediate action shall be taken to ensure that the safety of the traveling public is maintained. The

Team Leader on‐site has the authority to make obvious emergency bridge or lane closures however they

should reach verbal consensus with the Control Authority before closing a bridge or lane of traffic. The

initial consensus may be verbal, however, it is recommended that confirmation or follow‐up is made in

writing.

Critical Findings

The following critical finding flowchart establishes personnel and time frames for reporting critical

findings. Follow‐up action shall be recorded by the Reviewer in the Structure Management System

(SMS) Critical Finding Form during the normal inspection report approval/review process.

Figure 10 ‐ Critical Finding Flowchart


Page 38

Critical Findings are situations discovered at a regularly scheduled inspection (Do not consider damage

inspections that are discovered by the traveling public, law enforcement or anyone else other than a

bridge inspector NOT during a normally scheduled bridge inspection). Critical findings include but are

not limited to:

Substantial problem (crack, tearing, missing connections, abrupt change in condition etc.) with a

Fracture Critical Member

Scour or Hydraulic problem

Figure 12 ‐ Critical Finding of Undermined Pier

Substantial traffic safety hazard

Substantial reduction in Load Capacity OR

A "2‐Critical" Summary Condition rating (note that a "2‐Critical" is generally associated with a

safety or weight restriction on the bridge) that requires immediate protective or corrective

action

Figure 11 ‐ SMS Critical Finding Inspection Forms


Page 39

Actions

When a bridge is no longer able to carry its intended loads, or an unsafe condition exists at the site, it is

imperative to prevent further damage or collapse by controlling traffic on and/or below the bridge.

Protective or corrective actions will vary depending upon many factors. The remedy may involve several

steps to regain the serviceability of the structure.

Examples of appropriate "Immediate" actions may include, but are not limited to, any

combination of the following:

o Immediate permanent closure,

o immediate temporary bridge or lane closure,

o emergency repairs,

o prohibiting trucks (fire trucks, buses etc.) from using the bridge or

o establish interim inspection intervals.

Examples of appropriate "Short Term" actions may include, but are not limited to, any

combination of the following:

o Load rating with posting for reduced loads,

o Temporary shoring,

o Emergency repairs,

o Contract for permanent repairs,

o Follow up inspections.


Page 40

Load Rating

Each structure carrying vehicular traffic shall be rated, by or supervised by a Professional Engineer, to

determine its safe load carrying capacity in accordance with Bridge Design Manual. If it is determined

that the maximum legal load configurations exceeds the load allowed at the Operating Rating level, then

the structure shall be posted for load restriction. There are four legal trucks that determine whether a

structure is restricted for weight: 2F1, 3F1, 4F1 and 5C1. Load rating and posting data is regularly

checked to assure bridges are properly posted to carry the maximum load determined by load rating.

Any bridges found not to be able to carry at least 3 tons for any one of the 4 Ohio legal loads must be

closed immediately and correctly entered into SMS.

For an existing or in‐service bridge, the bridge shall be load rated based on current dead loads and the

last field inspection report. The current operating status, inspection comments, photographs, and

condition rating of structural elements shall also be considered in the load rating. It is imperative that

the actual field conditions are represented in the analysis. The inspector and the load rater must

communicate the actual conditions explicitly and quantitatively.

Table 29‐ Ohio Legal Loads


Page 41

The load rating of a bridge should be revised when

A. Deterioration where capacity reduction is in question

There is a physical change in the condition of a structural member of the bridge

Rusting or damage to a slab, beam, girder or other structural element that has resulted

in section loss

B. There is structural damage to steel, like a hit by a vehicle, excessive deflection or elongation

under temperature or highway loads

C. When the inspection General Appraisal (GA) rating of the superstructure of a bridge drops

below 5‐Fair.

D. There is an addition of a new beam or girder

E. A new deck is added or the existing deck width is changed

F. There is a change in the dead load on the superstructure (only when the change is more than 10

pounds per foot), like addition or removal of wearing surfaces 1” or more, addition or removal

of sidewalks, parapets, railings, etc.

The load rating of a bridge does not need to be revised when:

1. The change in the thickness of external wearing surface is less than 1 inch [2.54 cm]

2. The change in the dead load on a beam

member is not more than 10 pounds per foot.

Signage

Inspectors shall verify that the restriction signing is

visible at the bridge site, correctly represented in the

inventory and effective. To be effective, a traffic

control device should meet five basic requirements:

1. Fulfill a need;

2. Command attention;

3. Convey a clear, simple meaning;

4. Command respect from road users; and

5. Give adequate time for proper response.

When the necessary information is not communicated

to the traveling public or the posting recommended in

Figure 13 ‐ Silhouetted Weight Limit Sign


Page 42

the inventory by the load rating engineer is less than the actual field conditions i.e., no signs exist when

a posting is recommended or the posting in the field does not match with the inventory, the inspector

shall ensure proper action is taken as soon as possible. When the posting is correct but the sign is

noncompliant or out‐of‐date with the OMUTCD inspectors shall not code B. Inspectors shall code the

Operational Status “B” and the weight restriction signs shall be remedied at the bridge site no later than

90 days from the date of discovery. It will be the responsibility of the Program Manager (Reviewer of

the Inspection Report) to verify that posting signs are in place and the inspector will update the

Operational Status at the next regularly scheduled inspection.

Weight Limit sign shall be located in advance of the applicable section of highway or structure. If used,

the Weight Limit sign with an advisory distance ahead legend should be placed at approach road

intersections or other points where prohibited vehicles can detour or turn around.

The Weight Limit signs with one‐tonnage number, for example R12‐1, are

not an option for bridges on State routes. Ohio requires a posting when,

after rounding, any one of the four Ohio legal trucks’ has a rating factor

less than 100%. When determining the tonnage that is placed on the R12‐

1 sign, the Load Rating Engineer shall first verify the truck configuration(s)

that is(are) governing the posting requirement. Then, the engineer

should use the first Legal Load % below 100%, starting with the 2F1 and

moving down to the 5C1 truck, as the maximum tonnage to be allowed.

Discretion and engineering judgment must be applied in signing a lesser

tonnage depending on site conditions and lane/bridge/deficiency

configurations. Factors such as school, emergency and industry vehicles must be considered.

Weight Limit signs with silhouetted trucks are recommended, but not required, on local routes as they

communicate the rating factor for each truck from the Load Rating Engineer to the traveling public.

State Bridges: Procedures for Posting Restrictions

Bridges shall be posted for weight restriction when, after rounding, the rating factor for any one of the

four Ohio Legal Trucks drops below 100%. The bridge shall be closed for individual truck configurations

when the rating factor for that specific truck drops below 30%. Bridges that are not capable of carrying

3‐Tons GVW, for any truck, shall be closed to all traffic.

Figure 14 ‐ Weight Limit Sign (not permitted on State routes)


Page 43

Truck Gross Vehicle Weight (GVW)

All Bridges: At a minimum Post When

Operating Rating Factor <100% (close Bridge when < 3T)

State Bridges: Close for Each Truck When

The RF <30% (close the bridge when < 3T)

2 F1 15T < 15T < 4.5 T

3 F1 23T < 23T < 6.9 T

4 F1 27T < 27T < 8.1 T

5 C1 40T < 40T < 12.0 T

Table 30 ‐ Rating Factors and Posting or Closing (Ref. BDM 900)

When the Operating Rating of the bridge is determined to be less than

100% of legal loads and the bridge cannot be strengthened

immediately to a rating of 100% or above, the District Bridge Engineer

shall establish a rating and submit to the Structure Rating Engineer in

the Office of Structural Engineering, a written request for the bridge

posting. The Load Rating Engineer shall prepare a memo for entry into

the Director’s journal. The following minimum information is required

on all State DOT post, rescind and change requests.

A. Posting Request (Reduction in Load Limits)

County in which bridge is located

Current Bridge Number

Structure File Number

Feature intersected (over or under bridge)

Tonnage unit requested for the four typical legal vehicles

Existing rating of bridge expressed as a percent of legal load or tons

Explanation as to why posting is required

Attach copies of all official documentation for any associated actions by

involved agencies other than the state

B. Rescinding Request (Removal of Existing Load Limits)





Existing posting (% reduction or weight limit currently in effect)

Figure 15 ‐ Bridge Must be Closed for loads less than 3T and fractions or decimals shall not be used.


Page 44

Date existing posting was effective

Explanation as to why posting restrictions can now be removed (show

contract project numbers or indicate force account or other work method

used to correct problem)

New load rating for the rehabilitated or new structure

C. Change Request (Revision of Existing Posted Limits)





Existing posting (weight limit currently in effect)

Revised posting request

Date of existing posting

Explanation as to why posting changed

After the Director, or his/her designee, signs the posting request, the District shall prepare, erect

and maintain all necessary signs until the bridge is either strengthened or replaced.

After the posting request is signed, the Structure Rating Engineer shall send a copy to the: District

Bridge Engineer; Manager of Hauling Permits Section of the Office of Highway Management;

Superintendent of State Highway Patrol; Executive Director of Ohio Trucking Association; the Board

of County Commissioners; and the County Engineer where the structure is located.

The District Bridge Engineer shall update all Bridge Inventory and Inspection records to show the

latest official posted capacity.

Where posting of a bridge is deemed necessary and no unusual or special circumstance at the bridge

dictates otherwise, Ohio standard regulatory signs shall be placed in sufficient numbers and at the

specific locations in advance of the bridge and at the bridge.

Bridge Ahead signs shall be erected at intersecting state roads located just prior to the bridge to

allow approaching vehicles to by‐pass the bridge or turn around safely with a minimum of

interference to other traffic.

Bridge Weight Limit signs shall be erected at each end of the structure.


Page 45

Procedure for Rescinding Posting

When a posted bridge has been strengthened or replaced and no longer needs posting, the Program

Manager shall forward to the attention of the Load Rating Engineer in the Office of Structural

Engineering a written request to rescind the existing signed posting. The request shall include a

complete statement of the reason for the action as specified.

The Structure Rating Engineer shall review the data submitted by the District Bridge Engineer and upon

concurrence shall forward to the Director a request to rescind the posting. The Structure Rating

Engineer shall distribute copies of the rescind notice.

Procedure for Changing Posting

Implementing a new posting and changing a posting are similar. There will be an additional step of

rescinding the posting. These two steps are outlined previously in this chapter.

Procedures for Posting Restrictions on Locally‐Owned Bridges

Local authorities in their respective jurisdictions shall place and maintain weight restriction signs in

accordance with the OMUTCD to regulate, warn, or guide traffic (O.R.C. 4511.11). Bridges that are

posted for weight restrictions must be in compliance or achieve timely compliance with the weight

restriction signs in the Ohio Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (OMUTCD).

The purpose of weight restriction signs is to communicate regulation to the traveling public the bridges

that, in accordance with standard engineering principles, are no longer capable of carrying legal loads.

The OMUTCD has a selection of signs (R5‐2, R5‐2a, , R12‐1 through R12‐4 and

R12‐H5) that entities may use to convey regulatory restrictions:

Figure 16 – Sign Examples from the OMUTCD 2B‐29

In order to achieve timely compliance with the OMUTCD, Local authorities are to replace current non‐

compliant signs/series of signs when


Page 46

The bridge is replaced or strengthened; or

The load rating of the bridge is revised; or

The weight restriction sign is damaged, missing, or no longer serviceable for any reason (a non‐

compliant sign may be replaced in kind if engineering judgment indicates that one compliant

sign in the midst of a series of adjacent non‐compliant devices would be confusing to road users)

County engineers shall refer to the following are

text from relevant ORC regulations:

5577.071 Reduction of weight of vehicle or load

or speed on deteriorated or vulnerable

bridge. (A) When deterioration renders

any bridge or section of a bridge in a

county insufficient to bear the traffic

thereon, or when the bridge or section

of a bridge would be damaged or

destroyed by heavy traffic, the board of

county commissioners may reduce the

maximum weight of vehicle and load, or

the maximum speed, or both, for motor

vehicles, as prescribed by law, and

prescribe whatever reduction the

condition of the bridge or section of the

bridge justifies. This section does not apply to bridges on state highways.

(B) A schedule of any reductions made pursuant to division (A) of this section shall be filed, for

the information of the public, in the office of the board of county commissioners in each county

in which the schedule is operative. A board of county commissioners that makes a reduction

pursuant to division (A) of this section shall, at least one day before a reduction becomes

effective, cause to be placed and retained on any bridge on which a reduction is made, at both

ends of the bridge, during the period of a reduced limitation of weight, speed, or both, signs of

substantial construction conspicuously indicating the limitations of weight or speed or both

which are permitted on the bridge and the date on which these limitations go into effect. No

Figure 17 – Example of % Reduced Sign. % Signs were Removed from the OMUTCD January 1, 1997


Page 47

person shall operate upon any such bridge a motor vehicle whose maximum weight or speed is

in excess of the limitations prescribed. The cost of purchasing and erecting the signs provided

for in this division shall be paid from any fund for the maintenance and repair of bridges and

culverts.

(C) Except as otherwise provided in this division, no reduction shall be made pursuant to division

(A) of this section on a joint bridge as provided in section 5591.25 of the Revised Code

unless the board of county commissioners of every county sharing the joint bridge agrees to the

reduction, the amount of the reduction, and how the cost of purchasing and erecting signs

indicating the limitations of weight and speed is to be borne. A board of county commissioners

may make a reduction pursuant to division (A) of this section on a section of a joint bridge,

without the agreement [of] any other county sharing the bridge, if the section of the bridge on

which the reduction is to be made is located solely in that county.

5591.42 Carrying capacity of bridges ‐ warning notice. The board of county commissioners

together with the county engineer or an engineer to be selected by the board, or the director of

transportation, may ascertain the safe carrying capacity of the bridges on roads or highways

under their jurisdiction. Where the safe carrying capacity of any such bridge is ascertained and

found to be less than the load limit prescribed by sections 5577.01 to 5577.12 of the Revised

Code, warning notice shall be conspicuously posted near each end of the bridge. The notice shall

caution all persons against driving on the bridge a loaded conveyance of greater weight than the

bridge’s carrying capacity.

Effective Date: 11‐02‐1989

Clearance

The Ohio Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (OMUTCD)

communicates ODOT policies, standards, guidelines, practices

and procedures concerning the design, construction,

operations and maintenance of various types of traffic control

signing. The OMUTCD provides general information on the

design of traffic control signs, including the basic concepts of

shape and color. It provides specific information on the

Figure 18 ‐ One Lane Bridge Sign


Page 48

application of standard signs, location of signs, including height, lateral offset and longitudinal

placement. The OMUTCD applies to all jurisdictions in the state.

Narrow and One‐Lane Bridges

Narrow bridges on Highways shall be identified using the NARROW BRIDGE sign (W5‐2) in accordance

with OMUTCD Section 2C.14, and the ONE LANE BRIDGE sign (W5‐3) shall be used at one‐lane bridges in

accordance with OMUTCD Section 2C.15.

The NARROW BRIDGE (W5‐2) sign may be used on an approach to

a bridge or culvert that has a clear width less than that of the

approach roadway.

The ONE LANE BRIDGE (W5‐3) sign should be used on low‐volume

two‐way roadways in advance of any bridge or culvert:

Having a clear roadway width of less than 16 feet; or

Having a clear roadway width of less than 18 feet when

commercial vehicles constitute a high proportion of the

traffic; or

Having a clear roadway width of 18 feet or less where the approach sight distance is limited on

the approach to the structure

OBJECT MARKERS (OM3) ‐ Objects not actually in the roadway may be so close to the edge of the road

that they need a marker to warn the driver of a potential danger. These include underpass supports,

ends of bridges, handrails, and the concrete

structure found at the end of a pipe. When used

for marking obstructions within the roadway or

obstructions that are 8 feet or less from the

shoulder or curb, the minimum mounting height,

measured from the bottom of the object marker

to the elevation of the near edge of the traveled

way, should be 4 feet. When used to mark

obstructions more than 8 feet from the shoulder

or curb, the clearance from the ground to the

Figure 20 ‐ Chevron Signs

Figure 19 ‐ Narrow Bridge Sign


Page 49

bottom of the object marker should be at least 4 feet. OM3‐L markers shall be placed on the Left of

approaching traffic, OM3‐C in the center for center obstructions and OM3‐R shall be placed on the

Right.

Vertical Clearance Restrictions

No vehicle shall exceed 13‐feet and 6‐inches vertical

height (Ohio Revised Code reference for the vehicle

height restriction ORC Section 5577.05(D)).

Recommendations on Posting Low Clearance and Advance Warning Low Clearance Signs (note SMS data

shall include the actual clearance rounded down to the nearest inch) are found in the Ohio Manual of

Uniform Traffic Control Devices (OMUTCD) per ORC 4511.09 and

4511.11.

All bridges, tunnels, overhead obstructions and openings for

traffic that have the actual minimum vertical clearance of 14'‐6"

(4.4 meters) or less (rounded down to the nearest 1" or 25 mm)

shall have Advance Warning Low Clearance signs (W12‐2) and

Structure‐mounted low clearance signs (W12‐2p) as per the

guidelines of the Traffic Engineering Manual (TEM) and

OMUTCD Section 2C.27 to warn the road users. The actual

clearance should be shown on the Low Clearance sign to the nearest 1 in not exceeding the actual

clearance. However, in areas that experience changes in temperature causing frost action, a

reduction, not exceeding 3 in, should be used for this condition.

Ground posted Low Clearance signs (W12‐2) may be used near the bridge in addition to Structure‐

mounted low clearance signs (W12‐2p).

All the Low Clearance signs (W12‐2 & W12‐2p)

should display the same clearance height.

Side Low Clearance signs (W12‐H3) shall be

used as per the guidelines of the TEM and

Subtract 3" (75 mm) from the actual clearance

(rounded down to nearest 1” or 25 mm) to

display on the Low Clearance signs.

Figure 22 ‐ Vertical Clearance Sign

Figure 23 – Excessive Restriction Signing can be distracting

Bridges <14’‐6” – Posted & verify

Trucks >13’‐6” –Permit Figure 21 ‐ 1‐ft "No‐Fly" Zone. Note 14'‐6" moves up to 16' for certain routes.


Page 50

On bridges, tunnels, overhead obstructions and openings for traffic, which have actual vertical

under‐clearance more than 14’‐6” (4.4 meters) and get frequent hits or have special needs or if

requested, Low Clearance signs per these guidelines may be used.

Always input the actual clearance measurements in the respected SMS data fields, snowpack is

included after the VC is recorded in SMS.

The Department’s Permit Office relies on the bridge clearance information in the SMS for safe and

uninterrupted operation. Bridge clearances shall be verified when performing routine inspections and

updated accordingly.

Figure 24 – SMS In‐Progress Inspection Report > Review Form

Figure 25 ‐ SMS Inventory > Clearances Form

Strategic Highway Network (STRAHNET)

The STRAHNET is a system of highways and connectors that provides defense access, continuity and

emergency capabilities for movements of personnel and equipment in both peace and wartime. To

meet the demands of military traffic on the Interstate System, ODOT has adopted FHWA standards for

vertical clearance. A vertical clearance over the entire roadway width, including the useable width of

shoulder, should be 16‐feet (4.9 meters) for the rural Interstate. In urban areas, the 16‐feet (4.9‐meter)

clearance is applied to a single route, with other Interstate routings in the urban area having at least a

14’‐1” (4.3‐meter) vertical clearance.


Page 51

Chapter3:FilesComplete information, in good usable form, is vital to the effective management of bridges. Such

information provides a record that may be important for repair, rehabilitation, replacement and future

planning of the bridges. Items that should be assembled as part of the bridge record are discussed in this

Chapter. Guidance to assigning bridge inventory information and creating, retiring and assigning

Structural File numbers may be found in the ODOT Bridge Inventory Coding Guide available online

within the Office of Structural Engineering/Bridge Management Section.

Some or all of the information pertaining to a bridge may be stored in electronic format, including the

Structure Management System (SMS), as part of a file management system. Bridge files are prepared

to maintain and record the following:

Significant bridge file components

Results of bridge inspections together with notations of any action taken to address the findings

of such inspections

Relevant maintenance and inspection data to allow assessment of current bridge condition

Findings and results of bridge inspections.

Ohio Structure Management System (SMS)

Bridge Structure Inventory and Appraisal Information (SI&A) is warehoused by the department’s

Structural Management System (SMS), an online centralized reporting and management database.

Figure 26 ‐ SMS Main Dashboard


Page 52

Non‐ODOT employees may retrieve a username and password through https://myodot.dot.state.oh.us

and upon receiving a username/password then communicate with the SMS team by email at

[email protected] in order to obtain access to the assets as delegated by the Ohio Revised Code or

by contract. The SMS login URL is https://sms.transportation.ohio.gov.

People, who sign (or log into SMS)

inspection reports fraudulently or without

meeting the minimum NBIS qualifications

or the minimum qualifications in this

manual, may be subject to prosecution for

forgery under section 2921.11 of the Ohio

Revised Code or other applicable state or

federal laws.

The Federal NBIS bridge data, designated in the Recording and Coding Guide items 1‐118, is forwarded

to FHWA on a regular basis for compliance verification. Per federal law, State Agencies (including NHS

NBIS bridges under the jurisdiction of Local Authorities) have a maximum of 90 and Local Agencies have

180 days to submit bridge data after the field inspection. In order to effectively collect, process and

update SI&A data, State and Local governments use the centralized online SMS to not only satisfy

Federal and State regulation but to also manage bridge assets. All personnel performing inspection

work for entities must establish a user account in SMS. See the OSE website in the SMS link for details

and manuals.

Purpose of Inspection Records and Files

Control Authorities are to maintain complete, accurate, accessible and up‐to‐date records for each of

their bridges. These records are needed to:

Meet regulation

Establish an inventory of infrastructure assets

Document the condition and functionality of infrastructure, including the need and justification

for bridge restrictions, for public safety

Identify improvement and maintenance needs for planning and programming

Document improvements and maintenance repairs performed

Meet documentation requirements for work performed using Federal and State funding

Figure 27 ‐ SMS Log‐in


Page 53

Provide available information in a timely manner for inspections

Record Retention Period

Unless otherwise noted, one copy (or the original) of each document in the bridge inspection file must

be maintained for the life of the structure. The following documents may be destroyed after the

indicated retention period:

Routine inspections older than 10 years for bridges in service

Retain all inspections, load ratings, design computations and maintenance records for 3 years

after a bridge is replaced

Retain all load ratings for 3 years after a new rating is complete

For Department bridges that are turned back, given or sold to local municipalities or

private/public organizations, all bridge inspection file information should be given to its new

owner. The District needs only a file with contents similar to other local bridges. A record of the

ownership transfer should be maintained in the bridge file.

Inspection Organization Unit File

The Control Authority is to maintain a general file of their organization for bridge safety inspection. The

file shall define the scope of their jurisdiction. The organization file should contain:

List of bridges and structures

List of posted bridges with date of most recent signing verification

List of FCM bridges

List of bridges with special features and/or conditions that necessitate special or more frequent

inspections

List of bridges that require underwater inspection

List of bridges to be inspected during/after high water events

Contact list for key staff during bridge emergencies

Inspection organization

Organizational Chart listing key staff, Program Managers and Inspectors

Certification credentials for the Program Manager, Inspectors and key staff

List of Quality Control tools utilized by the entity (Metric 20)

Latest findings from the Quality Assurance Review

List of inspection equipment


Page 54

List of bridge design and inspection reference materials

Past results of QA Reviews

Individual Structure Inspection File Contents

The inspection file for each bridge/structure typically

consist of a wide variety of information from several

sources to ensure sufficient information is readily

available for safety inspections and overall bridge

management. Because sources for most of the bridge

information is more short lived than the bridge structure

itself, the inspection file is the final repository from

which information on the bridge’s design, construction

and maintenance can be retrieved to evaluate current

conditions. The inspection information for individual

bridges or set of bridges need not be located in a single

central file but it is preferred (Figure above). In fact, a

wide variety of formats (including: 8 ½” x 11” paper

Figure 28 – Best Practice: Individual File Structure Example 1


Page 55

reports, 22” x 36” mylar/vellum drawings, microfilm

aperture cards, microfiche, electronic

drawings/documents, photos prints/negatives/digital

images and management system databases) are now in

use. A “single file drawer” concept for file management is

typically impractical. For the purposes of this section, the

generic term “Inspection File” is intended to encompass all

of these records wherever they are physically stored.

An index of the information available is critical to enable

the inspector to quickly access information needed to

evaluate a structure. A good index for each bridge should

identify the types of records available, their format, storage

location, and date of record (Figure to the right). This index

must be a document that is readily available to the Control

Authority, Program Manager, Inspectors, and key staff.

Complete, accurate, and current records are maintained for

each bridge under their jurisdiction. Records of recent and

past bridge inspections including Routine and Special

Inspections must be legible, accurate, and accessible.

Inspection reports and records must be filed in an orderly manner. All state‐owned bridge files must be

stored at the district offices. Locally‐owned bridge files must be stored under the authority of the

County Engineer, or City Engineer. Where bridge plans, repair plans, and/or rehabilitation plans are

available, a set must be placed in the file folder with all other information about the bridge. Additional

information such as correspondence, agreements, memos, etc. must also be placed in the bridge file.

Bridge files shall have the following components:

a) Significant bridge file components, for example:

• Inspection reports

• Load Rating calculations

• Waterway information – channel cross‐sections, soundings, stream profiles, scour

assessment, Scour Plan of Action

Figure 29 – Best Practice: Individual File Structure Example 2


Page 56

• Significant correspondence

• Special inspection procedures or requirements

• Plan information (when available), Load rating documentation, including load testing

results

• Posting documentation

• Critical findings and actions taken

b) Inventory and evaluation data and collection/verification forms

c) Results of bridge inspections together with notations of any action taken to address the findings

of such inspections

d) Relevant maintenance and inspection data to allow assessment of current bridge condition

e) Findings and results of bridge inspections

Inspection Reports

Bridge Control Authorities are to keep track of the type of inspections

performed during the annual inspection cycle. Each bridge shall be

inspected at least once each calendar year with no time between

inspections of a bridge exceeding 18 months. The bridge inspection

report should be reviewed and submitted within 90 days for State and

Federal bridges and 180 days for Local Agency bridges from the date of

inspection. Under normal circumstances, the inspection should be

performed and submitted as close to the 12‐month interval as possible,

to avoid the possibility of filing two inspections on a bridge in any one

calendar year and none in the next year. Include any special access or requirements needed to fulfill the

inspection of the structure for its remaining useful life.

Inspection Comments, photos or sketches are required for degradation resulting in a primary member

being coded a 4‐Poor or worse. These shall be placed in the bridge file and available to the next

inspector. SMS may be utilized as the one‐stop location bridge file. At a minimum these photos are

recommended within SMS:

Endview – From the rear, looking forward or upstation, stand back far enough to catch the

entire width of the bridge plus 20 feet of approach guardrail. It is important to include warning

signs and restriction signs at the bridge.

Figure 30 ‐ Submit and Approve Final Reports


Page 57

Elevation ‐ Stand back far enough to catch the entire length of the bridge and, where applicable,

show any poor alignment of stream.

Abutment ‐ Verify that flash works on camera, show as much of the abutment and bearings as

possible, show areas of major deterioration if possible, try to show typical overall conditions.

Take additional photos to include all utilities on the bridge.

Underside ‐ Include as much of the beams, slab and deck bottom as possible and include areas

of major deterioration if possible.

Example Degradation of controlling primary member’s 5‐Fair or worse.

Restriction Signage: Load Posting, Vertical Clearance, One‐lane, No Trucks, Closed etc.

Waterway Information

Information that assists in evaluating the waterway opening and the bridge’s resistance to scour must

be included in the individual structure file:

Hydrology and Hydraulics Reports (H+H)

Observed Scour Assessment Report

Scour depth computations (may be part of H+H or standalone calculations)

Flood data, waterway adequacy, often shown on Bridge Site Plan

A plan of action (POA) shall be prepared to monitor known and potential deficiencies and to

address critical findings for all bridges determined to be scour critical. The bridges that are

scour critical must be monitored in accordance with the plan.

An assessment, when performed, shall also be within the bridge file.

Inspection Procedures

Preparation requirements for the field phase of an inspection vary greatly. Variations may be due to

structure type, site accessibility, traffic volume, or channel conditions. Documenting field preparation

requirements can reduce budgets by maximizing mobilization efficiency. These areas of preparation,

where applicable, are to be documented for each bridge.

Figure 31 ‐ Inspection Procedures in SMS within the Inspection/Review tab


Page 58

Procedures lay out what should be done, looked at, etc. Bridges that require a Fracture Critical or

Underwater inspection must have a unique inspection procedure associated with the bridge. The

required procedures are often found in the report, as an introductory section. The procedures should:

Identify any specialized tool or piece of equipment necessary that is not ordinarily carried by the

bridge inspector. Example tools might be extendable ladders, special non‐destructive testing

equipment, power tools, lights, special safety equipment, special underwater tools or diving gear.

Record any special services that are required. Example services might be traffic control, structure

cleaning operations, inspection access such as structure rigging, an under bridge inspection vehicle,

or special working platforms such as a barge.

Document specific scheduling needs for non‐routine inspections. This includes manpower needs for

larger structures that require an extended duration inspection effort with multiple Inspectors,

bridges subject to seasonal flooding conditions, fracture critical bridges where special services are

required, and underwater bridge inspections.

Identify unique site conditions that require more than routine preparation. Unique site conditions

include railroad property right of way restrictions, navigable waterway restrictions, high voltage

transmission lines, unusually heavy vegetation, mud, pollution, insect or animal droppings, unusually

high water level or unique traffic safety procedures.

Other documents that may be maintained as part of the inspection file include PUCO Documents,

Confined Space Permits, Bridge‐Related Correspondence, Cost Estimates for Improvements.

Inspection Procedures for unique structures (a detailed list may be found in the next chapter within

the specific “Inspection Type”)

o Fracture Critical Bridges: The Identification of all steel members in tension that are non‐

load‐path‐redundant shall be in the bridge file for every fracture critical bridge.

Additionally, locations of AASHTO E and E’ details (category examples may be found in

Appendix. Fatigue Prone Details), retrofits and other poor connections should be identified.

Consideration should be given to include AASHTO D details. This plan must be available for

all inspectors at each Fracture Critical Inspection. These fracture critical members shall be

inspected within a 24 month interval. An example Identification Plan is available in

Appendix. Fracture Critical Plan. The procedures shall include how inspectors should access

the FCM’s and who needs to be contacted.

o Underwater Inspection Procedures: Each bridge requiring an underwater dive inspection

must have the underwater elements identified, the location of the underwater elements,


Page 59

the inspection frequency (when less than the minimum 60 months) and any procedures

established described in the records. Those elements requiring underwater inspections

must be inspected according to the procedure. A checklist is available in Appendix.

Underwater Inspection Procedure Checklist.

Plan Information, Load Rating/Posting Information and Traffic Data

Information generated during the design of the bridge that should be incorporated into the permanent

inspection file includes:

Design plans for original construction or rehabilitation

Design Computations

Design Exception Approval letters (Used in Rating Appraisal Items)

Foundation Report

Surveys

Construction and maintenance records considered to be important for the bridge inspection file include:

As‐Built drawings Jacking and/or Demolition Schemes

Shop Drawings Documentation of latent defects

Pile Hammer Approvals and Pile Driving Records

Maintenance Work Orders, Sketches

Field Change Orders Repair Records

Entities are to maintain in the SMS accurate and up‐to‐date load capacity information for all bridges and

structures that carry public traffic. The Load Rating Analysis is part of the safety inspection of a bridge

which include:

Analysis and Rating (All calculations, and computer output and input files and supporting

calculations)

Justification for an Engineering Judgment must include documentation of the condition of the

bridge and date of the inspection that the load rating is based upon

Bridge load rating & posting recommendations, including load rating calculations or load test

data, dates and signing recommendations. The relevant posting information must be kept on

file. Examples include:

o Posting Evaluation

o Posting Recommendation Data

Sheets

o Posting Approval Letter

o Pertinent Correspondence

o Commissioner Resolution


Page 60

Each bridge or structure carrying vehicular traffic requiring inspection under this Manual shall be rated

to determine its safe load carrying capacity in accordance with Bridge Design Manual Section 900. If it

is determined that the maximum legal load configurations exceeds the load allowed at the Operating

Rating level, then the structure shall be posted for load restriction in accordance with ODOT Bridge

Design Manual, Section 900, and AASHTO Manual For Bridge Evaluation. Local Agencies who require

posting based off of the Inventory Rating or a combination Operating/Inventory due to heavy water

truck, logging truck or industrial activity may opt to restrict below the Operating Rating. Sufficient

justification must be placed in the bridge file. Controlling Summary Items less than or equal to a

“Poor” or any Condition State in CS4 should be reanalyzed i.e. load rated using the in‐service

condition of the bridge.

Average Annual Daily Traffic, Average Annual Daily Truck Traffic are fields within the bridge inventory

and the data should be updated and re‐sent.

Maintenance and Repair History

One of the functions of the bridge (and structure) inspection program is to identify the needs of bridges

for repairs, maintenance, preservation, reconstruction and replacement. Bridge authorities need this

information to respond to those critical deficiencies warranting immediate attention and for the long‐

term management of these

critical infrastructure assets. The

FHWA requires the major

improvement needs for NBIS

bridges for nation‐wide planning.

If a history is not available then

place a description in the file of

how it is maintained.

Maintenance items may be

tracked and assigned using the

SMS (Figure to the right

Maintenance Dashboard in SMS).


Page 61

Chapter4:InspectionTypesThe scope, intensity, and frequency of bridge safety inspections are discussed here to provide a better

understanding of the purpose and use of each inspection type and to assist in the development of scope

of inspection work for individual inspections. An inspection event, particularly for large, complex, or

deficient structures, often requires that a variety of inspection types be performed, using a variety of

methodologies. For example, a fracture critical bridge may also require an underwater inspection and a

routine inspection.

Frequency

All bridges greater than or equal to 10‐feet clear span shall receive an annual inspection with no

inspection outside of 18‐months. Structures that are Fracture Critical shall receive a hands‐on arms‐

length inspection of the Fracture Critical Members not to exceed (NTE) 24 months. Structures with

substructure units in water unfit for regular probing or visual inspection (often deeper than 5‐feet at the

substructure unit) shall receive Underwater Inspections not to exceed 60‐months. In‐Depth inspections

are typically scheduled for Major Bridges and Complex Bridges on a five year cycle. Damage Inspections

are unscheduled inspections to assess structural damage resulting from environmental factors or human

actions (i.e. barge‐clip, overheight hit, earthquake).

Criteria for increasing the frequency or level of inspection beyond the minimum statutory or policy

requirements shall be at the discretion of the Control Authority or Program Manager. Often the

discretion is based on a rapid or unforeseen change from the results of a previous inspection. Rationale

for scheduling increased frequencies for an In‐Depth, Special or increased frequency Routine, Fracture

Critical or Underwater Inspection should consider: age, traffic volume, size, susceptibility to collision,

extent of deterioration, performance history of the bridge type, load rating, location, recent failures of

similar structure or material type, structural damage, scour and erosion, drift, streambed movement, ice

loading or navigation traffic collision national defense designation, detour length and social and

economic impacts due to the bridge being out of service.


Page 62

Inspection Type Frequency

Initial Infrequent, performed and inventoried before the bridge is first opened

to traffic or there is a change or update in inspection responsibility.

Routine Annual, performed at least once each calendar year per ORC Not To

Exceed (NTE) 18‐months.

In‐Depth As‐needed, generally performed for Major or Complex bridges often on

a 60‐month cycle or less per Control Authority or inspection and

maintenance procedure. Additionally this inspection type is

recommended when the routine inspection does not provide a

condition evaluation to ascertain the safe live load capacity at the

discretion of the Team Leader or Program Manager.

Damage As‐needed, performed in‐frequently and not part of a normally

scheduled inspection, i.e. someone else notifies inspectors of the

damage.

Flood As‐needed, performed in‐frequently and not part of a normally

scheduled inspection.

Fracture Critical Not to exceed 24‐months for structures that fit the rigid definition.

Fracture Critical Inspections require an inspection procedure.

Underwater Not to exceed 60‐months. For structures that cannot be probed or

inspected due to the water depth, turbidity or unsafe conditions during

routine inspections shall receive an Underwater Dive Inspection. Dive

Inspections require an inspection procedure.

Cross Channel Profile

As‐needed, performed on structures over waterways at the discretion

of the Control Authority. Usually performed on bridges over waterways

that exhibit aggressive stream migration, sloughing or undercutting.

Scour Susceptibility Inspection & Eval

As‐needed, performed on structures in order to evaluate risk from

scour and scour potential

Special/Interim As‐needed, performed at an interval more frequently than the routine

inspection in order to check on one area or one location. The localized

inspection may only focus on and update one or a small number of

inspection or inventory data.

Safety (Cursory) Annual, at least once each calendar year not to exceed 18‐months, on

structures or portions of structures that are primarily inspected by

another entity.

Quality Assurance A rolling sample set of field and office visits performed regularly by

FHWA, ODOT Central Office, CEAO or initiated by any Control Authority

or NBIS Program Manager to verify quality inspections.

Complex Annual routine, with often a 60‐month in‐depth inspection cycle. These

structures require an inspection procedure.

Table 31 ‐ Inspection Type and Frequency


Page 63

Initial Inspections

An Initial Inspection is the first inspection of a new structure, a structure that has changed ownership or

a reconstructed structure. It is a close‐up hands on inspection of the structure to document its baseline

condition.

Purpose of Initial Inspections

The purpose of the Initial Inspection is to verify the safety of the bridge, in accordance with the NBIS and

Department standards, before it is put into service. It also serves to provide required inventory

information of the as‐built structure type, size, and to document its structural and functional conditions

by:

Providing all Structure Inventory & Appraisal (SI&A) data required by Federal regulations along

with all other data required by Department standards.

Determining baseline structural conditions and eliminate deficiencies recorded under previous

structural assessments.

Clearance envelopes (for features carried and those intersected) and bridge waterway openings

are to be documented at this time.

Identifying maintenance needs, including preventative maintenance activities.

Noting the existence of elements or members requiring special attention, such as fracture

critical members, fatigue‐prone details, and underwater members.

Verify construction/rehabilitation contracts.

Documents, including but not limited to, photographs, drawings (design, as‐built and shop

drawings), scour analysis, foundation information, hydrologic and hydraulic data are to be

inserted into the bridge file. Selected construction records (e.g. pile driving records, field

changes, etc.) may also be of great use in the future and should be included.

Unexpected problems with a small number of newly constructed bridges have demonstrated

that safety inspections may be needed even for new bridges to ascertain their initial and long‐

term safety.

Uncompleted non‐bridge maintenance items (e.g. roadway drainage, channel debris, etc.) have

caused significant bridge damage in several incidences. The inspection cycle is needed for

effective planning and programming of bridge maintenance activities, especially on‐demand

repairs and preventative maintenance items. In addition, new asset management analysis tools


Page 64

for bridges and other assets require high quality bridge condition and needs data collected at

regular intervals to provide good decision‐making tools for bridge owners.

In the event that responsibility of a bridge changes, a letter notifying the Central Office, Office of

Structural Engineering, shall be written by the Control Authority retiring the structure. The letter shall

inform all parties of their inspection and maintenance responsibilities. The SFN will remain the same

however the program responsibilities will change.

Scope and Frequency of Initial Inspections

The level of effort required to perform an Initial Inspection will vary according to the structure’s type,

size, design complexity, and location. An Initial Inspection is to be a close‐up, hands‐on inspection of all

members of the structure to document the baseline conditions. Traffic control and special access

equipment may be required.

Initial Inspections are performed for each structure after construction is essentially complete and before

the bridge is put into service (or returned to service for bridges that have had a major reconstruction).

Bridges open to traffic during construction operations are required to be inspected. Anytime ownership

changes, a bridge is newly constructed or receiving a major rehab, the bridge shall receive an initial

inspection.

Routine Inspections

Routine Inspections provide documentation of the existing physical and functional conditions of the

structure. All changes to the inventory that have occurred since the previous inspection are also to be

documented and updated. The written report will include appropriate photographs and

recommendations for major improvements, maintenance needs (preservation, preventative

maintenance or on‐demand repairs), and follow‐up inspections. Load capacity analyses are re‐evaluated

only if changes in structural conditions or pertinent site conditions have occurred since the previous

analyses.

Purpose of Routine Inspections

A Routine Inspection shall satisfy the requirements of the NBIS and Department standards. Routine

Inspections serve to document sufficient field observations/measurements and load ratings needed to:

Determine the physical and functional condition of the structure.


Page 65

Determine the need for establishing or revising a weight restriction on the bridge.

Determine improvement and maintenance needs.

Ensure that the structure continues to satisfy present service and safety requirements.

Identifying and listing concerns of future conditions.

Identify any inventory changes from the previous inspection.

Scope and Frequency of Routine Inspections

Routine Inspections are regularly scheduled inspections performed once each calendar year. No routine

inspection shall occur outside of an 18 month interval since the previous inspection. The interval for

Routine Inspections should be reduced from the maximum calendar year inspection when the engineer

determines that the bridge conditions have deteriorated to the point where additional scrutiny is

warranted to ensure public safety. This reduced frequency inspection would be called a special interim

inspection.

The level of scrutiny and effort required to perform a Routine Inspection will vary according to the

structure’s type, size, design complexity, existing conditions, and location. Generally, every element in a

bridge does not require a hands‐on inspection during each Routine Inspection to provide an acceptable

level of assurance of the bridge’s ongoing safety. The difficulty is that the areas not needing close‐up

scrutiny cannot always be determined until after the entire bridge has been inspected and non‐critical

areas identified. To provide a reasonable level of confidence in the safety of the bridge, knowledge of

the structure and good engineering judgment are necessary when considering those portions that will

not receive the close‐up scrutiny with each inspection. Areas that may be more difficult to access but

warrant a hands‐on inspection in each Routine (or Special) Inspection, include, but are not limited to:

Those areas explicitly determined by previous inspections

Load carrying members in Poor condition, critical sections of controlling members on posted

bridges

Scour critical substructure units

Areas determined by the Program Manager, for example:

o End regions of steel girders or beams under deck joints

o Cantilever portions of concrete piers or bents

o Ends of Prestressed concrete beams at continuity diaphragms

o Pin and Hanger / Hinge assemblies

o Redundancy retrofit systems


Page 66

o Vertical Clearance restrictions on state routes

o New product testing for maintenance application

o Reoccurring maintenance needs that pose structural or safety concerns

During Routine Inspections, particular attention should be given to scour, erosion, (new rock fields,

debris) and overall stability of the substructure.

Routine Inspections are generally conducted from the deck, ground and/or water levels, ladders and

from permanent work platforms or walkways, if present. Inspection of underwater members of the

substructure is generally limited to observations during periods of low flow and/or probing/sounding for

evidence of local scour.

The application of these inspection guidelines do not relieve the Control Authority or Program Manager

in charge of the inspection from the responsibility to perform other In‐Depth Inspection tasks and/or

tests needed to ascertain the condition of the bridge and assure the safety of the traveling public.

Increased intervals or level of inspection are at the discretion of the Control Authority or Program

Manager.

In‐Depth Inspections

An In‐Depth Inspection is a close‐up, hands‐on inspection of one or more members and a close visual of

all members above or below the water level to identify any deficiency not readily detectable using

Routine Inspection procedures. An In‐Depth Inspection may be limited to certain elements, span

group(s), or structural units of a structure, and need not involve the entire structure. Conversely, In‐

Depth Inspections may include all elements of a structure. In‐Depth Inspections can be conducted by

itself or as part of a Routine or other type of inspection.

Purpose of In‐Depth Inspections

In‐Depth Inspections serve to collect and document data to a sufficient detail needed to quantify the

physical condition of a bridge. This data is more detailed than data collected during a Routine

Inspection.

In‐Depth Inspections should be routinely scheduled for selected bridges based on their size, complexity

and/or condition. Major or complex bridges represent large capital investments and warrant closer

scrutiny to ensure that maintenance work is identified and completed in a timely manner. These bridges

tend to be more critical to local and area transportation because of the usual lack of suitable detours. It


Page 67

may be more difficult to provide a complete snapshot of the bridge conditions when access difficulties

limit the scope of Routine Inspections.

Scope and Frequency of In‐Depth Inspections

The level of effort required to perform an In‐Depth Inspection will vary according to the structure’s type,

size, design complexity, existing conditions, and location. Traffic control and special equipment, such as

under‐bridge cranes, rigging, or staging may be needed for In‐Depth Inspections. Personnel with special

skills such as divers and riggers may be required. Non‐destructive field tests and/or material tests may

be performed to fully ascertain the existence of or the extent of any deficiency. On small bridges, the In‐

Depth Inspection, if warranted, should include all critical elements of the structure.

For large or complex structures, these inspections may be data driven or scheduled separately for

defined segments of the bridge or for designated groups of elements, connections or details that can be

efficiently addressed by the same or similar inspection techniques. If the latter option is chosen, each

defined bridge segment and/or each designated group of elements, connections or details should be

clearly identified as a matter of record and should be assigned a frequency for re‐inspection. The

activities, procedures, and findings of In‐Depth Inspections shall be completely and carefully

documented more than those of Routine Inspections. Stated differently, In‐Depth Inspection reports will

generally be detailed documents unique to each structure that exceed the documentation of routine

inspection forms.

Figure 32 ‐ In‐depth Inspection of Suspension Cable


Page 68

A structural analysis for load carrying capacity may be required with an In‐Depth inspection to fully

evaluate the effect of the more detailed scrutiny of the structure condition.

An In‐Depth Inspection can be scheduled in addition to a Routine Inspection, though generally at a

longer interval, or it may be a follow‐up to a previous inspection. An In‐Depth Inspection that includes all

elements of the structure will satisfy the requirements of the NBIS and take the place of the Routine

Inspection for that cycle.

In‐Depth Inspections do not reduce the level of scrutiny for Routine Inspections. Program Managers

shall schedule In‐Depth Inspection based upon condition and importance. Increased intervals are up to

the discretion of the Control Authority or Program Manager.

Damage Inspections

Damage Inspections are performed following

extreme weather‐related events, earthquakes

vandalism and vehicular/marine traffic crashes.

When major damage has occurred, the Inspectors

will need to evaluate fractured or failed

members, determine the amount of section loss,

take detailed measurements for misalignment of

members, check for any loss of foundation

support, etc.

Purpose of Damage Inspections

Damage Inspections serve to determine the nature, severity, and extent of structural damage following

extreme weather‐related events and vehicular and marine traffic collisions/accidents for use in

designing needed repairs. Damage Inspection findings shall be used to determine the immediate need to

place an emergency restriction on a bridge (e.g. weight restriction or closure) for vehicular traffic. If a

bridge is closed to vehicular traffic, the need to close it to pedestrian traffic shall also be determined.

The findings of a Damage Inspection may be used to re‐coup the costs of inspection and needed repairs

or reconstruction from involved parties or other governmental agencies. Accordingly, documentation of

the inspection may be critical in these efforts. For Department bridges, the extent of damage and

estimated costs of repair should be reported to the District damage coordinator. Photographs, videos

Figure 33 ‐ Damage inspection


Page 69

and sketches can be extremely helpful. See Appendix. Over‐Height Steel Beam Bridge Strike Form for

additional information regarding reporting ODOT District bridge emergencies in accordance with

SAC4SR7 emergency funds.

Scope and Frequency of Damage Inspections

A Damage Inspection is an unscheduled inspection to assess the structural damage resulting from

environmental factors or human actions. Damage Inspections are performed on an as‐needed basis.

The amount of effort expended on this type of inspection will vary significantly depending upon the

extent of the damage, the volume of traffic encountered, the location of the damage on the structure,

and documentation needs. The scope of a Damage Inspection must be sufficient to determine the need

for emergency load restrictions or closure of the bridge to traffic, and to estimate the level of effort

necessary to accomplish repairs. The capability to make an on‐site determination of the need to

establish emergency load restrictions may be necessary.

Flood Inspections

To combat the loss of structures from the transportation system

and protect our valued infrastructure, Program Managers

should assess and prioritize bridge‘s vulnerability to scour so

that critical bridges can be identified for closer monitoring and

possible implementation of scour countermeasures.

See Appendi. Scour Critical Plan of Action (POA) and Appendix.

Scour Critical Assessment Checklist for support to help

determine the Scour Susceptibility.

The Program Manager is to establish an internal procedure to monitor bridges that are vulnerable to

scour during or immediately after periods of high water. The following elements are recommended for

consideration as part of the procedures:

A list and map of bridges that are to be monitored during periods of high water. Bridges

vulnerable to scour include scour critical bridges, those that may have scoured previously or that

may have a history or be susceptible to degradation and aggradation.

Because high stream flows can be localized and information about its severity and extent may

not be immediately available, a method of reporting the occurrence and extent of high water is

Figure 34 ‐ Flood Inspection Signage


Page 70

needed. Many times the first responders are maintenance forces; they can be trained to report

high water events to the program manager. This method is useful for prioritizing structures to

be checked by bridge Inspectors.

Local benchmarks established at bridges can enable non‐bridge Inspectors to record and report

the height of water. The list of bridges should also indicate the location of the benchmarks and

the water heights at which scour inspections are warranted. In addition, the benchmarks enable

Inspectors to quickly gauge the progress of scour at a substructure.

Fracture Critical Inspections

Description of Fracture Critical Inspections

Fracture critical bridges must carry public vehicular traffic and have at least one Fracture Critical

Member (FCM) in order to be considered a Fracture Critical bridge. A FC Member must meet all of the

following:

Must be steel

Must be in partial (ex. Bottom flange of a flexure member) or total tension (ex. Axial)

The loss of the FCM would result in a partial or total loss of the structure. In other words, the

bridge is unable to safely carry some level of traffic (Live Load) in its damaged condition.

Conservatively in Ohio that is less than four (4) load paths i.e. three (3)or less. In addition to

Load Path Redundancy there are sub‐categories of redundancy that are helpful in categorizing

and refining FC bridges:

o Structural Redundancy – The internal spans on continuous bridges are structurally

redundant.

o Internal Redundancy – Mechanically fastened connections or more than 3 internal load

paths per member.

o System Redundancy –Experimental and analytical research has shown that members

once deemed FC based on conservative consideration alone actually may provide

redundancy by 3‐dimensional system behavior and lateral load redistribution.

Scope and Frequency of Fracture Critical Inspections

Fracture Critical Members must be inspected within a 24 month frequency at an arm’s‐length distance,

18”‐35”, so inspectors are able to find initiated small cracks in the steel faces in the tension zone(s).


Page 71

Structures that do not carry highway traffic do not necessitate a FCM inspection. It is desirable for

inspectors performing FCM inspection to have successfully passed the 3‐day NHI Fracture Critical

Inspection Techniques for Steel Bridges (FHWA 130078).

Common Fracture Critical Bridge and Member Types

Examples of structure types with FCM’s include the following.

Figure 35 ‐ Deck Truss with Fracture Critical Members

The following bridge types always have Fracture Critical members:

1. Steel Truss ‐The primary members are made of steel that carry axial tension and they often have

two primary load paths (two truss‐lines).

2. Steel through Girder ‐ The primary members are made of steel, have non‐redundant (two load

paths) primary load carrying members with tension zones and are therefore fracture critical.


Page 72

The following bridge types usually have Fracture Critical members:

1. Steel Beam or Steel Girder – when non‐redundant load paths exist

2. Steel Box Girders – when conditions are met

The following bridge members are Fracture Critical when any one of the following criteria are met:

1. Steel Floorbeams are FCM when any one of the four criteria are met:

a. Hinged connection (including the hinge, i.e. U‐bolt) to the support girders or

b. Spacing (from floorbeam to floorbeam) greater than 14’‐0” or

c. Floorbeams without stringers or

d. Stringers are configured as simple beams

Figure 36 ‐ Fracture Critical Girder and Floorbeam

2. Hangers at the Pin and Hanger Assembly – when 3 or fewer beam‐lines exist

3. Arch Ties Tension hangers supporting the roadway

Floorbeams (FCM)

Spaced more than 14’

Girders (Fracture Critical) with access railing

Lower Lateral Bracing (non FCM)

Stringers (non FCM)


Page 73

4. Steel Pier Caps or Cross‐Girders‐ When only 2 supports (bents or columns) exist per cap

Figure 37 ‐ Fracture Critical Steel Pier Cap with Confined Space Entry

5. Any Other Member Qualifying as Fracture Critical (Steel, Tension & Partial/Total Collapse)

Fracture Critical Inspection Procedures

Bridges with FCM’s must have written inspection procedures which clearly identify the location of all

FCMs, specify the frequency of inspection (if less than 24 months), describe any specific risk factors

unique to the bridge, and clearly detail inspection methods and equipment to be employed. Acceptable

written procedures are those that communicate to the inspection team leader what is necessary to

insure a successful inspection. The prior inspection report is valuable to review for inspection findings

but most often do not serve the same purpose as inspection procedures. The inspection report records

what an inspector actually did, what was looked at, and what was found. Procedures lay out what

should be done, looked at, etc. The Fracture Critical Plan in Appendix, when completely filled out, will

fulfill the intent of the required procedures. The procedures should be incorporated into SMS in the

inspection report under the “Review” Tab. These inspections must be planned and prepared for, taking

into account special circumstances or conditions that the inspector needs to be aware of.


Page 74

A procedure will require three primary components:

1. Identified Fracture Critical Members on framing plan or sketch

2. Table or location of important structural details

3. Risk Factors

o Risk Factors (Structural)‐ FCMs must be inspected according to the written inspection

procedures for the bridge, which should contribute to thorough inspections yielding

accurate condition assessments. Specific risk factors include, but are not limited to:

• fatigue and fracture prone

details, notably the E & E’

details

• Material specific factors,

including welded:

o T1 steel

o ASTM A514

o Grade 100 Steel

o Quenched & Tempered

(Q&T) Steel

o High‐Strength Steel

o Heat‐Treated Steel

o Combinations of the

above or any above

used with the adjective

“alloy”

poor welding techniques

potential out‐of‐plane distortion

details

previous cracking or repairs

source of prior cracking

• cold service temperatures

• load posted

• superstructure condition code of 4 or

less

• subject to overloads or impact

damage

• older service life

• high ADTT (can be taken as

ADTT>5,000 but may be less depending

on the # of fatigue cycles)

Knowledge of the source of prior

cracking, such as load induced,

distortion induced, constraint induced

(pop‐in fracture), or fabrication flaws

(hydrogen, weld defect, other), can be

important for determining proper

inspection procedures. Load induced is

typically the most predictable, whereas

Figure 38 ‐ Plug Weld


Page 75

the others are less predictable (with more inherent risk). Knowing the lowest

anticipated service temperature is an important factor in determining susceptibility to

cracking.

Bridges posted because of a controlling FCM, which may or may not include

deterioration, also warrant special attention. In general, evaluate the appropriateness of

the prescribed procedures for any identified risk factors.

Gusset Plates that have structural bowing require documented and quantitatively

repeatable procedures for measuring bowing change within a tolerance of 1/16”.

The non‐redundant nature of FCMs, especially when coupled with risk factors, leads to a

heightened concern for the performance of these members. By identifying these

conditions or risk factors, the inspectors of FCMs can appropriately prepare for, and

perform, a thorough inspection.

o Risk Factors (Inspector Access) The procedure should also identify risk factors or unique

circumstances or conditions at the site. The proper development of good inspection

procedures, and concerted attention to follow those procedures, will mitigate most risks.

Items to consider should include:

clearly detail any inspection methods (include specifically what needs looked at and

what the inspector is looking for)

needed access (snooper, manlift, climbing, consider including contact for property

owners, driveway location, key location, etc.)

scheduling for equipment rental, bridge maintenance, RR or river traffic under

bridge

maintenance of traffic

detour of traffic or closure of bridge necessary

unique inspection methods and frequencies if within the minimum 24 months

are there time periods of high water preventing access to floor beams

specific inspection devices or safety equipment utilized

permits/permission required for access, from landowner, agency governing

land/water

necessity to clean or open access hatches prior to the inspection

confined space needs


Page 76

Underwater Inspections

The purpose of underwater inspections is to provide information on underwater portions of a bridge to

evaluate their overall degradation, safety and, to assess the risk of failure due to scour. The levels of

Underwater Inspection are as follows:

Routine Visual, Wading and/or Probing Inspection

Underwater Dive Inspection

o Level – Visual, tactile inspection

o Level II – Detailed inspection with partial cleaning

o Level III – Highly detailed inspection with Non‐Destructive Testing (NDT) or Partially

Destructive Testing (PDT)

Figure 39 ‐ SMS Screen‐Shot of an In‐Progress Inspection > Review Tab

Routine Wading or Probing Inspection

Visual combined with probing substructure units should be performed at every routine inspection.

Structures which cannot be inspected visually at low water by wading or probing, will require diving

techniques. Active scouring and undermining or substructure deterioration below the water level must

be regularly monitored.

Dive Inspection

Structures which cannot be inspected visually at low water by wading or probing, will require diving

techniques. Typically the threshold is for those substructure units in water deeper than 5‐ft but

depending on access, tools available, visibility and safety this may need to be adjusted.


Page 77

Various factors influence the underwater bridge inspection selection criteria. All structures receive

routine underwater inspections at intervals not to exceed 60 months. This is the maximum interval

permitted between underwater inspections for bridges which are in excellent underwater condition and

which are located in passive, nonthreatening environments. The control authority determines the

inspection interval that is appropriate for each individual bridge. This is generally considered to be a

water depth that prevents an inspector from safely probing around the culvert, pier or abutment.

Factors to consider in establishing the inspection frequency and levels of inspection include:

Inspector Access

Inspector Safety

Age of Structure & Substructure

Traffic volume

Size of Structure

Susceptibility to collision

Extent of deterioration

Performance history of bridge type

Load rating

Location

National defense designation

Detour length

Social and economic impacts due to the

bridge being out of service

Type of construction materials

Environment

Scour characteristics

Condition ratings from past inspections

Known deficiencies

Non‐destructive technology, including ground sensing radar, ultrasonic techniques, remote video

recorders, and others are useful aids to supplement, but not replace, underwater inspections of

substructure foundations.

Key information to be determined in every underwater dive inspection is the top of streambed relative

to the elevation of the substructure foundations. Because scour can vary significantly from one end of a

footing to the other, a single probing reading is not sufficient. Baseline streambed conditions should be

established by waterway opening cross sections and by a grid pattern of probing readings around the

face of a substructure unit. This baseline information is essential for future monitoring and assessment.

The current streambed conditions and changes since the last inspection are critical inputs to the bridge

scour assessment.

Each bridge should have a local reference point established near each substructure unit to enable

Inspectors to quickly and accurately determine the depth of adjacent scour. These can be as simple as a


Page 78

painted line or PK nail driven into the wall in a place visible during high water. The location of these

scour‐monitoring benchmarks should be referenced in the inspection records and bridge file. Use

previously established benchmarks when possible to provide a long‐term record of scour conditions. If

new benchmarks need to be established, provide conversion from new to old datum.

Underwater inspections are intended to investigate two critical issues regarding the condition of bridge

substructures located in water:

The condition of structural components (including pier shaft, abutment walls, footings, etc.)

under water.

The integrity of the substructure foundation (including underlying soil, piles, caissons, etc.)

against scour at each substructure unit in water.

The inspection of the foundation of a substructure unit and the determination of its ongoing resistance

to scour is critical for the overall safety of the bridge. Because the integrity of the foundation against

scour can suddenly and dramatically change in a relatively short time (as compared to physical condition

of the structure components), shorter intervals for inspection of the foundation should be established

when warranted.

Scope for an Underwater Dive Inspection

A regularly scheduled Underwater Dive Inspection normally includes a 100% Level I inspection and a

10% Level II inspection. It may also include additional Level II inspections and Level III inspection if

necessary to determine the structural condition of the submerged substructure elements with certainty

Level I Underwater Dive Bridge Inspection includes a close visual examination of the entire submerged

portions of a bridge. They should include, but are not limited to the following:

Written Inspection Procedures specific to the bridge

Steel, concrete, stone & timber abutments, piers, fenders, and dolphins

Identify and describe any scour adjacent to the above mentioned items.

Identify and describe any damage to substructure items as may have been caused by collision

(ice, debris, vessels, vehicles, etc).

Identify and describe any footings or support elements which may be exposed.

If bottoms of footings are exposed, include measurements describing the sizes of voids under

the footings. In addition, describe the condition of any piling exposed in the void area.


Page 79

Identify and describe the condition of all piling of pile supported structures from the waterline

to channel bottom, and identify and describe the condition of any pile protection.

Identify and describe any cracks, scaling, tilting, or spalling of concrete or masonry piers and

abutments.

Probing of the soil adjacent to any substructure unit is required

Cross Channel Profile (if applicable): Discussed later in this chapter.

Scour Susceptibility Inspection and Evaluation (if applicable): Discussed later in this chapter.

Level II Underwater Dive Bridge Inspection may be required whenever serious deterioration is found

during a Level I Inspection. A level II shall include field measurements and substructure cleaning below

the waterline to document the extent of unsatisfactory structural condition. The inspector must report

in full detail giving all dimensions of size, shape, and exact location. Effective methods for testing and

measuring sound or unsound concrete; sound or unsound timber; section loss of steel, sound or

unsound masonry; in piers, piles, bents, cribs, or other types of substructure construction; presence of

scour, alteration, or other conditions; and/or any other conditions that may affect the integrity of

substructure units. For example if concrete encased steel piles of a bridge bent were in water, and they

were found to have areas of advanced section loss. A Level‐2 Inspection would involve cleaning a

representative number of piles and taking measurements of the steel shell thickness.

Level III Underwater Dive Bridge Inspection Is a highly detailed inspection of a critical structure or

structural element or a member where extensive repair or possible replacement is contemplated. The

purpose is to detect hidden or interior damage or loss in cross sectional area and to evaluate the

material. It includes extensive cleaning, detailed measurements and selected nondestructive and

partially destructive techniques: ultrasonic, sample coring or boring, physical material sampling and in

situ hardness testing. The use of testing techniques is generally limited to key structural areas, suspect

areas or areas which may be representative of the entire underwater structure.

Underwater Dive Inspection Procedures

Acceptable written procedures are those that communicate to the inspection team leader what is

necessary to insure a successful inspection. Each bridge with elements requiring underwater diving

inspection must have written inspection procedures specific to each bridge which address items unique

to that bridge. The prior inspection report, by itself, does not suffice for the required procedures. It is

valuable to review for previous inspection findings, but does not serve the same purpose as the


Page 80

inspection procedures. The inspection report records what an inspector actually did, what was looked

at, and what was found. Procedures lay out what should be done, looked at, etc. The procedure

checklist in Appendix is a framework to satisfy the intent of the FHWA requirements. The procedures

can be incorporated into the inspection report in SMS “Review” tab.

The underwater inspections must be planned and prepared for, taking into account:

identified underwater elements

physical scour countermeasures

needed access (consider including contact for property owners, driveway location etc)

inspection equipment necessary

structural details

hydraulic features and characteristics

unique inspection methods and frequencies if within 60 months

the qualifications of inspecting personnel if more advanced than the minimum NBIS

Other items that may be addressed, if applicable, are: special contracting procedures prior

to inspection (Coast Guard, etc.), scheduling considerations (lake draw down, canal dry time,

etc.)

Risk factors

o The procedure should identify risk factors or unique circumstances or conditions at

each site. The proper development of good inspection procedures, and concerted

attention to follow those procedures, will mitigate most risks. In addition, the risk of

scour for scour critical bridges, or bridges with unknown foundations, is mitigated

by development and implementation of a scour plan of action (POA) for each bridge.

Specific risk factors include waterway features such as rapid stream flows,

significant debris accumulation, constricted waterway openings, soft or unstable

streambeds, meandering channels, etc., which may promote scour and undermining

of substructure elements. Water conditions which may affect the inspection such

as: black water, or rapid stream flows should also be identified and accounted for in

the inspection methods. Water environment and structural systems or materials

which may combine for accelerated deterioration of the bridge elements should be

identified such as highly corrosive water, unprotected steel members, timber piling

in the presence of teredos or limnoria, etc. By identifying these conditions or risk

factors, the underwater inspectors can appropriately prepare for, and perform, a


Page 81

thorough inspection. The underwater inspection procedures developed for the

bridge should adequately address these items, and also whether the inspection

reports adequately address them, as appropriate.

Cross Channel Profile

Cross channel profile measurements are taken on bridges over waterways to track the rate‐of‐change of

stream alignment and scour. Soundings of the channel bottom are usually done along the bridge

centerline (to depict any areas of scour). Soundings will be made at a maximum interval (ex. 10’spacing)

and the channel bottom elevations shall be compared with pier or abutment elevations. Additional

soundings around piers and abutments, both up and downstream should be taken as necessary to

accurately depict any areas of scour. River current direction should be shown on the sounding diagram.

Additional resources should be assigned to complete cross channel profiles, see Appendix. Cross

Channel Profile Measurements and the SMS Cross Channel Form in order to chart the rate of change of

scour and channel embankments.

Scour Susceptibility Inspection and Evaluation

Scour Susceptibility Inspection and Analysis evaluations are performed to determine the level of risk

associated with hydraulic events. A full Evaluation includes a Data Review, a Field Inspection and an

Engineering Evaluation. The level of effort at each site will depend on the availability of information

collected.

Figure 40 ‐ Cross Channel Profile


Page 82

Data Review: Plans, Assessment Checklist, FEMA Flood Insurance Studies, Bridge Evaluation

Survey & Underwater Inspection Reports, Foundation Reports, Pile Driving, and Boring Logs and

Existing Hydraulic Calculations (if applicable).

Field Inspection: The investigation should include, but is not limited to:

o Completing the Assessment checklist, Visual observations, verification or collection of

the required information. The appropriate Sections of HEC‐18 and HEC‐20 (titled

"Stream Stability at Highway Structures") can be utilized for guidance in the evaluation

of existing conditions.

o Photographic documentation of the bridge elevation, and the general configuration of

the substructure elements and the upstream and downstream channel and any existing

scour related conditions

o Cross Channel Profile: As part of the evaluation of the distribution of flood flows at the

site, cross sections at the bridge and at the upstream and downstream channels.

o Evaluation of waterway and channel characteristics, including the evaluation of channel

and overbank roughness coefficients and the location of additional waterway cross

sections as required.

o Collection of soil samples adjacent to the footings at any bridge substructure unit that is

being evaluated and in the stream channel. The samples shall be collected using augers

or other hand excavation methods.

Engineering Evaluation and Calculations

o Calculate the depth of scour and plot stream cross sections showing the scour depth at

the bridge site in accordance with the procedures documented in the current FHWA

publication HEC‐18 titled Evaluating Scour at Bridges. The analysis includes an

assessment of the effects of long‐term changes in the streambed. In accordance with

the FHWA Publication, HEC‐18, this effort should include the evaluation of long‐term

bed elevation changes and the determination of the proper scour analysis method.

Computations should be performed for the magnitude of: contraction scour; local scour

at pier(s), if required; and local scour at the abutments.

o Calculations performed should include contraction and local scour values for discharge

events per the StreamStats a USGS web based application. Based upon the results of the

calculations and evaluations, scour depth cross‐sections should be developed for each

discharge event which illustrate: the general configuration of the bridge; the location


Page 83

and depth of the bridge foundations; and the depths of the various scour components

(long term, contraction, local) Based upon these cross‐sections, the existing

substructure units can be evaluated/analyzed for horizontal and vertical stability. The

depths of scour should be evaluated/analyzed for reasonableness based upon actual

records for storms and/or scour holes and the potential effect of lateral stability of the

waterway.

Special/Interim/Miscellaneous Inspections

Special (or Interim) Inspections are scheduled by the bridge Owner to examine bridges or portions of

bridges with known or suspected deficiencies. Special Inspections tend to focus on specific areas of a

bridge where problems were previously reported or to investigate areas where problems are suspected.

Special Inspections are conducted until corrective actions remove critical deficiencies or until the risk is

diminished.

Purpose of Special/Interim Inspections

Special Inspections are used to monitor particular known or suspected critical deficiencies, fulfill the

need for interim inspections (i.e. reduced inspection interval for posted bridges, repairs), and to

investigate bridge conditions following a natural disaster or manmade emergency.

Scope and Frequency of Special/Interim Inspections

The Program Manager defines the scope and frequency of the Special Inspections. The personnel

performing a Special Inspection should be carefully instructed regarding the nature of the known

deficiency and its functional relationship to satisfactory bridge performance. Guidelines and procedures

on what to observe and/or measure must be provided.

The determination of an appropriate scope and frequency for a Special Inspection frequency should

consider the nature, severity and extent of the known deficiency, as well as age, traffic characteristics,

public importance, and maintenance history. Special Inspections are typically at intervals shorter than 12

months.


Page 84

Safety (Cursory) Inspection

Safety inspections are similar to routine inspections but are more cursory in nature. They are secondary

inspections performed by entities that do not have primary inspection responsibility per State regulation

but that have a vested interest in the safety of the traveling public on or under the structures.

Non‐Highway bridges over a highway: Those

entities with right‐of‐way underneath the bridge

should be inventory and annually inspect such

structures to ensure such structures do not pose

an unacceptable safety risk. Such inspections

should only consist of those portions of the

structure which would directly affect the right‐of‐

way underneath the structure. Any problems

requiring immediate attention should be relayed

to the responsible authorities.

Closed bridges: When a public road bridge is closed to vehicular traffic but not removed from the site,

continued cursory inspections are required on an annual basis to assure adequate safety to the public

having access on or beneath the structure, and that necessary barricades for vehicles and/or pedestrians

are in place.

If a bridge remains on the inventory of public roads, it must be inspected in accordance with NBIS and

Department standards. Although a bridge is closed, the inspection must be current. Federal‐aid funding

eligibility is not maintained without current inspection records (note: the Operational Status on the

report must be coded “X” or “K” to indicate the structure is closed).

Figure 42 ‐ Overhead Pedestrian Non‐Highway Structure

Figure 41 ‐ Overhead Conveyer Structure


Page 85

Coordination with Railroad Bridges over a Public Highway:

Railroad track owners are responsible for an annual inspection per Federal Regulation (49 CFR part 237

eff. July 15, 2010). Not performing inspections may result in tickets or fines, anywhere between $650 to

$25,000, from FRA inspectors. ORC requires that annual inspection reports are submitted to:

Public Utility Commission of Ohio (PUCO) and

The public authority with jurisdiction of the highway (ORC 4907.44), when dangerous conditions

exist

In the event reports are not

submitted to the public authority a

request may be filed with the track

owner in order to receive such

reports. Safety (or Cursory)

inspections should be performed by

the public authority with jurisdiction

of the highway to ensure the safety

of the traveling public. This includes

an inventory of the portion of the

structure in the right‐of‐way.

Track owners are responsible not only for inspecting but for performing maintenance (ORC 5523.17 eff.

9/28/1973, ORC 4955.20 eff. 10/1/1953). Track‐owners are required to report to the Public Utility

Commission (PUCO) unsafe structures that require speed reductions (ORC 4907.45 eff. 10/1/1953) and

annual inspection reports (ORC 4907.44 eff. 6/11/1968). Additionally, if the obstruction or properties

present an immediate and serious threat to the safety of the traveling public, the ODOT director may

remove or relocate the obstruction or properties without prior notice (ORC 5515.02 eff. 4/5/2001).

Quality Assurance (QA) Review Inspection

Established QA Inspections are regularly performed on bridges by representatives from FHWA, CEAO or

ODOT central office to promote accuracy and consistency and to ensure NBIS Compliance. The Control

Authority of each entity is encouraged to perform sample inspections in addition to the independent

field reviews prescribed in Metric 20.

Table 32 ‐ Railroad Bridge Over Highway ROW


Page 86

Complex Bridge Inspections

Complex Bridges include structures

with suspension bridges, movable

bridges and cable stayed bridges.

These unique or special features

necessitate additional inspection

requirements and inspector duties.

The inspection of a Complex bridge

must be in accordance with this

Manual of Bridge Inspection, the

FHWA Bridge Inspectors Reference

Manual (BIRM). Additionally every

complex bridge should have its own

Operating and Maintenance

Manual and Field Inspection Plan.

If there is no Operating and

Maintenance Manual, then sound

judgment should be used in establishing a thorough Field Inspection Plan where specific conditions are

encountered that are not covered by this manual or the BIRM.

Due to the size and/or complexity of the bridge, a good field inspection plan is necessary to ensure

historical continuity, track deficiencies and communicate nomenclature. A good inspection plan should

include most of the following:

The type of Inspection(s) to be completed

A brief historical fact statement about the bridge type and condition

Confirmation that the bridge has been properly cleaned for the type of inspection planned

Copies of essential plans

A mapped route to the site

Keys for any locked access points

Specialized inspection procedures which clearly identify the complex features

Frequency of inspection of those features

Describe any specific risk factors unique to the bridge

Figure 43 ‐ Complex Inspection 1


Page 87

Clearly detail inspection methods and equipment to be employed.

Identification of tension members and fatigue‐prone details, failure prone details and fracture

critical members or member components

Identification of access equipment and arrangements for them to be on‐site

Identification of required nondestructive testing (NDT) equipment and arrangements for it to be

on‐site

Identification of traffic control requirements and arrangements for on‐site implementation

Press releases, if necessary

Inspection time estimate

Coordination with the owner and other agencies as required

On larger bridges it may be necessary to create individual sections for each of the required areas of the

inspection plan.

In addition to an operation and maintenance manual and a field inspection plan, the inspection team

leader will have additional qualifications. The

NBIS Team Leader who leads the field inspection

must meet the following requirements:

NBIS Team Leader

Familiarity with the type of complex

bridge to be inspected

Understanding of how the bridge

functions and where possible defects

might occur

Must be current on issues with the type

of bridges being inspected

Understanding and ability to perform

testing or recommend advanced testing

procedures at problem areas

Familiar with the Operating and

Maintenance Manual for the bridge

inspected and in charge with developing and implementing the Field Inspection Plan.

Figure 44 ‐ Complex Bridge Inspection 2


Page 88

Successfully passing training related to the type of complex bridge within the last ten years. For

example, the FHWA‐NHI‐130078, Fracture Critical Inspection Techniques for Steel Bridges, Non

Destructive Testing training etc.

Description: Complex Bridges

Complex bridges include the following:

Any Bridge Designated by the Program Manager

Suspension Bridges ‐ Bridges in which the floor systems are supported by catenary cables that

are supported upon towers and are anchored at their extreme ends (BIRM 12.1)

Cable Stayed Bridges ‐ Bridges in which the superstructures are directly supported by cables, or

stays, passing over or attached to towers located at the main piers (BIRM 12.1)

Movable Bridges ‐ Bridges having one or more spans capable of being raised, turned, lifted, or

slid from their normal service location to provide a clear navigation passage (BIRM 12.2)

Scope and Frequency of Complex

Bridge Inspections

The inspection frequency of complex

bridges varies depending on the type

and condition of each individual

component of the bridge. At a

minimum each bridge needs a routine

inspection every year, a fracture

critical inspection (when applicable)

every 24 months, an underwater

inspection (when applicable) every 60 months and a special inspection to monitor known deficiencies at

the discretion of the Program Manager. In depth inspections are recommended for Complex Bridges on

a 5‐year cycle or in accordance with the inspection and maintenance manual.

Figure 45 ‐ Inspector Rappelling the Cable Stay


Page 89

Chapter5:QualificationsThe qualifications of Team Leaders, Program Managers, Load Rating Engineers and Underwater Dive

Inspectors shall, at a minimum, meet the NBIS requirements. Each Control Authority shall maintain a file

defining the staffing list and ensure that the inspection personnel on structures in their jurisdiction meet

the minimum established qualifications. The staffing list shall include the required certification such as

PE licensure, inspection certifications including training and experience, confined space, bridge climbing

school, CDL, etc.).

ODOT maintains a list of inspection personnel who have attended in‐house bridge inspection courses.

The Department‘s State Bridge Engineer will make the final determination of an individual inspector‘s

qualifications. People, who sign inspection reports or forge SMS approvals without meeting the

minimum NBIS qualifications or the minimum qualifications in this manual, may be subject to

prosecution for forgery or fraud under section 2921.11 of the Ohio Revised Code or other applicable

state or federal laws.

ODOT Bridge Inspection Training

The Department has an in‐house FHWA approved comprehensive training course

meeting the requirements for the NBIS. Inspectors may choose instead to take

the NHI courses at their own discretion. The ODOT comprehensive course

consists of two separate 3‐day sessions (Part I and Part II), and a host of one‐day

Refresher Training. The Department presents the course to all Department,

local, and consultant Inspectors who work in Ohio. The purpose is to provide consistent and accessible

training to communicate National and State issues as they relate to the bridge inspection profession in

Ohio. All Program Managers and Team Leaders shall take periodic refresher training.

Each class, Part 1, Part 2 and refresher courses will be offered depending upon availability of instructors

and demand around the state. For locations, dates and times refer to the Office of Structural

Engineering Training Catalog online or the Local Technical Assistance Program (LTAP) course offerings. It

is the responsibility of the attendee to keep and store the course certificates, which can be done in the

SMS. Request for transcripts for LTAP courses can be sent to [email protected]. Request for

transcripts for NHI courses can be sent to [email protected].

Figure 46 ‐ LTAP


Page 90

Part 1 Bridge Inspection Training

This 3‐day course provides new bridge inspectors in Ohio with the first half of training needed

to satisfy NBIS bridge inspection comprehensive training requirements. Attendees must print

and complete the most recent Primer Workbook available online before the first day of class.

This course is intended for new bridge inspectors who represent public and private entities

(County, City, Village, ODOT and Consultant Firms).

Part 2 Bridge Inspection Training

This 3‐day course provides Ohio bridge inspectors with the second half of training needed to satisfy NBIS

bridge inspection comprehensive training requirements. 100% attendance for both Bridge Inspection

courses and a 70% or higher exam grade for both courses is required in order to pass the

"Comprehensive Training Course" referenced in the National Bridge Inspection Standards and the BIRM.

Bridge Inspection Refresher Training

This course will refresh the skills of practicing bridge inspectors in fundamental inspection

techniques; review National Bridge Inspection Standards (NBIS); communicate issues of

national significance; re‐establish proper condition and appraisal rating practices; and/or

review the professional obligations of bridge inspectors. The course is based on portions of the

latest revision of the ODOT Manual of Bridge Inspection. When the manual is revised the

course materials will be updated to communicate the changes. Relevant topics may include

administrative requirements or component ratings. Prerequisite: Active NBIS Program

Managers or NBIS Team Leaders. Practicing bridge inspectors should attend. Program

Managers and Team Leaders must take an Inspection Refresher Training at a minimum of once

every 5 years. Examples of classes that fulfill the requirement and intent of the Refresher

Training include (those not listed must receive written confirmation from OSE that they meet

this requirement):

ODOT Load Rating with Hand Calculations Course offered in most Districts in 2009

ODOT Manual Update Course offered in each District in March 2011

ODOT Refresher Training

ODOT SMS Training (the SMS Open Labs are not considered Refresher Training)

National Highway Institute Bridge Inspection Courses: Stream Stability and Scour and

Highway Bridges for Bridge Inspectors (FHWA 135046 or 135047), Fracture Critical

Inspection Techniques for Steel Bridges (FHWA 130078), Bridge Inspection Refresher


Page 91

Training (FHWA 130053), Underwater Bridge Inspection Course (FHWA 130091),

Bridge Inspection Non‐Destructive Showcase (FHWA 130099)

It is desirable for inspectors performing FCM inspection to have successfully passed the 3‐day NHI

Fracture Critical Inspection Techniques for Steel Bridges (FHWA 130078).

Qualifications: NBIS Program Manager

Inspection Program Managers make important

decisions ranging from suggestions regarding

the allocation of scarce rehabilitation dollars to

the decision to close a major structure.

Therefore, it is important that Inspectors and

Program Managers are highly trained and adept

individuals who understand the mechanics,

behavior trends, and economics of a wide

variety of structure types.

The qualification of a Program Manager:

Must have attended and passed a

FHWA approved comprehensive

Bridge Inspection Training

course. Additional Bridge Inspection Refresher Training is required every 5‐years.

AND

Must be a registered professional engineer in the State of Ohio with appropriate training

and experience OR ten years bridge inspection experience. Note: Because each inspection

form needs to be reviewed (see “Reviewer” below) by a Professional Engineer most

Program Managers tend to be PE’s. However, the PM role may be filled by two different

people.

[Reviewer]

Figure 47 ‐ Program Manager


Page 92

Qualifications: Reviewer

A reviewer is a Program Manager with an Ohio Professional Engineering license. All inspections are to

be reviewed by an Ohio Registered Professional Engineer.

Counties, municipal corporations, or other bridge owners may contract with Consulting Engineers for

inspection services. If such Engineers are retained to make the inspection, the work need not be

supervised by the governmental authority (Control Authority) providing the inspection is made in

conformance with this document, the findings are recorded on approved forms, and the Bridge

Inspection Report is submitted in accordance with the agreed‐upon contract.

Qualifications: Team Leader

The Inspection Team Leader is responsible for leading the structure inspection team and planning,

preparing, and performing structure inspections. This is the person who is in the field at all times for

each initial, routine, in‐depth, fracture critical member and underwater inspection and in charge of the

field activities.

A Team Leader must be capable of climbing fences, accessing bridges in their jurisdiction, traversing

slopes and crawling inside confined spaces as small as 48 inches without difficulty. They should have the

ability to print legibly and to read plans, visualize details, draw technical sketches, and operate a

camera. They should possess a mechanical aptitude and a working knowledge in the use of measuring

devices such as rules, tapes, protractors, and calipers. The inspector should have an awareness of

potential hazards and exhibit a serious attitude toward safety precautions to be taken while entering

and inspecting. The inspector must approach each task sincerely and with the proper motivation since

their judgment and thoroughness is relied upon to guarantee public safety and to protect public

investment.

The Team Leader shall take the technical lead on the inspection and is responsible for the content of the

written inspection report. The Team Leader shall be familiar with this Manual and background in such

areas as structural engineering, structure behavior trends, bridge maintenance, and rehabilitation

techniques. The Team Leader is also responsible for the general safety of the work site. Safety items can

include obtaining and monitoring any required traffic control, ensuring each Team Member complies

with safety procedures, proper use of access equipment, and more. There must be at least one Team

Leader at the structure site at all times during each field inspection.


Page 93

There are five ways to qualify as a Team Leader:

1. Program Manager Qualifications, or

2. Have five years bridge inspection experience and have successfully completed an FHWA

approved comprehensive bridge inspection training course; or

3. Be certified as a Level III or IV Bridge Safety Inspector under the National Society of Professional

Engineer's program for National Certification in Engineering Technologies (NICET) and have

successfully completed an FHWA approved comprehensive bridge inspection training course, or


a. A bachelor’s degree in Engineering from a College or University accredited by or

determined as substantially equivalent by the Accreditation Board for Engineering and

Technology;

b. Successfully passed the National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying

Fundamentals of Engineering examination (EIT);

c. Two years of bridge inspection experience; and

d. Successfully completed an FHWA approved comprehensive bridge inspection training

course, or.

Figure 48 ‐ Team Leader Qualifications


Page 94


a. An associate’s degree in engineering or engineering technology from a college or

university accredited by or determined to be substantially equivalent by the

Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology;

b. Four years of bridge inspection experience; and

c. Successfully completed an FHWA approved comprehensive bridge inspection training

course.

Ohio Department of Transportation Team leaders shall attend the Department’s Bridge Climb Course

and Confined Space training. All Team Leaders shall take periodic Bridge Inspection Refresher Training.

Qualifications: Team Member

The team member assists the Team Leader in the field. It is expected that this person, at a minimum, is

familiar with appropriate parts of this Manual and has a competency level sufficient to follow the

directives of the Team Leader. To ensure competency, all Team Members (TM) should be encouraged to

take the ODOT Bridge Inspection Training courses. TM’s are essentially apprentices and should have the

goal of becoming a Team Leader. Team Leader and supervisors should provide appropriate training and

guidance to assure the TM progress toward this goal. TM do not have the authority to sign inspection

forms and should never do so. However, TM should place their name on the inspection form to

document their participation and experience. They should also keep a log of their experience for future

reference.

Qualifications: Underwater Diver

Underwater bridge inspection divers can take either the

1. FHWA approved Comprehensive Bridge Inspection course or

2. NHI course #130091, Underwater Bridge Inspection.

The comprehensive training is a longer course that meets the requirements of comprehensive training

to become a Team Leader, but generally only has a few hours on underwater bridge inspection. Course

#130091, although not meeting the comprehensive training requirements to become a Team Leader, is

three days long devoted to only underwater bridge inspection. Keep in mind that a Team Leader must

be present at all times during the field inspection.


Page 95

Qualifications: ODOT Consultant Prequalification

ODOT prequalifies engineering firms for three categories of inspection work:

1) Level 1 Bridge Inspection

2) Level 2 Bridge Inspection

3) Underwater Bridge Inspection.

Resources regarding consultant prequalification with the Department are available online within the

Office of Consultant Services website:

http://www.dot.state.oh.us/Divisions/Engineering/Consultant/Pages/default.aspx

Non‐DOT agencies, at their discretion, may use the prequalification procedures at their discretion or

even view the available list of prequalified consultants, for bridge inspection work within their

jurisdiction.


Page 96


Page 97

Chapter6:Safety&EquipmentSafety

The importance of keeping both the public vehicular traffic safe and the inspector team safe in and

around the bridge site is of the utmost importance. Inspectors shall refer to the procedures outlined by

their own employers healthy and safety policies (For ODOT inspectors refer to the Office of Health and

Safety and discuss with their safety coordinator) for the minimum safety and health requirements.

Entities, employers and employees are expected to follow the standards applicable to their

employment:

Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA), published in the U.S. code of

Federal Regulation primarily in title 29 Part 1926

Public Employment Risk Reduction Program (PERRP) or the

American National Standards (ANSI)

Ensuring safety is a collaborative effort among the employer, supervisor and inspector. Accidents can

cause pain, suffering or even death. Additional concerns such as family hardship, equipment damage,

lost production and medical expenses should also be considered.

Employers are responsible for the safety and health of their employees and the employees shall comply

with the applicable rules and regulations. Team Leaders shall take the lead in supervising and ensuring

the safety of the inspection team at the bridge site.

Bridge Inspection Safety Precautions

The inspector should have an awareness of potential hazards and exhibit a serious attitude toward

safety precautions while inspecting bridges around traffic, at height and in isolated environments. The

inspector must approach each task critically and with the proper motivation to do a good job. The

inspector is relied upon to guarantee public safety and to protect public investment with respect to

bridges. They have to avoid highway traffic, handle adverse weather, wade through deep water, work in

confined space, work at height or near powerlines, handle heavy tools, regularly climb fences and

slopes, enter dark areas and use ladders to reach bridge elements. Therefore they should have general

good health, moderate agility or strength, adequate color perception and good hearing. When possible,

it is always best to work in at least two person teams for promote safety and the integrity of the

inspection. Bridge inspectors who require prescription bifocals for driving or operating machinery shall


Page 98

use bifocals when performing bridge inspections. Any medical issues that could affect your safety

should be communicated with your team (allergy to bees, asthma, diabetes etc.). Vegetation such as

poison ivy, poison oak thistles and thorns should be identified. Insects and animals such as ticks, snakes,

alligators, dogs, falcons and raccoons may also present a threat to the safety of the inspector.

More complex inspections may require coordination with the movable bridge operator, local Police,

local Sheriff and/or Coast Guard. When coordinating with the Railroad contact the Railroad WELL IN

ADVANCE. Do not underestimate the time needed to coordinate RR inspection activities. Avoid the

railroad tracks and surrounding area until you have the proper permitting and flagman. Even with a

flagman do not foul tracks until authorized to do so.

Figure 49 ‐ Vegetation May Threaten Safety

Temporary Traffic Control (TTC) – Inspectors may need to gain access to bridge elements that require a

temporary lane closure. Lane closures should provide minimum disruption to traffic, effectively

communicate vehicle direction according to the MUTCD and ensure inspector and public safety. Refer

to the Office of Roadway Engineering’s TTC Manual

http://www.dot.state.oh.us/divisions/engineering/roadway/designstandards/traffic/ttcm/Pages/default

.aspx


Page 99

and the Office of Roadway Engineering Standards Maintaining Traffic Construction Drawings MT‐SCD’s

for specific TTC.

http://www.dot.state.oh.us/Divisions/Engineering/Roadway/DesignStandards/traffic/SCD/Pages/Curren

tMaintainingTraffic(MT)SCDs.aspx

On State Routes Truck Mounted Attenuators are required when utilizing the Snooper operations, refer

to the Snooper Operations Manual in the Appendix for specific operations. Truck‐mounted attenuators

shall be energy‐absorbing devices attached to the rear of shadow trailers or trucks and they should be

used in accordance with the manufacturer’s specifications. If used, they shall be located in advance of

the work area, workers

or equipment to reduce

the severity of rear‐end

crashes from errant

vehicles. For more

detail see AASHTO

Roadside Design Guide

(see Section 193‐12)

and Section 602‐8 and

the L&D Manual

Volume One, Section

603.2.

Figure 50 ‐ Temporary Traffic Control, from

MUTCD


Page 100

Figure 51 ‐ Temporary Traffic Control, Flagger, from MUTCD


Page 101

“TTC plans and devices shall be the responsibility of the authority of a public body or official having

jurisdiction for guiding road users. There shall be adequate statutory authority for the implementation

and Component Parts of a Temporary Traffic Control Zone (Figure 6C‐1, MUTCD2009, 6C.04)

enforcement of needed road user regulations, parking controls, speed zoning, and the management of

traffic incidents. Such statutes shall provide sufficient flexibility in the application of TTC to meet the

needs of changing conditions in the TTC zone.” ‐MUTCD2009, 6A.01

“Before any new detour or temporary route is opened to traffic, all necessary signs shall be in place. All

TTC devices shall be removed as soon as practical when they are no longer needed. When work is

suspended for short periods of time, TTC devices that are no longer appropriate shall be removed or

covered.”‐MUTCD2009, 6B.01.

Personal Protective Equipment and High Visibility Apparel

The protection chosen should fit the specific task, be of good repair and be

worn properly. Additional equipment may be required than the ones

discussed herein (ex. Life Jacket, Ring Bouys, AED, Snake Bite Protector).

Head Protection – must be able to withstand penetration and absorb the

shock of a blow. Recognized standards have been established by the

American National Standards Institute, Z89.1‐2009 or later. Hard Hats have

a service life of five (5) years from the date of manufacture. You can

determine the date of manufacture by looking at the inside of the bill where it

will be imprinted. The photo to the right is an example of what you might see. The “04” on the inside is

2004 and the arrow pointing to “9” is September. So, the hard hat above was manufactured in

September, 2004 and expired in September, 2009.

High Visibility Clothing – Garments that inspectors wear at all times when outside

the vehicle shall be in good condition and conform to ANSI/ISEA 107‐2004

standards. In the State R.O.W, at a minimum, Class II garments shall be worn at

all times while outside vehicle. At a minimum ANSI Class III garments shall be

worn from dusk until dawn and for working around high speed traffic.

Eye Protection – Shall be used according to ANSI Z87.1‐2003 or later. Protection

should be based on kind and degree of hazard present and should be reasonably

comfortable, fit properly, be durable, be cleanable, be sanitary and be in good

Figure 52 ‐ Hard hat Expiration

Figure 53 ‐ Class 2 Safety Vest


Page 102

condition. Typical applications for eye protection include hammer

sounding, chipping, scraping, using magnetic particles etc.

Hand Protection – Worn, at a minimum, when disturbing debris. A wide

assortment of gloves is available.

Respiratory Protection ‐ Shall be used, at a minimum, when performing

destructive paint tests or vigorously disturbing debris. Bird and bat dung,

once disturbed, produce a dust that can cause Darlings Disease triggered by

the fungus Histoplasma Capsulatum. Indicators vary greatly, but the disease primarily affects the lungs

and the acute phases are characterized by non‐specific respiratory cough or flu‐like symptoms that

occur 3 to 17 days after exposure. To minimize disturbing a bleach/water solution (~10% bleach) should

be applied a few hours in advance to allow penetration and kill the living organisms and then sprayed

again before handling. In addition to a respirator a Tyvek full suit and eye protection should be worn to

protect the inspector.

Figure 55 ‐ Biology of Histoplasmosis, Courtesy Center for Disease Control

Figure 54 ‐ Safety Gloves


Page 103

Safety Belts, Lifelines and Lanyards – Under OSHA standards safety belts are to be used only as

positioning devices. Lifelines, anchorage systems and lanyards are designed for use as fall arrest and

should not be loaded with weight during normal use. When deployed, the arrest system must prevent

the worker from falling no more than six feet. Such devices shall be properly used when personnel are

within an unprotected 6’ ledge with a 6’ drop off or in a bucket truck, manlift or snooper.

Electrical Safety – When an inspector is performing work near overhead power lines they must stay at

least twelve feet away and for voltages above 50kV the clearance must be increased four inches for each

additional 10kV. Team members standing on the ground may not contact the equipment unless it is

located so that the required clearance cannot be violated even at the

maximum reach of the equipment. A ground person shall be used as

a spotter when the inspector is working near overhead wires.

Confined Spaces ‐ Entry of some bridge components (hollow piers,

steel pier caps, box type superstructures, culverts, vaults etc.) may

pose OSHA requirements with regard to confined spaces. Therefore,

entry of these items may include additional challenges with

requirements for personal protective equipment. Employees must

follow the protocols established by their employer when working in

and around confined spaces.

Depending on their size and configuration, bridge components or

culverts may meet the definition of being considered a confined space per OSHA (29CFR1910.46).

Therefore, inspection procedures will vary with

regard to the safety measures used.

All structures classified as confined space by

OSHA (29CFR1910.46) shall have documentation

on entry types, dates, noted changes from last

inspection, and atmospheric conditions. The

Control Authority is responsible for maintaining a

list of structures designated as confined space or

components designated as confined space. Bridge

files shall include all data of past entries and visual survey conducted by the inspector noting

atmospheric conditions and physical hazards. Any inspector entering a confined space using Alternate

Figure 56 ‐ Breathing Masks

Figure 57 ‐ Confined Space


Page 104

Entry Procedures or the Confined Space Entry Procedures must have

successfully completed a Confined Space training course.

Some culverts qualify as Alternate Entry or Permit Required Confined Spaces,

see Appendix. Confined Space Flowchart and Alternate Entry Form for

qualification flow‐chart. Due to their stable nature, culverts generally do not

contain physical threats such as the potential to trap or engulf an entrant;

however, this must be determined on a case‐by‐case basis. A bridge inspection

report will be required on an annual basis. The inspection report shall document

the last time the confined space was entered. Structures that are fully or

partially collapsed or have significant infiltration of backfill material or water

pose an additional physical threat and should not be entered. All others, shall

receive a visual inspection not‐to‐exceed 72 months.

Inspection Tools and Equipment

In order to effectively perform a bridge inspection, it is important for the inspection

team to be properly equipped for both data collection and safety. As such, the Department developed a

standard list of inspection tools to assist the Districts, bridge owners, and consultants to properly

prepare for field inspections. Inspectors should not be limited to the equipment on the checklist at the

end of this chapter as special circumstances may necessitate the use of non‐standard tools. Note that

there may be situations where more specialized equipment and training are required.

Equipment will vary depending on the type of structure being inspected, the type of inspection being

performed, the method of inspection, special access requirements and when the inspection is being

performed. It is important that inspection teams are outfitted with the proper equipment to:

Facilitate personal and public safety during inspection of the structure

Perform an efficient and accurate inspection of the structure

Perform the proper level of inspection intensity

Correctly record the conditions of the structure

Figure 58 ‐ Hammer


Page 105

Once the equipment and method of inspection

have been determined, they should become

part of the bridge inspection file for future use.

Bucket Operation – Bucket equipment and

vehicles have safety considerations. In addition

to the manufacturer’s recommendations moving

the bucket left‐right or back/forward when

between beams is dangerous. It is better to

come down below the beams, including the inspectors’

head, before making these movements. Also, it is better to maneuver the

bucket from the bucket than from the ground.

Figure 59 ‐ Inspection Equipment and Vehicle


Page 106

The following checklist may be used to inventory inspection and inventory tools, these items should be

available for bridge inspectors:

Y/N General Access Y/N Inspection Y/N Measuring

Hip Wader Hammer 6‐Foot Rule/ Ruler

Chest Wader Camera Probing Rod

Brush Hook ‐ Sickel Scraper 2‐Foot/4‐Foot Level

Extension Ladder Flashlight/Headlamp 100‐Foot Tape

Boat Wire Brush Thermometer

Snooper Binoculars Plumb Bob/Protractor

Bucket Truck Inspection Mirror Vertical Clearance

Device

Manlift Shovel Laser

Machete Screwdriver Survey Rod

Pliers Optical Crack Gauge

Magnifying Glass Crack Comparator

Sounding Chain Calipers

Incremental Borer Feeler Gauge

Probing Rod Angle Finder

Compass

Y/N Note Taking Y/N Personal Protection Y/N Miscellaneous

Inspection Forms Hard Hat, ANSI Drinking Water

Extra Paper Safety Vests, ANSI Class

II Sunblock

Laptop Computer with SMS Offline Version or Wireless Card/Hotspot

Safety Glasses, Face

shield Insect Repellant

Field Binder First Aid Kit Knee Pads

Clip Board Safety Shoes Extra Batteries

Calculator Gloves Utility Belt or Tool Belt

Writing Instruments Ear Protection Utility Bag

Keel Dust Mask Eye Wash Bottle

Sharpie/Paint Stick Radio Chargers

Spray Paint Air Monitor Cell Phone

As‐Built Plans Harness/Lanyard Camera

Life Jackets Laptop

Respirator Reference Manuals

Phone Numbers

Table 33 ‐ Inspection Equipment Checklist

Chapter7:FieldEvaluationThe importance of keeping public vehicular traffic safe and the inspector team safe in and around the

bridge site and the speed of mitigating or reducing unsafe bridge conditions should not be diminished in

light of assigning correct condition ratings or element level ratings. The primary and first envelope of

ascertaining bridge maintenance needs and condition ratings for the safety of the

traveling public is through the inspectors’ visual assessment. Bridge inspectors who

require prescription bifocals for driving or operating machinery shall use bifocals

when performing bridge inspections.

If an item is buried, hidden or is not visible, the condition shall be assessed based on

destructive and nondestructive testing or indicators in the materials covering the

surfaces. Allow the indicators to influence a lower condition rating when the unseen

item is directly affected.

When documenting deficiencies and assigning appropriate condition ratings the

inspector must answer three important questions regarding the bridge:

Public Safety?

Bridge maintenance and repair needs must be effectively identified through early detection in

order to safeguard the traveling public and minimize repair costs.

What changed?

The inspectors’ role is to provide thorough inspections identifying bridge conditions and defects.

Ratings will be downgraded when the item changes from the original as‐built condition not only

since the previous inspection but through the structures’ history. Rapid degradation will require

increased scrutiny.

Is the structural capacity affected?

The controlling structural elements primarily serve to transfer the bridges’ self‐weight and the

traffic live load into the earth. The load path must have a safe and predictable route and

available redundancy through the entire bridge. When this load path is compromised the

condition of the overall item will be downgraded. The fact that a bridge was designed for less

than current legal loads and may be posted will have no influence upon condition ratings. For

Figure 60 ‐ Bifocals required

the purposes of this manual a Redundant load path will have more than three (3) primary beam

or truss‐lines (i.e. four or more primary). Load ratings on file must match field conditions.

Figure 61 – Redundant Superstructure: 4 load paths

Figure 62 – Non‐redundant Superstructure: 2 load paths

In some instances the deficiency will occur in a single location. If one deficiency reduces the load

carrying capacity or serviceability of the component (Condition Rating inspections) then the element can

be considered a weak link in the structure. The entire item may be down‐rate based on one severe

deficiency i.e. a 4” long crack will down‐rate the entire beam/girder rating.

Portions of bridges that are being supported or strengthened by temporary members will be rated

based on their actual condition; that is, the temporary members are not considered in the rating of the

item. A temporary measure is an element installed that is generally in place no more than 7 years i.e. an

initial temporary member may become permanent retrofit if there are no short term plans of a more

thorough replacement. Completed bridges not yet opened to traffic, if rated, will be coded as if open to

traffic.

Nomenclature

Bridges shall be labeled looking upstation from the smallest to largest straight‐line‐mileage (SLM). The

intent is to monitor, maintain and fix deficiencies and more than likely these task will be peformed by

different people. Communication is vitally important to ensure monitoring and repairing remains

consistent. As‐built drawings may supersede these guidelines at the discretion of the Control Authority

Program Manager (for example border bridges, major bridge construction labeling etc).

1. Looking North on a North‐South route

a. Rear abutment, or Abutment 1, is the South abutment, or smaller SLM

b. Beams/Girders/Fascias/Truss lines are counted from the left to the right looking

upstation. In other words the left fascia beam will be beam number 1.

Figure 63‐ Beam Nomenclature

2. Looking East on a East‐West route

a. Rear abutment, or Abutment 1, is the West abutment, or smaller SLM

b. Beams/Girders/Fascias/Truss lines are increasing from the left to the right looking

upstation. In other words the left fascia beam will be beam number 1.

3. Pier number 1 will be the first pier looking upstation from the rear abutment.

4. Left and Right (parallel) structures will follow the

naming convention dictated by the increasing

straight line mileage. This includes the noncardinal

structure that has traffic flowing against the straight

line mileage.

5. Lanes should be labeled driving or slow, middle lane(s), and passing or fast lane(s).

6. Span numbering increases with the SLM. In other words, Span 1 will always be supported by the

rear abutment.

Left Right

Increasing SLM

Increasing SLM

Left Bridge

Right Bridge

Figure 64 ‐ Cardinal and Non‐Cardinal Nomenclature

7. For non‐highway structures (pedestrian, railroads, conveyor belts, etc.) over highways, the

south or the west abutment shall be the rear abutment. For example, an overhead over a

Northbound Cardinal route would have the following designation:

8. The differences among the three: Substructure Slope Protection, Approach Embankment and

Channel Protection

a. Slope protection is underneath the “shadow” of the structure protecting the

substructure slope.

Figure 65 ‐ Span Numbering Over Mainline

b. Channel protection is the protected embankment of the stream both upstream and

downstream.

c. Approach Embankment is the sloped earth up to the roadway generally behind the

wingwall. For culverts it includes the portion of earth above the structure or “fill”.

Inspection Walking Limits

The Bridge Inspection includes all items within limits of the bridge and how the surrounding

environment influences the structure, the maintenance needs and the safety of the traveling public.

Upstation and Downstation

Bridges not under fill:

The walking limits, at a minimum, include portions of the approach on each end (forward and rear) of

from the bridge to the furthest of:

Twice the length of the Approach Slab

Relief Joint

Thirty feet

Bridges under Fill i.e. Culverts:

Walking limits and Approach ratings shall, at a minimum, include the furthest of the following distances

on each side (forward and rear) of the culvert:

Length Equivalent to the Clear span or

Length Equivalent to the Depth of fill

Additional distances may be included, on a case‐by‐case basis, at the discretion of the inspector in cases

where fill, vaulted or embankment material was added that directly impacts the structure.

Left and Right

The minimum walking limits include a distance from a point upstream to a point downstream that shall

include the following:

Within the influence of the structure (a distance equal to the elevation difference between

the stream bed and the roadway)

One‐hundred feet Upstream and Downstream from the bridge centerline where a history

of hydraulic concerns (scour, Channel misalignment, debris fields etc) exist

Beyond the walking limits, visually sight a reasonable distance upstream and downstream to note any

hazards or potential hazards in the maintenance needs and comments accordingly but inspectors

need‐not include them in the numerical rating. Observations during low‐flow periods, probing for

signs of undermining or substructure deterioration or both should be done during all routine

inspections.

FieldReport

A completed Bridge Inspection Field Report is a legal document. It may be used by an inspector to

complete either an element level inspection or a condition rating inspection. Each bridge, at a

minimum, must be inspected in accordance with the procedures in this manual:

A qualified Team Leader is at the bridge at all times during each initial, routine, in‐depth,

fracture critical member and underwater inspection

Condition codes are correctly assigned

All notable bridge deficiencies are identified, and

Condition codes are supported by narrative that appropriately justifies and documents the

rating or condition state assignment.

People, who sign inspection reports or forge SMS approvals without meeting the minimum NBIS

qualifications or the minimum qualifications in this manual, may be subject to prosecution for

forgery or fraud under section 2921.11 of the Ohio Revised Code or other applicable state or federal

laws.

Figure 66 ‐ Bridge Inspection Field Report

Figure 67 ‐ Field Report

CodingtheField Report

The Summary ratings, Safety Features and

Operating Status (orange highlights in

adjacent figure) must be coded, when the

item exists on the bridge, when collecting

either Condition Rating or Element Level data.

The coding of these orange items are

discussed in the following sections.

CodingtheSummaryItems

The guidance table on the next page is a

succinct guide for the Summary ratings. The

worst bold box 1‐4 Individual component

Condition Rating or Transition rating will

influence the 9‐0 Summary rating.

Generally, in coding the items, start at the top,

“Excellent”, and read down the 9 rows of

condition ratings until you have moved down

to a rating that is worse than the actual condition item being coded. Choose the rating above that

rating. The vertical lines bordering the columns shall be treated as “or” conditions i.e. choose the lowest

or worst column.

Severity & Extent: Condition codes are properly used when they provide an overall characterization of

the general condition of the entire component being rated as it has degraded since its as‐built

condition. Conversely, they are improperly used if they attempt to describe localized or nominally

occurring instances of deterioration or disrepair. An inspector may find materials or guidelines that are

not defined during the course of their inspection. The inspector should use discretion and the intent of

the 9‐0 Guide in order to determine the appropriate condition. Defects that are not visible for

inspection shall be assessed based on the available visible surface. Surfaces not visible shall be assessed

based on destructive and nondestructive testing or indicators in the materials covering the surfaces.

Condition Rating Guide 1‐4

Individual

Component

9‐0 NBIS Summary

Inspector Guidelines (Quantitative comments include the Location, Extent & Severity of the

deficiency)

1‐GOOD 9 ‐ Excellent No problems noted: no section loss,

general deterioration.

Make brief comments as necessary. Communicate the predominant deficiency.

8 ‐ Very Good

7 ‐ Good Some minor problems (ex. extent of concrete deterioration is up to 1% spalling or up to 5% saturation)

2‐FAIR

6 – Satisfactory

Structural elements show some minor deterioration ( ex. extent of concrete deterioration is up to 5% spalling or up to 10% saturation)

5 ‐Fair

Structural elements show deterioration but are sound (ex. extent of concrete deterioration is up to 10% spalling or up to 20% saturation )

Document deficiencies quantitatively. Consider taking photos or making sketches.

3‐POOR

4 ‐ Poor

Advanced* (ex. extent of concrete deterioration is more than 10% spalling or more than 20% saturation). Usually the load path appears to be affected for primary members or there are obvious structural changes since the as‐built condition that are advanced.

Candidate to establish monitoring benchmarks to track the rate‐of ‐change. Take photos, make sketches and document quantitatively in order to determine if a re‐load rating is possible. Include in‐service conditions to verify capacity

Poor

Structurally Deficient**

3 ‐ Serious 4‐Poor. . . And local failures possible. Above. . . And discuss the deficiency immediately with Control Authority.

4‐CRITICAL

2 ‐ Critical

3‐Serious. . . And Unless closely monitored it may be necessary to close the bridge until corrective action is taken.

Above. . . And the bridge is a candidate to dispatch road closure and/or immediate repairs and/or increased monitoring (Interim Inspections). Confirm in writing, critical finding.

1 ‐Imminent Failure

2‐Critical. . . And Major deterioration is affecting stability. Bridge or lane(s) shall be closed to traffic but corrective action may put bridge back into light service.

Above. . . And Dispatch immediate lane or bridge closure. Contact the Control Authority. Stay at the bridge until the safety of the traveling public is achieved. Confirm in writing.

0 ‐ Failed 1‐Imm Failure. . . And Out of service ‐ beyond corrective action.

* Advanced –widespread deficiencies or a likely reduction to capacity (more examples on following page). ** Structurally Deficient (SD) –Bridge Deck, Superstructure, or Substructure Summary rated 4‐Poor or below. A bridge can also be classified as structurally deficient if its load carrying capacity is significantly below current design standards or if a waterway below frequently overtops the bridge during floods.

Table 34 ‐ Condition

Common “Advanced” Deficiencies Settlement ‐ Exceeds tolerable limits depending on component, activity and if it is measurable or

unstable change. Examples include: continued unrepaired settlement, More than 1” vertical for

approach slab ends for high speed routes.

Scour ‐ Exceeds tolerable limits, for example unprotected sides of spread footing, loss of bearing

capacity, undermining, 1/3 or more of the front row of piling exposed piling.

Distortion ‐ Exceeds tolerable limits, for example distortion or buckling that is localized and warranting a

structural review.

Section Loss

Flexure or Bending Members

Steel Web –

In the shear zone: Corrosion hole (in any interior beam OR fascia beam if the bridge is

horizontally curved or if the fascia beam is one of 2 or 3 beams total). Corrosion holes

behind a web stiffener or behind the bearing are not considered “advanced”

In the shear zone: Deep section loss more than 50% of web depth for an area above the

bearing 8” high and 18 X the web thickness wide (in any interior beam OR fascia beam if the

superstructure is non‐redundant or horizontally curved)

Steel Flange –

Section loss of the flange cross section more than 1/4 of flange in the maximum negative or

positive flexure zone (for “zone” longitudinal length use 1/3 of span length)

Steel Axial Members

Truss Members

Corrosion holes OR section loss reducing any one cross section by more than 10% average

Steel Bents (including bents with steel columns without reinforcing cages)

Corrosion holes in 3 piles OR

Missing steel sheath around ½ of one pile OR

Overall thin metal in 3 consecutive piles

Corrugated Metal Pipe ‐Perforations or overall thin metal which allows for an easy puncture

with chipping hammer throughout invert with roughly 20% of structure affected

For Reinforced Concrete ‐ Exposed steel with more than 10% reduction in cross section or 360 exposure in at least four adjacent primary reinforcing bars in any maximum flexure zone.

For Noncomposite Prestressed Concrete Box Beam ‐ More than ¼ prestressing strands exposed

in one transverse plane (including strands not visible but adjacent to deteriorated concrete such

as saturated, delaminated or cracked) in one box with the neighboring beam in similar

condition.

Inspection Comments

The inspector must utilize sound judgment in assigning the appropriate numerical rating. The rating an

inspector assigns should be related to the actions required. Quantitative Comments, sketches or photos

are required and must be made available for future inspections for items coded with a Condition Rating

of 5‐Fair or worse. A different inspector in subsequent inspections should be able to successfully find,

quantify, rate and determine obvious change in degradation based on the inspection comments

provided by the previous inspector. Naturally expect the amount of comments, photos, documentation

and inspection time to increase as the structure degrades. All comments must be free of hearsay and

generalities outside of objective justification for the numerical ratings

CodingtheSafetyFeatures

Approach Safety Features If any one corner is not standard then the rating shall be not standard or “0”.

Item ‐ Safety Feature

Type – N36B)‐Transition, N36C)‐Guardrail, N36D)‐Termination

Code each of the three items with a 0, 1 or N appraisal item as it compares to current acceptable

standards as established by ODOT or the most recent crash‐worthy standards. See Appendix. Coding

Safety Features (36.A, B, C & D) for additional guidance.

0 ‐ Inspected feature does not meet current acceptable standards or a safety feature is required

and none is provided.

1 ‐ Inspected feature meets current acceptable standards (ODOT).

N ‐ Not applicable or a safety feature is not required.

36B 36D 36C

36A

36B: Transition ‐ The transition is required to change the safety feature from the relatively flexible

guardrail system to the rigid bridge rail. Methods to stiffen a transition include increased post spacing,

nesting of guardrail, and embedding the post base in concrete.

Figure 68 ‐ Safety Feature Approach Rail and Transition

36C: Guardrail –The guardrail system is designed to screen motorists from hazards beneath the bridge

and hazardous roadside features on the approach to the bridge. These hazards include the approach to

the bridge if they are steeper than 4:1, trees larger than 4‐inches in diameter, large signs and other

permanent structures. Note that wood blocks are no longer allowed to meet the TL3 requirement and

the height to the top of the guardrail is very important.

36D: Termination – –The end treatment protects and shields the motorists from the guardrail itself.

Most guardrail end treatments are designed to gate, meaning they will allow a vehicle to pass through if

struck at an excessive angle. Others include impact attenuators, sand filled barrels and non‐gating

impact attenuators.

Figure 69 ‐ Safety Features Approach Rail and Termination

Deck Safety Feature If any rail is not standard then the rating is not standard or “0”.

Item ‐ Safety Feature

Type – 36A) Bridge Rail

Code this item with a 0, 1 or N appraisal item as it compares to current acceptable standards. All

approved rails are tested in accordance with the Manual of Assessing Safety Hardware (MASH) and meet

one of six Test Levels (TL) base on the speed and type of facility carried by the bridge.

NHS routes are typically required to have a TL3 bridge barrier at minimum. See Appendix. Coding

Safety Features (36.A, B, C & D) for additional guidance

Code Description

0 ‐ Inspected feature does not meet current acceptable standards or a safety feature is required

and none is provided

1 ‐ Inspected feature meets current acceptable standards (ODOT)

N ‐ Not applicable or a safety feature is not required (i.e. culverts)

Coding the Operational Status

Item ‐ 41. Operational Status

The operational status of the bridge should be coded using the following:

"A" Open, no restriction

"B" Open, posting recommended but not legally implemented (all signs not in place)

Inspectors shall verify that the restriction signing is clear at the bridge site and correctly

represented in the inventory. When the necessary signs are not in place or the posting

recommended in the inventory by the load rating engineer is less than the actual field

conditions i.e., no signs exist when a posting is recommended or the posting in the field

does not match with the inventory (a B shall not be used if the sign is non‐compliant

with the OMUTCD), the inspector shall ensure proper action is taken as soon as possible.

Inspectors shall code the Operational Status “B” and the weight restriction signs shall be

remedied at the bridge site no later than 90 days from the date of discovery. It will be

the responsibility of the Program Manager to verify that posting signs are in place and

the inspector will update the Operational Status at the next regularly scheduled

inspection.

“C” Under construction with portions of the bridge open to traffic (ex. half‐width construction)

"D" Open, would be posted or closed except for temporary shoring, etc. to allow for unrestricted

traffic

"E" Open, temporary structure in place to carry legal loads while original structure is closed and

awaiting replacement or rehabilitation.

"G" New structure not yet open to traffic

"K" Bridge closed to all traffic

"P" Posted for load‐carrying capacity restriction (may include other restrictions)

Load Posting Signs: Verify that the Load Rating Sign matches the posted signage.

Bridges on State Routes are posted based any of the four Ohio Legal Loads Operating

Rating is less than 100% (after rounding). Inspectors are to compare with the inventory

with the field conditions and ensure the inventory is the same as the field condition.

"R" Posted for other load‐carrying capacity restriction (ex.NO TRUCKS, Signage

indicates a Speed reductions or the number of vehicles on the bridge to

reduce impact to the structure).

"X" Bridge closed for reasons other than condition or load‐carrying capacity.

Coding the General Appraisal

Item ‐ General Appraisal

The GA is the lowest rating of either the

SUPERSTRUCTURE SUMMARY SUBSTRUCTURE SUMMARY SUPPLEMENTAL SUMMARY

OR CULVERT SUMMARY

The general appraisal will be based on the existing condition of the bridge as compared to its as‐built

condition. The load carrying capacity will not be used in evaluating condition items. Portions of bridges

that are being supported or strengthened by temporary members will be rated based on their actual

condition, i.e. the temporary members are not considered in the rating of the item. The fact a bridge

was designed for less than current legal loads and may be posted will have no influence upon ratings.

Team Leaders: At least one NBIS Team Leader must be at the bridge for the duration of every field

inspection and only qualified NBIS Team Leaders may sign an inspection form. Inspections shall be

performed on each bridge on an annual basis with the time between inspections no greater than 18

months. If the inspector is a registered professional engineer a review by another P.E. will not be

necessary if the Inspector has a P.E. license and satisfies the definition of an NBIS Team Leader. The

inspector is to fill in the date of the inspection as the last day they were in the field. It is imperative for

the Team Leader to communicate findings that threaten the safety of the traveling public to the public

entity who is responsible for maintaining the structure. This may include communication above and

beyond the normal inspection‐report review process.

Reviewers: Only qualified NBIS Program Managers with a PE (Reviewers) may sign an inspection report

as a reviewer. Reports must be approved into SMS within 90 days after the field inspection for NHS and

state structures, and within 180 days (except for NBIS NHS bridges) for county, municipal and local

structures. A reviewer must be a professional engineer registered in the State of Ohio and satisfy the

minimum NBIS Program Manager qualifications. The reviewed date must always be after the inspection

date. At a minimum reviews serve to:

Maximize uniformity

Delegate maintenance needs

Communicate programming needs

Establish items to monitor

Ensure compliance

Perform Quality Control


Page 124


Page 125

Chapter8:AssigningConditionRatingstothe1‐4ItemsThe Bridge Inspection Field Report is a document that may be used to complete either an element level

inspection or a condition rating

inspection. The following report has

the condition rating boxes highlighted

blue. All ratings in orange are

required, when the item exists on the

bridge, for both an element level and

condition rating inspection.

Condition Rating Materials

In order to expand upon the 9‐0

“Condition Rating Guide” table and the

“Advanced” definitions in Chapter 7

the following Material Specific

guidance shall be followed when

coding either the 1‐4. The worst 1‐4

bold box should correlate with the 9‐0

Summary rating. Most deficiencies are

material‐based and these tables will be

beneficial. Those components with

non‐material deficiencies or more

specific guidance are denoted with a “ded” on the field report. The charted guidance for these items

follows the material guidance. The seven material types include: Reinforced Concrete, Wearing Surface,

Structural Steel, Prestressed Concrete, Timber, Masonry & Mechanically Stabilized Earth.


Page 126

Reinforced Concrete Cracking: Knowing the extent of cracking gives an indication of how much water and chlorides are able to

penetrate into the concrete. On tined concrete decks or overlays, it may be difficult to see cracks. The best

time to see cracks on tined decks is soon after a rain (though this is not always practical). As a deck dries out,

cracks will remain wet longer than the deck surface and thus appear as dark lines against the lighter colored,

dry deck. Consideration may be used for raising a rating when a crack is retrofitted or dormant. Types of

cracks commonly encountered include the following:

o Transverse flexural cracks (structural) due to negative bending will most likely appear over the piers of

continuous superstructures or in the midspan of slabs.

o Shear Cracks (structural) will most likely be adjacent to supports.

o Longitudinal flexural cracks (structural). These are caused by negative bending of the deck over the girders

or beams.

o Longitudinal reflective cracks (structural) may appear along the joints of adjacent prestressed box beams.

This cracking is caused by differential beam deflection.

o Temperature and shrinkage cracks (non‐structural). This map/pattern will be apparent on most concrete

decks and overlays.

o Transverse reflective cracks (non‐structural) may appear adjacent to an expansion joint. These cracks

suggest that the joint anchorage hardware is beginning to fail.

Spalls and Delaminations: Delamination or spalling of the concrete is not necessarily an indication of poor

concrete quality or of structural issues. It usually indicates that chlorides and moisture have migrated through

the concrete and attacked the reinforcing steel. As the reinforcing steel corrodes, it increases in volume which

tends to push the concrete away from the steel. When the corrosion forces caused by this steel expansion

exceed the tensile strengths of the concrete, the concrete starts to delaminate or separate from the surface. A

hollow sounding surface when tapped with a hammer or steel rod indicates a delamination which often results

in a spall. The amount of time for this to occur depends on the porosity or permeability of the concrete, the

depth of resteel and the prevalence of moisture and chlorides.


Page 127

Reinforced Concrete – Condition Rating Definitions 1‐4 9‐0 Summary % Spalling,

% Pothole or % Asphalt Patch % Saturation or % Delamination and Cracking

1‐Good 9‐Excelent No signs of distress, no discoloration

8‐Very Good Isolate, Minor Minor, no rust staining

7‐Good Up to 1% * Up to 5%, Minor, no rust staining Minor problems, hairline cracking with isolated leaking, isolated efflorescence.

2‐Fair 6‐Satisfactory Up to 5% *, Stub Abutments: up to 4" deep spalling for less than 1/2 of the bridge width

Up to 10% Minor cracking with leaking, efflorescence and isolated rust staining. Map cracking combined with areas of saturation. Minor differential settlement

5‐Fair Up to 10% with exposed steel, Stub Abutments: may have up to 4” deep spall for more than ½ of bridge width.

Up to 20%, Stub Abutments: may have 100% saturation with full width delaminations with a few exposed vertical bars Cracking with moderate leaking and buildup of efflorescence and widespread rust staining. Structural cracking with moderate, stable rotation or settlement

3‐Poor 4‐Poor More than 10% Areas should include Advanced section loss to reinforcing

More than 20% Advanced cracking with heavy buildup, leaking, efflorescence and rust staining.

3‐Serious 4‐Poor. . . And Local Failures Possible (ex. precursor to through‐hole

4‐Crit ical

2‐Critical 3‐Serious. . . And Unless closely monitored it may be necessary to close the bridge or lane(s) until corrective action is taken

1‐Imm Failure 2‐Critical. . . And Major deterioration is affecting stability. Bridge or lane(s) shall be closed to traffic but corrective action may put bridge back into light service

0‐Failed . . . And Out of service ‐ beyond corrective action

*Slab‐Type Superstructures with one transverse section of more than 1/3 of the bridge width or primary bars exposed shall be coded no better than a "5‐Fair".

Table 35 ‐ Condition Rating Material: Concrete


Page 128

Wearing Surface – Condition Rating Definitions (Use steel material guidance for the Stay in place forms filled with asphalt)

1‐4 Span.

Distress Potholes, Cracks, Ruts, Delaminations (Asphalt patches in Concrete overlay)

Rideability

1‐Good

None Smooth

Isolated, Minor cracking Minor isolated rutting

Smooth

1% distress, minor rutting No bounce,

2‐Fair 1‐10% distress isolated traffic bouncing

10‐15% distress (2‐5% asphalt patches on rigid concrete overlay)

traffic bounce is not isolated but still subtle

3‐Poor

Advanced deficiencies:

6‐10% asphalt patches on rigid concrete overlay

More than 15% potholes (special attention should be given to areas with exposed structural superstructure elements), OR

Widespread rutting deeper than 1”, OR

Advanced cracking

Traffic bouncing, impact to vehicles and/or bridge

4‐Critical

Serious. . . And Unless closely monitored it may be necessary to close the bridge or lane(s) until corrective action is taken

Critical. . . And Major deterioration is affecting stability. Bridge or lane(s) shall be closed to traffic but corrective action may put bridge back into light service

Imminent Failure. . . And Out of service ‐ beyond corrective action

Table 36 ‐ Condition Rating Material: Wearing Surface


Page 129

STEEL – Condition Rating Definitions 1‐4 9‐0

Summary *Section Loss and Deterioration **Cracks

1‐Good

9‐Excellent None

8‐V Good No measurable section loss or very minor section loss

7‐Good Insignificant section loss, minor

2‐Fair

6‐Satisfactory

Minor Section Loss (ex. isolated pitting, corr. pin‐hole in redundant fascia web or any interior beam stiffener or behind a bearing)

5‐Fair

Sound with some deterioration, moderate section loss (ex. Some areas of heavy pitting, corrosion holes possible in fascia beams or outside of the load path, less than 1/4 loss in flanges in max bending regions)

Compression zone: Minor cracking up to 2” long, stable cracks in base metal

3‐Poor

4‐Poor Advanced (following page)

Compression zone: Any longer than 2”, stable cracks in base metal. Fracture Critical Member (FCM): any stable crack in the base metal of a FCM parallel to the primary stress. Tension Zone: small stable crack(s) all less than 2" long in redundant load path.

3‐Serious

Section loss is seriously affecting the load path, local failures are possible (ex. Extensive perforations or loss through member, perforations through many members, buckle in compression zone)

Compression zone: Any longer than 2” and unstable or working cracks. Fracture Critical Member (FCM): any stable crack in the base metal of a FCM perpendicular to the primary stress. Tension Zone: Stable cracks, one may be 2” or longer in redundant load path.

4‐Crit ical

2‐Critical

Advanced deterioration (ex. Active crushing or buckling) lane should be closed or closely monitored. Distortion in a load path of a redundant member

Cracks have removed support or eliminated load path distribution. Working or unstable cracks in the tension zone perpendicular to the primary stress.

1‐Imminent Failure

Major section loss, deterioration or cracking that is worse than above (ex. Beams are crushing, or buckling) and closed to traffic. Distortion in a load path of a compression zone of a non‐redundant member

0‐Failed Beyond corrective action

Table 37 ‐ Condition Rating Material: Steel

*Section loss is dependent on location, extent and severity. **Cracking: Minor versus advanced cracking depends on the probability of propagation, location & length and may be given to the judgment of the Team Leader taking into consideration brittle fracture. For dormant cracks, consideration shall be given in improving the condition rating


Page 130

Common “Advanced” Deficiencies

Settlement ‐ Exceeds tolerable limits depending on component, activity and if it is measurable or

unstable change

Scour ‐ Exceeds tolerable limits, for example unprotected sides of spread footing, loss of bearing

capacity, undermining, 1/3 or more of the front row of piling exposed piling.

Distortion ‐ Exceeds tolerable limits, for example distortion or buckling that is localized and warranting a

structural review.

Section Loss

Flexure or Bending Members

Steel Web –

In the shear zone: Corrosion hole (in any interior beam OR fascia beam if the bridge is

horizontally curved or if the fascia beam is one of 2 or 3 beams total). Corrosion holes

behind a web stiffener or behind the bearing are not considered “advanced”

In the shear zone: Deep section loss more than 50% of web depth for an area above the

bearing 8” high and 18 X the web thickness wide (in any interior beam OR fascia beam if the

superstructure is non‐redundant or horizontally curved)

Steel Flange –

Section loss of the flange cross section more than 1/4 of flange in the maximum negative or

positive flexure zone (for “zone” longitudinal length use 1/3 of span length)

Steel Axial Members

Truss Members

Corrosion holes OR section loss reducing any one cross section by more than 10% average

Steel Bents (including bents with steel columns without reinforcing cages)

Corrosion holes in 3 piles OR

Missing steel sheath around ½ of one pile OR

Overall thin metal in 3 consecutive piles

Corrugated Metal Pipe ‐Perforations or overall thin metal which allows for an easy puncture

with chipping hammer throughout invert with roughly 20% of structure affected


Page 131

Prestressed Concrete – Condition Rating Definitions 1‐4 Span

9‐0 Sum General Deficiencies Longitudinal Joints Strand Exposure in worst transverse plane of a Non Composite Box Beam*

1‐Good 9‐Ex No notable deficiencies

8‐VGood Minor deficiencies Isolated leaking Up to 1% of strands

7‐Good Up to 1%, exposed strand in fascia or spalling along edge

Leaking up to 10% of span with light efflorescence

2‐ 10% with neighboring beam in similar condition or better.

2‐Fair 6‐Satis factory

Up to 5%, minor exposed strands, efflorescence, spalling

Leaking at joints with no efflorescence

11‐15% with neighboring beam in good condition or in similar condition

5‐Fair Up to 10%, no transverse cracks in bottom of beams

Leaking at joints with light efflorescence and isolated rust stains

16‐25% with neighboring beam in satisfactory condition or in similar condition

3‐Poor 4‐Poor More than 10% Leaking at joints with heavy efflorescence and rust staining

26‐40% with neighboring beam in fair condition or in similar condition. Fascia beam(s) are saturated

3‐Serious Open flexure cracks, sagging or loss of camber

Broken or missing transverse tendons

41‐50% with neighboring beam in poor condition or in similar condition

4‐Critical

2‐Critical 3‐Serious. . . And Unless closely monitored it may be necessary to close the bridge or lane(s) until corrective action is taken

1‐Imm F 2‐Critical. . . And Major deterioration is affecting stability. Bridge or lane(s) shall be closed to traffic but corrective action may put bridge back into light service

0‐Failed . . . And Out of service ‐ beyond corrective action

Table 38 ‐ Condition Rating Material: Prestressed Concrete

*This seems to be the most common deficiency for PSBB Noncomposite bridges. Beams carrying a

sidewalk should not control the condition rating. Beam ratings shall consider beams immediately

adjacent.

General Deficiencies – includes imperfection in the concrete (i.e. spalls, cracking, mottled area,

efflorescence, honeycombing, water in beams, damaged concrete around railing connection) and

general beam alignment (i.e. loss of upward camber, twists)

Longitudinal Joints –staining or wetted areas from runoff infiltration.

Strand Exposure – discount all strands visible and those strands not visible located:

1) Above a longitudinal cracks located in the bottom flange

2) Above a delamination

3) Above a spall with unsound or mottled concrete.

4) Consideration should also be given to those strands neighboring and above a corroded stirrup.

Only count the same strand exposed once per span. Divide those strands that are exposed over the

total number of strands existing per beam (Plans will need to be reviewed for determining the number


Page 132

of strands, should no plans be available the inspector should use design data sheets from the era of the

bridge located on the ODOT website for an approximation).

Prestressed Box Beam (PSBB)

Non‐Composite Composite

Structural Cracks in Prestressed Concrete – shear cracks are at a 45 degree angle sloping down near

supports. Flexure cracks are transverse to the load path near high moment regions. Crack comparator

cards and crack monitoring gauges are useful in quantifying and tracking crack widths especially for

prestressed concrete. For structural cracks consider recording widths and locations in the comments

and on the bridge. Note the crack width descriptions below from the BIRM 2002 for prestressed

concrete: Hairline (HL) < 0.004"

Narrow (N) 0.004 to 0.009"

Medium (M) 0.010 to 0.030"

Wide (W) > 0.030

Figure 71 ‐ Composite and Noncomposite PSBB


Page 133

TIMBER – Condition Rating Definitions

Timber should be examined for decay especially when bearing on sources of moisture, or between

layers of planking or laminate pieces. Note loose connections and differential bending. The majority of

timber members exists on local agency structures decks. Therefore the guidance primarily describes

timber planks and deck components.

Abrasion due to stones on the top surface of floors will abrade into the timber floor in the wheel path.

This is where moisture tends to pond and promotes accelerated rot. Where the timbers span the

distance between abutments the floor rating must be the same as the Superstructure: beam/girder/slab

rating.

Noticeable deflection, under traffic, of the timber floor between stringers may be a strong indicator of

deficiency.

1‐4 Indiv.

9‐0 Summary Description

1‐Good

9‐Excellent No noticeable or noteworthy deficiencies which affect the condition of the deck.

8‐Very Good No crushing, rotting, or splitting. Tightly secured to floor system. Very few minor deficiencies.

7‐Good Minor checking or splitting with a few loose planks.

2‐Fair

6‐Satisfactory Several planks are checked or split but sound. Some loose planks. Fire damage limited to surface scorching with no measurable section loss. Some wet areas noted. A few planks (under 5%) are in need of replacement.

5‐Fair Numerous planks checked or split. Majority of planks are loose. Fire damage limited to surface charring with minor, measurable section loss. Some planks (5 ‐ 10%) are in need of replacement.

3‐Poor

4‐Poor Majority of the planks are checked or split. Fire damage with significant section loss which may reduce the load carrying capacity of the member. Over 10% of the planks are in need of replacement.

3‐Serious Local failures possible. Severe signs of structural distress are visible. Major decay or fire damage is present which has substantially reduced the load carrying capacity of the deck.

4‐Critical

2‐Critical Advanced deterioration with partial deck failure. May be necessary to close bridge until corrective action is taken.


Bridge closed, corrective action will put it back in light service

0‐Failed Bridge closed, replacement necessary

Table 39 ‐ Condition Rating Material: Timber


Page 134

MASONRY – Condition Rating Definitions

1‐4 Indiv. 9‐0 Summary General Displacement

1‐Good

9‐Excellent No signs of distress, Minor spalling of stone surface.

8‐Very Good Scaling on of stone surface less than 1/2 inch.

7‐Good Diagonal or vertical shear crack in isolated stones. Fracture of stone surface less than 2 inches.

2‐Fair

6‐Satisfactory Diagonal or vertical shear crack through several courses of stone. Removable stone face for less than 1/2 of bridge width less than ¼ stone depth.

Minor

5‐Fair Diagonal or vertical shear crack through several courses of stone. Removable stone less than ¼ of stone depth for more than 1/2 of bridge

Displacement may be bulge or leaning stones. Total displacement is less than 1/4 of stone depth.

3‐Poor

4‐Poor Settlement causing diagonal or vertical shear crack through several courses of stone with displacement. Large fractures or erosion of stone surfaces up to 1/3 stone depth on several adjacent stones.

Total displacement is less than 1/3 of stone depth.

3‐Serious Large unsound areas. Misalignment of mortar joints. Large fractures or erosion of stone surfaces greater than 1/3 stone depth.

Several stones are displaced or missing.

4‐Critical

2‐Critical Numerous missing or displaced stones. Displacements greater than 1/3 of stone depth. Keying (vertical separation between compression stones), or measurable displacement between adjacent stones, exists on at least 3 stones in one longitudinal load‐line.


Partially collapsed abutment

0‐Failed Total failure of abutment

Table 40 ‐ Condition Rating Material: Masonry


Page 135

Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) – Condition Rating Definitions

1‐4 Indiv.

9‐0 Summary

Panels Joints Erosion Bowed

1‐Good

9‐Excellent No Cracking or Spalls

Uniform joint spacing

8‐Very Good

No Cracking or Spalls, cracks may exist in coping

minor variation in joint spacing

None

7‐Good Hairline cracking or spalls

Moderate variation in joint spacing, minor sand in joints

Minor

2‐Fair

6‐Satisfactory

Cracks <1/4" on a few panels

Moderate sand in joints but no exposed fabric nor sand piles below joints

Minor erosion along panels, max 1’ deep

Moderate

5‐Fair Cracks <1/4" many panels, global, minor spalling

Exposed fabric at a few isolated joints, small sand pile, moisture around a few joint(s)

Moderate erosion along panels, max 2' deep

Moderate change since as built

3‐Poor

4‐Poor Cracks >1/4", global, moderate spalling

Exposed fabric at many joints, sand pile(s) below at least one joint, trees growing between joints. Moisture through joint(s)

Erosion >2' deep along panels

Major change since as built

3‐Serious

Spalling exposes backfill

Exposed fabric and active sand piles below many joints. Active moisture through joint(s)

Erosion exposing the top of the leveling pad and pad is not on rock, exposed straps or mesh

Major, changing, global

4‐Critical

2‐Critical Any worse than above

Major leaking of sand from joints

erosion undermining leveling pads

Major, changing, systemic and global

1‐Imm Failure 0‐Failed

Table 41 ‐ Condition Rating Material: MSE


Page 136

Coding Condition ratings with dedicated Charts

Approach Embankment – “ded” CONDITION RATING

Item ‐ 4. Embankment

Description

1‐Good Moderate rutting from drainage. Minor bare soil exposed.

2‐Fair

Erosion caused by drainage or channel; Erosion to embankment impacting guardrail performance or encroaching on shoulder. Evidence of minor or stable foundation settlement.

3‐Poor

Major erosion caused by drainage or channel; Erosion to embankment impacting guardrail performance or encroaching on shoulder. Evidence of foundation settlement.

4‐Critical Several guardrail posts are hanging due to major erosion. A lane of traffic is closed, tension cracks in asphalt due to embankment movement.

Table 42 ‐ Condition Rating: Approach Embankment

Deck Drainage – “ded” CONDITION RATING

Item ‐ 12. Drainage

Worst Span Clogging Ponding

1‐Good No clogging No ponding

2‐Fair Up to a 25% of scuppers/grates continually clog. Minor ponding may exist in the shoulder or outside of the traveling lanes.

3‐Poor More than 25% of the scuppers/grating continually clog. Ponding is beginning to cross into the traveling lane.

4‐Critical Local flooding, hydroplaning or icing due to improper drainage system. Unless closely monitored it may be necessary to close the lane(s) until corrective action is taken.

Table 43 ‐ Condition Rating: Deck Drainage


Page 137

Table 44 ‐ Condition Rating: Deck Expansion Joints

Deck Expansion Joint – “ded” CONDITION RATING Item 13. Expansion Joint

1‐4 9‐0 Summary

Leaking Expansion and Contraction

Opening Armor and Anchorage

1‐Good

9‐Excellent No leakage

8‐Very Good Minor isolated leakage, debris may be present

Minor surface delaminations in header

7‐Good Localized leakage along the joint may be present, debris

Measurements exhibit normal expansion and contraction within ¼” on any one joint

A few delaminations or spalls or cracking in the header

2‐Fair

6‐Satisfactory

Leakage in several places. Gland is partially separated from the armor or has minor tears. Significant debris

Minor abnormalities in the longitudinal measurements may exist (1/4”‐1/2” difference on any one joint)

Spalls or cracking in the deck and/or header may be present adjacent to the joint. Gouges in armor.

5‐Fair

Any Joint paved over, Leakage along the joint in many locations. Gland may be partially pulled out of the armor.

Abnormalities in measurements. Bent or misaligned fingers may be observed. Minor vertical offset. Closed in warmer temperatures.

'Clanking' under heavy truck traffic only with small spalls or cracking. Gouges in armor

3‐Poor

4‐Poor

Gland has been pulled completely out of the armor.

Significant abnormalities in the measurements. Missing or broken fingers. More than ½” difference in any one joint. Up to 1” vertical misalignment Closed in coldest temperatures.

Clanking in one lane under truck traffic. Major spalls or significant cracking.

3‐Serious Major abnormalities in the measurements, up to 2” misalignment

Visible movement and clanking under all traffic loads in one lane, major spalls .

4‐Critical

2‐Critical Major abnormalities in the longitudinal, vertical and/or horizontal measurements, greater than 2” misalignment. Tight on one side and open in the other. Visible movement and clanking under all traffic loads in all lanes, major spalls. Anchorage separation on multiple beams.

1‐ImmFailure

0‐Failed


Page 138

Superstructure Alignment – “ded” CONDITION RATING

Item ‐ 14. Alignment (of members)

Worst Span:

Condition Rating

Primary Members Dimensions

1‐Good Minor misalignment or distortion due to construction

2‐Fair Out of plane distortion of tension zones/members

3‐Poor

Vertical deflection (sag) due to deteriorations or excessive dead loads Major misalignment or distortion due to impact

Highly skewed bridges with Beam webs having less than 1/8” horizontal bow for every 1 vertical foot

4‐Critical

Global racking, large distortion, vertical sag of the span due to distortion Any out of plane distortion of compression zones/ members.

More than 2‐inch sag for a 100’ span Highly skewed bridges: More than 1/4” horizontal movement for every 1‐foot vertical on a steel beam web

Table 45 ‐ Condition Rating: Superstructure Alignment


Page 139

Superstructure Truss Gusset Plates – “ded” CONDITION RATING

Item ‐ 23. Truss Gusset Plates

Condition Bowing Section Loss (SL), Connectivity and General

Deterioration

1‐Good 9‐Exclnt Like new condition Isolated SL up to 1/10 depth of plate thickness

(ex. 1/16” loss for a 5/8” plate) not in primary line

8‐Vr Good No problems noted

7‐Good

2‐Fair

6‐Satis factory

Bowing up to half the thickness of the plate due to inadequate fill plates, misalignment of truss members or pack rust (not free‐edge bowing)

Minor deterioration Widespread SL up to 1/10 depth of plate thickness (ex. 1/16” for a 5/8” plate) along the primary load path, Localized pitting up to 1/10 depth of plate thickness up to 5% of plate area

5‐Fair Bowing due to inadequate fill plates, misalignment of truss members or pack rust (no free edge bowing between compression members)

Minor section loss Widespread SL up to 1/4 depth of plate thickness (ex. 1/8” for a 1/2” plate) along the primary load path, Localized pitting up to 1/4 depth of plate thickness up to 25% of plate area, may have a corrosion hole up to ½” diameter NOT in the primary load path

3‐Poor

4‐Poor Free edge bowing or distortion behind a compression member

Advanced section loss Widespread SL up to 1/3 depth of plate thickness (ex. 1/4” for a 3/4” plate) along the primary load path, Localized corrosion hole may exist up to ½” in length or diameter in the primary load path

3‐Serious Any changed free edge bowing or distortion behind a compression member

Deficiencies that seriously affect the structural integrity of the bridge, large corrosion hole or pinholes interconnected with advanced section loss in the primary load path

4‐Critical

2‐Critical Unless closely monitored it may be necessary to close the bridge. Immediate action is required, Any plastic deformation in primary load path

Deficiencies that seriously affect the structural integrity of the bridge. Stress cracks in the gusset plate in areas of advanced section loss, broken or missing bolt or rivets since as‐built condition, fatigue cracks in gusset welded connection or gusset base metal

1‐Imm F Bridge closed to vehicular traffic

0‐Failed Out of service, beyond corrective action Table 46 ‐ Condition Rating: Superstructure Gusset Plates

Special attention shall be placed on gusset plates with corrosion holes or widespread loss of section 1/3 the plate thickness in the primary load path & Special attention shall be placed on gusset plates with bowing at the free edge.

Special attention shall be placed on gusset plates with loose, cracked or missing connections.

The procedures for measuring bowing in gusset plates shall be clearly documented and quantitatively repeatable at future inspections by different inspectors in order to monitor bowing change within a tolerance of 1/16”.


Page 140

Superstructure Bearing Devices – “ded” CONDITION RATING

Item ‐ 26. Bearing Devices

Type ‐ General

1‐4 9‐0 Summary Function

1‐Good

9‐Excellent

Minor or aesthetic deficiencies. Bearings are free to move, slide, roll or rock back and forth longitudinally and rotate as designed. Bearings have not moved or shifted vertically or transversely from its intended position. Elastomeric pads: the horizontal bulge is less than 15% of the height

8‐Very Good

7‐Good

2‐Fair

6‐Satisfactory Section loss, pack rust, bearings may have shifted vertically or horizontally but still within the design tolerance. Keeper bars or anchor bars are bent or showing signs of bending or loose when tapped with hammer. Elastomeric pads: the horizontal bulge is less than 25% of the height

5‐Fair

3‐Poor

4‐Poor Outside of design tolerance. Any two or more adjacent bearings are frozen, floating, excessively tilted or deficient that is directly impacting other elements (i.e. beam, deck, cross‐frames). Advanced section loss, advanced pack rust, bearings are frozen and no longer free to move or tilted in excessively wrong directions for the temperature or shifted to expose the underside of the masonry plate**. Keeper bars or anchors are broken from transverse movement. Elastomeric pads: the horizontal bulge is MORE than 25% of the height

3‐Serious

4‐Critical

2‐Critical Multiple adjacent are rocked beyond recall* or walked out of position

Table 47 ‐ Condition Rating: Superstructure Bearing Devices

*Beyond Recall – Rocker(s) measured with a plumb‐line whose horizontal distance is greater than 1/4 of

H (Vertical height difference between the bottom face of the sole plate (top plate) and the top face of

the masonry plate or bottom plate). Often the rocker will pinch and slide rather than rock.

**Masonry Plate Undermining:

The bearings shall be downgraded for any undermining of a masonry plate when the Superstructure has

shifted or moved the bearing. The substructure unit will be downgraded when the root cause is within

the substructure, i.e. when settlement, deep spalling, crushing or delaminations occur.


Page 141

Superstructure Protective Coating System – “ded” CONDITION RATING

Item ‐ 30. Protective Coating System (PCS)

1‐4 Rating Degradation Problems Workmanship Problems

Candidate for Recoating

% Surface Area (SA) Failed

Issues Surface Corrosion

1‐Good 0 to 5% Light

Up to 10% failed SA, Multiple minor issues, Up to 10% finish

coat failed

2‐Fair 6 to 15%

Not effective at Beam ends under joints

Prevalent Up to 20%

Candidate for zone painting (fascias and under joints)

3‐Poor 16‐30% Not effective

Prevalent Large areas of old Paint Painted over

Candidate for total recoating

4‐Failed More than 30%

Table 48 ‐ Condition Rating: Superstructure Protective Coating System


Page 142

Superstructure Pins/Hangers/Hinges – “ded” CONDITION RATING

Item ‐ 31. Pins/Hangers/Hinges

Type ‐ Steel

1‐4 9‐0 Summary

Functional Movement Corrosion & Cleanliness

Bearing Integrity/Hinge

1‐Good

9‐Excelent Aesthetic deficiencies only

8‐V Good

7‐Good All in proper contact

2‐Fair

6‐Satisfact.

Movement not restricted; shallow wear grooves (up to 1/8”)

Minor pack rust or debris, some dry spots in lubricated parts.

One pin/hanger/hinge slightly misaligned with others or missing not more than one anchor bolt per hanger line

5‐Fair

Movement restricted only at extreme operating limits. Minor misalignment. At least 1/8” deep wear grooves

Moderate pack rust or accumulated debris. Moderate abrasion up to 1/8” deep with no lubricant on parts.

One not in proper contact or somewhat misaligned with others. Missing not more than one anchor bolt per bearing.

3‐Poor

4‐Poor

Movement restricted within normal operating limits; seized. Up to 1” misalignment

Major pack rust or accumulated debris limiting normal operation. Lack of normal operation. Abrasion >1/8” deep of hanger sides with no lubrication.

Multiple not in proper contact or multiple adjacent pin/hanger/hinges misaligned on one unit or multiple not aligned

3‐Serious Seized due to corrosion or debris, preventing movement. Up to 2” misalignment

Pin/hanger/hinges leaning beyond recall or jammed significantly

4‐Critical

2‐Critical

ANY SIZE fatigue crack in primary load path base metal in the hanger, hinge, pin or vicinity (within 4‐feet of pin). Unless closely monitored it may be necessary to close bridge due to advanced deterioration. Crushing. More than 2” misalignment.

1‐Imm Failure

0‐Failed Table 49 ‐ Condition Rating: Superstructure Pins/Hangers/Hinges


Page 143

Superstructure Fatigue – “ded” CONDITION RATING Item ‐ 32. Fatigue Type – Steel

Table 50 ‐ Condition Rating: Superstructure Fatigue

Cracks should be carefully measured and their location and length documented.

Typically the first time a fatigue crack is identified it is CS 3 in the Compression zone and CS4 in

the Tension zone.

Truss: the quantity is the sum of all of the lengths of each truss panel measured longitudinal to

the travel way and the worst part in the vertical one‐foot controls the rating i.e. include all

truss members by rating each vertical linear foot of truss as if it were an open‐webbed beam or

girder

1‐4 9‐0 Summary Cracks

1‐Good

9‐Excellent

8‐V Good

7‐Good Any arrested or retrofitted crack

2‐Fair 6‐Satisfactory Compression zone: Minor cracking up to 2” long, stable cracks in

base metal 5‐Fair

3‐Poor

4‐Poor

Compression zone: Any longer than 2”, stable cracks in base metal. Fracture Critical Member (FCM): any stable crack in the base metal of a FCM parallel to the primary stress. Tension Zone: small stable crack(s) all less than 2" long in redundant load path.

3‐Serious

Compression zone: Any longer than 2” and unstable or working cracks. Fracture Critical Member (FCM): any stable crack in the base metal of a FCM perpendicular to the primary stress. Tension Zone: Stable cracks, one may be 2” or longer in redundant load path.

4‐Critical

2‐Critical

Any Crack in the base metal at or adjacent to a pin and hanger or hinge assembly shall be “Critical” or less. Cracks have removed support or eliminated load path distribution. Working or unstable cracks in the tension zone perpendicular to the primary stress.


Major section loss, deterioration or cracking that is worse than above (ex. Beams are crushing) and closed to traffic. Distortion in a load path of a compression zone of a non‐redundant member

0‐Failed Beyond corrective action


Page 144

Substructure Scour, Spread or Unknown foundations – “ded” CONDITION RATING

Item ‐ 42. Scour

Type – Spread Footing on Soil OR Unknown Foundations

1‐4 9‐0 Description*

Exposed Spread or Unknown Foundation*

1‐Good

9‐Excellent No Problems noted.

8‐Very Good Minor scour holes developing, scour protection placed.

7‐Good Some minor problems. Minor scour holes exist; probing indicated soft material in scour hole.

top of footing exposed

2‐Fair

6‐Satisfactory

Damage to scour countermeasures, probing indicates soft material in scour hole.

Sides of footings exposed less than 6 inches.

5‐Fair Minor scour, damage to scour countermeasures, probing indicates soft material in scour hole.

Unprotected footings along the vertical sides are exposed less than 12‐inches high, corner of footing may have minor undermining.

3‐Poor

4‐Poor

Advanced scour.

Unprotected vertical side of footing exposed, full height, less than 1/3 the horizontal length of the footing.

3‐Serious Scour has seriously affected the primary structural components Local failures are possible.

Undermining exposing the underside less than 1/3 the horizontal length of the footing.

4‐Critical

2‐Critical

Scour may have removed substructure support. Local failures are possible. Any substructure unit with more than 20% of bearing capacity removed.

Underside of footing exposed more than 1/3 the horizontal length of the footing.


Obvious vertical or horizontal movement due to scour that is affecting the structure stability. Bridge is closed to traffic but corrective action may put bridge back in to light service.

0‐Failed Out of service ‐ beyond corrective action. Table 51 ‐ Condition Rating: Substructure Shallow Foundations Scour

*Condition shall be adjusted based on the rate of change since the as‐built condition. This item may be

rated higher, for example, if the as‐built condition had the top face of the spread footing exposed and it

has not changed. Also, due to the dynamic nature of the waterway the ratings may be coded lower if a

dramatic change occurred since the previous inspection. Unknown foundations on soil shall be rated

the same as a spread footing on soil. Those spread footings on rock shall be rated as deep foundations.


Page 145

Substructure Scour, deep foundations – “ded” CONDITION RATING

Item ‐ 42. Scour

Type – Deep Foundations: Piles, Drilled Shafts, including Spread Footing on Rock

1‐4 9‐0 Total Bridge Description* Exposed Deep Foundation*

1‐Good

9‐Excellent No Problems noted.

8‐Very Good Minor scour holes developing, scour protection placed.


top of footing and first 6‐inches exposed

2‐Fair

6‐Satisfactory Damage to scour countermeasures, probing indicates soft material in scour hole.

Full height side of footing exposed


One or two pilings are visible less than 10% of piling height**

3‐Poor

4‐Poor Advanced scour.

1/3 of the front row of piling exposed less 10% of piling height**

3‐Serious

Scour has seriously affected the primary structural components Local failures are possible.

Any one piling exposed above or below water more than 3‐feet high, more than 1/3 of the front row of piling exposed less than 10% of piling height**

4‐Critical

2‐Critical Scour may have removed substructure support. Local failures are possible

Any substructure unit with more than 20% of bearing capacity removed.



0‐Failed Out of service ‐ beyond corrective action. Table 52 ‐ Condition Rating: Substructure Deep Foundations Scour

*Condition shall be adjusted based on the rate of change since the as‐built condition. This item may be

rated higher, for example, if the as‐built condition had the top face of the spread footing exposed and it

has not changed. Also, due to the dynamic nature of the waterway the ratings may be coded lower if a

dramatic change occurred since the previous inspection. Unknown foundations on soil shall be rated

the same as a spread footing on soil. Those spread footings on rock shall be rated as deep foundations.

**Use 10‐foot deep piling when the foundation plans do not exist.

As a general guideline a bridge may warrant a scour analysis if any of the following occur: o Undermining for a spread footing o Water flowing beneath a culvert

Monitoring scour related problems should include periodic stream profile measurements.


Page 146

Substructure Slope Protection ‐ “ded” CONDITION RATING

Item ‐ 43. Slope Protection

Type – Generic / Sloped

1‐4 Erosion Adequacy

1‐Good Minor Erosion not affecting substructure unit(s), beginning to slump.

Minor deficiencies, minor repairs recommended.

2‐Fair Small erosion channels/failure, up to 6" deep, erosion ruts exist.

Moderate deficiencies, sloughing or sliding of protection however still functioning as designed.

3‐Poor Significant erosion, up to 2' deep, erosion ruts.

Moderate and active slope protection failure. Slight Undermining, No longer stabilizing the slope, collapsing rip rap. Sand pile below at least one MSE wall joint

4‐Critical Major erosion, greater than 2' deep/wide ruts that are directly affecting substructure units, example 5’ of one piling is exposed.

Serious undermining, evidence of obvious global movement, no longer stabilizing the slope.

Table 53 ‐ Condition Rating: Substructure Slope Protection


Page 147

Culvert Alignment – “ded” CONDITION RATING

Item ‐ 45. Alignment

1‐4 9‐0 Description

1‐Good 9‐Excellent Straight line between sections.

8‐Very Good Minor settlement or misalignment.

7‐Good Minor misalignment at joints; off sets less than 1/2 inch no fill settlement. Minor settlement or misalignment, ponding less than 3 inches.

2‐Fair 6‐Satisfactory

Fair, minor misalignment and settlement at isolated locations. Moderate settlement or misalignment, ponding between 3 and 5 inches deep.

5‐Fair Minor misalignment or settlement throughout culvert. Ponding (depths less than 5 inches) of water due to sagging or misalignment of pipe sections, end sections dislocated and about to drop off. Four or more sections with offset less than 3 inches.

3‐Poor 4‐Poor Considerable settlement and misalignment of pipe. Significant ponding (depths less than 6 inches) of water due to sagging or misalignment of pipes sections, end sections dislocated about to drop off. Four or more sections with offset less than 4 inches. Rotation of foundation.

3‐Serious Any condition described in “Poor” but is excessive in scope. Severe movement or differential settlement of the segments or loss of fill. Metal culverts have extreme distortion and deflection in one section. Significant ponding (depths greater than 6 inches) of water due to sagging or misalignment of pipes sections, end‐section drop‐off has occurred. Significant ponding of water due to sagging or misaligned masonry units; end section drop off has occurred. Four or more sections with off sets greater than 4 inches.

4‐Critical 2‐Critical Culvert not functioning due to alignment problems throughout. Metal culverts have extreme distortion and deflection throughout.

1‐ImmFailure

Culvert partially collapsed or collapse is imminent.

0‐Failed Culvert collapsed. Table 54 ‐ Condition Rating: Culvert Alignment


Page 148

Culvert Shape – “ded” CONDITION RATING

Item ‐ 46. Shape

Type – Flexible Culverts Only

1‐4 9‐0 Summary

Description % Change of Cross Section* under influence of

traffic

1‐Good 9‐Excellent

New Condition. May exhibit minor damage along edge of inlet or outlet due to construction

8‐Very Good

Smooth curvature in barrel Span dimension within 1 percent of design.

7‐Good Top half of pipe smooth but minor flattening of bottom

Span dimension within 3 percent of design. Very minor distortion

2‐Fair

6‐Satisfactory

Smooth curvature in top half, bottom flat

Span dimension within 5 percent of design. Very minor distortion

5‐Fair

Generally fair, significant distortion in top in one location; bottom has slight reverse curvature in one location but generally fair

Span dimension up to 7 percent greater than design. Non‐symmetric shape.

3‐Poor

4‐Poor Marginal significant distortion throughout length of pipe, lower third may be kinked

Span dimension more than 7 percent greater than design, noticeable dip in guardrail over pipe.

3‐Serious

Poor, extreme deflection at isolated locations, flattening at top of arch or crown; bottom has reverse curvature throughout;

Extreme non‐symmetric shape.

4‐Critical

2‐Critical Critical, extreme distortion and deflection throughout pipe

1‐Imm Fail Structure partially collapsed with crown in reverse curve.

0‐Failed Structure collapsed. Table 55 ‐ Condition Rating: Culvert Shape

*This may include any straight measurement through the center of the cross section, i.e. perpendicular

to the longitudinal axis. Refer to Appendix. for a chart for recording the shape changes/flattening in

corrugated metal culverts.


Page 149

Culvert Seams – “ded” CONDITION RATING

Item ‐ 47. Seams

Type – Corrugated Metal / Multi‐Plate

1‐4 9‐0 Seam Bolts Backfill

1‐Good

9‐Excellent Minor amounts of efflorescence or staining.

8‐Very Good Light surface rust on bolts due to loss of galvanizing, efflorescence staining, tight with no openings along seams.

7‐Good

Metal has cracking on each side of the bolt hole less than 3 instances in a seam section. Minor seam openings less than 1/8 inch.

More than 2 consecutive missing bolts in a row. Rust scale around bolts.

Potential for backfill infiltration.

2‐Fair

6‐Satisfactory

Metal has cracking on each side of the bolt hole less than 6, more than 3 instances in a seam section. Minor seam openings less than 1/8 inch.

More than 3 consecutive missing bolts in a row. Rust scale around bolts.

Evidence of minor backfill infiltration through seams.

5‐Fair Moderate cracking at bolt holes along a seam in one section.

More than 6 consecutive missing bolts in a row or 20% along the seam.

Backfill being lost through seam causing slight deflection.

3‐Poor

4‐Poor Major cracking of seam near crown. Partial cocked and cusped seams.

Advanced section loss to bolt heads along seams. Missing several bolts in a row

Infiltration of backfill causing major deflection.

3‐Serious

Longitudinal cocked and cusped seams and/or metal has 3 inch crack on each side of the bolt hole run total length of culvert.

Numerous missing or tipping bolts.

Infiltration of backfill causing major deflection.

4‐Critical

2‐Critical Seam cracked from bolt to bolt.

Missing or tipping bolts.

Significant amounts of backfill infiltration.


Pipe partially collapsed or collapse is imminent.

0‐Failed Total failure of pipe. Table 56 ‐ Condition Rating: Culvert Metal Seams


Page 150

Culvert Seams – “ded” CONDITION RATING

Item ‐ 47. Seams

Type – Concrete

1‐4 9‐0 Summary

General Alignment Backfill

1‐Good 9‐Excellent Straight line between sections.

8‐Very Good No settlement or misalignment; Tight with no defects apparent.

7‐Good Minor distress to pipe material adjacent to joint. Shallow mortar deterioration at isolated locations.

Minor misalignment at joints; off sets less than 1/2 inch.

Possible minor infiltration of fills no settlement.

2‐Fair

6‐Satisfactory

Extensive areas of shallow deterioration; missing mortar at isolated locations; possible infiltration or exfiltration; minor cracking.

Dislocated end section.

Minor backfill infiltration due to slight opening at joints; minor cracking or spalling at joints allowing exfiltration.

5‐Fair Significant cracking, spalling, buckling of pipe material, loose or missing mortar at isolated locations.

Joint offset less than 3 inches. End sections dislocated about to drop off mortar generally deteriorated.

Joint open and allowing backfill to infiltrate, infiltration staining apparent.

3‐Poor

4‐Poor Voids seen in fill through offset joints. End sections dropped off at inlet. Mortar severely deteriorated, significant loss of mortar.

Differential movement and separation of joints. Joint offset less than 4 inches.

Significant infiltration or exfiltration between masonry units.

3‐Serious Large voids seen in fill through offset joints. Extensive areas of missing mortar.

Significant openings, dislocated joints in several locations exposing fill material with joint offsets greater than 4 inches.

Infiltration or exfiltration causing misalignment of pipe and settlement or depressions in roadway.

4‐Critical

2‐Critical Culvert not functioning due to alignment problems throughout. Large voids seen in fill through offset joints.


Pipe partially collapsed or collapse is imminent.

Table 57 ‐ Condition Rating: Culvert Concrete Seams


Page 151

Culvert Scour – “ded” CONDITION RATING

Item ‐ 49. Scour

Type – Culvert

1‐4 9‐0 General* Conduit‐Type Open Bottom‐Type (no floor/invert)

1‐Good

9‐Excellent

No Problems noted.

8‐Very Good

Minor scour holes developing, scour protection placed.


Scour holes at inlet or outlet but are not affecting structure.

top of footing exposed

2‐Fair

6‐Satisfactory

Damage to scour countermeasures, probing indicates soft material in scour hole.

Minor scour holes developing at inlet or outlet.

Sides of footing exposed less than 6 inches.


Scour holes at inlet or outlet.

Unprotected footing along the vertical sides are exposed less than 12‐inches high, corner of footing may have minor undermining.

3‐Poor

4‐Poor

Advanced scour.

Significant scour holes developing at inlet or outlet. Major stream erosion behind headwall that threatens to undermine culvert.

Unprotected vertical side of footing exposed, full height, less than 1/3 the horizontal length of the footing.

3‐Serious Scour has seriously affected the primary structural components Local failures are possible.

Undermined cutoff walls or headwalls.

Undermining exposing the underside less than 1/3 the horizontal length of the footing.

4‐Critical

2‐Critical Scour may have removed substructure support. Local failures are possible.

Streambed degradation causing severe settlement.

Underside of footing exposed more than 1/3 the horizontal length of the footing. Any substructure unit with more than 20% of bearing capacity removed.



0‐Failed Out of service ‐ beyond corrective action. Table 58 ‐ Condition Rating: Culvert Scour


Page 152

Channel Alignment – “ded” CONDITION RATING


Type – All

1‐4 9‐0 Channel Flow

1‐Good

9‐Excellent Channel flow is causing no adverse conditions to channel protection bridge.

8‐Very Good Channel has straight alignment for more than 100 feet upstream. Flow hits protective materials placed to protect structure.

7‐Good Silt and gravel buildup restricts half of the channel; Tree or bush growing in the channel.

2‐Fair 6‐Satisfactory Minor streambed movement evident. Not desirable: Flows through 1 out of 2 pipes; Flows along one abut. Doesn’t flow under center of the structure; minor curve (20o‐40o angle change from as‐built); Deposits causing channel to split into 2 or more small channels.

5‐Fair Flow hits outside wingwall/endwall into unprotected embankment. Stream has meandered or has deposited sediment diverting flow causing erosion to embankment (Flow angle between 40o‐50o change from as‐built) Trees and brush restrict the channel.

3‐Poor

4‐Poor Flows into or along wall to expose footing. Stream has meandered or has deposited sediment diverting flow causing erosion to embankment (Flow angle between 50o‐70o change from as‐built) Flow enters pipe by other means than designed opening. Beginning to undercut substructure.

3‐Serious Stream bed aggradation, degradation or lateral movement has changed the channel to now threaten the bridge and/or approach roadway. 80o‐90o (change from as‐built) turns at the bridge causing erosion behind wingwall. Loss of embankment material. Erosion to embankment encroaching on roadway.

4‐Critical

2‐Critical Flow is piping around culvert. Erosion to embankment impacting roadway. The waterway has changed to the extent the bridge is near a state of collapse.


No flow enters culvert. All of the flow pipes around culvert barrel. Bridge closed because of channel failure.

0‐Failed Total failure of pipe. Table 59 ‐ Condition Rating: Channel Alignment


Page 153

Channel Protection – “ded” CONDITION RATING

Item ‐ 52. Protection

1‐4 9‐0 Channel Protection

1‐Good

9‐Excellent Embankment protection is not required or is in a stable condition.

8‐Very Good Banks are protected or well vegetated. River control devices such as spur dikes and embankment protection are not required or are in a stable condition. No noteworthy deficiencies, which affect the condition of the channel protection 100 feet upstream.

7‐Good Bank protection is in need of minor repairs. River control devices and embankment protection have a little minor damage.

2‐Fair 6‐Satisfactory Bank is beginning to slump. River control devices and embankment protection have widespread minor damage. Riprap starting to wash away. Minor erosion. Cracked concrete channel protection at inlet of a culvert.

5‐Fair Bank protection is being eroded. River control devices and/or embankment have major damage. Broken up concrete channel protection.

3‐Poor

4‐Poor Bank and embankment protection is severely undermined. River control devices have severe damage; stone is completely washed away; Major erosion; Failed concrete channel protection.

3‐Serious Bank protection has failed and no threatens the structure. River control devices have been destroyed.

4‐Critical

2‐Critical The channel has changed to the extent the bridge is near a state of collapse.


Bridge closed because of channel failure. Corrective action may put back in light service.

0‐Failed Bridge closed because of channel failure. Replacement necessary.

Table 60 ‐ Condition Rating: Channel Protection


Page 154

Channel Hydraulic Opening – “ded” CONDITION RATING

Item ‐ 53. Hydraulic Opening

Type – All

1‐4 9‐0 % Debris Buildup/Blockage* Blockage/Overtopping Scour Critical

Bridge Non‐Scour

Critical Bridge

1‐Good

9‐Excellent

0 Up to 5%

No blockage or as designed condition.

8‐Very Good Minor amounts of sediment build‐up with no appreciable loss of opening.

7‐Good Banks and/or channel have minor amounts of drift.


0 Up to 10% Debris is restricting the channel slightly. Fence placed at inlet or outlet;

5‐Fair Up to 5%, non that may cause scour

Up to 20% Trees and brush restrict the channel; Fence placed at inlet or outlet. Debris in cross frames from more than 10 years.

3‐Poor

4‐Poor 5‐10%,

none that may cause scour

Up to 30%

Large deposits of debris are in the waterway. Occasional (ex. every 3‐10 years) overtopping of roadway. Minor inconvenience to traffic, passable in within a couple hours. Continual debris in crossframes, every 3‐10 years

3‐Serious ANY that MAY cause scour

ANY that IS causing scour

Overtopping of roadway (ex. every 3‐10 years with long term traffic delays).

4‐Critical

2‐Critical The channel has changed to the extent the bridge is near a state of collapse.


Bridge closed because of channel failure. Corrective action may put back in light service.

0‐Failed Bridge closed because of channel failure. Replacement necessary.

*% blockage area below the ordinary high water elevation of any span OR of the span length Table 61 ‐ Condition Rating: Channel Hydraulic Opening


Page 155

Channel Navigation Lights – “ded” CONDITION RATING

Item ‐ 54. Navigation Lights

Lighting

1‐Good All lights operating, no repairs necessary to system.

2‐Fair All lights operating, however, mounting brackets may need attention or wiring conduit may be partially disconnected.

3‐Poor All lights operating, however lenses may be broken, connections not secure.

4‐Critical Some lights burnt out or wiring circuitry non‐functioning or both, connections not secure with imminent or permanent failure.

Table 62 ‐ Condition Rating: Navigation Lights

Signs/Utilities – “ded” CONDITION RATING

Item ‐ 55. Signs, 56. Sign Supports, 57. Utilities

Type – All

Description

1‐Good All signs legible.

2‐Fair Minor damage.

3‐Poor At least one sign is ineffective. Signs barely legible due to vandalism or fading or partial obstructions.

4‐Critical Signs are ineffective Table 63 ‐ Condition Rating: Signs, Sign Supports and Utilities


Page 156


Page 157

Chapter9:AssigningElementLevelConditionStatestothe1‐4ItemsSection 1111 of the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP‐21) modified 23 U.S.C. 144,

requires Ohio to report bridge element level data for NBIS bridges on the National Highway System

(NHS) to FHWA. Element Level data collection shall commence no later than October 1, 2014 and be

part of the annual NBI submission starting in April 2015. Data for NBIS bridges on the NHS shall be

submitted within 90 days of the field inspection, including those under the jurisdiction of local

authorities.

The condition rating of a bridge component is coded with a rating of ‘4’ (worst) through ‘1’ (best). The

lowest controlling item is then converted to a 9‐0 NBIS summary rating. This provides an overall

indication of the general condition of the bridge being rated. Element level inspections like condition

rating inspections, quantify the entire element into four condition states with ‘4’ being the worst and ‘1’

being the best. The difference is bridge elements are rated in quantitative units or percentages for each

condition state. The summary item 9‐0 rating is coded the same way as in a Condition Rating inspection;

the worst bold box item will influence the summary rating. Element level condition states are weighted

to create a Transition Rating (TR). The intent of the TR is to communicate to inspectors, planners and

stakeholders the correlation from an Element Level rating to a condition rating. The intent of the TR is

not to force inspectors to miscode condition states. ODOT OSE refine the TR based on CR definitions.

The condition of each element is determined by performing a field inspection and recording quantities

of the element that have identified defects. The evaluation of the item is complete when the sum of all

four condition states equals 100%. Inspectors should expect a coding tolerance of 10% for the items in

condition state 4. Ratings shall be rounded up to the nearest integer. The following chart provides a

general guideline on how to collect and quantify the element.


Page 158

Generic Item – Condition States (CS)

Defect GOOD

Condition State 1 FAIR

Condition State 2 POOR

Condition State 3 SEVERE

Condition State 4

Adjective Quantity that is

Good Quantity that is

Fair

Quantity that is Poor, does not

warrant a structural review

Warrants Structural Review OR the defect impacts the strength or serviceability of the

element

Maintenance Response ‐‐>

Monitor Protect Repair Rehab Replace




Table 64 ‐ Element Level Generic Rating

There are three major divisions of bridge elements:

National Bridge Elements (NBE) – Represent the primary structural components and are denoted in

the inspection report with bold black boxes, with the exception of bridge rail and bearings. The

NBE’s are a refinement of the Deck, Superstructure, Substructure and Culvert items from the FHWA

Recording and Coding Guide and are intended to be consistent nationwide.

Bridge Management Elements (BME) – Include components that are not bold boxes on the

inspection report and are typically managed in order to preserve and maintain bridges. Examples

include joints, wearing surfaces and protective coating systems.

Agency Developed Elements (ADE) – Include elements collected by ODOT that are important to the

current inspection program to maintain consistency and match legacy BR‐86 data. This information

does not get transferred to FHWA.

An inspector may find materials or guidelines that are not defined during the course of their inspection.

In these cases the inspector should use discretion and determine the appropriate condition. Surfaces or

element defects that are not visible for inspection shall be assessed based on the available visible

surface. Surfaces not visible shall be assessed

based on destructive and nondestructive testing

or indicators in the materials covering the

surfaces.

Severity: The worst portion of the 3‐Dimensional

elemental unit governs the entire quantity (ex.

Square footage is calculated using square areas,

Figure 72 – SF quantity


Page 159

linear footage of a beam includes a one foot section of both the web and flanges). Inspectors are given

the option to code either percentage (%) or Quantity.

Condition State 4 Warrants a structural review OR a Structural Review was performed and the defect

impacts strength or serviceability. This is reserved for critical conditions that are beyond the specific

defects defined in Condition States 1 through 3. Quantities in CS4 may often have implications that

affect public safety OR reduction in load capacity. If the inspector determines that there is an impact

on the load capacity or a direct impact on safety then the 4 is the appropriate rating. All Quantities in

CS4 must be accounted for with quantitative descriptions in the comments. Typical examples are given

in the charted guidelines but should

not limit the inspector.

Total Quantity

A good bridge database and a

functional bridge program are

entirely dependent on good bridge

inspection data. A bridge inspector

needs to be familiar with the

concept of breaking a bridge down

into its component elements and

assigning a condition state to each

element based mostly on visual

observations and plan information.

The quantities for the elements are

established and are categorized into

one of the three units: Area of

Square Feet (SF), Length or Linear

Feet (LF) or Count (EA).

The Bridge Inspection Field Report

has the Quantity cells highlighted.

Figure 74 ‐ Bridge Inspection Field Report Quantities


Page 160

APPROACH ITEMS Quantity Description

c1. Approach Wearing Surface (EA)

The quantity of this element is each Approach Wearing Surface immediately leading up to and off of the Approach Slab or, when no slab exists, up to and off of the bridge. Most structures will have 2 however divided highways with medians will have 4 when one bridge carries both directions.

c2. Slab (SF) The quantity of this element is the surface area of both approach slabs. Note the slabs often do not extend to the edge of pavement and inspectors must field verify or plan verify.

c3. Relief Joint (LF) The quantity of this element is the total length of the relief joints.

c4. Embankment (EA) ded

The quantity of this element is each embankment behind each wingwall, above the clear span of each inlet and outlet or each retaining wall supporting the approach slab and approach wearing surface.

c5. Guardrail (EA) The quantity of this element is each guardrail assembly on each corner (4) of the bridge.

Table 65 ‐ Approach Item Quantities

Figure 75 ‐ Approach Wearing Surface and Slab Quantities


Page 161

Figure 77 ‐ Quantity Example: Embankment 1 of 2

Figure 78 ‐ Culvert Embankment

Figure 76 ‐ Approach embankment 1 of 2

Approach Slab Approach Wearing Surface

2 Embankment

1 Embankment


Page 162

DECK ITEMS Quantity Description

c7.1 Floor/Slab (SF) The quantity of this element is the area of the deck/slab EXCLUDING deck edges including structures carrying divided highways. The area does account for any flares, gores or ramps present. Integral Floors (PSBB’s, T‐beams, Rigid Frames etc.) shall be rated and quantified in Square Feet in this item and in LINEAR FEET (LF) for Beams/Girders.

c7.2 Edge of Floor/Slab (LF) The quantity of this element is the two‐foot‐wide deck edges at each exposed fascia including divided highways. This element should not be rated for Prestressed Box Beams.

c8. Wearing Surface (SF) The quantity of this element is the area of the exposed surface of the wearing surface (from curb‐to‐curb, toe‐to‐toe or edge‐to‐edge) including paved shoulders and accounting for any flares, gores or ramps present.

c9. Curbs/Sidewalk (LF) The quantity of this element is the total length of all the curbs or all of the sidewalks on the bridge deck.

c10. Median (LF) The quantity of this element is the total length of the median on the bridge deck. For closed medians the quantity will be the overall structure length and for open medians the quantity will be twice the overall structure length to include both sides.

c11. Railing (LF) The quantity of this element is the total length of the railings on the bridge excluding median railings and additional pedestrian railing.

c12. Drainage (EA) ded The quantity of this element is the sum of each scupper/grating in the deck; for over‐the‐side or off‐the‐end drainage each side or end is equivalent to one (1).

c13. Expansion Joint (LF) ded Total linear feet of structural expansion joints.

Table 66 ‐ Deck Items Quantities

Figure 79 ‐ Quantity Example: Railing, Expansion Joint, Wearing Surface

Railing: LINEAR FEET (LF) 1 of 2

Railing: LINEAR FEET (LF) 2 of 2


Page 163

Figure 81 ‐ Quantity Example: Drainage

Drainage: EACH – (EA) – Four Scuppers shown

1

1

1

1

Figure 80 ‐ Quantity: Edge of Floor/Slab


Page 164

SUPERSTRUCTURE ITEMS Quantity Description

c14. Alignment (EA) ded The quantity of this element is the sum of all spans.

c15.1 Beams/Girders (LF) The quantity of this element is the sum of all longitudinal (excluding stringers) beam and girder lengths. Each linear foot includes the web and flanges.

C15.2 Slab (SF) The quantity of this element is for Slab‐Type Superstructures and is the area of the Slab EXCLUDING deck edges. The area does account for any flares, gores or ramps present.

c16. Diaphragm/X‐Frames (EA)

The quantity of this element is the sum of the number of diaphragms and cross frames.

c17. Stringers (LF) The quantity of this element is the sum of all of the lengths of each stringer. Each linear foot includes the web and flanges.

c18. Floorbeams (LF) The quantity of this element is the sum of all of the lengths of each floorbeam and includes cantilever sections. Each linear foot includes the web and flanges.

c19. Truss Verticals (EA) The quantity of this element is the sum of the number of truss vertical members. One member is from panel point to panel point

c20. Truss Diagonals (EA) The quantity of this element is the sum of the number of truss diagonal members. One member is from panel point to panel point.

c21. Truss Upper Chord (EA)

The quantity of this element is the sum of the number of truss upper chord members including end‐posts. One member is from panel point to panel point.

c22. Truss Lower Chord (EA)

EACH (EA) – The quantity of this element is the sum of the number of truss lower chord members. One member is from panel point to panel point.

c23. Truss Gusset Plate (EA) ded

The quantity of this element is the sum of each plate, two per panel point (interior/inboard and exterior/outboard); include gusset plates that intersect between chords or at midpoints.

c24. Lateral Bracing (EA) The quantity of this element is the sum of the number of upper lateral and lower lateral bracing members.

c25. Sway Bracing (EA) The quantity of this element is the sum of the number of sway and portal bracing struts. These general stabilize truss bridges and are attached between the left and right verticals and the left and right end‐posts.

c26. Bearing Devices (EA) ded

The quantity of this element is the sum of each movable and fixed bearing

c27. Arch (LF) The quantity of this element is the sum of all of the lengths of each arch panel measured longitudinal to the travel way and (not along the radius of the barrel or rib).

c28. Arch Column/Hanger (EA)

The quantity of this element is the sum of the number of arch columns or hangers. One member is from panel point to panel point.

c29. Arch Spandrel Walls (LF)

The quantity of this element is the sum of all of the lengths of each spandrel wall panel measured longitudinal to the travel way (not along the radius of the barrel or rib).


Page 165

SUPERSTRUCTURE ITEMS Quantity Description

c30. Prot. Coating System (LF) ded

Protective Coating System: LINEAR FEET (LF) – The quantity of this element is the total linear feet of all primary steel superstructure elements (ex. beams, girders, floorbeams, stringers). Steel truss lines and steel arch lines: the quantity is the sum of all truss panels measured along the roadway from bearing to bearing for each truss or arch‐line (often it is the length of the lowerchord) and any additional elements (ex. beams, girders, floorbeams, stringers).

c31. Pins/Hangers/Hinges (EA) ded

The quantity of this element is the sum of each hanger or hinge assembly.

c32. Fatigue (LF) ded The quantity of this element is the length of all primary steel members. See c30. Protective Coating System

Table 67 ‐ Superstructure Item Quantities

Figure 82 ‐ Quantity Example: Prestressed Box Beams

Beams/Girders: LINEAR FEET (LF)


Page 166

Figure 83 ‐ Quantity Example: Truss Members

Figure 84 ‐ Quantity Example: Truss Gusset Plates

Truss Members: EACH (EA) – Lowerchord: 4 X 2 Truss lines = 8 Diagonals: 8 X 2 Truss lines = 16 Verticals: 3 X 2 Truss lines = 6 Upperchord: 6 X 2 Truss Lines = 12

1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 11 11

1 1

11 1

1 1 11

Truss Gusset Plates: EACH (EA) – Interior: 12 X 2 Truss Lines = 24 Exterior: 12 X 2 Truss Lines = 24

2

2

2 2 2 2

2 2 222 2


Page 167

Figure 85 ‐ Quantity Example: Crossframes, Steel Beams, PCS, Fatigue

Figure 86 ‐ Quantity Example: Pins/Hangers/Hinges

Diaphragm/Cross Frames: EACH (EA) – The quantity of this element is the sum of the number of diaphragms and cross frames. 35 shown

Pin/Hanger/Hinge – Each (EA): 1 hinge X 5 beam lines = 5


Page 168

Figure 87 ‐ Quantity Example: Arch and Spandrel Wall

Figure 88 ‐ Quantity Example: Floorbeams and Stringers

Arch and Arch Spandrel Walls: LINEAR FEET (LF) – The quantity of this element is the sum of all of the lengths of each spandrel wall panel measured longitudinal to the travel way (not along the radius of the barrel or rib). For filled arches there are two spandrel wall lengths (one on each side) and one arch length per span.

Floorbeams: LINEAR FEET (LF)


Page 169

Figure 89 ‐ Quantity Example: Stringers

Stringers: LINEAR FEET (LF)


Page 170

Protective Coating System: LINEAR FEET (LF) Truss Lines

1 Span = 168.9LF X 2 Truss Lines = 337.8 LF/Span 337.8 X 5 Spans = 1,689 LF Truss Lines

Stringers 10 Stringers/Bay X 14 LF = 140 LF 140LF X 9 Bays X 5 Spans = 6,300 LF Stringers

Floorbeams (including under sidewalk) 10 Floorbeams/Span X 40 LF/each = 400 LF 5 Spans X 400 LF/Span = 2,000 LF Floorbeam 1,689 LF Truss + 6,300 LF Stringer + 2,000 LF Floorbeam = 9,989 LF

Figure 90 ‐ Protective Coating System for Truss Bridges


Page 171

SUBSTRUCTURE ITEMS Quantity Description

c33. Abutment Walls (LF) The quantity of this element is the sum of the length (i.e. bridge width along the skew) of each Abutment Wall.

c34. Abutment Caps (LF) The quantity of this element is the sum of the length (i.e. bridge width along the skew) of each Abutment Cap.

c35. Abut. Colmns/Bents (EA)

The quantity of this element is the sum of all columns and bents at each Abutment.

c36. Pier Walls (LF) The quantity of this element is the sum of the length (i.e. bridge width along the skew) of each Pier Wall. For hammerhead piers the wall is the small bottom portion below the cap.

c37. Pier Caps (LF) The quantity of this element is the sum of the length (i.e. bridge width along the skew) of each Pier Cap.

c38. Pier Columns/Bents (EA)

The sum of the number of pier columns and bents.

c39. Backwalls (LF) The quantity of this element is the sum of the length (i.e. bridge width along the skew) of each Backwall.

c40. Wingwalls (EA) The quantity of this element is the sum of the length of each Wingwall

c42. Scour (EA) ded The quantity of this element is the sum of each substructure unit when a waterway exists underneath a structure.

c43. Slope Protection (EA) ded

This quantity is each protected slope underneath the superstructure

Table 68 ‐ Substructure Item Quantities

Figure 91 ‐ Quantity Example: Pier Caps, Pier Columns and Pier Walls

Pier Column – EACH (EA)

Pier Wall – Linear Feet (LF)

Pier Cap – Linear Feet (LF)


Page 172

Figure 92 ‐ Quantity Example: Pier Walls, Abutment Walls

Figure 93 ‐ Quantity Example: Pier Wall and Pier Cap

Pier Wall: LINEAR FEET (LF) Abutment Wall: LINEAR FEET (LF)

Pier Wall: LINEAR FEET (LF


Page 173

Figure 94 ‐ Quantity Example: Pier Bents, Scour

Figure 95 ‐ Quantity Example: Pier Columns

Pier Columns/Bents: EACH (EA) – 3 Span Continuous Slab 10 shown X 2 Piers = 20 Pier Bents Total

Scour: EACH (EA) – 3 Span Continuous Slab = 4

Pier Columns/Bents: EACH (EA) – 4 shown

1

11

1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11


Page 174

Figure 96 ‐ Quantity Example: Pier Columns and Pier Caps

Figure 97 ‐ Quantity Example Abutment Wall

1 1Pier Columns/Bents: EACH (EA) – 2 shown

Pier Cap: LINEAR FEET (LF)


Page 175

Figure 98 ‐ Quantity Example: Slope Protection

Slope Protection: EACH (EA) – 1 shown


Page 176

CULVERT ITEMS Quantity Description

c44. General (LF) The quantity of this element is the sum of each circumferential linear foot along the culvert length measured from inlet to outlet

c45. Alignment (LF) ded See c.44 General

c46. Shape (LF) ded See c.44 General

c47. Seams (EA) ded The quantity of this element is each circumferential seam and each longitudinal (along the length of the conduit) seam. For multi‐plate corrugated metal pipes one longitudinal seam may be as long as the entire conduit.

c48. Headwall/Endwall (EA)

The quantity of this element is the sum of each headwall and endwall panel length measured longitudinal to the travel way

c49. Scour (EA) ded For closed‐cell conduits and four sided boxes the sum of each inlet and outlet opening. For conduits with open bottoms, three‐sided boxes and culverts with abutments the sum is each substructure unit, within each barrel or span.

c50. Abutment Walls (LF) LINEAR FEET (LF) – The quantity of this element is the sum of the width of each abutment wall.

Table 69 ‐ Culvert Item Quantities

Figure 99 ‐ Quantity Example: Scour

Scour: EACH (EA) – 4 shown

34

1 2


Page 177

Figure 100 ‐ Quantity Example: Culvert General, Alignment and Shape


Page 178

CHANNEL ITEMS Quantity Description

c51. Alignment (LF) ded The quantity of this element is the length from a point upstream to a point downstream based on what will affect the condition of the structure.

c52. Protection (LF) ded See c51.Alignment.

c53. Hydraulic Opening (EA) ded The quantity of this element is the sum of each Abutment and Pier or Conduit/Culvert when a waterway exists

c54. Navigation Lights (EA) ded The quantity of this element is the sum of each Navigation light

Table 70 ‐ Channel Item Quantities

Figure 101 ‐ Quantity Example: Hydraulic Opening

Hydraulic Opening (EA) ded EACH (EA) ‐ The quantity of this element is the sum of each Abutment and Pier or conduit when a waterway exists 3 Substructure Units Shown (2 Piers and 1 Abutment) 4 Total


Page 179

Figure 102 ‐ Quantity Example: Channel Alignment and Protection

Figure 103 ‐ Quantity Example: Channel Alignment and Protection

Channel Alignment and Protection: LINEAR FEET (LF) ‐ The quantity of this element is the upstream and downstream length of channel that influences the structure.

Channel Alignment and Protection: LINEAR FEET (LF) ‐ The quantity of this element is the upstream and downstream length of channel that influences the structure.


Page 180

SIGN/UTILITY ITEMS Quantity Description

c55. Signs (EA) ded The quantity of this element is the sum of each sign attached to the bridge or restriction or regulatory sign specific to the bridge (ex. advanced warning load posting, chevrons, vertical clearance).

c56. Sign Supports (EA) ded The quantity of this element is the sum of each attachment, on above or under the bridge, affixing the sign support to the bridge.

c57. Utilities (LF) ded The quantity of this element is the sum of each utility length attached to the bridge; including water, electrical, gas, sewer etc.

Table 71 ‐ Sign/Utilities Quantities

Figure 104 ‐ Quantity Example: Utilities

Utilities: LINEAR FEET (LF) ‐ The quantity of this element is the sum of each utility length attached to the bridge; including water, electrical, gas, sewer etc.


Page 181

Inspection Comments with Element Level

The rating an inspector assigns should be related to the actions required. All comments must be free of

hearsay and generalities outside of objective justification for the numerical ratings. All quantities in CS3

and CS4 must be communicated (comments, photos, sketches etc.) for the next inspector to find,

quantify, rate and determine obvious degradation. These comments must also account for and define

the predominant deficiency. Expect comments, photos, and documentation and inspection time to

increase as the structure degrades.

Field Report with Element Level

A completed Bridge Inspection Field

Report is a legal document. It may be

used by an inspector to complete either

an element level inspection or a

condition rating inspection. The

Quantities are populated from the

inventory items. Each bridge, at a

minimum, must be inspected in

accordance with the procedures in this

manual:

A qualified Team Leader is at the bridge at all times during each initial, routine, in‐depth,

fracture critical member and underwater inspection

Condition codes are correctly assigned

All notable bridge deficiencies are identified, and

Condition codes are supported by narrative, sketches or photos that appropriately justify and

document the rating assignment. Supportive documentation must be made available for the

next inspector.

The following Bridge Inspection Field Report has the Element Level Condition State Cells highlighted.

These cells shall be populated if the item exists on the structure, along with the NBIS items, when

completing an Element Level inspection. The Bridge Inspection Field Report is a document that may be

used to complete either an element level inspection or a condition rating inspection. The following

report has the Element Level Condition State boxes highlighted blue. All ratings in orange are required,

Figure 105 ‐ 1/8" Wide Crack in Concrete with 1/16" Offset


Page 182

when the item exists on the bridge, for both an element level and condition rating inspection. The

difference between Condition and Element Level is in coding the individual 1‐4 components.


Page 183

Figure 107 ‐ Concrete Structural Cracking

Element Level Materials

Most deficiencies are material‐based and these tables will be beneficial. Those components with non‐

material deficiencies or more specific guidance are denoted with a “ded” on the field report. The

charted guidance for these items follows the material guidance. The seven material types include:

Reinforced Concrete, Wearing Surface, Structural Steel, Prestressed Concrete, Timber, Masonry &

Mechanically Stabilized Earth.

CONCRETE MATERIAL

General Commentary:

o This rating will include all reinforced concrete and concrete and exclude prestressed and

post‐tensioned concrete.

Defects/Tolerable Limits:

o Concrete Cracking: Any

working structural cracks

or unsealed 1/16” wide

structural cracks or any

associated with buckling,

torsion, settlement or

change in load path shall

be CS4. Crack densities

should be quantified using

an area that is repeatable

and quantifiable: For

wearing surfaces use 12’

wide (lane width) and 12’ long section of bridge deck; for floors use plywood sheet

indentations (4’x8’) or beam spacing with equidistant length. Sealed cracks are those

that have been filled or covered with epoxy, tar or sealant to arrest the chloride

intrusion usually applied on the surfaces exposed to drainage and runoff. Knowing the

extent of cracking gives an indication of how much water and chlorides are able to

penetrate into the concrete. On tined concrete decks or overlays, it may be difficult to

see cracks. The best time to see cracks on tined decks is soon after a rain (though this is

not always practical). As a deck dries out, cracks will remain wet longer than the deck


Page 184

surface and thus appear as dark lines against

the lighter colored, dry deck. Consideration

may be used for raising a rating when a crack is

retrofitted or dormant. Structural cracks often

go through the entire member or tension zone

and are not superficial. Any one crack, no

matter how wide, may reduce the capacity of

the entire load path which would result in a

CS4 rating. It is up to the discretion of the

inspector to code concrete cracking correctly

based on location, orientation and activity (dormant or

‘working’). Types of cracks commonly encountered include

the following:

o Transverse flexural cracks (structural) due to bending will

most likely appear over the piers of continuous

superstructures (or positive bending or near mid‐span for

slabs).

o Shear Cracks (structural) will most likely be adjacent to supports.

o Longitudinal flexural cracks (structural). These are caused by negative bending of

the deck over the girders or beams or positive bending between girders or beams.

o Longitudinal reflective cracks (non‐structural) may appear along the joints of

adjacent prestressed box beams. This cracking is caused by differential beam

deflection.

o Radial cracks (non‐structural) at the acute corner of skewed bridge decks.

o Temperature and shrinkage cracks (non‐structural). These will be apparent on most

concrete.

o Transverse reflective cracks (non‐structural) may appear adjacent to an expansion

joint. These cracks suggest that the joint anchorage hardware is beginning to fail.

o Concrete Cracking References: According to the Unpublished Draft Guidelines for

NCHRP Project 12‐82,Developing Reliability‐Based Bridge Inspection Practices,

"engineering judgment [is] exercised in determining whether any present flexural

cracking is moderate to severe. Crack widths in reinforced concrete bridges exceeding

0.006 inches to 0.012 inches reflect the lower bound of moderate cracking. The

RC Crack Width

(in)

0.0125 1/8

0.090 3/32

0.080

0.070

0.060 1/16 Hairline

0.050

0.040

0.030 1/32

0.020

0.015 1/64


Page 185

American Concrete Institute Committee Report 224R‐01 presents guidance for what

could be considered reasonable or tolerable crack widths at the tensile face of

reinforced concrete structures for typical conditions. These range from 0.006 inches for

marine or seawater spray environments to 0.007 inches for structures exposed to de‐

icing chemicals, to 0.012 inches for structures in a humid, moist environment. The

location of crack is important. Deck cracking of 0.05” or greater may not be as

concerning as cracking of this magnitude in a reinforced concrete girder or beam.

Likewise a shrinkage crack 0.05” wide in a reinforced concrete girder that does not

move might be viewed differently than a 0.05” crack working under live load.

Concrete Spalls and Delaminations: Delamination or spalling of the concrete is not

necessarily an indication of poor concrete quality or of structural issues. It usually indicates

that chlorides and moisture have migrated through the concrete and attacked the

reinforcing steel. As the reinforcing steel corrodes, it increases in volume which tends to

push the concrete away from the steel. When the corrosion forces caused by this steel

expansion exceed the tensile strengths of the concrete, the concrete starts to delaminate or

separate from the surface. A hollow sounding surface when tapped with a hammer or steel

rod indicates a delamination which often results in a spall. The amount of time for this to

occur depends on the porosity or permeability of the concrete, the depth of resteel and the

prevalence of moisture and chlorides.

Settlement: Signs of continuing unrepaired settlement shall be coded CS3. Extreme

settlement or settlement that affects safety or load capacity shall be coded CS4. Any

quantity may be coded worse if the deficiency changed unexpectedly or rapidly.

Section Loss: Any 4 adjacent bars with 360 degree exposure OR any 4 adjacent bars with

more than 10% reduction in diameter will be CS4.

Scour: CS3 is Exposed vertical face of spread footing and CS4 is undermining. Deep

foundations CS3 is one or two exposed piling less than 1‐ft of the piling depth. CS4 is any

piling exposed more than 1‐ft. Any quantity may be coded worse if the deficiency changed

unexpectedly or rapidly.

Specific Elements:

Beam/Floor Separation: The area unseen above the top flange shall be downgraded when

evidence of movement and separation exists at the interface to CS2 and downgraded to CS3

when active movement under liveload is obvious.


Page 186

REINFORCED CONCRETE – Condition State Definitions (CS)Defect CS1 CS2 CS3 CS4

Delam/ Spall/ Patched Area

None

Delaminated. Spall 1 in. or less deep

OR 6 in. or less in

diameter. Patched area that is sound

Spall greater than 1 in. deep or greater than 6 in. diameter.

Patched area that is unsound or showing distress. Does not warrant structural review.

Safety: Requires immediate action to

ensure safety of public traffic

Serviceability: The condition is beyond the

limits established in condition state three (3), warrants a structural review to

determine the strength or serviceability

of the element or bridge, or

both

Exposed Rebar

None Present without measurable section

loss

Present with measurable section loss, but does not warrant a structural review

Cracking* Any sealed OR less than 0.012 in. wide or

spacing greater than 3.0 ft.

Unsealed Width 0.012‐0.05 in. or

spacing of 1.0‐3.0 ft.

Unsealed cracks greater than 0.05 in. wide or spacing of less

than 1 ft.

Efflorescence/ Rust Staining/ Saturated

None

Surface white without build‐up or leaching without rust staining. Arrested leaching or

saturation

Heavy build up. Rust staining

Abrasion/ Wear

None

Exposed coarse aggregate but the aggregate remains

secure in the concrete

Coarse aggregate is loose or has popped out of the concrete matrix due to abrasion or wear

Distortion None

Exists but does not require mitigation. Distortion that has been mitigated.

Distortion that requires mitigation that has not been addressed but does not

warrant a structural review.

Settlement None

Exists within tolerable limits or arrested with no observed structural

distress

Exceeds tolerable limits but does not warrant a structural

review.

Scour None

Exists within tolerable limits or has been

arrested with effective countermeasures

Exceeds tolerable limits but is less than the critical limits

determined by scour evaluation and does not warrant a

structural review.

Damage N/A Has impact but

repaired or minor Has impact but does not

warrant a structural review. Table 72 ‐ Element Level Material: Reinforced Concrete

*Cracking – the width and spacing dimensions represent 1) structural cracks OR 2) any crack that is in a corrosive environment. Inspector must use engineering judgment when nonstructural cracks are not exposed to corrosive chemicals, in other words inspectors should move the condition state ‘up’ or improve the rating. Working cracks or those likely reducing the capacity shall be CS4.


Page 187

WEARING SURFACE

General Commentary:

o This rating will include all wearing surfaces including asphalt and bituminous wearing

surfaces and relief joints.

o Inspector for sags, dips, impact and rideability.


o Crack density should be quantified using an area that is repeatable and quantifiable:

For wearing surfaces use 12’ wide (lane width) and 12’ long section of bridge deck.

o Effectiveness: CS4 When the WS is obviously not protecting the structural portions

underneath or the top surface is causing a rough ride, need to swerve or bounce for

vehicular traffic.

Specific Elements:

o Approach Wearing surface extends past the approach slab or, when no slab exists, past

the end of the bridge. The wearing course(s) on top of the approach slab shall be rated

within the approach slab element.

o Integral or Semi Integral: Pay careful attention to the transverse sections at the end of the

approach slab. Inspect for openings or distress from expansion.

Expansion Joint Header

Backwall

Expansion Joint Bridge Wearing Surface

Figure 108 ‐ Approach

Figure 109 – Wearing Surface CS4

Approach Slab


Page 188

WEARING SURFACE – Condition State Definitions (CS)

Defect CS1 CS2 CS3 CS4

Cracking* Any sealed OR width less than 0.012 in. or spacing greater than

3.0 ft.

Unsealed Width 0.012‐0.05 in. or spacing of 1.0‐3.0

ft.

Unsealed Width greater than 0.05 in. or spacing of less than 1 ft.

Wearing Surface is no longer effective

Rutting None Rutting less than

1" deep Rutting more than

1"deep

Patched Area/ Pothole

None Patched area that is sound. Partial depth

pothole

Patched area that is unsound or

showing distress. Full depth pothole

Traffic is slightly bouncing but not swerving due to a

pothole.

Effectiveness / Protecting Structural Elements/ Delam/ Traffic Safety

Fully effective. No evidence of leakage or further

deterioration of the deck

Substantially effective:

Deterioration of the deck has slowed.

Delamination

less than 6 in. in diameter

Limited effectiveness.

Deterioration of the deck has progressed

Delamination

greater than 6 in. in diameter

Damage N/A Impact Damage

within tolerable limits

Impact damage does not warrant structural review

Table 73 ‐ Element Level Material: Asphalt

*Cracking – the width and spacing dimensions represent 1) structural cracks OR 2) any crack that is in a corrosive environment where no water‐proofing membrane exists. Inspector must use engineering judgment when nonstructural cracks are not exposed to corrosive chemicals, in other words inspectors should move the condition state ‘up’ or improve the rating.


Page 189

PRESTRESSED CONCRETE

o General Commentary:

o Defects/Tolerable Limits:

o Cracks in the concrete should be carefully measured and their location and length

documented. Any working structural cracks or unsealed 1/16” wide structural cracks or any

associated with buckling, torsion, settlement or change in load path.

Hairline ‐ 0.004"

Narrow ‐ 0.004"‐0.009"

Medium ‐ 0.010" ‐ 0.030"

Wide ‐ > 0.030”

o Strand Exposure– discount all strands visible AND those strands not visible located:

o Above a longitudinal cracks located in the bottom flange

o Above a delamination

o Above a spall with unsound or mottled concrete.

o Consideration should also be given to those strands neighboring and above a corroded

stirrup.

o Specific Elements:

Wide Longitudinal cracks in WS above combined with Strand exposure indicates independent beam

action which warrants a structural review.

Figure 111 ‐ PSBB Top Side Cracking Between Keys

Figure 112 ‐ PSBB underside, loss of strand capacity (same bridge)


Page 190

Prestressed Concrete – Condition State Definitions (CS)Defect CS1 CS2 CS3 CS4

Exposed* Prestressing

None One strand exposed*

Exposed strands* less than 25% of the beam width

Safety: Requires immediate action to ensure safety of public traffic

Serviceability: The condition is beyond the limits established in condition state

three (3), warrants a

structural review to determine the

strength or serviceability of the element or bridge, or both

Efflorescence/ Leaking Shear Keys (discount the QTY in both beams)

Dry or none

Light, evidence of leaking, no rust stains

Obvious active leaking, efflorescence buildup, or rust stains

Cracking

0‐0.004” Wide spaced more than 3 feet

0.004”‐0.009” wide or any spaced 1‐3 feet

no rust staining

Wider than 0.009”, or any spaced within 1‐foot, any

with rust staining

Movement None Minor misalignment but no movement under live load

Minor Independent Beam Movement under truck traffic only

Damage N/A Impact Damage within tolerable limits

Impact damage does not warrant structural review

Table 74 ‐ Element Level Material: Prestressed Concrete

*Exposed Prestressing– discount all strands visible AND those strands not visible located:

1) Above a longitudinal cracks located in the bottom flange

2) Above a delamination

3) Above a spall with unsound or saturated concrete.

4) Consideration should also be given to those strands neighboring and above a corroded stirrup.


Page 191

STEEL MATERIAL

This rating will include all elements that are metal.

o General Commentary:

o The worst portion of the 3‐dimensional element governs the quantity.

o Cracks in steel should be carefully measured and their location and length documented.

o Severity: Include the total linear feet of a component when a localized deficiency is severe

enough to affect the whole member at the discretion of the Team Leader.

o Defects/Tolerable Limits:

o Settlement: Dormant repaired settlement shall be CS2. Signs of continuing unrepaired

settlement shall be coded CS3. Extreme settlement that affects safety or load capacity shall

be coded CS4.

o Section Loss: CS4 is any corrosion hole or section loss more than 10% loss of the flange in

the tension zone or more than 10% loss in the web near the supports warrants a structural

review.

o Pack Rust: CS4 is Distortion is more than the plate thickness

o Cracking: CS4 is any crack in a FCM, any crack in the tension zone or

a crack generally longer than 2” in a compression zone.

o Settlement: Signs of continuing unrepaired settlement shall be

coded CS3. Extreme settlement or settlement that affects safety or

load capacity shall be coded CS4. Any quantity may be coded

worse if the deficiency changed unexpectedly or rapidly.

o Scour: CS4 is loss of bearing capacity

o Specific Elements:

o Bridge Railing: Include the total linear feet of bridge rail

supported by a post when the anchorage or support is

deficient, debonded or exposed.

o Crossframes/Diaphragms: for highly skewed or

horizontally curved bridges diaphragms and crossframes shall be considered primary bridge

elements.

o Pier Bents: Sheathed bents without a reinforcing cage shall follow the steel element level

chart. The bents with reinforcement shall be rated using the concrete element level chart.

Figure 113 ‐ corrosion holes

Figure 114 ‐ Steel CS4


Page 192

Steel – Condition States (CS) Defect CS1 CS2 CS3 CS4

Section loss None Minor, surface pitting, up to 1/16” at worst

Any pitting between 1/16” and 10% deep loss of section

Safety: Requires immediate action to ensure safety of public

traffic

Serviceability: The condition is beyond the limits established in

condition state three (3), warrants a structural

review to determine the strength or serviceability

of the element or bridge, or both Safety: Requires immediate

action to ensure safety of public traffic

Serviceability: The

condition is beyond the limits established in

condition state three (3), warrants a structural

review to determine the strength or serviceability

of the element or bridge, or both

Corrosion, Pack Rust/ Connection

None

Freckled rust. Corrosion has initiated. Pack rust without distortion.

Missing bolt, rivet, broken weld, fasteners or pack rust with distortion but does not warrant a structural review.

Cracking/ Fatigue

None Repaired or arrested* cracks

Any initiated or propagated crack in the compression zone that does not warrant structural review

Distortion None

Exists but does not require mitigation. Distortion that has been mitigated

Distortion that requires mitigation that has not been addressed but does not warrant a structural review

Settlement None

within tolerable limits or arrested with no observed structural distress

Exceeds tolerable limits does not warrant a structural review.

Scour None

Exists within tolerable limits or has been arrested with effective countermeasures

Exceeds tolerable limits but is less than the critical limits determined by scour evaluation and does not warrant a structural review.

Damage N/A Has impact but repaired or minor

Has impact but does not warrant a structural review.

Table 75 ‐ Element Level Material: Steel

*Arrested – self arrested, effective arrest holes or doubling plates o

Figure 115 ‐ CS 4 Axial Member Buckled


Page 193

TIMBER MATERIAL

This rating will include all elements that are timber.

General Commentary:


o Settlement: Signs of continuing unrepaired settlement shall be coded CS3. Extreme

settlement that affects safety or load capacity shall be coded CS4.


Specific Elements:

o Wearing Surfaces: Areas of traffic bouncing, loose boards and rutting shall be coded in

CS 3 at best.

o Timber quantities in CS4 include:

Figure 116 – Timber: Loss of Cap Capacity, CS4

Figure 117 – Timber: Splitting of Piles reduced capacity, CS4


Page 194

Timber – Condition State Definitions (CS) Defect CS1 CS2 CS3 CS4

Decay/ Section Loss

None Less than 10% of member thickness

Affects 10% or more of the member

Safety: Requires immediate action to ensure safety of

public traffic

Serviceability: The condition is beyond

the limits established in condition state

three (3), warrants a structural review to determine the

strength or serviceability of the element or bridge,

or both

Checks/ Shakes

Surface level and does not penetrate more than 5% of the member thickness regardless of location

Defect does not penetrate more than 50% of the thickness of the member and not in a tension zone

Defect penetrating more than 50% of the thickness of the member, or more than 5% of the member thickness in a tension zone.

Cracks None Arrested crack Identified crack that is not arrested

Splits/ Delaminations

None

Length of the split is less than the member depth or arrested with effective actions taken to mitigate

Length equal to or greater than the member depth

Abrasion None or no measurable

Surface level up to 10% of member thickness

Section loss not less than 10% of the thickness of the member

Distortion None


Distortion that requires mitigation that has not been addressed

Settlement None


Exceeds tolerable limits

Scour None


Exceeds tolerable limits but is less than the critical limits determined by scour evaluation



Table 76 ‐ Element Level Material: Timber


Page 195

MASONRY MATERIAL

General Commentary:

o This rating will include all elements that are stone, brick and masonry.

o Severity: Include the total linear feet of a component when a localized deficiency is

severe enough to affect the whole member at the discretion of the Team Leader (ex.

one support eliminates an entire length of arch ring).





o Warrants Structural Review: Missing Keystone, any hinged ring displacement, global

shift/distortion

Specific Elements:

Figure 118 – Masonry Deficiencies that have reduced capacity in CS4

Global Crack

Missing Stones

Abrasion of Stone Face at water level

Missing Stones


Page 196

Masonry – Condition States (CS)Defect CS1 CS2 CS3 CS4

Mortar Breakdown

None Cracking or isolated voids in less than 10% of joints

Cracking or voids in 10% or more of joints


traffic

Serviceability: The condition is beyond the limits established in condition state three

(3), warrants a structural review to

determine the strength or serviceability of the element or bridge, or

both

Patched Area None Sound patch Unsound patch

Split/ Spall Cracks are present but have not allowed the block or stone to shift

Block or stone has split or spalled with no shifting

Block or stone is split or spalled with shifting, block or stone are loose, but do not warrant structural review (SR)

Masonry Displacement

None Block or stone has shifted slightly out of alignment

Block or stone has shifted significantly out of alignment or is missing but does not warrant SR

Efflorescence None

Surface is white without buildup, leaching or rust staining, signs of leaking carrying fill

Heavy build up with rust staining, active leaking carrying fill

Distortion None


Distortion that requires mitigation that has not been addressed

Settlement None


Exceeds tolerable limits but does not warrant a structural review

Scour None


Exceeds tolerable limits but is less than the critical limits determined by scour evaluation


Has impact but does not warrant a SR

Table 77 ‐ Element Level Material: Masonry


Page 197

MECHANICALLY STABILIZED EARTH (MSE) MATERIAL

This rating will include all elements that are MSE walls.

General Commentary:

o Inspect closely for runoff infiltration.




Specific Elements:

o Wingwalls and Embankment: Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) walls may be found

as components of the substructure or approach depending upon the geometry.

o Abutments vs. Slope Protection: They shall be coded as Abutment Walls when the

foundation type is spread footing within the MSE wall. They shall be coded as Slope

Protection when the Abutment foundation type is deep foundations (piles, drilled

shafts, spread footing on rock). The inventory or plans will need to be verified for

proper coding.

Examples of MSE wall quantities in CS4:

Figure 119 ‐

MSE CS4


Page 198

Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) Wall – Condition StateDefinitions (CS) Defect CS1 CS2 CS3 CS4

Panels Superficial cracking

Minor Cracking, any less than ¼” wide and not global through multiple panels

Global cracking or any wider than ¼”, no exposed backfill


traffic

Serviceability: The condition is beyond the limits established in condition state three



both

Panel Joints Aligned Exposed fabric at close inspection

Minor sand in joints, plant growth in joint, obvious fabric exposure

Erosion None Erosion channel less than 2‐ft wide or deep

Exposed top corner of leveling pad that is on rock

Bowing None

Bowing exists but dormant or no change since as‐built

Minor change since as‐built condition, horizontal bowing is within 10% of vertical height



Table 78 ‐ Element Level Material: MSE


Page 199

Element Level Condition State Items with Dedicated Guidance

Approach Embankment – “ded” ELEMENT LEVEL

Item ‐ 4. Embankment

CS1 CS2 CS3 CS4

Moderate rutting from drainage. Minor bare soil exposed.

Erosion caused by drainage or channel; Erosion to embankment impacting guardrail performance or encroaching on shoulder. Evidence of minor or stable foundation settlement.

Major erosion caused by drainage or channel; Erosion to embankment impacting guardrail (up to 6” of guardrail post exposed) performance or encroaching on shoulder. Evidence of foundation settlement.

Tension cracks in asphalt due to embankment movement. Vertical face of guardrail is behind the vertical plane of the edge of pavement. Significant movement or tilt of the wingwall or headwall has occurred, the stability of the slope is compromised

Table 79 –Element Level Approach Embankment

Deck Drainage – “ded” ELEMENT LEVEL

Item ‐ 12. Drainage


Grating Intact and functioning properly

Intact and functioning, minor problems

Broken or missing grating or

assembly but does NOT pose a

hazard to vehicular or

pedestrian traffic

Broken or missing grating or

assembly may pose a hazard to vehicular or

pedestrian traffic

Scuppers, Downspouts

Open, no ponding

Partially Clogged but no signs of ponding on deck or Downspout is inadequately terminated

Clogged, there are signs of ponding on deck but it does not extend into the striped or normal traffic lane

Clogged, there are signs of ponding in the striped or normal traffic lane.

Table 80 – Element Level Deck Drainage

o Drainage problems are most easily identified during or immediately after a rain event. Unless repaired, deficiencies discovered during a rain events should remain coded.


Page 200

Table 81 – Element Level Deck Expansion Joint

Deck Expansion Joint – “ded” ELEMENT LEVEL

Item 13‐ Expansion Joint

Defect CS 1 ‐ CS 2 CS 3 CS 4

Leakage None. Minimal. Minor dripping through the joint.

Moderate. More than a drip and less than free flow of water.

Free flow of water through the joint.

Seal Adhesion Fully Adhered. Adhered for more than 50% of the joint height.

Adhered 50% or less of joint height but still some adhesion.

Complete loss of adhesion.

Seal Cracking None. Surface crack. Crack that partially penetrates the seal.

Crack that fully penetrates the seal.

Seal Damage None. Seal abrasion without punctures.

Punctured or ripped or partially pulled out.

Punctured completely through, pulled out, or missing.

Debris Impaction No debris to a shallow cover of loose debris may be evident but does not affect the performance of the joint.

Partially filled with hard‐packed material, but still allowing free movement.

Completely filled and impacts joint movement.

Completely filled and prevents joint movement.

Adjacent Deck or Header

Sound. No spall, delamination or unsound patch.

Edge delamination or spall 1 in. or less deep or 6 in. or less in diameter. No exposed rebar. Patched Area that is sound.

Spall greater than 1 in. deep or greater than 6 in. diameter. Exposed rebar. Delamination or unsound patched Area that makes the joint loose.

Spall, delamination, unsound patched Area or loose joint anchor that prevents the joint from functioning as intended.

Metal Deterioration or Damage

None. Freckled rust, metal has no cracks, or impact damage. Connection may be loose but functioning as intended.

Section loss, missing or broken fasteners, cracking of the metal or impact damage but joint still functioning.

Metal cracking, section loss, damage or connection failure that prevents the joint from functioning as intended.

Damage Not applicable. The element has impact damage not impeding traffic

The element has impact damage. Subtle clanking under traffic

The element has impact damage, LOUD clanking under traffic


Page 201

Superstructure Truss Gusset Plates – “ded” ELEMENT LEVEL

Item ‐ 23. Truss Gusset Plates

Type ‐ Steel


Corrosion, Section loss

None

Freckled rust, Minor, surface pitting, loss up to 10% depth

Large areas of corrosion, Between 10‐25% loss of depth

Safety Deficiency: Requires immediate action to ensure safety of public traffic (ex. Buckling, tearing, crack in tension zone, long crack in

compression zone)

Serviceability Deficiency: The condition is beyond the limits established in condition state three (3), warrants a structural

review to determine the strength or serviceability of

the element or bridge, or both (ex. Free edge bowing behind a compression member, Any

worsening of free edge bowing, plastic deformation)

Bowing

None Minor misalignment due to pack rust or inadequate fill plates up to the thickness of the plate

Misalignment due to pack rust or inadequate fill plates more than the thickness of the plate OR Minor Free edge bowing behind a tension member up to the thickness of the plate

Table 82 ‐ Superstructure Gusset Plates Element Level

Special attention shall be placed on gusset plates with corrosion holes or widespread loss of section 1/3 the plate thickness in the primary load path.

Special attention shall be placed on gusset plates with bowing at the free edge.

Special attention shall be placed on gusset plates with loose, cracked or missing connections.

The procedures for measuring bowing in gusset plates shall be clearly documented and quantitatively repeatable at future inspections by different inspectors in order to monitor bowing change within a tolerance of 1/16”.


Page 202

Table 83 – Element Level Superstructure Bearing Devices

Bearings ‐ “ded” ELEMENT LEVEL Condition State Definitions

Defect CS 1 CS 2 CS 3 CS 4

Corrosion

None. Freckled Rust. Corrosion of the steel has initiated.

Section loss is evident or pack rust is present but does not warrant structural review.

The condition warrants a structural review to determine the effect on strength or serviceability of the element or bridge; OR a structural review has been completed and the defects impact strength or serviceability of the element or bridge.

Connection

Connection is in place and functioning as intended.

Loose fasteners or pack rust without distortion is present but the connection is in place and functioning as intended.

Missing bolts, rivets, broken welds, fasteners or pack rust with distortion but does not warrant a structural review.

Movement

Free to move. Minor restriction. Restricted but not warranting structural review.

Alignment

Lateral and vertical alignment is as expected for the temperature conditions.

Tolerable lateral or vertical alignment that is inconsistent with the temperature conditions.

Approaching the limits of lateral or vertical alignment for the bearing but does not warrant a structural review.

Bulging, Splitting or Tearing

None. Bulging less than 15% of the thickness.

Bulging 15% or more of the thickness. Splitting or tearing. Bearing's surfaces are not parallel. Does not warrant structural review.

Loss of Bearing Area None. Less than 10%. 10% or more but does not warrant structural review.

Damage

Not applicable. The element has minor impact damage.

The element has impact damage but does not warrant a structural review

The element has severe impact damage.


Page 203

Superstructure Protective Coating System –“ded” ELEMENT LEVEL

Item ‐ 30. Protective Coating System (PCS)

Type – All


Chalking None Surface dulling Loss of pigment

Peeling/ Curling

None

Initiated, cracking Top coat peeling

Exposure of bare metal

Weathering Steel

Light brown

Yellow orange, localized flaking

Dark brown coloring. Or flaking less than ¼” pieces

Black or flaking more than ¼” pieces

Corrosion None

Light and initiated, freckled rust

Light, large areas of corrosion Heavy, laminating

Effectiveness Fully Substantially Limited Failed, no protection of metal

Comments shall include the existence of obvious workmanship Issues

Table 84 – Element Level Superstructure Protective Coating System


Page 204

Table 85 – Element Level Superstructure Pins/Hangers/Hinges

Pins/Hangers/Hinges ‐ “ded” ELEMENT LEVEL ‐ Condition State Definitions Item ‐ 31. Pins/Hangers/Hinges

Defect CS 1 CS 2 CS 3 CS 4

Corrosion

None. Freckled Rust. Corrosion of the steel has initiated.

Section loss is evident or pack rust is present but does not warrant structural review.

The condition warrants a structural review to determine the effect on strength or serviceability of the element or bridge; OR a structural review has been completed and the defects impact strength or serviceability of the element or bridge.

Connection

Connection is in place and functioning as intended.

Loose fasteners or pack rust without distortion is present but the connection is in place and functioning as intended.

Missing bolts, rivets, fasteners or pack rust with distortion but does not warrant a structural review.

Movement

Free to move. Minor restriction. Restricted but not warranting structural review.

Alignment

Lateral and vertical alignment is as expected for the temperature conditions.

Tolerable lateral or vertical alignment that is inconsistent with the temperature conditions.

Approaching the limits of lateral or vertical alignment for the bearing but does not warrant a structural review.

Bulging, Splitting or Tearing

None. Bulging less than 15% of the thickness.

Bulging 15% or more of the thickness. Splitting or tearing. Bearing's surfaces are not parallel. Does not warrant structural review.

Loss of Bearing Area None. Less than 10%. 10% or more but does not warrant structural review.

Damage

Not applicable. The element has minor impact damage.

The element has impact damage but does not warrant a structural review

The element has severe impact damage.


Page 205

Superstructure Fatigue ‐ “ded” ELEMENT LEVEL Condition State Definitions Item ‐ 32. Fatigue


Fatigue Crack

None Insignificant but should monitor, Repaired or arrested fatigue cracks

Any Initiated or propagated fatigue crack in the compression zone and the total crack length is less than 10% of member depth

Serviceability or Immediate Safety Deficiency: The condition is beyond the limits established in condition state three (3), warrants a structural review to determine the strength or serviceability of the element or bridge, or both. (ex. Any initiated or propagated fatigue crack in tension zone)

o Cracks should be carefully measured and their location and length documented. o Typically the first time a fatigue crack is identified it is CS 3 in the Compression zone and CS4 in the Tension

zone. Table 86 – Element Level Superstructure Fatigue


Page 206

Substructure Scour– “ded” ELEMENT LEVEL

Item ‐ 42. Scour


Exposed Deep Foundation (Piling, Drilled Shaft or Spread footing on rock)

None No piles exposed

Piling or drilled shaft exposed less than 10% of the piling or shaft height (use 1.5’ when no plans exist)

Serviceability or Immediate Safety

Deficiency: The condition is beyond the limits

established in condition state three (3), warrants a

structural review to determine the strength or

serviceability of the element or bridge, or both.

Exposed Spread Footing (or Unknown foundations)

None Less than 12" high More than 12" high, no undermining

Undermining None None or arrested by countermeasures

Minor for deep foundations

Table 87 – Element Level Substructure Scour

Substructure Slope Protection – “ded” ELEMENT LEVEL

Item ‐ 43. Slope Protection (use material guidance when applicable)

CS1 CS2 CS3 CS4

Moderate rutting from drainage. Minor bare soil exposed.

Minor Erosion caused by drainage or channel Evidence of minor or stable foundation settlement.

Major erosion caused by drainage or channel; Evidence of foundation settlement.

Severe Erosion caused by drainage or channel Substructure is threatened

Table 88 – Element Level Substructure Slope Protection


Page 207

Culvert Alignment – “ded” ELEMENT LEVEL



Distortion None Minor and stable Tolerable without reducing capacity


Deficiency Settlement None

Arrested or countermeasures exist or Both

Minor

Change None Minor change in 60 month interval

Minor change in a 24 month interval

Table 89 ‐ Element Level Culvert Alignment

Alignment is best detected sighting from the ends toward the opposite end. Inspectors are looking for longitudinal ‘snaking’ in flexible pipes and separation at the joints for rigid pipe/conduit/frame.

Misalignment is often first detected by sighting down a longitudinal seam (when they exist). Or noting water infiltration through precast segments.

Culvert Shape – “ded” ELEMENT LEVEL

Item ‐ 46. Shape

Type – Flexible Culverts Only


Distortion since as‐built

None Between 1 and 6% diameter change from the original shape

7% or more diameter change from the original shape


Deficiency (ex. dip in roadway along with buckling failure)

Table 90 ‐ Element Level Culvert Shape

Shape change is significant in flexible pipe, inspectors are noting the locations of change in cross section.

Culvert Seams – “ded” ELEMENT LEVEL

Item ‐ 47. Seams


Backfill Infiltration, Water Exfiltration

None Minor evidence Minor active, soil visible


Deficiency:

Opening No opening Up to 1/8" opening

Up to 1/2" opening OR cracking at bolt holes less than 1" long

Bolts Sound 1 or 2 missing Between 2‐ 6 missing in a row

Table 91 ‐ Element Level Culvert Seams


Page 208

Culvert Scour– “ded” ELEMENT LEVEL

Item ‐ 49. Scour


Scour None


Exceeds tolerable limits but is less than the critical limits determined by scour evaluation and does not warrant a structural review. Serviceability or

Immediate Safety Deficiency:.

Exposed Spread Footing (or Unknown foundations)

None Less than 12" high More than 12" high, no undermining

Undermining/ Piping

None None or arrested by countermeasures

Minor but stable

Table 92 ‐ Element Level Culvert Scour


Page 209

Channel Alignment – “ded” ELEMENT LEVEL


Type – All


Direction As constructed

Minor problems, Misalignment, Angle has changed to now flow against substructure unit

Misaligned , Flow Along wall to expose footing or behind wingwall but structure is still stable

Serviceability or Immediate Safety Deficiency: The condition is beyond the limits established in condition state three (3), warrants a structural review to determine the strength or serviceability of the element or bridge, or both.

Table 93 ‐ Element Level Channel Alignment

Channel Protection – “ded” ELEMENT LEVEL

Item ‐ 52. Protection


Erosion None Minor Advanced Serviceability or Immediate Safety Deficiency: The

condition is beyond the limits established in condition state three



both.

Counter measures

Present Minor damage Undermined, rip rap washed away, structure is still stable

Banks Stable Minor slumping Slumping

Table 94 ‐ Element Level Channel Protection

Materials CS charts may be utilized for further guidance when material deficiencies exist


Page 210

Channel Hydraulic Opening – “ded” ELEMENT LEVEL

Item ‐ 53. Hydraulic Opening

Type – All


% of Debris Buildup Below the ordinary high water elevation

at each substructure unit OR

of the span length blocked by each substructure unit

None Minor debris, or Debris exists but it is not detrimental to substructure unit or channel

Debris is not detrimental to the substructure unit or channel but if left unchecked it may pose a problem before the next scheduled inspection. For Non‐Scour Critical Bridges: Any Debris that IS causing scour.

Scour Critical Bridges: Any Debris that MAY cause scour. For Non‐Scour Critical Bridges: Any Debris that IS causing undermining. Excessive, Debris is causing excessive: drag, turbulence near substructure units, flow accelerating existing scour

Table 95‐ Element Level Channel Hydraulic Opening

History of overtopping: Code 100% in CS 4 if there is a history of overtopping within three years. Code 100% in CS 3 if there is a history of overtopping within the past ten years. Code 100% in CS 2 if there is debris in crossframes with no historical overtopping knowledge.

Channel Navigation Lights – “ded” ELEMENT LEVEL

Item ‐ 54. Navigation Lights, 55. Signs, 56. Sign Supports, 57. Utilities


Light or Sign Functioning Functioning

Functioning, Partially blocked or missing but no exposed wires, problems are not affecting bridge elements or public safety

Obstructed, not visible to intended traffic, missing or broken, exposed wires

Supports Properly anchored and sound

Minor problem, active corrosion, loose joints but no exposed wires or leaks

Loose or missing support element but the utility is adequately supported, problems are not affecting bridge elements or public safety

Broken or missing supports, affecting bridge element of public safety

Encasement Sound Sound with minor problem

Seal broken, cracked, problems are not affecting bridge elements or public safety

Collecting moisture, broken and leaking onto roadway, trail or bridge elements

Fatigue No indications

No indications

There may be some indications of fatigue

Fatigue cracks

Table 96‐ Element Level Navigation Lights, Signs, Sign Supports, Utilities


Page 211

Chapter10:ComponentCommentaryApproach

A smooth transition onto and off of the bridge is important for rideability and the reduction of impact

forces acting upon the structure. The inspector shall inspect for the difference in elevations between

pavement over and around the transition area. The approach roadway and embankment should also be

inspected for the following functional requirements:

1. Alignment

2. Adequate shoulder profile

3. Safety features

Defects in the approach pavement and embankment may be indicators of possible structural or

hydraulic problems. The approach pavement and embankment should be inspected for the following

conditions:

1. Sag in roadway or guardrail

2. Cracks in pavement

3. Pavement patches or evidence that roadway has settled

4. Erosion or failure of side slopes

Approach roadways should be examined for sudden dips, cracks, and sags in the pavement. These

usually indicate excessive deflection of the bridge or inadequate compaction of the backfill material.

New pavement can temporarily hide approach problems. It is advisable for the inspector to have

previous inspection reports that may indicate the age of the present overlay.

The ratings, at a minimum, shall include

portions of the approach that directly

influence the structure. See ‘Walking

Limits’ in Chapter 7. Additional

distances may be included, on a case‐

by‐case basis, at the discretion of the

inspector in cases where fill, vaulted or

embankment material was added that

directly impacts the structure.

APPROACH ITEMS Code

c1. Wearing Surface (EA) 1, 2, 3, 4

c2. Slab (SF) 1, 2, 3, 4

c3. Relief Joint (LF) 1, 2, 3, 4

c4. Embankment (EA) ded 1, 2, 3, 4

c5. Guardrail (EA) 1, 2, 3, 4

N36. Safety Features: Tr, Gr, Tm 1, 0, N

c6. Approach Summary 9‐0

Table 97 ‐ Approach Items


Page 212

Approach Wearing Surface ‐ The primary function of a wearing surface is to provide a smooth riding

surface onto and off of the approach slab (or bridge where no Approach Slab exists) and to protect the

underlying base. It should be examined for rideability, cracks, delaminations, patches and signs of

deterioration.

Approach Slab ‐ The primary function of the approach slab is to carry traffic from compacted in‐situ soil

over disturbed soil to the more rigid bridge structure. It should be examined for settlement,

undermining and signs of deterioration. If a slab is present code the riding surface in the Approach Slab

and the top of the backwall in the expansion joint, i.e. joint header.

Bouncing: Areas of traffic bouncing, usually denoted by dark/heavy oil staining and obvious

vehicular bouncing, should be inspected closely for settlement. Any difference in elevation from

the beginning and end of each approach slab since the as‐built condition should be measured

and monitored in subsequent inspections.

Asphalt patches in a concrete wearing surface are considered temporary measures and for

rating purposes should be considered ‘distress’.


Page 213

Figure 120 ‐ Concrete Approach Pavement with Asphalt Patching

Approach Relief Joint ‐ The relief joint will typically be a wide transverse bituminous strip, not to be

confused with a ~1” wide construction joint, at each end of the approach typically used to protect the

bridge from pavement growth. The cross section should be slightly concave in the summer and convex

or separated in the winter. Any pressure relief joints that pose a safety hazard to traffic or are a

structural concern should be down‐rated. Continue rating these when they have been paved over.

Figure 121 ‐ Approach Slab


Page 214

Figure 122 ‐ Roadway Pressure and Relief Joint


Page 215

Approach Embankment ‐ The general condition of the approach embankment shall be inspected for

indications of settlement, slipping, sloughing, slide failures, tension cracks in the asphalt, and erosion.

The embankment for culverts is the fill above the conduits and for non‐culverts embankment will be the

portion down the left and right side of the roadway on each end of the bridge behind the wingwalls

starting at the expansion joint.

The general condition of the

approach embankment shall be

inspected for indications of

settlement, slipping, sloughing,

slide failures, tension cracks in

the asphalt, and erosion. The

embankment for culverts is the

fill above the conduits and for

non‐culverts embankment will

be the portion down the left

and right side of the roadway

on each end of the bridge behind the wingwalls starting at the expansion joint.

Figure 124 ‐ Embankment Limits

Figure 123 – Failed Approach Embankment


Page 216

Figure 125 ‐ Embankment CS4

Approach Guardrail – Railing past the end of the bridge (face of backwall, expansion joint, clear span)

shall be considered Approach Guardrail. Check for integrity of posts and condition of the rail panels.

Indications of ‘advanced’ deficiencies include: Misalignment of up to 6 posts in a row, collision damage;

up to 30% loss of section of posts due to decay or missing connections. When coding the Safety

Features do not consider the condition and when coding the Condition do not consider whether it meets

current standards. These are mutually exclusive codes i.e. a nonstandard guardrail could be in Good

condition or a standard guardrail could be in Poor condition.

Figure 126 ‐ Embankment


Page 217

Figure 127 ‐ Approach Safety Features

36B: Transition ‐ The transition is required to change the safety feature from the relatively

flexible guardrail system to the rigid bridge rail. Methods to stiffen a transition include

increased post spacing, nesting of guardrail, and embedding the post base in concrete.

36C: Guardrail –The guardrail system is designed to screen motorists from hazards beneath the

bridge and hazardous roadside features on the approach to the bridge. These hazards include

the approach to the bridge if they are steeper than 4:1, trees larger than 4‐inches in diameter,

large signs and other permanent structures. Note that wood blocks are no longer allowed to

meet the TL3 requirement and the height to the top of the guardrail is very important.

36D: Termination – –The end treatment protects and shields the motorists from the guardrail

itself. Most guardrail end treatments are designed to gate, meaning they will allow a vehicle to

pass through if struck at an excessive angle. Others include impact attenuators, sand filled

barrels and non‐gating impact attenuators.

Approach Summary – the 9‐0 Summary shall be coded based on

public safety and structural serviceability.

Individual Item Summary

1‐Good

9‐Excellent

8‐Very Good

7‐Good


5‐Fair

3‐Poor 4‐Poor

3‐Serious

4‐Critical 2‐Critical

36B

36D 36C


Page 218

Deck

The primary function of the bridge deck is to transmit the wheel loads to the supporting members.

Secondarily it provides support for curbs, walkways, railings, medians, expansion joints, and provides a

surface to transmit vehicles and drainage off of the bridge.

Deck Floor/Slab – Rate the 2‐foot

Deck Edges within item C7.2 Edge

of Floor/Slab. The remaining

portion of the structural deck shall

be rated as the C7.1 Floor/Slab

(and C15.2 Slab). Downgrade the

railing when the deck edge has

exposed or compromised the

anchorage.

Concrete superstructures with

floors integral with the deck, such as prestressed box beams, rigid frames or t‐beams shall be rated the

same as Item Beams/Girders. Slab type superstructures (figure to the right) shall have the same rating

for Floor/Slab in the Deck and Slab in the Superstructure.

DECK ITEMS Code

c7.1 Floor/Slab (SF) 1, 2, 3, 4

c7.2 Edge of Floor/Slab (SF) 1, 2, 3, 4

c8. Wearing Surface (SF) 1, 2, 3, 4

c9. Curbs/Sidewalk (LF) 1, 2, 3, 4

c10. Median (LF) 1, 2, 3, 4

c11. Railing (LF) 1, 2, 3, 4

N36. Safety Features: Rail 1, 0, N

c12. Drainage (EA) ded 1, 2, 3, 4

c13. Expansion Joint (LF) ded 1, 2, 3, 4

N58. Deck Summary 9‐0

Table 98 ‐ Deck Items

Figure 128 ‐ Deck Edge Spalling


Page 219

Deficiencies should be determined by sounding with a hammer, rod, or chain and listening for a hollow

sound. These deficiencies should be documented and recorded in order to monitor changes and

correlated with the opposite or reflective side. Check previously repaired areas and verify that the

repairs are in place and functioning as intended.

The most prevalent deck type in Ohio is reinforced concrete. Concrete, Timber, Stay‐In‐Place forms with

Asphalt, and Steel Grid also exist.

Concrete decks should be inspected for cracking, scaling, spalling, leaching, water saturation, potholing,

delamination, uplift/slapping and full depth failures. Exposed primary steel reinforcement should be

measured for reduced diameter to compare with as‐built conditions. Reduced section properties may

be noted for a possible reanalysis. Deck surveys shall be considered, including but not limited to

electrical potential, chloride content, concrete cores, ground penetrating radar, chain dragging and

analysis (see Appendix. for a reference list of sampling standards).

Crack densities should be quantified using an area that is repeatable and quantifiable: For wearing

surfaces use 12’ wide (lane width) and 12’ long section of bridge deck; for floors use plywood sheet

indentations (4’x8’) or beam spacing with equidistant length. Sealed cracks are those that have been

filled or covered with epoxy, tar or sealant to arrest the chloride intrusion usually applied on the

surfaces exposed to drainage and runoff. Knowing the extent of cracking gives an indication of how

much water and chlorides are able to penetrate into the concrete. On tined concrete decks or overlays,

it may be difficult to see cracks. The best time to see cracks on tined decks is soon after a rain (though

this is not always practical). As a deck dries out, cracks will remain wet longer than the deck surface and

Figure 129 ‐ Edge of Floor Deterioration 1 of 2


Page 220

thus appear as dark lines against the lighter colored, dry deck. Consideration may be used for raising a

rating when a crack is retrofitted or dormant.

The area unseen above the top flange shall be downgraded when evidence of movement and separation

exists at the interface to CS2 and downgraded to CS3 when active movement under liveload is obvious.

Steel grid decks should be examined for corrosion, section loss, broken tie‐down welds, fatigue cracking

of bars or bar connection welds and any loose connections. These can be noticed visually or by hearing

the tertiary bars rattle against secondary bars under live load. Closed or filled grids are susceptible to

the build‐up of rust on the grid elements embedded in the concrete, which can cause expansion of the

deck and break the tie‐down welds, causing uplift or distorting the supporting structure. Measuring

deck panels and inspecting for uplift at set intervals can track this growth.

Asphalt Filled Stay‐in‐Place (aka Corrugated Metal Deck) forms should be examined for corrosion,

section loss with exposed asphalt, and loose connections. When filled with asphalt the SIP form

functions as the structural deck. Where concrete exists rate as the concrete floor item and do not

consider the SIP in the condition rating. Remove surface corrosion especially in critical areas. Weep

holes are not considered section loss. Corrosion on galvanized pans usually begins with the breakdown

of the galvanizing which appears as white deposits, not to be confused with salt or efflorescence

deposits. Look at the top for areas of distressed asphalt that would indicate deflection of the SIP forms.

From the underside inspect for locations where asphalt is visible through corrosion holes. Adjacent

holes in SIP ribs are more critical than isolated holes.

Timber decks should be inspected for splitting, crushing, fastener failure, and deterioration from rot.

Also it should be examined for decay especially when bearing on sources of moisture, or between layers

of planking or laminate pieces. Note loose connections and differential bending.

Abrasion due to stones on the top surface of floors will abrade into the timber floor in the wheel path.

This is where moisture tends to pond and promotes accelerated rot. Where the timbers span the

distance between abutments the floor rating must be the same as the Superstructure: beam/girder/slab

rating. Noticeable deflection, under traffic, of the timber floor between stringers may be a strong

indicator of a serious problem.


Page 221

Deck Wearing Surface ‐ The primary function of a wearing surface is to provide a smooth riding surface

and to protect the underlying floor. It should be examined for rideability, cracks, delaminations, patches

and signs of deterioration. Update the wearing surface thickness in the inventory as it may affect the

dead load calculations and influence the available live load capacity.

Crack density should be quantified using an area that is repeatable and quantifiable: For wearing

surfaces inspectors may use 12’ wide (lane width) and 12’ long section of bridge deck. unsealed cracks

due to reflective cracks that are actively promoting floor/slab deterioration should be rated no better

than the protected element (ex. Longitudinal reflective crack above a PSBB shear key, transverse crack

above the negative moment region)

Areas of traffic bouncing, usually denoted by dark oil staining and obvious vehicular bouncing, should be

inspected closely.



Page 222

Deck Curbs/Sidewalks/Walkways ‐ The sidewalk allows for the safe passage of pedestrians. Include all

Beams, Lateral Supports and Structural members that support the sidewalk within this rating. Look for

impact damage, proper alignment, broken or loose sections, exposed steel and weathering. Verify that

vertical offsets do not exist and proper support exists along the fascias.

Do not consider approach curbs/sidewalks/walkways in this condition rating. Use the comments section

to describe the condition of the approach sidewalk/curb including locations of settlement of the

approach sidewalk/curb at the bridge. Curbs should be examined for proper alignment and anchorage.

This rating includes not only the pedestrian surface but also the structural supports underneath the

sidewalk.

Deck Railings – Railings and parapets provide rigid support as to retain errant vehicles on the roadway

and protect the traveling public. Look for structural deficiencies, aesthetic deficiencies, loose

connections, 'catch' points, missing bolts/nuts and verify lateral stability of posts and railing. Inspect

post and beam railing systems for collision damage and loss of anchorage or support i.e. downgrade the

railing when the deck edge has exposed or compromised the anchorage.

Figure 130 ‐ Safety Features Concrete Bridge Rail


Page 223

Deck Drainage ‐ Proper drainage systems allow the runoff to evacuate the bridge deck safely and

efficiently. These systems include but are not limited to: gratings, scuppers, pipe systems, drains,

downspouts, troughs and/or outfalls. Effective drainage is essential for the proper maintenance of a

bridge. Examine the drainage system for clogging, ponding, vegetation and adequacy. All structures

with deck items require a rating for drainage.

Drainage may be the root cause for most of the

deficiencies found on bridges; however this rating

is primarily concerned with how runoff is

evacuating the wearing surface and secondarily

concerned with how the system is functioning

below the deck. It is very helpful to perform the

drainage inspections during or shortly after a

rainfall event; although not always practical.

Figure 131 ‐ Drainage Partially Clogged Figure 132 ‐ Ponding in shoulder


Page 224

Expansion joints provide the following functions in order of significance:

1. Structural: accommodate expansion and contraction of the bridge deck and

superstructure, and rotation of the beam ends

2. Safety: transfer traffic loads across the opening and

3. Prevention: control runoff moisture and debris.

Examine carefully for signs of leakage, proper opening, anchorage, and deterioration. Deterioration of

the backwall however will be included with the backwall item. Consider bringing down the expansion

joint rating when the joint‐anchorages are affected (ex. deep spalls in the header exposing the cheese

plates). Condition of deflection joint seals or construction joints (typically 1” or less) should not be given

a condition rating but may be noted in the comments section.

Expansion Joint Header

Backwall Face


Figure 133 – Expansion Joint


Page 225

Many joint designs do allow for leakage (ie. open joints, sliding plates etc.). Do not consider leakage a

deficiency for such joints. Note: Deficiencies for sidewalk and curb plates may be added to the

comments but their condition shall not govern the expansion joint condition rating.

Expansion joints are effective locations to track changes in the bridge at different temperatures. These

distances may be compared to the bearing movements to verify proper function. Consider recording all

expansion joints’ temperature, longitudinal distance and the exact location where the measurement

was taken in the comments to compare movements in previous years and to track in future inspections.

Units up to 1/8” increments are acceptable. Measurements taken in this case should record the vertical,

horizontal or longitudinal (taken parallel with traffic not with the skew) dimensions. Abnormalities will

include anything outside of the design limits. The movable bearing inspection form, Appendix. Movable

Bearing Form may be used as a guide when recording and monitoring bridge movements. Rate the

joints even if they are covered with asphalt.

For structures with a ¾” or 1” poured joint or construction joint

(ex. semi‐integral abutment type structures) do not rate these

under the c.7 Expansion Joints item. If deficiencies do exist on the

construction joint then record them within the comments section.

The following expansion joint guidance is spread into 9 rows. In

extreme situations the expansion joint may control the entire Deck Summary

Rating but this should be the exception rather than the rule.

Deck Summary – Shall be influenced by the Floor/Slab rating. In case‐

by‐case scenarios the expansion joint may control the summary but is

the exception rather than the rule (say less than 1%).


1‐Good

9‐Excellent

8‐Very Good

7‐Good


5‐Fair

3‐Poor 4‐Poor

3‐Serious


Figure 134 ‐ Expansion Joint Anchorage


Page 226

Superstructure

The superstructure is the entire portion of a bridge below the structural floor and above the

substructure. The superstructure transmits the deck loads to the substructure. Steel structures with

lower lateral bracing, pins and

hangers, transverse floor beams and

stringers or any unusual connection

details will be carefully inspected for

cracks, design details, or fabricating

details. While bearing devices and

bracing may cause serious problems,

rarely will the condition rating of the

superstructure be reduced because

of secondary members. Bearing for

trusses and twin girder bridges and

bracing on highly skewed bridges

may be given full consideration in

the superstructure rating.

Primary members should be

examined for misalignment, loose

connections, differential bending and

buckling in compression zones.

Secondary members are a good

location to note misalignment of

primary members. Sight down the

edge of the superstructure and note

any vertical misalignment or

horizontal sweep. For prestressed

superstructures especially note any

sagging or camber revealing loss of the prestressing. Inspect highly skewed bridges for misalignment of

the webs. Appendix. has a detailed damage‐inspection form for measuring over height impacts to

steel beams.

SUPERSTRUCTURE ITEMS Code

c14. Alignment (EA) ded 1, 2, 3, 4

c15.1 Beams/Girders (LF) 1, 2, 3, 4

c15.2 Slab (SF) 1, 2, 3, 4

c16. Diaphragm/X‐Frames (EA) 1, 2, 3, 4

c17. Stringers (LF) 1, 2, 3, 4

c18. Floorbeams (LF) 1, 2, 3, 4

c19. Truss Verticals (EA) 1, 2, 3, 4

c20. Truss Diagonals (EA) 1, 2, 3, 4

c21. Truss Upper Chord (EA) 1, 2, 3, 4

c22. Truss Lower Chord (EA) 1, 2, 3, 4

c23. Truss Gusset Plate (EA) ded 1, 2, 3, 4

c24. Lateral Bracing (EA) 1, 2, 3, 4

c25. Sway Bracing (EA) 1, 2, 3, 4

c26. Bearing Devices (EA) ded 1, 2, 3, 4

c27. Arch (LF) 1, 2, 3, 4

c28. Arch Column/Hanger (EA) 1, 2, 3, 4

c29. Arch Spandrel Walls (LF) 1, 2, 3, 4

c30. Steel Prot. Coating System (SF) ded 1, 2, 3, 4

c31. Pins/Hangers/Hinges (EA) ded 1, 2, 3, 4

c32. Fatigue (LF) ded 1, 2, 3, 4

N59. Superstructure Summary 9‐0


Page 227

Superstructure Beams/Girders ‐ Code 15.2 Slabs for RC slabs and Rigid Frames. Other concrete

superstructure floors integral with the deck, such as prestressed box beams or T‐beams, shall be rated

using item 15.1. When the beams are visibly discernable from the floor code both the floor and the

beams. For horizontally curved and non‐redundant structures the fascia beams shall be treated as

internal beams when providing weight to the condition rating.

Steel ‐ Cracking may dictate the condition rating for steel beams. Any crack in a fracture critical member

would have a major on safety and inspector response. The presence of new or propagated cracks in a

fracture critical member warrants an immediate verbal report to the bridge program manager. Take

measurements (make notes in the comments and paint comments on the bridge) each year to track

growth. Minor versus advanced cracking depends on the probability of propagation, location & length

and may be given to the judgment of the Team Leader taking into consideration brittle fracture. For

dormant cracks, consideration shall be given in improving the condition rating.

Section loss is dependent on location, extent and

severity. Measure and document section loss, or

reduction of member thickness, in order to

update the load rating and discuss changes with

the Load Rating engineer. Inspectors are

expected to clean areas with scrapers,

hammers and wire brush to appropriately

determine the members serviceability and it is

strongly recommended to use UT Gauges,

calipers or pit gauges for quantitative results.

Prestressed Concrete Box Beams (PSBB) –The Deck and Superstructure Summaries shall have the same

condition rating. These items should have a similar transition rating for an Element level inspection.

There will likely be differences because the units for Floor/Slab are Square Feet and the units for

Beams/Girders are Linear Feet.

Beams both carrying direct traffic and beams adjacent to these beams should receive full weight in

assigning condition ratings (i.e. beams only carrying a sidewalk should not control the condition rating).

Refer to the Supplemental Inspection Form for post tensioned elements). The following will control an

appropriately coded PSBB.


Page 228

General Deficiencies – includes imperfection in the concrete (i.e. spalls, cracking, mottled area,

efflorescence, honeycombing, water in beams, damaged concrete around railing connection) and

general beam alignment (i.e. loss of upward camber, twists)

Longitudinal Joints –staining or wetted areas from runoff infiltration.

Strand Exposure – discount all strands visible and those strands not visible located:

o Above a longitudinal cracks located in the bottom flange

o Above a delamination

o Above a spall with unsound or mottled concrete.

o Consideration should also be given to those strands neighboring and above a corroded

stirrup.

Only count the same strand exposed once per span. Divide those strands that are exposed over

the total number of strands existing per beam (Plans will need to be reviewed for determining

the number of strands, should no plans be available the inspector should use design data sheets

from the era of the bridge located on the ODOT website for an approximation).

Prestressed Box Beam (PSBB)

Non‐Composite Composite

Figure 137 ‐ PSBB Top Side Cracking Between Keys

Figure 136 ‐ Composite and Noncomposite PSBB


Page 229

Figure 138 ‐ PSBB underside, loss of strand capacity (same bridge

Structural Cracks in Prestressed Concrete – shear cracks are at a 45 degree angle sloping down

near supports. Flexure cracks are transverse to the load path near high moment regions. Crack

comparator cards and crack monitoring gauges are useful in quantifying and tracking crack

widths especially for prestressed concrete. For structural cracks consider recording widths and

locations in the comments and on the bridge. Note the crack width descriptions below from the

BIRM 2002 for prestressed concrete: Hairline (HL)

< 0.004"

Narrow (N) 0.004 to 0.009"

Medium (M) 0.010 to 0.030"

Wide (W) > 0.030


Page 230

Reinforced Concrete Slabs– Leave Beams/Girders blank for concrete slab bridges and code Concrete

slabs (and Deck Floor/Slab and Floor/Slab edge) accordingly. Concrete should be inspected for cracking,

leaching, spalling, saturated areas and other evidence of deterioration. When portions of the concrete

are covered or hidden the inspector may, in some cases when there is a compelling reason, uncover

small areas for a more thorough inspection (ie. stay in place forms, wearing surface) or use NDT.

The extent and severity of delaminations may be determined by sounding with a hammer, rod, or chain

and listening for a hollow sound. These areas may be documented and recorded in order to monitor

changes and correlated with the reflective side. Exposed primary steel reinforcement should be spot

checked for reduced diameter to compare with as‐built conditions. Reduced section properties shall be

noted for a possible reanalysis. Consideration should be given to rebar that is exposed 360 degrees as it

is not bonding with the concrete.

Figure 139 ‐ Deck Edge


Page 231

Diaphragms and Crossframes ‐ On structures that are highly skewed, >30 degrees, or horizontally curved

inspect for buckling of the cross‐frames or diaphragms and allow this item to influence the Summary.

Figure 141 ‐ Beam Nomenclature

Beam Bottom Flange

Diaphragm

Beam Splice

Beam Vertical Stiffener

Cross Frame


Page 232

Semi‐Integral Abutments ‐ Consider the portion above the horizontal form line as a concrete

diaphragm/crossframe. The abutment is below the form line or polystyrene. Bearings should be rated

for semi‐integral. Inspect what you see AND allow indications of deficiencies to influence a lower

condition rating when the unseen item is directly affected. Inspectors may have to remove portions

when rating is in question.

Figure 142 ‐ Semi‐Integral Abutment

Integral Abutments Do not have bearings or abutment caps. Consider the portion above the horizontal

form line as a diaphgram/crossframe. The abutment wall is below the bottom flange of the beam.

Figure 143 ‐ Integral Abutment

Diaphragm/Crossframe

Diaphragm Superstructure

Substructure


Page 233

Floorbeams and Stringers ‐ Floorbeams are transverse to traffic and joist/stringers are longitudinal with

traffic. Connections include the device that allows the load transfer through the floor system (ie. riveted

clip angles, welds, stringer seats, saddles etc.). Inspect coped areas for fatigue cracks.

The inspector should visually inspect all fracture critical (FC) structural members of the bridge within an

"arm's‐reach" distance. Floorbeams are deemed fracture critical, unless an analysis proves otherwise,

when one or more of the following conditions exist:

Hinged connection

Spacing greater than 14’‐0”

No Stringers

Stringers are configured as simple beams

Include all connection deficiencies with the Stringer

or Floorbeam that would directly impact the member load path.

Figure 144 ‐ Floorsystem

Girder

Floorbeam

Lower Lateral Bracing (Lateral Bracing)

Knee Bracing (Floorbeam)

Lower Lateral Bracing Gusset Plate (Lateral Bracing)

Stringer


Page 234

Truss ‐ Primary truss members include Upper Chord, Lower Chord, Vertical and Diagonal members that

carry compressive or tensile forces. For the purposes of inspection coding include End Posts in the

Diagonal rating. This rating will not include zero‐force members. Inspect for cracks, section loss,

damage, buckling, pack rust and any changed condition since the previous inspection. The inspector

shall give special focus to areas with E and E’ Fatigue Details.

Nomenclature: Truss

members are labeled

looking upstation toward

the forward abutment.

The truss line on the left is

the left truss and the right

is the right truss. Panel

points, starting with 0, are

counted toward the

forward abutment. Truss

members with gusset

plates have an inboard

gusset plate, toward the

roadway centerline, and

an outboard gusset plate, away from the roadway centerline.

Fracture Critical: The inspector should visually inspect all fracture critical (FC) structural members of the

bridge within an "arm's‐reach" distance at a minimum of a 24 month interval. Chapter 4 and the

Appendix has a fracture critical inspection procedure and a listing of the AASHTO fatigue prone

categories.

*Hip verticals, although zero force members for the truss, do support floorbeams that carry traffic and

shall be coded and inspected as fracture critical members unless an analysis proves otherwise.

Figure 145 ‐ Truss Nomenclature

Hip*


Page 235

Figure 146 – Station Road Whipple Truss in Cuyahoga Valley National Park


Page 236

Gusset plates can be found on a variety of bridges (i.e. through trusses, pony trusses, deck trusses,

suspension bridges, tied arch bridges, and lift bridges). For the purposes of applying this condition

gusset plates are the vertical plates that join primary load‐path members including those plates that

connect members between the upper and lower chords. This item is not to be used for gusset plates on

secondary members.

Gusset plates are designed to transfer axial loads that are tensile, compressive or both. It is important

for the inspector to know the nature of the forces (tensile, compressive or both) and whether these

forces will be adequately balanced and can be safely carried through the gusset plates. Section loss,

cracking and bowing will limit the load‐path transfer and thus control the condition rating.

Nomenclature: Truss members are labeled looking upstation from the rear abutment toward the

forward abutment. The truss line on the left is the left truss and the right is the right truss. Panel

points, starting with the lower chord L0, are counted toward the forward abutment. There will be two

vertical plates at the panel point, the inboard, toward the roadway centerline, and the outboard gusset

plate, away from the roadway centerline. Labeling shall follow this logic but may be superseded by as‐

built plans.

Inspect for bowing along the free edge

A common location for section loss is between gusset plates above the lower chord, where dirt and debris accumulate

Section loss: Areas

that trap debris or

hold water need to be cleaned adequately to evaluate section loss. Depth of loss can be deceiving when

performing a visual inspection therefore the use of ultrasonic thickness gauges or calipers is highly

recommended to determining section properties.

Figure 147 ‐ Gusset Plate


Page 237

Section loss within the primary load path shall be quantified enough to apply a condition rating and

monitor in future inspections (red lines and red zone in the example below). The primary load path

includes areas of the gusset plate that carries tension, shear or compression around the perimeter of

each axial member connection including the zone behind the member connection. Special attention

shall be placed on gusset plates with

corrosion holes or widespread loss of

section 1/4 the plate thickness in the

primary load path.

Bowing: Distortion in the gusset plate

can be caused by overstressing of the

plate due to overloads or inadequate

bracing. A straight edge should be used

to evaluate and quantify any distortion

of the un‐braced gusset plate edges

between members. An additional area to

survey on the gusset plate is located

below the compression members. Structural bowing or distortions shall be documented in the

inspection report. Special attention shall be placed on gusset plates with bowing at the free edge.

Every effort must be taken to compare bowing measurements with the previous inspection for those

coded 5‐Fair or less. The procedures for measuring bowing in gusset plates shall be clearly documented

and quantitatively repeatable at future inspections by different inspectors in order to monitor change

within a tolerance of 1/16”. Include measurement locations, tools utilized, ambient temperatures,

markers made on the gusset etc.

Connectivity: Inspect the welded, bolted or riveted connection. Inspect for slipped surfaces around the

individual bolts and rivets. Inspect for any cracking in the gusset plate associated with the bolt and rivet

holes. Check for individual broken or loose rivets or bolts. Special attention shall be placed on gusset

plates with loose, cracked or missing connections.

Figure 148 ‐ Gusset Plate Primary Stresses (including Whitmore Stress‐dashed lines)


Page 238

Figure 149 ‐ Evidence of Slip Since Last Inspection

Figure 150 ‐ Gusset Plates in Bridges Closed due to the Gusset Plates


Page 239

Bracing ‐ The bracing system distributes loads, stabilizes the bridge against torsional and wind loadings,

prevents buckling of compression chords, and integrates the separate main member systems. Check all

secondary system members for condition, alignment, collision damage, and security of connection.

Note: Lower lateral bracing may also exist on girder type structures. On horizontally curved and highly

skewed bridges (> 30 degree) these secondary members are considered primary members and shall

control the condition rating.

Verify for evidence of overheight impact damage. Inspect for reduction in vertical clearance and torsion,

buckling or distortion due to impact to the sway bracing strut(s) to the associated truss members i.e.

verticals. Bracing types include:

Sway Bracing (including Portal Bracing)

Lateral Bracing (including Upper Lateral and Lower Lateral Bracing)

Figure 151 ‐ Through‐truss bracing

Sway Bracing Bottom Strut (Sway Bracing is in the Vertical Plane)

Upper Lateral Bracing Member (Horizontal Plane)


Page 240

Bearing devices transmit the superstructure load to the substructure. They also provide for longitudinal

movement due to expansion and contraction and rotational movement due to deflection. The bridge

bearings are important to the structure. If they are not kept in good working order, stresses may be

induced into the structure that will shorten the usable life of the bridge. Check all components of

bearings for deterioration, movement, alignment, contact and security of connections. Where

heightened monitoring is recommended movement may be tracked using the movable bearing sheet in

Appendix.

If a bearing is buried, hidden or is not visible, the condition shall be assessed based on destructive and

nondestructive testing or indicators in the materials covering the surfaces. Allow the indicators to

influence a lower condition rating when the unseen item is directly affected.

While bearing devices may cause serious problems, rarely will the summary condition rating of the

superstructure be reduced because of the bearings.

Non‐redundant Superstructure

Deficiencies in bearings that directly impact the load path and initiate deficiencies in primary

elements

Available redundancy will influence the

condition ratings. For example, where

redundancy exists rarely will one failed

bearing control the whole bearing system

when all others are in good condition.

Multiple adjacent bearings overextended

or rotated to the point that portions of the

superstructure may drop in elevation may

also control the condition rating. Bearing

devises are rated for semi‐integral‐type

bridges.

Three primary functions of a movable bearing:

1. Transmit Superstructure Loads,

2. Allow Rotation,

3. Allow horizontal movement due to the change in temperature.

Figure 152 ‐Movable Bearing Loads


Page 241

Figure 153 ‐ Sliding Plate (left) and Pinned Rocker (right) Bearings

Figure 155 ‐ Underside of Masonry Plate Figure 154 ‐Misaligned Bearing Device


Page 242

Arches ‐ Arched superstructure spans are vertically curved throughout the length of the span. The curve

converts vertical (gravity) loads within the span to horizontal and vertical thrusts at the spring lines. As a

result, the forces within the arch are generally compression although steel and reinforced concrete

arches can accommodate some bending or tension.

The curve of the arch may be

elliptical, parabolic or circular, or

may include multiple curves. The

curve should be smooth and

continuous. Arch spandrels may

be open or filled. Filled spandrel

arches are susceptible to water

infiltration into the fill, which may

cause wet areas, efflorescence

and degradation of the intrados

(interior face of the arch) or the

spandrel walls.

Open spandrel arches use

columns to transmit the vertical

loads to the arch. Through

arches are similar to open

spandrel arches except that the

vertical loads “hang” from the arch. Rib arch structures use multiple narrow arches separated laterally,

with spandrel walls or columns to transmit the vertical loads to the arches. Filled Arch‐Type

Superstructures with one transverse section of more than 1/3 of the bridge width or primary

longitudinal load line of primary bars exposed with section loss shall be coded no better than a "5‐

Fair". Open spandrel arches, arch columns and hangers should be rated similarly to beams and girders

of the same material. Spandrel walls on filled spandrel arches serve to retain the fill.

Figure 156 – Open Spandrel Deck Arch with Arch Columns

Figure 157 ‐ Through Arch with Hangers


Page 243

Concrete Culverts (under 24” of fill) are different from filled arches. One way to tell the difference is

that the functioning roadway railings are generally not in the same vertical plane as the headwall (see

figure below). Otherwise the concrete structure is a filled arch or a concrete rigid frame.

For steel culverts code any conduit or barrel that is corrugated a culvert.

Figure 159 – Culvert with more than 24” of fill and a railing support offset

Figure 158 ‐ Filled Arch Nomenclature


Page 244

Protective Coating System ‐ The system consists of the primary means which the superstructure are

protected from the elements. It is imperative that the condition of the protective film be thoroughly

inspected.

Painting/Galvanizing/Metalizing/588 Weathering steel shall be rated in this section. For painted steel

structures, the inspector should note the type of paint and year painted stenciled on the bridge ends

and compare to SMS data. Changes should be noted and reported in the inventory in SMS. These

guidelines are intended to be used to access the coating condition during the inspection as well as upon

project completion.

The boxes shall be rated according to the workmanship and the degradation:

Workmanship Inspection:

Surface preparation must be properly done as specified prior to paint application and should be

rated as workmanship conditions. Application of the primer, intermediate, and finish coatings

Figure 160 ‐Masonry CS4


Page 245

can affect the overall quality of the paint system. Workmanship inspection areas should include

but are not limited to:

Incomplete removal of mill scale or surface corrosion in pitted steel members

Areas not receiving paint

Hard‐to‐reach areas that may have been missed during painting. (Top of cross frames,

inside truss members, behind end dams, etc.)

Paint Adhesion between coats. Peeling of finish coat

Grit, from the abrasive cleaning process, is in the paint film or left on the steel members

Paint thickness applied (total paint thickness should be between 8.5 to 24.5 mills when

spot checking the OZEU paint system)

Workmanship issues shall include exterior surface and bottom flanges of all fascia beams or girders that

are to be left unpainted to remove all traces of asphalt cement, oil, grease, diesel fuel or petroleum

deposits, concrete, and other contaminants. The fascia beams shall be free of mill scale.

Degradation Inspection:

The degree of coating failure must be assessed during the inspection. Coating failure is

measured as a percentage of the total surface area. Percentage guidelines are given in the

condition scale. Percentage of paint failures/rust should be noted in the remarks space. Paint

failures should include but are not limited to:

Checking, cracking, wrinkling

Blistering caused by painted over oil, grease, rust

Pinpoint rusting

Peeling paint

Chalking

Peeling, cracking, or separation of any caulking

Inspection of Weathering Steel:

The inspection of weathering steel bridges differs from that of painted steel bridge. The entire surface

area of weathering steel is covered in a patina or rust layer. The inspector must distinguish between a

protective and non‐protective oxide coating. Slight variations in color and texture are important

indicators of non‐protective coating requiring close inspection. Inspector shall note any section loss

associated with coating failure in the appropriate item.


Page 246

The oxide film must be tested by tapping or by vigorously wire brushing to determine whether the film is

adhering to the substrate. The oxide film texture may debond in the form of granules, flakes, or laminar

sheets. Physical and visual means are used in conjunction to accurately determine the condition of the

oxide film. New weathering steel require 3 to 5 years to stabilize. An inspector should keep in mind the

year built when evaluating the oxide film. The interior surfaces are likely to exhibit the same color of the

exterior beams, but sheltered from the wind and rain the initial dusty surface is not sweep clean, thus

becoming embedded and leaving a coarse finish.

Condition ratings for weathering steel shall use the color table and the texture table above to determine

failed areas. The extent of failed areas directly influences the PCS condition. Bridges with a combination

of painted beam ends or fascia beams shall rate each portion

appropriately and combine the failed areas for the total area.

Critical structural member/zone

Critical structural member or areas such as pin, hanger, hinge

connections or fracture critical members may govern the paint

rating.

Visual Color Table for Weathering Steel

Color Film Stage Condition

Yellow‐Orange Initial stage of exposure Acceptable

Light Brown Early stage of exposure Acceptable

Chocolate brown to purple brown Development of protective oxide Acceptable

Black Non‐protective oxide Failed

Table 99 ‐ Visual Coloring for Weathering Steel

Texture Table for Weathering Steel

Texture Surface Stage Condition

Tightly adherent, capable of withstanding hammering or vigorous wire brushing

Protective oxide film Acceptable

Dusty Early stage of exposure Acceptable

Granular Possible development of non‐protective oxide

Acceptable

Small flakes, 1/4” diameter Non‐protective oxide Failed

Large flakes, ½” diameter Non‐protective oxide Failed

Laminar sheets of nodules Non‐protective oxide, severe corrosion

Failed

Table 100 ‐ Weathering Steel Color and Texture


Page 247

Figure 161 ‐ Pin and Hanger Offset


Page 248

Fatigue is the tendency of a member to fail at a stress level below yield stress when subjected to cyclical

loading. Inspect steel for all distortion induced and stress induced fatigue cracks. Where fatigue cracks

exist down rate this item when the crack directly impacts the load path through the primary members.

For dormant cracks consideration should be given in increasing or ‘improving’ the condition rating.

However, caution should be taken because brittle fractures can occur. Additional factors such as heat

straightening, temperature, length of growth, location, type of detail and number of cycles (AADTT) may

influence the team leader’s judgment. Any crack in the base metal of a FCM perpendicular to the

primary stress shall be “3‐Serious” or worse and any crack in the base metal of a FCM parallel to the

primary stress shall be “4‐Poor” or worse. Prompt interim action is recommended for any crack in a

fracture critical member or major impact damage in a primary member.

There are two types of Fatigue: Distortion Induced Fatigue and Stress Induced Fatigue. Inspectors are to

be familiar with the locations more prone to fatigue and inspect for crack initiation.

Distortion Induced Fatigue (out of plane bending) Common Locations:

Figure 162 ‐ Distortion Induced Fatigue


Page 249

Figure 163 – Inspecting Web gaps for Distortion Induced Fatigue


Page 250

Guidance for Inspecting at Lateral Connection Plates

The Lateral Connection Plate Details that are MORE prone to fatigue (ref. AASHTO LRFD 6.6.1.3.2

Lateral Connection Plates) include the following:

Stiffened Webs : H is less than half of the flange width (bf)

Unstiffened Webs: H is less than 6” OR less than half of the flange width (bf)

Lateral bracing connections closer than 4” to the web or transverse stiffener

Continuous transverse web stiffeners not connected to the lower connection plate or transverse

stiffeners not connected to the flanges or plates not centered over the stiffener

Figure 165 – Lateral Bracing Height from Flange

Figure 164 ‐ Lateral Bracing Connection Distance from Web

H


Page 251

Stress‐Induced Fatigue:

Inspect those poor details or fatigue prone details

that would initiate a fatigue crack in in‐plane

bending. Of all the details, those details, according

to AASHTO, in Categories E and E’ are the most

susceptible to fatigue crack initiation and

propagation.

Splice welded web/flange over piers (Figure 81,

typical ODOT detail from 1950’s).

Ends of partial length cover plates on girder or

beam flanges (Figures 79 & 80).

Welded attachments, with groove or fillet welds

in the direction of the main members, more than

4 inches or 12 times the plate thickness.

Continuous longitudinal welds‐parallel to the

applied stress field

Two directions of welds intersect or terminate

within ¼” of each other

Areas of triaxial constraint

Welded attachment with curved radius.

Welded attachment transverse to load path.

Intermittent fillet welds

Shear stress on the throat of a fillet weld

Deck plate at the connection to floorbeam web

Figure 167 ‐ Fatigue Crack Propagation (Welded Cover Plate)

Figure 168 ‐ Fatigue Prone Detail (Welded Splice)

Figure 166 ‐ Fatigue Prone Detail (Welded Cover Plate)


Page 252

Superstructure Summary – Coded based on the lowest bold box Condition or Transition Rating.

Substructure

The substructure is that portion of the bridge below the superstructure including the pier and abutment

seats, footings and piling. The substructure transmits the loads and stresses from the deck,

superstructure, or other load supporting

system, to the ground.

If an item is buried, hidden or is not

visible, the condition shall be assessed

based on destructive and nondestructive

testing or indicators in the materials

covering the surfaces. Allow the

indicators to influence a lower condition

rating when the unseen item is directly

affected.

Abutment Walls ‐ An abutment wall is

the substructure unit located at the ends

of a bridge. Its function is to provide end

support for the bridge and to retain the

approach embankment. Always rate what you see AND allow indications of deficiencies to influence a

lower condition rating when the unseen item is directly affected. The most common problems

observed during the inspection of abutments are:

Vertical movement


1‐Good

9‐Excellent

8‐Very Good

7‐Good


5‐Fair

3‐Poor 4‐Poor

3‐Serious


SUBSTRUCTURE ITEMS Code

c33. Abutment Walls (LF) 1, 2, 3, 4

c34. Abutment Caps (LF) 1, 2, 3, 4

c35. Abut. Colmns/Bents (EA) 1, 2, 3, 4

c36. Pier Walls (LF) 1, 2, 3, 4

c37. Pier Caps (LF) 1, 2, 3, 4

c38. Pier Columns/Bents (EA) 1, 2, 3, 4

c39. Backwalls (LF) 1, 2, 3, 4

c40. Wingwalls (EA) 1, 2, 3, 4

c42. Scour (LF) ded 1, 2, 3, 4

c43. Slope Protection (EA) ded 1, 2, 3, 4

N60. Substructure Summary 9‐0


Page 253

Lateral movement

Rotational movement

Material defects

Scour of the foundation

Drainage system malfunction

Full Height Wall vs. Stub Wall– Full height, stub (breast wall is generally less than or equal to 4’)

Figure 169 ‐ Full Height Abutment

Figure 170 ‐ Stub Abutment

Semi‐Integral Abutments ‐ Consider the portion above the horizontal form line as a concrete

diaphragm/crossframe. The abutment is below the form line or polystyrene. Bearings should

be rated for semi‐integral. Inspect what you see AND allow indications of deficiencies to

influence a lower condition rating when the unseen item is directly affected. Inspectors may

have to remove portions when rating is in question.

Table 100 ‐ Substructure Items


Page 254

Figure 171 ‐ Semi‐Integral Abutment


Page 255

Integral Abutments Do not have bearings or abutment caps. Consider the portion above the horizontal

form line as a diaphgram/crossframe. The abutment wall is below the bottom flange of the beam.

Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) walls may be found as components of the substructure

system. Generally these will serve as Wingwalls and/or Slope Protection (also Embankment for

the Approach item) because the abutments are most often founded on deep foundations

(Figure below). They shall be rated as Abutments when the foundation type is spread footing

within the MSE wall (verify with plans or inventory). Backwalls may control the Summary only in

extreme situations (eg. large void under approach due to fill spilling through backwall).

Substructures vs. Bearings: The

bearings shall be downgraded for

any undermining of a masonry

plate when the bearing has shifted

or moved. The substructure unit

will be downgraded when the

substructure is the root cause i.e.

the bearings and substructure

ratings can be mutually exclusive.

Superstructure (Diaphragm) Substructure

(Abutment Wall)


Page 256

Figure 172 ‐ Abutment Support Failure

Figure 173 ‐ Masonry Abutment Walls with Advanced Deficiencies


Page 257

Abutment Caps ‐

Figure 174 ‐ Steel Capped Bent Abutment with Timber Lagging

Abutment Columns and Bents: Inspect for section loss at the mudline. Measurements shall be taken

quantitatively (pit gauge, UT gauge etc.). For steel sheaths reference the as‐built plans as to whether or

not a cage is within the sheath; the ODOT standard CPP‐2‐94 is the first standard with the reinforcing

cage.

Pier Walls

Figure 175 ‐ Pier Wall


Page 258

Columns and Bents: Inspect for section loss at the mudline. Measurements shall be taken quantitatively

(pit gauge, UT gauge etc.).

Figure 176 ‐ Capped Bile Bent

Figure 177 ‐ Concrete Capped Column and Hammerhead Cantilever Pier

For steel sheaths reference the as‐built plans as to whether or not a cage is within the sheath; the ODOT

standard CPP‐2‐94 is the first standard with the reinforcing cage. The only steel within an unreinforced

bent is the sheath. Section loss at the mudline must be inspected and quantified.

Figure 178 ‐ Pier Bents without Reinforcing Cage

Cantilever Tee with Solid Wall Panel Pier Capped Column Pier

Pier Cap Pier Cap

Pier Columns Pier Wall


Page 259

Backwall is the portion of an abutment extending above the bridge seat which retains the approach

embankment. It may also serve as a support for an approach slab and/or anchorage for expansion joints.

Check backwalls for condition and clearance to the beam ends. Lack of clearance may indicate

superstructure or substructure movement or pavement pressures. While backwalls may cause serious

problems, only in extreme conditions will the rating of the substructure be reduced because of the

backwalls.

Backwalls, when beams are touching in warmer temperatures shall be rated at best 2‐Fair (1‐4 scale).

When backwalls are touching in colder temperatures and shearing/cracking the backwall the rating shall

be at best 3 (1‐4) scale. Where fill is spilling through the backwall the rating shall be rated a 4‐Critical (1‐

4). Backwall shall not be downgraded based on the top 2” that support traffic as it will be considered

Approach Wearing Surface. Backwalls may be downgraded when the expansion joint anchorage is

shearing and separating the top stem.

Backwall


Figure 179 ‐ Backwall

Approach Slab


Page 260

Wingwalls are located at the ends of a bridge. Their function is to retain the approach embankment and

not to provide end support for the bridge. Wingwalls may influence the substructure summary only if they

are integral with the abutment by plans and the load path is obviously compromised. This will be the

exception rather than the rule. When there is an expansion joint or construction joint between the

abutment and the wingwall, that wingwall is defined as independent and not considered in the evaluation of

the abutment component.

Figure 180 ‐ Deteriorated Wingwalls

Only in extreme situations may the inspector allow a non‐bold box MSE wall control the summary. For

example a large amount of fill washed from an MSE wall slope protection could control and thus create

a Critical condition for the traveling public.

Scour ‐ All exposed or readily accessible portions of the substructure will be inspected at close range.

Underwater investigation will be done to assure that scour and undermining is not threatening the

bridge. This will consist of probing in relatively shallow water and diving in deeper water. Diving

inspections will be performed at least once every 5 years (not to exceed 60 months) on bridges where


Page 261

the low‐water depth prohibits visual or probing inspections in water that is unsafe or inaccessible during

a routine underwater inspection.

Scour is the removal of material from the streambed or embankment as a result of the erosive action of

stream flow. Finding and monitoring and properly coding undermining and scour progression is of the

upmost concern. Overall, stream‐bed‐lowering, lateral stream migration, restricted waterway openings

or damaged hydraulic control structures will be considered within the Channel condition rating. These

can immediately affect the stability of the substructure. For example, a debris field on the upstream

nose of a pier restricts the waterway and it also increases stream velocity at the pier and depth of the

local scour.

Update item #113 Scour Critical as appropriate. Bridge inspectors can bring down the scour critical

rating to a 4, 2, 1 or 0 based on field observations. A Scour POA (for Scour Critical Bridges – coded 3, 2, 1

or 0) template is available in Appendix. and a Scour Critical Assessment Checklist guide is also available

in Appendix. This may be used and placed in the bridge file to help justify an assessment when

calculations are not used to adjust the Scour Critical item.

Scour can occur in stages beginning with

the exposure of the top of the footing,

then the vertical face and then finally the

underside. Where the underside is

exposed this is called undermining. It is

very important to record dimensions of

exposed footings (length, height, depth,

location) so the next inspector will be

able to monitor change. Consideration

shall be given to making a Cross Channel

Profile, Appendix. to track quantitative

change. Lastly inspect downstream for head

cuts/knick‐points that could move and influence the

structure.

Figure 181 ‐ Undermining


Page 262

Figure 182 ‐ Exposed Foundations

Slope Protection ‐ The protection will retain the slope around the abutments and substructure units

(where slopes exist) in order to protect the structure from undermining. Examine areas directly under

the bridge for erosion, missing stone, broken concrete, etc. If channel extends all the way to the

abutments, there is no slope protection to rate. Where MSE walls exist and the substructure is on piles

then rate the MSE wall as slope protection. Often the previous abutment will serve as the current slope

protection. In this instance rate the abutment as to how well it is protecting the slope.

Figure 183 ‐ MSE Backfill Escaping Confinement


Page 263

Figure 184 – MSE Walls Coded as Slope Protection vs. Abutment Walls

Substructure Summary – Allow the worst individual Bold Box

item to influence the summary.


1‐Good

9‐Excellent

8‐Very Good

7‐Good


5‐Fair

3‐Poor 4‐Poor

3‐Serious

4‐Critical 2‐Critical, 1, 0

Figure 185 ‐ MSE Wall with the Bridge Abutments on Deep Foundations


Page 264

CulvertItems

A logical sequence for inspecting culverts helps ensure that a thorough inspection will be conducted. In

addition to the culvert components, the inspector should also look for high water marks, changes in the

drainage area, settlement of the roadway, and other indications of potential problems. In this regard,

the inspection of culverts is similar to the inspection of bridges.

For typical installations, it is usually convenient to begin the field inspection with general observations of

the overall condition of the structure and inspection of the approach roadway. The inspector should

start at the outlet end of the culvert and inspect the embankment, waterway, headwalls, wingwalls, and

culvert barrel. The inspector should then move to the inlet end of the culvert. The following sequence is

applicable to all culvert inspections:

• Review available information and safety concerns

• Observe overall condition of the culvert site

• Inspect approach roadway and embankment

• Inspect waterway

• Inspect end treatments

• Inspect culvert barrel

General observations of the condition of the culvert site should be made while approaching the area.

The purpose of these initial observations is to familiarize the inspector with the structure. They may also

point out a need to modify the inspection sequence or indicate areas requiring special attention. The

inspector should also be alert for changes in the drainage area that might affect runoff characteristics.

Most defects in culverts are first detected by visual inspection. If possible, a close‐up, hands‐on

inspection is preferred. The types of defects to look for when inspecting the culvert barrel will depend

upon the type of culvert being inspected. In general, culvert barrels should be inspected for cross‐

sectional shape and barrel defects such as joint defects, seam defects, plate buckling, lateral shifting,

missing or loose bolts, corrosion, excessive abrasion, material defects, and localized construction

damage.

Locations in sectional pipe can be referenced by using pipe joints as stations to establish the stationing

of specific cross‐sections. Stations should start with number 1 at the outlet and increase going upstream

to the inlet. The location of points on a circular cross section can be referenced like hours on a clock. The

clock should be oriented looking upstream. On structural plate corrugated metal culverts, points can be


Page 265

referenced to bolted circumferential and longitudinal seams. The condition of the ends of the culvert

shall not govern the condition rating. Always include the portions within the 1:1 slope of the edge of

pavement.

For steel culverts consider any conduit or barrel that is corrugated as a culvert independent of the railing

to headwall location. Concrete Culverts will have more than 24” of fill. Otherwise the concrete

structure is most likely a concrete rigid frame.

For Structure Type coding purposes the

primary difference between Concrete Rigid

Frames and Concrete Culverts is the depth

of fill. Concrete Culverts will have at least

24” of fill and rigid frames will have less

than 24” of fill.

For Structure Type coding purposes the

primary difference between a Concrete

Arch and a Concrete Culvert is the

presence of fill material or an offset in the

railing from the headwall. Arches will have a

spandrel wall in the same vertical plane as the railing with no exposed fill material. Culverts will often

have an offset with fill material and are designed to be submerged.

For Structure Type coding and inspection purposes any corrugated metal should be coded as a culvert

(independent of the railing to headwall

location).

If the culvert has been extended, code

the worst condition of the most

predominant material under the

traveled lanes.

Metal structures may have a concrete

pedestal with concrete footings.

Longitudinal settlement affects shall be

rated under alignment and transverse

Figure 186 ‐ Concrete Rigid Frame (171)

Figure 187 ‐ Concrete Culvert and Not a Concrete Arch


Page 266

movements shall be rated under the shape factor.

Deterioration may occur in concrete and masonry footings that is not related to settlement but is

caused by the concrete or mortar. In arches with no invert slab, the inspector should check for

erosion and undermining of the footings and look for any indication of rotation of the footing.

Plastic pipe materials may experience splits. A split (rip, tear, or crack) is any separation in the wall

material other than at a designed joint.

For all culvert materials, any amount of

cracking should be recorded and the

appropriate rating assigned from the rating

condition tables.

The inspector should document the type,

extent, and location of all significant wall

damage defects. When examining dents in

corrugated steel culverts, the opposite side

of the plate should be checked, if possible,

for cracking or debonding of the protective

coating.

Select the lowest of the bold black box items, the Primary Bridge Elements, when coding the Summary

item. Headwall, Endwalls may control in less frequent situations where losing them would result in

direct loss of a traffic lane(s). 1‐4 Individual Items % are based on the WORST BARREL while the 9‐0

Summary Items (%) are based on the item throughout the ALL BARRELS or all spans (for multi‐barrel/cell

culverts).

Culvert General ‐ Apply the rating based on the material deficiencies to the conduit. Deterioration –

Corrosion and abrasion are the most common ways in which culverts degrade. Corrosion is the

deterioration of metal due to electrochemical or chemical reactions. Culverts are subject to corrosion in

certain aggressive environments.

Abrasion is the deterioration of culvert materials by the erosive action of bedload carried in the stream.

Abrasion is generally most serious in steep areas where high flow rates carry sand and rocks that wear

away the culvert invert. Abrasion can also accelerate corrosion by wearing away protective coatings.

CULVERT ITEMS Code

c44. General (LF) 1, 2, 3, 4

c45. Alignment (LF) ded 1, 2, 3, 4

c46. Shape (LF) ded 1, 2, 3, 4

c47. Seams (EA) ded 1, 2, 3, 4

c48. Headwall/Endwall (LF) 1, 2, 3, 4

c49. Scour (LF) ded 1, 2, 3, 4

c50. Abutments (LF) 1, 2, 3, 4

N62. Culvert Summary 9‐0


Page 267

Corrosion and abrasion of culverts can be a serious problem with adverse effects on structural

performance. Damage due to corrosion and abrasion is a common cause for culvert replacement. The

condition of the metal in corrugated metal culverts and any coatings, if used, should be considered

when assigning a rating to the culvert barrel.

The inspection should include visual observations of metal corrosion and abrasion. As steel corrodes it

expands considerably. Relatively shallow corrosion can produce thick deposits of scale. A geologist's

pick‐hammer can be used to scrape off heavy deposits of rust and scale permitting better observation of

the metal. A hammer can also be used to locate unsound areas of exterior corrosion by striking the

culvert wall with the pick end of the hammer. When severe corrosion is present, the pick will deform the

wall or break through it. Protective coatings should be examined for abrasion damage, tearing, cracking,

and removal. The inspector should document the extent and location of surface deterioration problems.

Concrete inverts are usually floating slabs used to carry water. Invert slabs provide protection against

erosion and undermining, and are also used to improve hydraulic efficiency. Concrete inverts are

sometimes used in circular, as well as other culvert shapes, to protect the metal from severe abrasive or

severe corrosive

action. Concrete

invert slabs

should be

checked for

undermining

and damage

such as spalls,

open cracks, and

missing

portions. The

significance of

damage will

depend upon its

effect on the

underlying material.

Figure 188 – Failed Concrete Invert


Page 268

Metal Culverts ‐ This rating will include all elements that are metal. All culverts should be inspected for

localized damage caused by construction procedures or from maintenance forces. For flexible pipe, wall

damage such as dents, bulges, creases, cracks, and tears can be serious if the defects are extensive and

can impair either the integrity of the barrel in ring compression

or permit infiltration of backfill. Small, localized examples are not

ordinarily critical. When the deformation type damages are

critical, they will usually result in a poorly shaped cross section.

The inspector should document the type, extent, and location of

all significant wall damage defects. When examining dents in

corrugated steel culverts, the opposite side of the plate should

be checked, if possible, for cracking or debonding of the

protective coating.

Culvert Alignment ‐ Culverts not on Footings: Used for the rating

of precast segments, corrugated metal pipe that has been

coupled or banded

together. The

alignment rating for

the culvert is to

account for

longitudinal

irregularities in the

barrel. The culvert

barrel is to be

inspected for

discontinuities and

settlement between

adjacent culvert

segments.

Figure 190 ‐ Culvert Alignment

Figure 189 – Failure of CMP


Page 269

Culverts on Footings: Concrete footing defects such as settlement can be used in structural plate arches,

long‐span arches, and box culverts. Metal footings are occasionally used for the arch and box culvert

shapes. The “superstructure” depends on the footing to transmit the vertical load into the foundation. A

metal plate arch is usually bolted in a base channel and is secured in the footing. Precast units are

grouted into a key way of the footing. Cast‐in‐place units may be poured continuous. Settlement may

show up as severe cracking, spalling, or crushing across the footing at the critical spot, however, there

may be deterioration of the concrete or masonry footings that is not related to settlement.

Differential settlement – One section of the footing settles more than the rest of the footing.

Rotational settlement‐ The footing starts to tip in either direction due to lateral forces or

undermining.

Uniform settlement‐ The whole footing settles and will not ordinarily affect flexible culverts.

Alignment is best detected sighting from the ends toward the opposite end. Inspectors are

looking for longitudinal ‘snaking’ in flexible pipes and separation at the joints for rigid

pipe/conduit/frame.

Misalignment is often first detected by sighting down a longitudinal seam (when they exist). Or

noting water infiltration through precast segments.

Culvert alignment for Masonry culverts shall be rated for continuity between adjacent stones.

Figure 192 ‐ Culvert Alignment


Page 270

Culvert Shape ‐ The barrel of the culvert shall be inspected for evidence of flattening, buckling, bulging,

out‐of‐roundness and other signs that the shape is not equal to original design. The Shape rating should

be used for flexible culvert structures and left blank for rigid culverts. Rigid structures do not deflect

appreciably before cracking or fracturing and therefore shape inspections are of little value. Defects in

the culvert barrel for rigid structures will be rated under other items.

The shape inspection should begin by approaching the culvert from the ends and sighting the sides and

top. Also check for signs of pavement depression, guardrail movement, or gaps between headwalls and

the pipe barrel. The cross‐sectional shape of the culvert barrel is an important feature to observe and

measure when inspecting flexible culverts. The shape rating for the culvert is to account for irregularities

transverse to culvert barrel.

All culverts should be inspected for localized damage caused by construction procedures or from

maintenance forces. For flexible pipe, wall damage such as dents, bulges, creases, cracks, and tears can

be serious if the defects are extensive and can impair either the integrity of the barrel in ring

compression or permit infiltration of backfill. Small, localized examples are not ordinarily critical. When

the deformation type damages are critical, they will usually result in a misshaped cross section.

Dimensional checks should be made for suspect structures and these dimensions should be monitored

over time. If there is instability of the backfill, the pipe will continue to change shape. A critical area for

the inspection of long span metal culverts is at the 2 o’clock and 10 o’clock locations. An inward bulge at

these locations may indicate potential failure of the structure.

When distortion or curve flattening is apparent, the extent of the flattened area, in terms of arc length,

length of culvert affected, and the location of the flattened area should be described in the inspection

report. The length of the chord across the flattened area and the middle ordinate of the chord should be

measured and recorded. The chord and middle ordinate measurements can be used to calculate the

curvature of the flattened area using the formula shown in Appendix. Measurements of Corrugated

Metal Culverts.

For structures with shallow cover, the inspector shall make observations of the culvert with a few live

loads passing over it. Discernible movement in the structure may indicate possible instability and a need

for more in‐depth investigation.


Page 271

The number of measurement locations depends upon the size and condition of the structure. Long‐span

culverts should normally be measured at the end and at 25‐foot intervals. Measurements may be

required at more frequent intervals if significant shape changes are observed. The smaller pipe culverts

can usually be measured at longer intervals than long‐span culverts. Metering programs might be

needed to determine the rate of movement.

Arch Culverts are fixed on concrete footings, usually below or at the spring line. The spring line is a line

connecting the outermost points on the sides of a culvert. This difference between pipes and arches

means that an arch tends to deflect differently during the placement of backfill. Backfill forces tend to

flatten the arch sides and peak its top because the spring line cannot move inward like the wall of a

round pipe. As a result, important shape factors to look for in an arch are flattened sides, peaked crown,

and a flattened top arc.

Another important shape factor in arches is symmetry. If the arch was erected with the base channels

not square to the centerline, it can cause a racking of the cross section. A racked cross‐section is one

that is not symmetrical about the centerline of the culvert. One side tends to flatten; the other side

tends to curve more while the crown moves laterally and possibly upward. If these distortions are not

corrected before backfilling the arch, they usually get worse as backfill is placed.

Arches in fair to good condition will have the following characteristics: a good shape appearance with

smooth and symmetrical curvature, and a rise within three to four percent of design. Marginal condition

would be indicated when the arch is significantly non‐symmetrical, when arch height is five to seven

percent less or greater than design, or when side or top plate flattening has occurred such that the plate

radius is 50 to 100 percent greater than design. Arches in poor to critical condition will have a poor

shape appearance including significant distortion and deflection, extremely non‐symmetrical shape,

severe flattening (radius more than 100 percent greater than design) of the sides or top plates, or a rise

more than eight percent greater or less than the designed rise. Guidelines for measurements are given

in Appendix.

Corrugated Metal Box Culverts ‐The key shape factor in a box culvert is the top arc. The design geometry

is clearly very “flat” to begin with and therefore does not allow much room for deflection. The span at

the top is also important and can only tolerate very minor increases.


Page 272

The side plates often deflect slightly inward or outward. Generally an inward deflection would be the

more critical as an outward movement would be restrained by soil.

Shape factors to be checked visually include flattening of top arc, outward movement of sides, or inward

deflection of the sides. The inspector should note the visual appearance of the shape and should

measure and record the rise and the horizontal span at the top of the straight legs. If the rise is more or

less than 1 ½ percent of the design rise, the curvature of the large top radius should be checked.

Guidelines for measurements are given in the Appendix.

Figure 193 ‐ Flexible Culvert Installation

Table 101 ‐ CMP Shape Change


Page 273

Culvert Seams ‐ Key factors to look for in the inspection of seams and joints are indications of backfill

infiltration and water exfiltration and cracking in CMP’s. Excessive seepage through an open joint can

cause soil infiltration or erosion of the

surrounding backfill material reducing lateral

support. Inspection will require a flashlight.

Open joints may be probed with a small rod

or flat rule to check for voids. Joint defects

shall be recorded. Joint defects include:

Open joints, Seepage at the joints, Surface

sinkholes over the culvert, Cracks in CMP.

Seepage along the outside of the culvert barrel may remove supporting material. This process is referred

to as “piping”, since a hollow cavity similar to a pipe is often formed. Piping can also occur through open

joints. Piping is controlled by reducing the amount and velocity of water seeping along the outside of the

culvert barrel. This may require watertight joints and in some cases anti‐seep collars. Good backfill

material and adequate compaction of that material are also important.

In metal structures, cracking may occur along bolt holes of longitudinal seams and can be serious if

allowed to progress. These cracks are most serious when accompanied by significant deflection,

distortion, and other conditions indicative of backfill or soil problems.

Seams are rated for corrugated metal, multiplate structures and concrete precast sections. All bolted

splice seams should be checked for loose, missing or severely corroded bolts, cusping at overlap, and

tears or cracks in metal at the bolt lines.

Circumferential Seams ‐ The circumferential seams in helical pipe, like joints in factory pipe, do not carry

ring compression thrust in the pipe. They do make the conduit one continuous structure. Distress in

these seams is rare and will ordinarily be the result of a severe differential deflection or distortion

problem or some other manifestation of soil failure. For example, a steep sloping structure through an

embankment may be pulled apart longitudinally if the embankment moves down. Plates should be

installed with the upstream plate overlapping the downstream plate to provide a “shingle” effect in the

circumferential seam. Seam distress is important to note during inspections since it would indicate a


Page 274

basic problem of stability in the fill. Circumferential seam distress can also be a result of foundation

failure, but in such cases should be clearly evident by the vertical alignment.

Longitudinal Seam Defects in Structural Plate Culverts ‐ Longitudinal seams should be visually inspected

for open seams, cracking at bolt holes, plate distortion around the bolts, bolt tipping, cocked seams,

cusped seams, and for significant metal loss in the fasteners due to corrosion. In riveted or spot welded

pipes, the seams are longitudinal and carry the full ring compression in the pipe. These seams, then,

must be sound and capable of handling high compression forces. When inspecting the longitudinal

seams of bituminous‐coated corrugated metal culverts, cracking in the bituminous coating may indicate

seam separation.

Seam Defects in Structural Plate Culverts:

(1) Loose Fasteners ‐ Seams should be checked for loose or missing fasteners. For steel

structures the longitudinal seams are bolted together with high‐strength bolts in two rows;

one row in the crests and one row in the valleys of the corrugations. These are bearing type

connections and are not dependent on a minimum clamping force of bolt tension to develop

interface friction between the plates. Fasteners in steel structural plate may be checked for

tightness by tapping lightly with a hammer and checking for movement.

For aluminum structural plate, the longitudinal seams are bolted together with normal

strength bolts in two rows with bolts in the crests and valleys of both rows. These seams

function as bearing connections, utilizing bearing of the bolts on the edges of holes and

friction between the plates.

(2) Cocked and Cusped Seams ‐ The longitudinal seams of structural plate are the principal

difference from factory pipe. The shape and curvature of the structure is affected by the

lapped bolted longitudinal seam. Improper erection or fabrication can result in cocked

seams or cusped effects in the structure at the seam. Slight cases of these conditions are

fairly common and frequently not significant. However, severe cases can result in failure of

the seam or structure. When a cusped seam is significant the structure's shape appearance

and key dimensions will differ significantly from the design shape and dimensions. The cusp

effect should cause the structure to receive very low ratings on the shape inspection if it is a

serious problem. A cocked seam can result in loss of backfill and may reduce the ultimate

ring compression strength of the seam.

(3) Seam Cracking ‐ Cracking along the bolt‐holes of longitudinal seams can be serious

depending upon the location and if allowed to progress. As cracking progresses, the plate


Page 275

may be completely severed and

the ring compression capability

of the seam lost. This could

result in deformation or

possible failure of the structure.

Longitudinal cracks are most

serious when accompanied by

significant deflection, distortion,

and other conditions indicative of backfill or soil problems. Longitudinal cracks are caused by

excessive bending strain, usually the result of deflection. Cracking may occasionally be

caused by improper erection practices such as using bolting force to “lay down” a badly

cocked seam.

(4) Bolt Tipping ‐ The bolted seams in structural plate culverts only develop their ultimate

strength under compression. Bolt tipping occurs when the plates slip. As the plates begin to

slip, the bolts tip, and the bolt‐holes are plastically elongated by the bolt shank. High

compressive stress is required to cause bolt tipping. Structures have rarely been designed

with loads high enough to produce a ring compression that will cause bolt tip. However,

seams should be examined for bolt tip particularly in structures under higher fills. Excessive

compression on a seam could result in plate deformations around the tipped bolts and

failure is reached when the bolts are eventually pulled through the plates.

Figure 194 ‐ Culvert Seam Failure

Corrugated Metal, Concrete ‐ Joints are rated for factory pipe and serve to maintain the water

conveyance of the culvert from section to section, to keep the pipe sections in alignment, keep the

backfill soil from infiltrating, and to help prevent sections from pulling apart.

Concrete Precast Seams – Look for offset, infiltration, exfiltration and exposed backfill.


Page 276

Figure 195 ‐ Concrete Seam Vertical Offset

Figure 196 ‐ Concrete Seam Vertical Offset

Figure 197 ‐ Concrete Seam Gap/Longitudinal‐Offset


Page 277

Headwalls/End walls ‐ or Wingwalls are designed to retain the embankment, prevent the water from

undermining the culvert ends, prevent piping around the culvert, and improve the hydraulic capacity of

the culvert. Culvert barrels are commonly constructed with headwalls and wingwalls. These

appurtenances are often made of cast‐in‐place concrete but can also be constructed of precast

concrete, corrugated metal, timber, steel sheet piling, or gabions. Headwalls are used to shorten the

culvert length, maintain the fill material, and reduce erosion of the embankment slope. Headwalls also

provide structural protection to inlets and outlets and act as a counterweight to offset buoyant forces.

Headwalls tend to inhibit flow of water along the outside surface of the conduit (piping).

Wingwalls can be used to hydraulic advantage for box culverts by maintaining the approach velocity and

alignment, and improving the inlet configuration. However, their major advantage is structural in

Table 102 ‐ Moisture Infiltration Concrete Seam


Page 278

eliminating erosion around a headwall. Additional protection against flotation is provided by the weight

of the wingwalls.

Cutoff walls can provide protection from erosion, either at the inlet or outlet of a culvert. They can also

be the first step in controlling piping or seepage problems, prior to considering more extensive anti‐seep

collars

The inlets and outlets of culverts may require protection to withstand the hydraulic forces exerted

during peak flows. Inlet ends of flexible pipe culverts, which are not adequately protected or anchored,

may be subject to entrance failures due to buoyant forces. The outlet may require energy dissipaters to

control erosion and scour and to protect downstream properties. High outlet velocities may cause scour,

Table 104 ‐ Inspection and Prevention of Undercutting is Essential for CMPs


Page 279

which undermines the end wall, wingwalls, and culvert barrel. This erosion can cause end‐section drop‐

off in rigid sectional pipe culverts.

Seepage along the outside of the culvert barrel may remove supporting material. This process is referred

to as “piping”, since a hollow cavity similar to a pipe is often formed. Piping can also occur through open

joints. Piping is controlled by reducing the amount and velocity of water seeping along the outside of the

culvert barrel. This may require watertight joints and in some cases anti‐seep collars. Good backfill

material and adequate compaction of that material are also important.

All headwalls, end walls, or wingwalls are checked for deterioration, settlement, undercutting and signs

of failure. End treatments should be inspected like any other structural component. Their effectiveness

can directly affect the performance of the culvert.

Check for evidence of scour or undermining around footings and at inlet and outlet of culvert.

Stone end treatment types use wingwalls to retain the

embankment around the opening. Check stone masonry

piers for mortar cracks, water and vegetation in the cracks,

and for spalled, split, loose, or missing stones. Wingwalls

should be inspected to ensure they are in proper vertical

alignment. Wingwalls may be tilted due to settlement, slides,

or scour. Refer to the abutment section for rating guidelines for masonry wingwalls. The most common

types of end treatments for culverts are:

Projections

Mitered

Pipe end section

Concrete wall type (half or full height)

Projections ‐ The inspector should indicate the location and extent of any undercutting around the ends

of the barrel. The depth of any scouring should be measured with a probing rod. In low flow conditions

scour holes have a tendency to fill up with debris or sediment. If no probing rod is used an inspector

could mistakenly report less scour than has taken place.


Page 280

Mitered Ends ‐ Inspection items for mitered ends are the same as for projecting ends. Additional care

should be taken to measure any deformation of the end. Mitering the end of corrugated pipe culvert

reduces its structural capacity.

Pipe End Sections ‐ These are typically used on relatively smaller culverts. For inspection purposes, treat

the pipe end section as you would a projected end.

The inspection locations and procedures for most wingwalls are similar to those listed in the abutment

section. Many of the problems that occur in abutments are also common in wingwalls, including:

1. Vertical movement

2. Lateral movement

3. Rotational movement

4. Material defects

5. Scour

6. Drainage systems

Note: The rating for this item requires some judgment on the part of the inspector as to the importance

of the item. A headwall that is located close to the edge of the road that is acting to retain the road

embankment and an integral wingwall should both govern the rating. The majority of endwalls and

headwalls should not govern the rating.

Culvert Scour is the removal of material from the streambed or embankment as a result of the erosive

action of stream flow. The inspector is most concerned about local scour, or the scouring and

undermining of the material at or around the substructure unit. Finding and monitoring and properly

coding undermining and scour progression is of the upmost concern. Lateral stream migration, or

restricted waterway openings will be considered within the Channel condition rating. These items may

influence the item. For example a debris field on the inlet restricts the waterway and it also increases

stream velocity at the pier and depth of the scour.

Note the difference if a culvert has Spread Footing or Unknown Foundation and the Deep Foundation

scour scales as they can greatly affect the condition ratings. The severity of the condition rating depends

on whether the footing is on erodible soil, rock, erodible shale or on piles. Scour can occur in stages

beginning with the exposure of the top of the footing, then the vertical face and then finally lead to

undermining. It is very important to record dimensions of exposed footings (length, height, depth,

location) so the next inspection will be able to monitor change. Consideration shall be given to making

a Cross Channel Profile, Appendix., to track quantitative change.


Page | 281

Water flowing along the outside of a culvert can remove

supporting material. This is referred to as piping and it

can lead to the culvert end being unsupported or worse

failure. If not repaired in time, piping can cause

cantilevered end portions of the culvert to bend down

and restrict stream flow. Inspect for head‐cuts or

knickpoints downstream that could move and influence the structure.

Where the water level during low flow is deeper than 5‐feet at any substructure unit an underwater

inspection is necessary. Update the Underwater Inspection date within every 60 months per the NBIS.

Do not enter a culvert more than 1/3 full of water. Also update item #113 Scour Critical as appropriate

(ex. Bridge inspectors can bring down the

scour critical rating to a 4, 2, 1 or 0 based

on field observations). Scour POA (for

Scour Critical Bridges – coded 3, 2, 1 or 0)

template is available in the Appendix. and

a Scour Critical Assessment Checklist guide

is also available in Appendix. This may be

used and placed in the bridge file to justify

an assessment when calculations are not

used to adjust the Scour Critical item.

Undermining ‐ Exposure of the underside of the

footing (ex. upstream side of the footing shown) or

Scour of three‐sided box.

Figure 198 ‐ Knick point

Figure 199 ‐ Undermining


Page | 282

Culvert Abutment ‐ An abutment is a substructure unit located at the ends of the bridge‐culvert. Its function is to provide end support for the structure and to retain the approach embankment.

Inspection procedures for abutments involve material deterioration and settlement. However, because

stability is a paramount concern, checking for various forms of movement is required. The most

common problems observed during the inspection of abutments are:

1. Vertical movement

2. Lateral movement

3. Rotational movement

4. Material defects

5. Scour of the foundation

6. Drainage system malfunction Culvert Summary – Allow the lowest bolt box to influence the summary.


1‐Good

9‐Excellent

8‐Very Good

7‐Good


5‐Fair

3‐Poor 4‐Poor

3‐Serious


Figure 200 ‐ Bridge‐Culvert Abutment


Page | 283

ChannelItems

The channel items describe the physical conditions associated with the flow of water under or through

the structure, such as stream stability and the condition of the channel, riprap, and slope protection. Be

particularly concerned with visible signs of excessive water velocity, which may affect undermining of

slope protection or footings, erosion of banks, and realignment of the stream, which may result in

immediate or potential problems. Headcuts, accumulation of drift and debris on the superstructure and

substructure should be noted on the inspection.

Upstream and Downstream (Left and Right)

Minimum walking limits include the furthest of the two distances:

Within the influence of the structure, this will include a 1:1 slope plane from the bearing area

(where bearings do not exist, the point where the superstructure meet the substructure)

If a history of unstable hydraulic conditions exists then inspect 100‐ft Upstream and

Downstream (ie. Channel Items, Scour Items, Damaged Hydraulic Structures coded “Poor”)

Beyond the walking limits visually sight a reasonable distance upstream and downstream to note any

hazards or potential hazards in the maintenance needs and comments accordingly but do not include

them in the condition rating.

Photos upstream and downstream at periodic inspections help greatly in visually monitoring alignment

change. With each inspection, the streambed in relation to bridge substructure units should be carefully

inspected (ex. photos, surveys, sketches) to determine the degree of scour that has developed over

time. By referring to this history of change in scour, it can be determined when scour mitigation action

must be taken. The channel should align with and cause the stream to flow through the center of the

structure. The channel alignment is intended to note changes in the channel that cause the flow or

channel to shift over time. Culverts may have more than one channel flowing to the inlet such as ditches

alongside the roadway. The channel alignment shall be governed by worst case.


Page | 284

The bridge may be threatened from lateral scour of the embankments upstream and at the bridge

opening.

Lateral embankment scour occurs in four stages:

1. Bank Damage is the onset of lateral stream migration. The toe of slope of the embankment will

exhibit lateral scour and the bank protection in general will be failing.

2. Sloughing Bank is the next level of bank damage where lateral scour has removed enough toe of

slope that the bank slides down into the channel. This occurs most often when banks are

unprotected alluvium.

3. Undermined Bank is an advanced state of lateral scour where the overbank area is undercut.

The original embankment slope is gone. This occurs because the bank and/or overbank

protection at the surface is able to support itself without the underlying bank material.

4. Channel Misalignment is an adverse channel offset where the stream‐flow now impacts one of

the bridge abutments or flows through the waterway under the bridge at a skew angle

incompatible with the span opening(s). This results when earlier stages of lateral stream

migration are allowed to advance unchecked, and leads to local scour conditions that result in

undermining and substructure distress.

CHANNEL ITEMS Code

c51. Alignment (LF) ded 1, 2, 3, 4

c52. Protection (LF) ded 1, 2, 3, 4

c53. Hydraulic Opening (EA) ded 1, 2, 3, 4

c54. Navigation Lights (EA) ded 1, 2, 3, 4

N61. Channel Summary 9‐0

Table 105 ‐ Channel Items Figure 201 ‐ Channel Alignment


Page | 285

Channel Alignment – Note and rate misalignment as it relates its change since the previous inspection.

Consider its effect on public safety and structural capacity. Inspectors must consider performing a

Cross‐Channel Profile. Proactive maintenance will go a long way in protecting against channel

misalignment.

Figure 202 ‐ Channel Alignment

Channel Protection ‐ Note and rate the condition of all channel protection

upstream and downstream of the structure including vegetation.

Figure 203 ‐ Undermined Channel Protection


Page | 286

Hydraulic Opening ‐ Contraction scour and stream bed degradation can be increased due to inadequate

waterway areas in the bridge vicinity. The geometry, the amount of debris carried by the channel during

high water periods, and the adequacy of freeboard should be considered in determining waterway

adequacy. Check for scour of the stream bed, banks, formation of sandbars, or debris, which could

change the direction of flow, or other obstructions, which could influence the adequacy of the waterway

opening. Inspect downstream for “head cuts” or waterfalls approaching the outlet.

Accumulation of drift and debris should be noted on the inspection form and included in the condition

rating. Some culverts installed in recent years were intentionally placed below the normal streambed

elevation. This is done to allow for future cleanouts of ditches or streams or to promote the formation

of a natural stream bottom. It is often required in some streams for migratory fish species. The burial of

the invert should be noted in the construction plans on the culvert detail sheets. When inspecting one

of these structures, the rating codes should be adjusted accordingly. Inspectors shall update Inventory

Item Waterway Adequacy to coincide with this rating. Reduction in the waterway opening is since the

“as‐built” condition.

Figure 204 ‐ Hydraulic Opening


Page | 287

When there is a history of overtopping update the Inventory Item ‘Waterway Adequacy’ and use the

following guidance:

Overtops every 3 years – Severe/Critical

Overtops every 10 years ‐ Poor

Overtopped more than 10 years ago – Fair

Before ‐ CS 2 After – CS 4

Pier 2 = CS 3 Pier 1 = CS 2

Figure 205 ‐ Hydraulic Opening


Page | 288

Navigation Lights ‐ Verify that navigation lights are in place, functioning and securely fastened for bridges over navigable waterways.

Determine whether all required navigation lights are operating and properly attached. Examine the

lighting fixtures for condition, visibility, electrical connections and security of attachment to insure

uninterrupted service.

Channel Summary ‐ This is a conversion of the lowest 1‐4

approach item.

The summary shall be influenced by scour susceptibility,

undermining, change since as‐built condition and the safety of

the traveling public.


1‐Good

9‐Excellent

8‐Very Good

7‐Good


5‐Fair

3‐Poor 4‐Poor

3‐Serious


Table 106‐ Channel Summary

Figure 206 ‐ Debris Pile Influencing Alignment and Scour


Page | 289

SignandUtilityItems

This rating is for regulatory, warning and guide signs and that are

specific to the bridge, on or over to the bridge.

Regulatory signs give notice of traffic laws or regulations and are

typically black text with white notes, but may use a combination of red

and white text and/or notes.

Warning signs give notice of a situation that might not be readily apparent and are black text with

yellow notes.

Guide signs show route designations, destinations, directions, distances, services, points of interest and

other geographical, recreational, or cultural information.


Page | 290

Inspectors must:

Ensure that weight limit signs and vertical clearance signs match the inventory and are in place

when required.

Verify and record changes in

o clearances and

o capacity on controlling structural members

Note any resurfacing of the roadway that could impact the vertical clearance

Inspect signs for legibility and condition, include any affixed to the bridge or any advance warning signs

about the bridge (note that engineering‐grade signs generally fade before diamond‐grade signs and

those signs in the shade/facing ‐north will last longer than those in the sun). Inspectors shall verify that

the signing is visible at the bridge site, correctly represented in the inventory and effective (ensure that

all signs account for summer foliage, mounting height provides visibility, condition of the sign does not

obscure lettering or numbering etc.). To be effective a sign should meet five basic requirements:

A. Fulfill a need;

B. Command attention;

C. Convey a clear, simple meaning;

D. Command respect from road users; and

E. Give adequate time for proper response.

Inspectors must take detailed notes and preferably photos of all Posting Signs and Vertical Clearance

Signs especially when discrepancies exist in the inventory.

All bridge mounted sign supports will be inspected for

deterioration and security of connection.

The sign inspections will be primarily visual with advanced

NDT being required only if a defect is first noted visually. The

inspections should concentrate primarily on the sign support

anchor bolts. The attachments for signs attached to the

outside of parapets should also be inspected for integrity

including vibration, cracks, and loose nuts or missing nuts.

Attachments or connections not easily accessible within

Figure 207 – Example of Sign Support


Page | 291

"arm's reach" should be "eyeballed" or inspected with binoculars from

the bridge deck. It is not expected that the Inspector climb the sign

supports to perform the inspection. However, any defects noted as a

result of the above‐noted actions should be inspected carefully or

immediately reported to the appropriate personnel for a hands‐on

inspection.

Utilities All bridge mounted utility supports for gas, electric, water,

telephone, lighting, etc. will be inspected for deterioration and security

of connection. Additionally, the utilities themselves should be inspected

for deterioration, loose connections, bare wires, etc. Any defects, major leaks, odors etc. noted should

be reported to the appropriate utility owner.

Figure 208 ‐ Utility on Bridge


Page | 292

Operational Status of the bridge should be coded using the following:

"A" Open, no restriction

"B" Open, posting recommended but not legally implemented (all signs not in place)

Inspectors shall verify that the restriction signing is clear at the bridge site and correctly

represented in the inventory. When the necessary signs are not in place or the posting

recommended in the inventory by the load rating engineer is less than the actual field

conditions i.e., no signs exist when a posting is recommended or the posting in the field

does not match with the inventory (a B shall not be used if the sign is non‐compliant

with the OMUTCD), the inspector shall ensure proper action is taken as soon as possible.

Inspectors shall code the Operational Status “B” and the weight restriction signs shall be

remedied at the bridge site no later than 90 days from the date of discovery. It will be

the responsibility of the Program Manager to verify that posting signs are in place and

the inspector will update the Operational Status at the next regularly scheduled

inspection.

“C” Under construction with portions of the bridge open to traffic (ex. half‐width construction)

"D" Open, would be posted or closed except for temporary shoring, etc. to allow for unrestricted

traffic

"E" Open, temporary structure in place to carry legal loads while original structure is closed and

awaiting replacement or rehabilitation.

"G" New structure not yet open to traffic

"K" Bridge closed to all traffic

"P" Posted for load‐carrying capacity restriction (may include other restrictions)

Load Posting Signs: Verify that the Load Rating Sign matches the posted signage.

Bridges on State Routes are posted based any of the four Ohio Legal Loads Operating

Rating Factor is less than 100% (after rounding). Inspectors are to compare with the

inventory with the field conditions and ensure the inventory is the same as the field

condition.

"R" Posted for other load‐carrying capacity restriction (ex.NO TRUCKS, Signage

indicates a Speed reductions or the number of vehicles on the bridge to reduce impact to the

structure).

"X" Bridge closed for reasons other than condition or load‐carrying capacity.


Page | 293

SupplementalItems

If inspecting a post‐tensioned, suspension, movable or cable‐stayed bridge, the supplemental form must be

used. The applicable Items on the standard Field Inspection Report are to be filled out as well as the

Supplemental form. The Supplemental Summary is a 9‐0 Item and it is influenced by the worst 1‐4 individual

item. The General Appraisal is the lowest of the Superstructure, Substructure or Supplemental Summary.


Page | 294

Post Tensioned Cap ‐ Check for

misalignment; evidence of leakage,

secure connections.

Post Tensioned Segmental Box

Interior‐ Check for deficiencies on the

interior face of each PT box.

Post Tensioned Segmental Box Exterior ‐

Check for deficiencies on the exterior

face of each PT box.

Post Tensioned External Tendon ‐

Check the PT Tendons that are not

embedded in web walls for proper

function.

Figure 209 ‐ PT End Cap

Figure 210 ‐ PT Box Exterior Faces

Figure 211 ‐ PT External Tendons and PT Segmental Box Interior Faces


Page | 295

Suspension Bridge

Main Cables ‐ The large cables or eyebar chains

which are draped over the towers and bent

posts and from which the superstructure is

suspended from make up the main cables.

Check these cables for evidence of broken

wires and leakage from within. Occasionally

(once every 10 years) portions of the main

cables should be unwrapped and checked for

the above noted deficiencies as well as general

condition (paint, rust, etc.).

Suspenders‐ The generally vertical wire cables,

metal rods or bars designed to engage a cable

band or other device connecting them to the

main suspension cable at one end and to the

suspended superstructure at the other end,

thus permitting them to assist in supporting

the bridge floor system and it’s superimposed loads by

transferring loads to the main suspension members of the

structure. The suspenders support other members against sagging, twisting, or other deformation due

to its own weight. Check for worn or broken wires and relative tension in adjacent suspenders.

Figure 212 ‐ Main Cable Sheathing Removal In‐Depth Inspection


Page | 296

Cable Bands ‐The clamps are around the main cables over which the suspenders are looped. Check for

missing bolts, looseness of band, and evidence of downhill slippage, lack of caulking between bands and

main cables, and rotation of the band on the main cable.

Figure 213 ‐ Suspension Bridge Tower

Suspender Connections ‐ The suspender ends or sockets which are attached to the superstructure. Look

for evidence of disintegrated or frayed wires at the sockets. Also check the integrity of the bracket which

is attached to the superstructure. Look for affects from debris and rust‐through of any connections in

the splash zone.


Page | 297

Towers ‐ A large pier or frame extending well above the roadway and serving to support the cables or

chains of a suspension type bridge at the ends of the main span. Check the base connections for

integrity. Carefully check all areas subject to drainage and splash.

Tower Saddles ‐ The saddles at the top of the towers in which the main cables rest. Check for evidence

of movement of the main cable within the saddle and proper caulking.

Bent Posts ‐ The shorter towers at the ends of the bridge which support the main cable or chain.

Generally, the cable or chain is nearly horizontal at this point and then abruptly changes direction and

goes immediately down to the anchorages. Check for evidence of movement, deterioration in the

splash zone. and integrity of the base connections.

Anchorage ‐ The point at which the cable or chain terminates in the foundation. Check for broken and

rusted wires where they are splayed and looped around pins and eyebars. Also check eyebars for section

loss where they are embedded in the concrete. Check for unusual dampness or standing water.

Gears ‐ Check for misalignment; tooth wear; evidence of lubrication.

Shafts ‐ Check for wear; vibration; cracks.

Bearings ‐ Check for evidence of wear; vibration; adequate lubrication.

Electric Motors ‐ Make continuity/resistance tests.

Auxiliary Engines ‐ Check for ease of starting; lubrication.

Center Locks ‐ Check for proper engagement, lubrication, wear, cracks.

Tail Locks ‐ Check for proper engagement, lubrication, wear, cracks.

Wire Ropes ‐ Check for broken or frayed ropes.


Page | 298

Reducers ‐ Check for lubrication, gear alignment, tooth wear.

Sockets ‐ Check for evidence of slippage; corrosion of wire rope where it enters socket.

Span Balance ‐ Check for smoothness of operation, excessive impact upon closure.

Buffers ‐ Check for proper operation, excessive wear, fluid leakage.

Transformers ‐ Check for leakage; make appropriate electrical tests.

Couplings ‐ Check for tightness.

Circuit Breakers ‐ Test for proper operation.

Limit Switches ‐ Test for proper operation.

Traffic Gates/Lights ‐ Check operation, visibility, damage, wear.

General Operation ‐ Check for smoothness of operation, housekeeping.

Deck Anchorage Check the section where the cable transitions from the diameter change of the sheath

into the surface of the deck including the surrounding anchorage zone in the deck top surface. Carefully

check all connections, collars, fluted sections, areas subject to drainage and splash. Inspectors, when

the PT cap is visible should also rate the applicable PT Items.

Tower Anchorage ‐ Check the tower connections or saddles of the main cables beginning where the

cable transitions from the diameter change of the sheath into the surface

of the tower including the anchorage zone in the tower surface. Carefully

check all areas connections, collars and fluted sections.

Dampeners ‐ Check the alignment, secure connections and proper

function of the entire dampener assembly and connection.

Figure 214 ‐ Dampener


Page | 299

Wind Ties ‐ Check the alignment, secure connections, evidence of movement and proper function.

Sheathing ‐ Check the outer protection for integrity.

Cable Alignment ‐ Check for global alignment and localized kinks.

Cable Condition ‐ Check for overall integrity.

Figure 215 ‐ Veterans Glass City Skyway Cable Stay


Page | 300