AASHTO-LRFR 2005

8/13/2019 AASHTO-LRFR 2005

1/444

yright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officialsded by IHS under license with AASHTO Licensee=Parsons Brinckerhoff 49 loc/5960396001

Not for Resale, 08/04/2006 06:37:33 MDTeproduction or networking permitted without license from I HS

--`,

`,

``,,

``,

``,

`,

`,,

``,

`,,,,

``-`-`,,

`,,

`,

`,,

`---

8/13/2019 AASHTO-LRFR 2005

2/444



8/13/2019 AASHTO-LRFR 2005

3/444


Not for Resale, 08/04/2006 06:37:33 MDTeproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS

--`,`,``,,``,``,`,`,,``,`,,,,``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

8/13/2019 AASHTO-LRFR 2005

4/444



--`,

`,

``,,

``,

``,

`,

`,,

``,

`,,,,

``-`-`,,

`,,

`,

`,,

`---

8/13/2019 AASHTO-LRFR 2005

5/444



8/13/2019 AASHTO-LRFR 2005

6/444



8/13/2019 AASHTO-LRFR 2005

7/444



--`,`,``,,``,``,`,`,,``,`,,,,``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

8/13/2019 AASHTO-LRFR 2005

8/444



--`,`,``,,``,``,`,`,,``,`,,,,``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

8/13/2019 AASHTO-LRFR 2005

9/444


Not for Resale, 08/04/2006 06:37:33 MDTeproduction or networking permitted without license fr om IHS

--`,`,``,,``,``,`,`,,``,`,,,,``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

8/13/2019 AASHTO-LRFR 2005

10/444


Not for Resale, 08/04/2006 06:37:33 MDTeproduction or networking permitted without license fr om IHS

--`,

`,

``,,

``,

``,

`,

`,,

``,

`,,,,

``-`-`,,

`,,

`,

`,,

`---

8/13/2019 AASHTO-LRFR 2005

11/444ISBN: 1-56051-283-0 Publ. Code: LRFR-1

GUIDEMANUAL FORCONDITIONEVALUATION AND

LOAD ANDRESISTANCE

FACTORRATING(LRFR)

OFHIGHWAYBRIDGES

GUIDEMANUAL FORCONDITIONEVALUATION AND

LOAD ANDRESISTANCE

FACTORRATING(LRFR)

OFHIGHWAYBRIDGES

JUNE

2003

AMERICANASSOCIATION OFSTATEHIGHWAY ANDTRANSPORTATIONOFFICIALS

JUNE2003

AMERICANASSOCIATION OFSTATEHIGHWAY ANDTRANSPORTATIONOFFICIALS

ISBN: 1-56051-283-0 Publ. Code: LRFR-1yright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officialsded by IHS under license with AASHTO Licensee=Parsons Brinckerhoff 49 loc/5960396001Not for Resale, 08/04/2006 06:37:33 MDTeproduction or networking permitted without license from I HS

--`,

`,

``,,

``,

``,

`,

`,,

``,

`,,,,

``-`-`,,

`,,

`,

`,,

`---

8/13/2019 AASHTO-LRFR 2005

12/444

GUIDEMANUAL FORCONDITIONEVALUATION

ANDLOAD ANDRESISTANCEFACTORRATING(LRFR) OFHIGHWAYBRIDGES

GUIDEMANUAL FORCONDITIONEVALUATION

ANDLOAD ANDRESISTANCEFACTORRATING(LRFR) OFHIGHWAYBRIDGES

8/13/2019 AASHTO-LRFR 2005

13/444

Copyright 2003, by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.All Rights Reserved. This book, or parts thereof, may not be reproduced in any formwithout written permission of the publisher. Printed in the United States of America.

ISBN: 1-56051-283-0 Publ. Code: LRFR-1

GUIDE MANUAL FOR CONDITION EVALUATION

AND LOAD AND RESISTANCE FACTOR RATING

(LRFR) OF HIGHWAY BRIDGES

JUNE 2003

AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF STATE HIGHWAY AND TRANSPORTATION OFFICIALS



8/13/2019 AASHTO-LRFR 2005

14/444



--`,`,``,,``,``,`,`,,``,`,,,,``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

8/13/2019 AASHTO-LRFR 2005

15/444

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE2003-2004

Voting MembersOfficers:

President: John R. Njord, UtahVice President: J. Bryan Nicol, IndianaSecretary-Treasurer: Larry M. King, Pennsylvania

Regional Representatives:REGION I: James Byrnes, Connecticut, One-Year TermAllen Biehler, Pennsylvania,Two-Year TermREGION II: Whittington W. Clement, Virginia, One-Year TermFernando Fagundo, Puerto Rico, Two-Year TermREGION III: Mark F. Wandro, Iowa, One-Year TermGloria Jeff, Michigan, Two-Year TermREGION IV: Michael W . Behrens, Texas, One-Year TermTom Norton, Colorado, Two-Year Term

Nonvoting MembersImmediate Past President: James C. Codell, III, KentuckyAASHTO Executive Director: John Horsley, Washington,D.C.

iiiyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officialsded by IHS under license with AASHTO Licensee=Parsons Brinckerhoff 49 loc/5960396001Not for Resale, 08/04/2006 06:37:33 MDTeproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS

--`,`,

``,,``,``,`,`,,``,`,,,,``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

8/13/2019 AASHTO-LRFR 2005

16/444

HIGHWAY SUBCOMMITTEE ON BRIDGES AND STRUCTURES2002TOM LULAY, OREGON, Chai rmanSANDRA LARSON, Vice Chairman

JAMES D. COOPER, Federal Highway Administration, Secretary

ALABAMA, William F. Conway, George H. ConnorALASKA, Richard A. PrattARIZONA, F. Daniel DavisARKANSAS, Phil BrandCALIFORNIA, Richard LandCOLORADO, Mark A. LeonardCONNECTICUT, Gordon BartonDELAWARE, Doug Finney, Dennis O'SheaD.C., Donald CooneyFLORIDA,William N. NickasGEORGIA, Paul Liles, Brian SummersHAWAII, Paul SantoIDAHO, atthew M. FarrarILLINOIS, Ralph E. AndersonINDIANA, Mary JOHammanIOWA, Norman L. McDonaldKANSAS, Kenneth F. Hurst, Loren R. RischKENTUCKY, StephenE. GoodpasterLOUISIANA, Hossein Ghara, Mark J. MorvantMAINE, James E. TukeyMARYLAND, Earle S. FreedmanMASSACHUSETTS, Alexander K. BardowMICHIGAN, Steve BeckMINNESOTA, Dan Dorgan, Kevin WesternMISSISSIPPI, Harry Lee JamesMISSOURI, Shyam GuptaMONTANA, William S. FullertonNEBRASKA, Lyman D. FreemonNEVADA, William C. Crawford, Jr.NEW HAMPSHIRE, Mark RichardsonNEW JERSEY, Harry A. Capers, Jr., Richard W.

NEW MEXICO, Jimmy D. CampNEW YORK, James OConnell, George A. ChristianNORTH CAROLINA, Gregory R. PerfettieNORTH DAKOTA, Terry UdlandOHIO, Timothy KellerOKLAHOMA, Robert J. Rusch, Veldo GoinsOREGON, Mark E. HirotaPENNSYLVANIA,R. cott ChristiePUERTO RICO, Jamie Cabre

Dunne

RHODE ISLAND, Kazem FarhoumandSOUTH CAROLINA, Randy R. Cannon, Jeff SizemoreSOUTH DAKOTA, John ColeTENNESSEE, Ed WassermanTEXAS, Mary Lou RallsU.S. DOT, Nick E. MprasUTAH, David NazareVERMONT, James McCarthyVIRGINIA, Malcolm T. KerleyWASHINGTON, Jerry Weigel, Tony M. AllenWEST VIRGINIA, James SothenWISCONSIN, Stanley W. WoodsWYOMING, Gregg C. Fredrick, Keith R. FultonALBERTA, Dilip K. Dasmohapatra, Bob RamseyMANITOBA, Ismail ElkholyNORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS,John C.NEW BRUNSWICK, David CogswellNORTHAMPTON, R. . HughesNORTHWEST TERRITORIES, John BowerNOVA SCOTIA, Alan MacRae, Mark PertONTARIO, VacantSASKATCHEWAN, Herv Bachelu

Pangalinan

MASS. METRO. DIST. COMM., David LenhardtN.J. TURNPIKE AUTHORITY, Richard RaczynskiN.Y. STATE BRIDGE AUTHORITY, WilliamPORT AUTHORITY OF N.Y. AND N.J., Joseph

BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS, Wade CaseyMILITARY TRAFFIC MANAGEMENTU.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS-U.S. COAST GUARD, Jacob Patnaik

MoreauJ. Kelly, Joseph Zitelli

COMMAND, Robert D. FranzDEPARTMENT OFTHEARMY, aul C. T.Tan

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE-FOREST SERVICE, Nelson Hernandez

ivyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officialsded by IHS under license with AASHTO Licensee=Parsons Brinckerhoff 49 loc/5960396001


- - `

`

` `

` `

` `

`

`

` `

`

` ` - ` - `

`

`

`

` - - -

8/13/2019 AASHTO-LRFR 2005

17/444

v

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The first edition of any technical publication is especially labor intensive. AASHTOs HighwaySubcommittee on Bridges and Structures gratefully acknowledges the many contributions made in the preparation

of this new title by Mr. Bala Sivakumar, P.E., and his associates at Lichtenstein Consulting Engineers, Inc.



--`,`,``,,``,``,`,`,,``,`,,,,``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

8/13/2019 AASHTO-LRFR 2005

18/444

vi

EDITORS NOTE

For ease of reading and reference, figures, tables, and equations have been numbered sequentially within eachsection, rather than by article number. For additional convenience, the table of contents for each section includes

lists of any figures and tables with their page numbers. Under this system, a point numbering system will be used

for any figures, tables, or equations that are added via interim revision.

This numbering system was intended be used in the third edition of the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design

Specifications. Section-referent LRFD figure, table, and equation numbers are cited throughout this publication.

Unfortunately, it was necessary to revert to the old numbering system in LRFD.The AASHTO Publicationsstaff apologizes for the inconvenience and asks that you please refer to the table of LRFD citations below:

Object Type LRFD Cited Here

Section 3

Table 3.4.1-1 3-1

Table 3.4.1-2 3-2

Table 3.5.1-1 3-3

Table 3.6.1.1.2-1 3-4

Table 3.6.1.4.2-1 3-5

Table 3.6.2.1-1 3-6

Section 4

Table 4.6.2.2.1-1 4-4Table C4.6.2.2.1-1 C4-1

Table 4.6.2.2.2a-1 4-5

Table 4.6.2.2.2b-1 4-6

Table 4.6.2.2.2c-1 4-7

Table 4.6.2.2.2d-1 4-8

Table 4.6.2.2.3a-1 4-11

Table 4.6.2.2.3b-1 4-12

Table 4.6.2.2.3d-1 4-13

Equation (4.6.2.2.2a-1) (4-16)

Equation (4.6.2.2.1-1) (4-14)

Equation (4.6.2.3-1) (4-18)

Section 5Table 5.4.4.1-1 5-2

Table 5.8.3.4.2-1 5-5

Table 5.9.3-1 5-7

Table 5.9.5.3-1 5-12

Figure C5.8.3.4.2-5 C5-19

Equation (5.4.2.4-1) (5-5)

Equation (5.5.4.2.1-2) (5-8)

Equation (5.7.3.1.1-1) (5-16)

Equation (5.7.3.1.1-4) (5-19)

Equation (5.7.3.2.2-1) (5-25)

Equation (5.7.3.3.1-1) (5-26)

Equation (5.8.2.9-1) (5-65)Equation (C5.8.2.9-1) (C5-9)

Equation (5.8.3.3-1) (5-66)

Equation (5.8.3.3-3) (5-68)

Equation (5.8.3.3-4) (5-69)

Equation (5.8.3.4.2-1) (5-70)

Equation (5.8.3.4.2-3) (5-72)

Equation (5.8.3.5-1) (5-74)

Object Type LRFD Cited Here

Equation (5.11.4.2-1) (5-136)

Section 6

Table 6.6.1.2.3-1 6-3

Table 6.6.1.2.5-1 6-5

Table 6.6.1.2.5-2 6-6

Table 6.6.1.2.5-3 6-7

Table 6.9.4.2-1 6-10

Figure 6.6.1.2.3-1 6-1

Figure C6.10.4-1 n/a *Figure C6.10.4-2 n/a *

Figure C6.10.7.1-1 n/a *

Equation (6.8.2.1-1) (6-9)

Equation (6.8.2.1-2) (6-10)

Equation (6.9.2.1-1) (6-14)

Equation (6.9.2.2-1) (6-15)

Equation (6.9.2.2-2) (6-16)

Equation (6.9.4.2-1) (6-20)

Equation (6.9.4.1-1) (6-17)

Equation (6.9.4.1-2) (6-18)

Equation (6.10.2.2-1) (6-54)

Equation (6.10.4.1.2-1) n/a *Equation (6.10.4.2.3-4) n/a *

Equation (6.10.4.2.3-5) n/a *

Equation (6.10.4.2.3-6) n/a *

Equation (6.10.7.3.3a-4) n/a *

Equation (6.10.7.3.3a-5) n/a *

Equation (6.10.7.3.3a-6) n/a *

Equation (6.10.7.3.3a-7) n/a *

Equation (6.10.7.3.3a-8) n/a *

Equation (6.10.7.3.3b-1) n/a *

Equation (6.10.7.3.3b-2) n/a *

Equation (6.10.7.3.3b-3) n/a *

Section 8Table 8.4.1.1.4-1 8-1

Table 8.4.1.1.4-2 8-2

Table 8.4.4.2-1 8-7

Equation (8.4.4.1-1) (8-1)

Equation (8.6.2-1) (8-7)

Equation (8.7-2) (8-14)

Note: Entire articles 6.10 and 6.11 are being replaced. In 3rdEdition, similar materials in Appendix C of Section 6.



8/13/2019 AASHTO-LRFR 2005

19/444



8/13/2019 AASHTO-LRFR 2005

20/444

SECT ION 1-INTRODUCTIONTABLE OF CONTENTS

1.1 PURPOSE....................................................................................................................................... 1-11.2 SCOPE........................................................................................................................................... 1-11.3 APPLICABILITY........................................................................................................................... 1-21.4 QUA LITY EASURES.................................................................................................................. 1-21.5 DEFINITIONSND TERMINOLOGY.............................................................................................. 1-31.6 IMPORTANTEFERENCES........................................................................................................... 1-6

1 iyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officialsded by IHS under license with AASHTO Licensee=Parsons Brinckerhoff 49 loc/5960396001


--`,

`,

``,,

``,

``,

`,

`,,

``,

`,,,,

``-`-`,,

`,,

`,

`,,

`---

8/13/2019 AASHTO-LRFR 2005

21/444yright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officialsided by IHS under license with AASHTO Licensee=Parsons Brinckerhoff 49 loc/5960396001


--`,`,``,,` ,``,`,`,,``, ,,,,``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

8/13/2019 AASHTO-LRFR 2005

22/444

SECTIONINTRODUCTION

1.1 PURPOSEThis Manual serves as a standard and providesuniformity in the procedures and policies for

determining the physical condition, maintenanceneeds, and load capacity of the nations highwaybridges.1.2 SCOPE

This Manual has been developed to assistBridge Owners by establishing inspection proce-dures and evaluation practices that meet theNational Bridge Inspection Standards (NBIS). Themanual has been divided into nine sections, witheach section representing a distinct phase of anoverall bridge inspection and evaluation program.Section 1 contains introductory and backgroundinformation on the maintenance inspection ofbridges as well as definitions of general interestterms. Key components of a comprehensive bridgefile are defined in Section 2. The record of eachbridge in the file provides the foundation againstwhich changcs in physical condition can bemeasured. Changes in condition are determined byfield inspections. A bridge management system isan effective tool in allocating limited resources tobridge related activities. An overview of bridgemanagement systems is included in Section 3 . Thetypes and frequency of field inspections are

discussed in Section 4, as are specific inspectiontechniques and requirements. Conditions at a bridgesite or the absence of information from originalconstruction may warrant more elaborate materialtests, and various testing methods are discussed inSection 5. Section 6 sets forth procedures for theevaluation of bridges using the Load and ResistanceFactor method. The evaluation of existing bridgesfor fatigue is discussed in Section 7. Field loadtesting is a means of supplementing analyticalprocedures in determining the live load capacity ofa bridge and for improving the confidence in theassumptions used in modeling the bridge. Load testprocedures are described in Section 8. Section 9 isentitled Special Topics, and deals with theevaluation of masonry bridges and other bridge-related issues.The successful application of this manual isdirectly related to the organizational structureestablished by the Bridge Owner. Such a structureshould be both effective and responsive so that theunique characteristics and special problems ofindividual bridges are considered in developing anappropriate inspection plan and load capacitydetermination.1-1

yright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials

ded by IHS under license with AASHTO Licensee=Parsons Brinckerhoff 49 loc/5960396001Not for Resale, 08/04/2006 06:37:33 MDTeproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS

--`,`,``,,``,``,`,`,,``,`,,,,``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

8/13/2019 AASHTO-LRFR 2005

23/444

1-2 Manual for Condition Evaluation and LRFR of Highway Bridges1.3 APPLICABILITY

The provisions of this Manual apply to allhighway structures which qualifj as bridges inaccordance with the AASHTO definition for abridge (see Article 1.5). These provisions may beapplied to smaller structures which do not qualify asbridges.

1.4 QUALITY MEASUR ESTo maintain the accuracy and consistency o finspections and load ratings, Bridge Owners shouldimplement appropriate quality control and qualityassurance measures. Typical quality control

procedures include the use of checklists to ensureuniformity and completeness, the review of reportsand computations by a person other than theoriginating individual, and the periodic field reviewof inspection teams and their work. Qualiyassurance measures include the overall review ofthe inspection and rating program to ascertain thatthe results meet or exceed the standards establishedby the owning agency.

C1.3At the discretion of the Bridge Owner, theprovisions of this Manual may be applied tohighway bridge structures regardless of span or totallength of bridge.Federal regulations entitled the National

Bridge Inspection Standards (NBIS) have beenpromulgated which establish minimum require-ments for inspection programs and minimumqualifications for bridge inspection personnel. NBISapplies to all bridges on public roads which aremore than 20 feet in length.C1.4

The Quality Control Plan for bridge mainte-nance inspection and evaluation should contain atleast these basic elements:( I ) Level and frequency of reviews for eachmajor activity performed. Proceduresshould be established for preparing andchecking calculations and for preparingand checking drawings.(2) Elements of structures or specific types ofstructures which require special qualitycontrol or emphasis. Approved practicesshould be described, including thesituations in which outside experts (design,construction, materials) should beconsulted.(3) Responsibilities and authorities within theproject team and for the entire unit. Theroutes for approvals and for dispute resolu-tion should be identified. Organizationcharts and decision trees are helpful.(4) Documentation requirements: Number ofcopies, routing and filing procedures.( 5 ) Timetables: Types of activities matched toappropriate response and completion timeperiods.



--`,`,``,,``,``,`,`,,``,`,,,,``-`-`,,`,,`

,`,,`---

8/13/2019 AASHTO-LRFR 2005

24/444

Introduction1.5 DEFINITIONS AND TERM INOLOGYAASHTO-American Association of State Highwayand Transportation Officials, 444 North CapitolStreet,N.W., Suite 249, Washington, DC 20001.As-Built Plans-Plans that show the state of thebridge at the end of construction; usually preparedby the contractor or the resident-engineer.Bias-The ratio of mean to nominal value of arandom variable.Bridge-A structure including supports erected overa depression or an obstruction such as water,highway, or railway, and having a track or passage-way for carrying traffic or other moving loads, andhaving an opening measured along the center of theroadway of more than 20 feet between undercopingsof abutments or spring lines of arches, or extremeends of openings for multiple boxes; it may alsoinclude multiple pipes, where the clear distancebetween openings is less than half of the smallercontiguous opening.Bridge Management System (BMS)-A systemdesigned to optimize the use of available resourcesfor the inspection, maintenance, rehabilitation, andreplacement of bridges.Calibration-A process of adjusting the parametersin a new standard to achieve approximately thesame reliability as exists in a current standard orspecification or to achieve a target reliability index.CoefJient of Variation-The ratio of the standarddeviation to the mean of a random variable.Collapse-A major change in the geometry of thebridge rendering it unfit for use.Condition Rating-The result of the assessment ofthe functional capability and the physical conditionof bridge components by considering the extent ofdeterioration and other defects.Evaluation-An assessment of the performance ofan existing bridge.Evaluator-The qualified engineer responsible forthe evaluation of the bridge.Failure-A condition where a limit state is reachedor exceeded. This may or may not involve collapseor other catastrophic occurrences.FHWA-Federal Highway Administration, U.S.Department of Transportation.Znventoy Level Rating-Generally corresponds tothe rating at the design level of reliability for new



--`,`,``,,``,``,`,`,,``,`,,,,``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

8/13/2019 AASHTO-LRFR 2005

25/444

1-4 Manual for Condition Evaluation and LRFR of Highway Bridgesbridges in the LWD Bridge Design Specifications,but reflects the existing bridge and materialconditions with regard to deterioration and loss ofsection.Limit State-A condition beyond which the bridgeor component ceases to satisfy the criteria for whichit was designed.Load EfSect-The response (axial force, shear force,bending moment, torque) in a member or anelement due to the loading.Load Factor-A load multiplier accounting for thevariability of loads, the lack of accuracy in analysis,and the probability of simultaneous occurrence ofdifferent loads.Load Rating-The determination of the live loadcarrying capacity of an existing bridge.LRFD-Load and Resistance Factor Design.LRFR-Load and Resistance Factor Rating.Margin of Safety-Defined as R-S, where S is themaximum loading and R the correspondingresistance (R and S are assumed to be independentrandom variables).MCE-AASHTO Manual for Condition Evaluationof Bridges (1994).MUTCD-The Manual of Uniform Traffic ControlDevices.National Bridge Inventory (NBI)-The aggregationof structure inventory and appraisal data collected tofulfill the requirements of the National BridgeInspection Standards.National Bridge Inspection Standards (PTBIS)-Federal regulations establishing requirements forinspection procedures, frequency of inspections,qualifications of personnel, inspection reports, andpreparation and maintenance of bridge inventoryrecords. The NBIS apply to all structures defined asbridges located on or over all public roads.NICET-National Institute for Certification inEngineering Technologies.Nominal Resistance-Resistance of a component orconnection to load effects, based on its geometry,permissible stresses, or specified strength ofmaterials.Operating Level Rating-Absolute maximum loadlevel to which a structure may be subjected forlimited passages of the load. Generally corresponds



--`,

`,

``,,

``,

``,

`,

`,,

``,

`,,,,

``-`-`,,

`,,

`,

`,,

`---

8/13/2019 AASHTO-LRFR 2005

26/444

Introduction 1-5to the rating at the Operating level of reliability inpast load rating practice.Owner-Agency having jurisdiction over thebridge.Posting-Signing a bridge for load restriction.Quality Assurance-The use of sampling to ve ri9or measure the level of the entire bridge inspectionand load rating program.Quality Control-System that is intended tomaintain the quality of a bridge inspection and loadrating at or above a specified level.W-Rating Factor.Reliability Index-A computed quantity definingthe relative safety of a structural element orstructure expressed as the number of standarddeviations that the mean of the margin of safetyfalls on the safe side.Resistance Factor-A resistance multiplieraccounting for the variability of material properties,structural dimensions and workmanship, and theuncertainty in the prediction of resistance.Safe Load Capacity-A live load that can safelyutilize a bridge repeatedly over the duration of aspecified inspection cycle.Service Limit State-Limit state relating to stress,deformation, and cracking.ServiceabilikA term that denotes restrictions onstress, deformation, and crack opening underregular service conditions.Serviceability Limit States-Collective term forservice and fatigue limit states.Strength Limit State-Safety limit state relating tostrength and stability.Structure InventoryandAppraisal Sheet (SI&)-Asummary sheet of bridge data required by NBIS. Acopy of the SI&A sheet is contained in theAppendix to Section4.Target Reliabilip-A desired level of reliability(safety) in a proposed evaluation.

yright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officialsded by IHS under license with AASHTO Licensee=Parsons Brinckerhoff 49 loc/5960396001Not for Resale, 08/04/2006 06:37:33 MDTeproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS

--`,`,``,,``,``,`,`,,``,`,,,,``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

8/13/2019 AASHTO-LRFR 2005

27/444

1 6 Manual for Condition Evaluation and LRFR of Highway Bridges1.6 IMPORTANT EFERENCESAASHTO. 1997. Guide fo r Comm only Recognized (CoRe) Structural Elements. American Association of StateHighway and Transportation Officials, Washington,DC.AASHTO. 1991. Guide o r Maximum Dimensions and W eights of Motor Vehicles and fo r the Operation of Non-Divisible Load Oversize and Overweight Vehicles. American Association of State Highway and TransportationOfficials, Washington, DC.AASHTO. 1993. Guidelines or Bridge Management Systems. American Association of State Highway andTransportation Officials, Washington, DC.AASHTO. 1990. Guide Speczjcations fo r F atigue E valuation of Existing Steel Bridges. American Association ofState Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC.AASHTO. 1978. Guide Specijcations fo r Fracture-Critical Non-Redundant Steel Bridge Members. AmericanAssociation o f State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC.AASHTO. 1998 with Interims. LRFD Bridge Design Speclfications, Second Edition. American Association ofState Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC.AASHTO. 1994 with Interims. Manual fo r Condition Evaluation of Bridges. American Association of StateHighway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC.AASHTO. 1998. Movable Bridge Inspection, Evaluation, and Maintenance Manual. American Association ofState Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC.AASHTO. PONTIS Release 3. , Users Manual. American Association of State Highway and TransportationOfficials, Washington, DC.AASHTO. 1996. Standard Specifzcations fo r Highw ay Brid ges, Sixteenth Edition. American Association of StateHighway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC.AASHTO. 1988. Standard Specijkations o r Movable Highway Bridges. American Association of State Highwayand Transportation OEcials, Washington, DC.AISC. 1873 to 1952.Iron and Steel Beams. American Institute of Steel Construction.AISC. LRFD Manual of Steel Construction,Second Edition. American Institute of Steel Construction.CSA. 1990. Existing Bridge Evaluation-Supplement to Design of Highway Bridges. CAN/CSA-S6-88-1990.Canadian Standards Association. Mississauga, Ontario, Canada.Department of Transport, U.K. January 1993.Design Manual fo r Roads andB ridges, Volume 3, Section 4, Part 4,BA 16/93, The Assessment of Highway Bridges and Structures.FHWA. 1990. Bridge Inspectors Training Manual 90. Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department ofTransportation, Washington, DC.FHWA. 1989. Bridge Management Systems, Demonstration Project 71, FHWA-DP-71-O1R, Oct. FederalHighway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation Washington, DC.FHWA. 1986. Culvert Inspection M anual. Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation,Washington, DC.FHWA. 1986. Inspection of Fracture Critical Bridge Members. Federal Highway Administration, U.S.Department of Transportation, Washington, DC.FHWA. 1986. Non-Destructive Testing Methods for Steel Bridges. Federal Highway Administration, U.S.Department of Transportation, Washington, DC.FHWA. 1995.Recording and Coding Guide fo r the Structure Inv en tov and Appraisal of the Nations Bridges.Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, DC.FHWA. 1995. Seismic RetroJitting Manual for Highway Bridges, FHWA-RD-94-052. Federal HighwayAdministration, U.S.Department of Transportation, Washington, DC.FHWA. 1988. Technical Advisory-Revisions to the National Bridge Inspection Standards (NB IS), T5 140.21.Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington,DC.



--`,

`,

``,,

``,

``,

`,

`,,

``,

`,,,,

``-`-`,,

`,,

`,

`,,

`---

8/13/2019 AASHTO-LRFR 2005

28/444

Introduction 1-7FHWA. 1991. Technical Advisory-Evaluating Scour at Bridg es, T5 140-23. Federal Highway Administration,U.$. Departmentof Transportation, Washington, DC.FHWA. 1988.Manual of Uniform Tra fic C ontrol Devices. Federal Highway Administration,U.S. Department ofTransportation,Washington, DC.FHWA. 1989. Underwater Inspection of Bridges. Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department ofTransportation,Washington, DC.Galambos, T.V., ed. 1998. Guide to Stability Design Criteria o r Metal Structures, Fifth Edition. John Wiley &Sons, Inc., New York.NCHRP Web Document 28 (NCHRP Project 12-46): Final Report: Manual fo r Condition Evaluation and Loa dRating of Highway Bridges Using Load an d Resistance Factor Philosop hy.NCHRP Project 12-26 (1) and (2), Final Report, Distribu tion of Whe el Loads on Highway Bridges.NCHRP Project 12-28 (A and Bl),Manual.NCHRP Project 12-28 (1 i) , Final Report, Developm ent of Site-SpeciJic Load M odels o r Bridge Ratings.NCHRP Project 12-33, Calibration of LRFD Bridge Design Code, Final Report (Nowak, 1993).NCHRP Project 20-5, Topic 28-05,Dynamic Impact Factors o r Bridges.NCHRP Report 27i , Guidelines o r Evaluation and Repair of Damaged Steel Bridge Members.NCHRP Report 292, Streng th Evaluation of Existing Reinforced Concrete Bridg es.NCHRP Report 299, Fatigue Evaluation Procedures for Steel Bridges.NCHRP Report 300,Bridge Management Systems.NCHRP Report 301,Load Capacity Evaluation of Existing Bridges.NCHRP Report 312, Condition Surveys of Concrete Bridge Com ponents.NCHRP Report 333, Guidelines o r Evaluating Corrosion Effects in Existing Steel Bridges.NCHRP Report 336,Distor tion Induced Fatigue Cracking in Steel Bridges .NCHRP Report 352, Inelastic Rating Procedures for Steel Beam and Girder Bridges.NCHRP Report 368, Calibration of LRFD Bridge Design C ode.NCHRP Report 406, Redundancy in Highway Sup erstructures.NCHRP Report 454, Calibration of Load Factors fo r LRF R B ridge Evaluation.NCHRP Research Results Digest, November 1998-No. 234, Manual for Bridge Rating Through Load Testing.National Forest Products Association,National Design Specification or Wood Construction, 1997 Edition.Ritter, Michael A. 1990. Timber Bridges-Design Con struction, nspec tion, and Maintenanc e, EM 7700-8. ForestService,U. S . Departmentof Agriculture, Washington, DC.U.S. Government. October 1988. National Bridge Inspection Standards, Code o f Federal Regulations, Title 23,Part 650, Subpart C.

BRIDGIT Bridge Management System Users Manual and Technical



--`,`,``,,``,``,`,`,,``,`,,,,``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

8/13/2019 AASHTO-LRFR 2005

29/444



8/13/2019 AASHTO-LRFR 2005

30/444

SECTION 2.RIDGE FILES (RECORDS)TABLE OF CONTENTS

2.1 GENERAL....................................................................................................................................2-12.2 COMPONENTS OF BRIDGE ECORDS ............................................................................................ 2-1

2.2.1 Plans ................................................................................................................................... 2-12.2.1.1 Construction Plans .................................................................................................... 2-12.2.1.2 Shop and Working Drawing s.................................................................................... 2-22.2.1.3 As-Built Drawings .................................................................................................... 2-22.2.2 Specifications .....................................................................................................................2-2

2.2.3 Correspondence ..................................................................................................................2-22.2.5 Materials and Tests ............................................................................................................ 2-22.2.4 Photographs ........................................................................................................................2-2

2.2.5.1 Material Certification ............................................................................................... 2-22.2.5.2 Material Test Data .................................................................................................... 2-32.2.5.3 Load Test Data .......................................................................................................... 2-3

2.2.7 Coating History .................................................................................................................. 2-32.2.8 A ccident Records ............................................................................................................... 2-32.2.9 Posting ................................................................................................................................ 2-32.2.6 Maintenance and Repair History ........................................................................................ 2-32.2.1O Permit Loads .................................................................................................................... 2-32.2.1 1 Flood Data ........................................................................................................................ 2-32.2.13 Inspection History ............................................................................................................2-42.2.14 Inspection Requirements .................................................................................................. 2-42.2.15 Structure Inventory and Ap praisal Sheets ........................................................................ 2-42.2.16 Inventories and Inspection s .............................................................................................. 2-4

2.3 INVENTORY AT A....................................................................................................................... 2-5

2.2.12 Traffic Data ...................................................................................................................... 2-4

2.2.17 Rating Records ................................................................................................................. 2-52.3.1 General ...............................................................................................................................2-52.3.2 Revised Inventory Data ...................................................................................................... 2-82.4.1 General ............................................................................................................................... 2-82.4.2 Revised Inspection Data ................................................................................................... 2-102.5.1 General ............................................................................................................................. 2-112.5.2 Revised Condition and Load Rating Data ........................................................................ 2-11

2.6 LOCALREQUIREMENTS............................................................................................................ 2-11

2.4 INSPECTIONATA....................................................................................................................... 2-82.5 CONDITIONND LOADRATING ATA ..................................................................................... 2-11

2-iyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials


--`,`,``,,``,``,`,`,,``,`,,,,``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

8/13/2019 AASHTO-LRFR 2005

31/444



--`,`,``,,``,``,`,`,,``,`,,,,``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

8/13/2019 AASHTO-LRFR 2005

32/444

SECTIONBRIDGE FILE (RECORDS)

2.1 GENERAL c2 .1Bridge Owners should maintain a complete,accurate, and current record of each bridge under

their jurisdiction. Complete information, in goodusable form, is vital to the effective management ofbridges. Furthermore, such information provides arecord which may be important for repair,rehabilitation, or replacement.A bridge record contains the cumulativeinformation about an individual bridge. It shouldprovide a full history of the structure, includingdetails of any damage and all strengthening andrepairs made to the bridge. The bridge record shouldreport data on the capacity of the structure, includ-ing the computations substantiating reduced loadlimits, if applicable.A bridge file describes all of the bridges underthe jurisdiction of the Bridge Owner. It contains onebridge record for each bridge and other generalinformation which applies to more than one bridge.Items which should be assembled as part of thebridge record are discussed in Article 2.2.Information about a bridge may be subdivided intothree categories: base data which is normally notsubject to change, data which is updated by fieldinspection, and data which is derived from the baseand inspection data. General requirements for thesethree categories of bridge data are presented inArticles 2.3,2.4,and 2.5, respectively.Some or all of the information pertaining to abridge may be stored in electronic format as part ofa bridge management system. When both electronicand paper formats are used for saving data, theyshould be cross-referenced to ensure that all rele-vant data are available to the inspector/evaluator.2.2 COMPONENTS OF BRIDGE RECORDS

Some of the components of good bridgerecords are described below. It is recognized that, inmany cases (particularly for older bridges), only aportion of this information may be available. Thecomponents of data entered in a bridge recordshould be dated and include the signature of theindividual responsible for the data presented.2.2.1 Plans

2.2.1.1 Construction Plans

This section covers the records and reportswhich make up a complete bridge file, including theSI&A Report. The file should be reviewed prior toconducting a bridge inspection, rating, or evalua-tion.The components of bridge records indicated inArticle 2.2 encompass a wide range of informationwhich may not be practical to assemble in onelocation. Some items could be filed elsewhere andincorporated in the bridge file by appropriatereferences.

Each bridge record should include one full-sizeor clear and readable reduced-size set of alldrawings used to construct or repair the bridge.2-1



--`,`,``,,``,``,`,`,,``,`,,,,``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

8/13/2019 AASHTO-LRFR 2005

33/444

2-2 Manual for Condition Evaluation and LRFR of Highway Bridges

2.2.1.2 Shop And Working DrawingsEach bridge record should include one set of allshop and working drawings approved for theconstruction or repair of the bridge.2.2.1.3 As-Built DrawingsEach bridge record should include one set offinal drawings showing the as-built condition ofthe bridge, complete with signature of the individualresponsible for recording the as-built conditions.

2.2.2 SpecificationsEach bridge record should contain onecomplete copy of the technical specifications underwhich the bridge was built. Where a generaltechnical specification was used, only the specialtechnical provisions need be incorporated in thebridge record. The edition and date of the generaltechnical specification should be noted in the bridgerecord.

2.2.3 CorrespondenceInclude all pertinent letters, memorandums,notices of project completion, daily logs duringconstruction, telephone memos, and all other relatedinformation directly concerning the bridge, inchronological order in the bridge record.

2.2.4 PhotographsEach bridge record should contain at least twophotographs, one showing a top view of theroadway across and one a side elevation view of thebridge. Other photos necessary to show majordefects, or other important features, such as utilitieson the bridge, should also be included.

2.2.5 Materials and Tests2.2.5.1 Material CertificationAll pertinent certificates for the type, grade,and quality of materials incorporated in theconstruction of the bridge, such as steel millcertificates, concrete delivery slips, and othermanufacturers certifications, should be included inthe bridge record. Material certifications, should beretained in accordance with the policies of theBridge Owner and the applicable statute oflimitations.

right American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials

ded by IHS under license with AASHTO Licensee=Parsons Brinckerhoff 49 loc/5960396001


--`,`,``,,``,``,`,`,,``,`,,,,``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

8/13/2019 AASHTO-LRFR 2005

34/444

Bridge Files (Records) 2-32.2.5.2 Material Test DataReports of non-destructive and laboratory testsof materials incorporated in the bridge, duringconstruction or subsequently, should be included inthe bridge record.

2.2.5.3 Load Test DataReports on any field load testing of the bridgeshould be included in the bridge record.2.2.6 Mainten ance and Repair History

Each bridge record should include achronological record documenting the maintenanceand repairs that have occurred since the initialconstruction of the bridge. Include details such asdate, description of project, contractor, cost,contract number, and related data for in-houseprojects.2.2.7 Coating History

Each bridge record should document thesurface protective coatings used, including surfacepreparation, application methods, dry-film thicknessand types of paint, concrete and timber sealants, andother protective membranes.2.2.8 Accident Records

Details of accident or damage occurrences,including date, description of accident, memberdamage and repairs, and investigative reports,should be included in the bridge record.2.2.9 Posting

Each bridge record should include a summaryof all posting actions taken for the bridge, includingload capacity calculations, date of posting, anddescription of signing used.2.2.10 Permit Loads

A record of the most significant special single-trip permits issued for use of the bridge along withsupporting documentation and computations shouldbe included in the bridge record.2.2.11 Flood Data

For those structures over waterways, achronological history of major flooding events,yright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officialsded by IHS under license with AASHTO Licensee=Parsons Brinckerhoff 49 loc/5960396001


--`,`,``,,``,``,`,`,,``,`,,,,``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

8/13/2019 AASHTO-LRFR 2005

35/444

2-4 Manual for ConditionEvaluation and LRFR of Highway Bridgesincluding high water marks at the bridge site andscour activity, should be included in the bridgerecord where available.2.2.12 Traffic Data

Each bridge record should include thefrequency and type of vehicles using the bridge andtheir historical variations, when available. AverageDaily Traffic (ADT) and Average Daily TruckTraffic (ADTT) are two important parameters infatigue life and safe load capacity determinationwhich should be routinely monitored for eachbridge and each traffic lane on the bridge. Weightsof vehicles using the bridge, if available, shouldalso be included in the bridge record.2.2.13 Inspection History

Each bridge record should include achronological record of the date and type of allinspections performed on the bridge. The original ofthe report for each inspection should be included inthe bridge record. When available, scour, seismic,and fatigue evaluation studies; fracture criticalinformation; deck evaluations; and corrosion studiesshould be part of the bridge record.2.2.14 Inspection Requirements

To assist in planning and conducting the fieldinspection of the bridge, a list of specialized toolsand equipment as well as descriptions of uniquebridge details or features requiring non-routineinspection procedures or access should be provided.Special requirements to ensure the safety of theinspection personnel andor the public should benoted, including a traffic management plan.2.2.15 Struct ure Inventory and App raisal Sheets

The bridge record should include achronological record of Inventory and AppraisalSheets used by the Bridge Owner. A sampleStructure Inventory and Appraisal Sheet is shown inAppendix A i.2.2.16 Inventories and Inspections

The bridge record should include reports andresults of all inventories and bridge inspections,such as construction and repair inspections.


--`,`,``,,``,``,`,`,,``,`,,,,``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

8/13/2019 AASHTO-LRFR 2005

36/444

Bridge Files (Records) 2-52.2.17 Rating Records

The bridge record should include a completerecord of the determinations of the bridge's load-carrying capacity.2.3 INVENTORY DATA C2.3

The FHWA Recording and Coding Guide forthe Structure Inventoly and Appraisal of theNation s Bridges includes detailed descriptions ofvarious bridge items to be inventoried. Wherepossible, the subheadings used in this Manualfollow those used in the Coding Guide.2.3.1 General

The bridge inventory data provides informationabout a bridge which is generally not subject tochange. As a minimum, the following informationshould be recorded for each bridge:

(1) Structure Number. The official numberassigned to the structure by the BridgeOwner.(2) Name. The full name of the bridge. Othercommon names by which it is known maybe placed in parentheses following theofficial name.(3a) Year B uilt. Year of original construction.(3b) Year Reconstructed. The year(s) duringwhich major reconstruction or wideningoccurred.( 4 ) Highway System. State whether or not thebridge is located on the Federal AidSystem. Describe the type of Federal AidSystem and show the Route Number whereapplicable.( 5 ) Location. Location of the bridge must besufficiently described so that it can bereadily spotted on a map or found in thefield. Normally, the bridge should be

located by Route number, county, and logmile.(6) Description of Structure. Briefly give allpertinent data concerning the type ofstructure. Include the type ofsuperstructure for both main and approachspans, the type of piers, and type ofabutments, along with their foundations. Ifthe bridge is on piles, the type of pilesshould be stated. If it is unknown whether '



--`,`,``,,``,``,`,`,,``,`,,,,``-`-`,,`,,

`,`,,`---

8/13/2019 AASHTO-LRFR 2005

37/444

2-6 Manual for Condition Evaluation and LRFR of Highway Bridgespiles exist, this should be so stated. If datais available, indicate type of soil uponwhich footings are founded, maximumbearing pressures, and pile capacities.

(7) Skew. The skew angle is the angle betweenthe centerline of a pier and a line normal tothe roadway centerline. Normally, theskew angle will be taken from the plansand it is to be recorded to the nearestdegree. If no plans are available, the angleshould be measured, computed, orestimated. If the skew angle is O , it shouldbe so stated.

( 8 ) Spans. The number of spans and the spanlengths are to be listed. These shall belisted in the same direction as the log mile.Spans crossing State highways will benormally listed from left to right looking inthe same direction as the log mile for theroute under the bridge. Span lengths shallbe recorded to the nearest foot and it shallbe noted whether the measurement iscenter to center ( c k ) or clear open distance(clr) between piers, bents, or abutments.Measurements shall be along the centerlineof the bridge.

(9) Structure Length. This shall be the overalllength to the nearest foot and shall be thelength of roadway which is supported onthe bridge structure. This will normally bethe length from paving notch to pavingnotch or between back faces of backwallsmeasured along centerline.(10)Bridge Roadway Width. This shall be themost restrictive of the clear width(s)between curbs, railings, or otherrestrictions for the roadway on the bridge.On divided roadways, the roadway widthwill be taken as the traveled way betweenshoulders; but, also, the shoulders andmedian width will be given.(1 1)Deck Width. The out-to-out width of thebridge to the nearest tenth of a foot.(12)Clearances. A vertical and horizontalclearance diagram should be made for eachstructure which restricts the verticalclearance over the highway, such asovercrossings, underpasses, and throughtruss bridges.

The minimum number of verticalmeasurements shown on the diagram willbe at each edge of the traveled way and the


--`,`,``,,``,``,`,`,,``,`,,,,``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

8/13/2019 AASHTO-LRFR 2005

38/444

Bridge F iles (Records) 2-1minimum vertical clearance within thetraveled way.The report will state the minimum roadwayclearance. This will include each roadwayon a divided highway. When a structure isof a deck or pony truss type so that novertical obstruction is present, the verticalclearance shall be noted on the report asUnimpaired.Vertical measurements are to be made infeet and inches and any fractions of an inchwill be truncated to the nearest inch, i.e., afield measurement of 15-7 3/4 will berecorded as 15.Horizontal measurements are to berecorded to the nearest one-tenth of a foot.

(1 ) Wearing Sugace and Deck ProtectiveSystem. The type and thickness of wearingsurface and the type of deck protectivesystem should be noted.

( 1 4 )Curb or Sidewalk Widths. The widths ofthe left and right curbs or sidewalks shouldbe recorded to the nearest tenth of a foot. Ifonly one is present, the sidewalk should benoted thus: [email protected] (east). Sidewalks onboth sides are noted thus: [email protected]. Ifthere are no sidewalks, note None.(15)Railings and Parapets. List the type and

material of the railing andor parapet. Thedimensions of the railing andor parapetshould be recorded.(16 )Bridge A pproach Alignment. Note whetherthe bridge is tangent or on a curve. If thebridge is on a curve, state the radius of thecurve if plans are available for thisinformation. On older bridges, acomparison of the alignment with thegeneral alignment of the road should bemade. Note if there are any posted speedrestrictions.(17)Lanes On and Under the Structure. Statethe number of traffic lanes carried by thestructure and being crossed by thestructure.1 8) Average Daily Trafic and Average DailyTruck Trafic. State the ADT and theADTT, if known, along with the date ofrecord. This information should be updatedat intervals of approximately five years.



--`,`,``,,``,``,`,`,,``,`,,,,``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

8/13/2019 AASHTO-LRFR 2005

39/444

2-8 Manual for Condition Evaluation and LRFR of Highway Bridges(19)Design Load. The live loading for whichthe bridge was designed should be stated ifit is known. A structure widened orotherwise altered so that different portionshave different live load designs is to haveeach live loading specified. If the designlive loading is not known, this should be soindicated.(20)Features Intersected. List facilities overwhich the structure crosses in addition tothe main obstacle. For example, a bridgewith the name Wetwater River obviouslycames traffic over the river; it may alsocross over a railroad, other roads, etc.(21)PZansand Dimensions. State what plansare available, where they are filed, and ifthey are as-built. When plans are available,dimensions and size of structuralcomponents should be field checked.

When plans are not on file, sufficientdrawings should be prepared during fieldinvestigations to permit an adequatestructural analysis of the entire structure,where practical.(22) riticalFeatures. Special structural detailsor situations, such as scour criticallocations, fracture critical members,fatigue-prone details, pins and hangers,cathodic protection, and weathering steelsshould be emphasized and highlighted forspecial attention during field inspections.

2.3.2 Revised Inventory DataWhen a bridge is significantly altered bywidening, lengthening, or by some other mannerwhich extensively modifies the structure, the bridgeinventory data should be updated to reflect thechanges made to the bridge. The bridge inventorydata should also be updated to reflect changes inwearing surface, railings, and other similar items.

2.4 INSPECTION DATA2.4.1 General

Inspection data may be subject to change witheach inspection cycle. In addition to the results ofthe physical condition inspections conducted inaccordance with Section 4, each bridge recordshould contain the following inspectioninformation, as a minimum:( i) Waterway: The adequacy of the waterwayopening should be classed as Not a



--`,`,``,,``,``,`,

`,,``,`,,,,``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

8/13/2019 AASHTO-LRFR 2005

40/444

Bridge Files (Records) 2-9Factor, Excessive, Sufficient, BarelySufficient, or Insufficient. The velocityof the stream should be classed withreference to its scouring probabilities, suchas Normally High Velocity, NormallyMedium Velocity. A statement alsoshould be made describing the materialmaking up the stream bed.An assessment of the scour vulnerability ofthe substructure should be included. If abridge has been evaluated as scour criticaland is being monitored, or if it hasexperienced severe scour, or if for otherreasons its structural stability is in questionfor higher discharges, the inspectionpersonnel should coordinate withhydraulics and maintenance personnel inplacing a painted line on the piling orabutment which would indicate a watersurface at which concern and extraprecaution should be exercised. This typeof indicator could serve as the trigger forclosing a bridge.When substructures are located within thewaterway, indicate the type and location ofsubstructure protection devices. If none areprovided, this should be so stated.If the waterway is navigational, the typeand placement of navigation lights shouldbe noted and a clearance diagram of thenavigable portion of the waterway shouldbe made.Bridges may be designed to allow or mayexperience the overtopping by floods. Astatement should be made describingfloods that have occurred or that may bepossible.

( 2 ) Channel ProJile. A sheet showing thechannel profile at the upstream side of abridge over a waterway should be a part ofthe bridge report. The sketch should showthe foundation of the structure and, whereavailable, a description of material uponwhich footings are founded, the elevationof the pile tips, and/or the footings of piersand abutments. This information isvaluable for reference in anticipatingpossible scour problems through yearlyobservation and is especially useful todetect serious conditions during periods ofheavy flow.Channel cross sections from the currentand past inspections should be plotted on a



--`,`,``,,``,``,`,`,,``,`,,,,``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

8/13/2019 AASHTO-LRFR 2005

41/444

2-10 Manual for Condition Evaluation and LRFR of Highway Bridgescommon plot to observe scouring or streaminstability.Vertical measurements should be made orreferenced to a part of the structure such asthe top of curb or top of railing which isreadily accessible during high water.Soundings in addition to the single linechannel profile are necessary at some riverpiers to provide adequate information onscour conditions and how the piers may beaffected. Such requirements will vary withstream velocity and general channelstability. The necessity of additionalsoundings must be determined by theEngineer. These soundings will normallybe limited to an area within a radius of 100feet from a pier.Restrictions on Stmcture. Note any load,speed, or traffic restrictions in force on thebridge and if known, record date ofestablishment and identification of agencywho put the restrictions in force.Utility Attachments. An attachment sheetshould be submitted when there is one ormore utilities on the structure. A utiliy inthe immediate area, though not fastened tothe bridge, should also be included, such asa sewer line crossing the ROW and buriedin the channel beneath the bridge.Environmental Conditions. Any unusualenvironmental conditions which may havean effect on the structure such as salt spray,industrial gases, etc., should be noted inthe report.Miscellaneous. Include information onhigh-water marks, unusual loadings orconditions, and such general statements ascannot be readily incorporated into theother headings. Identi@ the requirementsfor miscellaneous structural inspectionssuch as those for sign structures, catwalks,and other special features.

2.4.2 Revised Inspection DataThe bridge record should reflect theinformation in the current bridge inspection report.The date upon which the field investigation wasmade should be noted. All work that has been doneto the bridge since the last inspection should belisted. When maintenance or improvement work hasaltered the dimensions of the structure and/orchannel, the new dimensions should be recorded.



--`,`,``,,``,``,`,`,,``,`,,,,``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

8/13/2019 AASHTO-LRFR 2005

42/444

Bridge Files (Records) 2-112.5 CONDITION AND LOAD RATING DATA2.5.1 General

This data defines the overall condition and loadcapacity of the bridge and is based on the Inventoryand Inspection data. Article 4.13 provides guidanceon data collection requirements for load rating. As aminimum, the following information should beincluded:

(1) Bridge Condition Rating. Document thebridge condition inspection results includ-ing observed conditions and recommendedmaintenance operations or restrictions re-garding the deck, superstructure,substructure, and, if applicable, channel.(2) Load Rating. A record should be kept ofthe calculations to determine the safe loadcapaciy of a bridge and, where necessary,the load limits for posting. A generalstatement of the results of the analysis withnote of which members were found to beweak, and any other modifying factorswhich were assumed in the analysis,should be given. See Section 6 for the loadrating procedures.

2.5.2 Revised Condition and Load Rating DataWhen maintenance or improvement work orchange in strength of members or dead load hasaltered the condition or capacity of the structure, thesafe load capacity should be recalculated.

2.6 LOCAL REQUIREMENTSBridge Owners may have unique requirementsfor collecting and recording bridge data mandatedby local conditions and/or legislative actions. Theserequirements should be considered in establishingthe database and updating procedures for the bridgefile.



--`,`,``,,``,``,`,`,,``,`,,,,``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

8/13/2019 AASHTO-LRFR 2005

43/444



--`,`,``,,``,``,`,`,,``,`,,,,``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

8/13/2019 AASHTO-LRFR 2005

44/444

SECTION 3-BRIDGE MANAG EMENT SYSTEMSTABLE OF CONTENTS

3.1 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................... 3-13.2 OBJECTIVES OFBRIDGE MANAGEMENTYSTEMS...................................................................... 3-13.3 COMPONENTSF A BRIDGE ANAGEMENTYSTEM................................................................ 3-1

3.3.1 Database ............................................................................................................................ 3-23.3.1.1 Comm only Recognized Structural Elements (CoRe) .............................................. 3-23.3.2 Data Analysis ....................................................................................................................3-3

3.3.2.1 Cond ition Data Ana lysis.......................................................................................... 3-33.3.2.2 Cost Data Analysis ..................................................................................................3-43.3.2.3 Optimization ............................................................................................................3-5

3.3.3 Decision Support ...............................................................................................................3-63.4 NATIONAL RIDGEMANAGEMENTYSTEMS............................................................................ 3-6

3-iyright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials


--`,`,``,,``,``,`,`,,``,`,,,,``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

8/13/2019 AASHTO-LRFR 2005

45/444



`

`

` `

` `

` `

`

`

` `

`

` `

`

`

`

`

`

`

8/13/2019 AASHTO-LRFR 2005

46/444

SECTIONBRIDGE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS

3.1 INTRODUCTIONTransportation agencies must balance limitedresources against increasing bridge needs of an

aging highway system. The best action for eachbridge, considered alone, is not necessarily the bestaction for the bridge system when faced withfunding constraints. The best action to take on abridge cannot be determined without firstdetermining the implications from a system-wideperspective. Bridge engineers, administrators, andpublic officials have acknowledged the need fornew analytical methods and procedures to assessthe current and future conditions of bridges anddetermine the best possible allocation of fundswithin a system of bridges among various types ofbridge maintenance, repair, rehabilitation, andreplacement choices. The advent of BridgeManagement Systems (BMS) is a response to thisneed.Bridge Management Systems require the dataand results from condition evaluation. The aim ofthis section is to provide an overview of BMS anddiscuss their essential features.3.2 OBJECTIVES OF BRIDGEMANAGEMENT SYSTEMS

The goal of BMS is to determine andimplement an infrastructure preservation andimprovement strategy that best integrates capitaland maintenance activities so as to maximize netbenefit to society. BMS helps engineers anddecision makers determine the best action to takeon long- and short-term capital improvement andmaintenance programs in the face of fiscalconstraints. It enables the optimum or near-optimum use of funding by enabling decisionmakers to understand the essential trade-offsconcerning large numbers of bridges. It alsoprovides essential information to helptransportation agencies enhance safety, extend theservice life of bridges, and serve commerce and themotoring public.3.3 COMPONENTS OF A BRIDGEMANAGEMENT SYSTEM

In any BMS there are three main components:Database

0 Data Analysis0 Decision Support

3-1yright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officialsded by IHS under license with AASHTO Licensee=Parsons Brinckerhoff 49 loc/5960396001


--`,`,``,,``,``,`,`,,``,`,,,,`

`-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

8/13/2019 AASHTO-LRFR 2005

47/444

3-2 Manual for Condition Evaluation and LRFR of Highway Bridges3.3.1 Database

A BMS requires a comprehensive database ora system of databases that is capable of supportingthe various analyses involved in bridge manage-ment. There are three major types of data requiredby a BMS: 1) bridge inventory, condition, andrating data; 2) cost data; and 3) preservation andimprovement activity data.Much of this data is not available in the NBI.The essential data elements for BMS include manyNBI data items but also other information,especially more detailed inventory and conditiondata on the elements of each structure. Many statesobtain additional data through expanded inspectionprograms to supplement data for bridge manage-ment purposes.

3.3.1.1 Commonly Recogn ized StructuralElements (CoRe)NBI ratings provide a general idea of theoverall condition of each major component of abridge but provide no details on the type ofdeficiencies that may be present or their extent.BMS analyses require more detailed conditionassessment of a bridge according to its constituentelements. Projecting overall condition of bridgecomponents such as deck, superstructure, andsubstructure is useful, but it is not sufficientlydetailed to adequately project deterioration. Moredetailed condition data on elements of eachcomponent must be gathered to modeldeterioration at the element level.To meet the data needs of BMS, an elementlevel condition assessment system was developedthat tracks not only the severity of the problem butalso its extent. The element level data collection,though originally developed for Ponti?, is notconsidered unique to Pontis@. AASHTO andFHWA have defined a group of Commonly Rec-ognized (CoRe) structural elements that arecommon to bridges nationwide. The CoRe ele-ments provide a uniform basis for detailed elementlevel data collection for any Bridge ManagementSystem and for sharing of data among states. Abridge is divided into individual elements or

sections of the bridge that are comprised of thesame matenal and can be expected to deteriorate inthe same manner. Element descriptions considermaterial composition and, where applicable, thepresence of protective systems. The condition ofeach element is reported according to a conditionstate, which is a quantitative measure ofdeterioration. The condition states are defined inengineering terms and based on a scale from 1 to 5for most elements. The CoRe element definitionsare supplemented in some cases with a ?Smart



--`,

`,

``,,

``,

``,

`,

`,,

``,

`,,,,

``-`-`,,

`,,

`,

`,,

`---

8/13/2019 AASHTO-LRFR 2005

48/444

Bridge Management Sy stems 3-3Flag to provide additional information about thecondition of an element.3.3.2 Data Analysis

The purpose of data analysis is to enable betterstrategies to allocate and use limited resources inan optimum way. The best decision is the one thatminimizes costs over the long run while providingthe desired level-of-service. Because decisionsmade today on bridge maintenance or improve-ment affect the condition of the bridge system inthe future, BMS include mechanisms for predictingthe future effects of todays decisions. Two majorprediction tools that are important for BMSoperation are bridge deterioration models andbridge-related cost models. The deterioration andcost models feed engineering and economic datainto the optimization module, where these inputs,along with additional budget and policy data, areanalyzed to yield a selection of projects formaximum economic benefit.Data analysis is composed of three maincomponents:

Condition data analysis0 Cost data analysis0 Optimization3.3.2.1 Condition Data AnalysisLong-term planning requires highwayagencies to make decisions that are cost-effective

over the long run. Assessing future needs based oncurrent condition data is an essential component ofBMS data analysis. Element level deteriorationmodels of various formulations have beendeveloped to serve as condition prediction tools.Deterioration models in most BMS project thehture condition of structural and other keyelements and the overall condition of each type ofbridge, both with and without intervening actions.Deterioration models can be used to estimate theservice life of new bridges, the remaining life ofin-service bridges, and the extension in service lifedue to rehabilitation or other maintenanceactivities.Deterioration models use several cycles ofcondition data to identi@ trends, then extrapolatethe trends to predict how an element willdeteriorate over time. A minimum of three or fourcycles of inspection data is required to developdeterioration models. As an alternative, a highwayagency can survey an experienced group ofengineers and bridge inspectors and formdeterioration models based on expert opinion.



--`,`,``,,``,``,`,`,,``,`,,,,``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

8/13/2019 AASHTO-LRFR 2005

49/444

3-4 Manual for Condition Evaluation and LRFR of Highway BridgesSuccessful prediction of bridge deteriorationdepends upon identiQing all factors that have amajor influence on the elements condition overtime. Element type and material, current condition,age, maintenance history, and environment areexamples of the major factors that affectdeterioration. Other factors may be prevalent forcertain element types or in certain geographic

locations. For example, traffic volume and thepresence of de-icing salts are known to influencedeck deterioration rates. Once the major factors areidentified, relevant data can then be collected toform a database for building reliable deteriorationmodels.3.3.2.2 Cost Da ta AnalysisTo manage the infrastructure efficiently, thecost implications of alternative actions have to beknown and considered. Costs to be consideredinclude the direct and indirect costs that will beincurred by the agency and the user. Costs incurredby the public may make up most of the total costs.

Agency CostsThe cost to a highway agency for a bridge isseldom a one-time cost; rather, it is a long-term,multi-year investment of a series of expendituresfor maintenance, rehabilitation, and replacement.Therefore, bridge management should take a long-term view of the economic life of a bridge,reflecting the highway agencys long-termresponsibility. Lifecycle costs are normally defined

as the sum of future agency costs that occur over aspecified period in which each cost has beendiscounted to its present value. In BMS, lifecyclecosts address maintenance, repair, andrehabilitation (MR&R), and improvement costs.Lifecycle costs should be comparable from onestructure to another. If lifecycle costs arecalculated over an expected life that varies witheach type of structure, it is convenient to convertlifecycle costs to equivalent uniform annual costs.User Costs

Optimization approaches to BMS recognizethat maintenance, repair, and rehabilitation actionsare a response to deterioration while improvementssuch as widening and strengthening respond touser demands. The choice of MR&R actionsshould be predicated on minimization of agencylifecycle costs while improvements should bebased upon the benefit to road users of eliminatingbridge deficiencies. These benefits includereductions in travel time, accidents, and motorvehicle operating costs that result mainly fromreducing load and clearance restrictions.yright American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officialsded by IHS under license with AASHTO Licensee=Parsons Brinckerhoff 49 loc/5960396001


8/13/2019 AASHTO-LRFR 2005

50/444

Bridge Management Systems 3-5Consideration of user costs is essential inBMS if functional deficiencies are to beeliminated. If agency costs alone are considered,the alternatives would tend to favor maintenanceonly to extend life until permanent closure. Twotypes of costs are incurred by users because offunctional deficiencies of a bridge: accident costsand detour costs. Bridges having narrow deckwidth, low vertical clearance, or poor alignmenthave a higher occurrence of accidents than bridgeswithout these deficiencies. Bridges with lowvertical clearance or insufficient load capacity willforce a certain volume of truck traffic to bedetoured to alternate routes, resulting in increasedvehicle operating costs.3.3.2.3 OptimizationOptimization has become the preferredmethod for bridge network management. Thepurpose of optimization at the network level is toselect a set of bridge projects in such a way that thetotal benefit derived from the implementation ofthe selected projects is maximized (agency anduser costs are minimized). The ability to establishproject priorities and optimally allocate limitedfunds over a predefined planning horizon, bothshort and long run, is a fundamental part of BMSsoftware.The system should consider both constrainedand unconstrained budget cases. If unlimitedbudgets are available, it is possible to determinethe optimum period in which selected alternativesshould be scheduled. Where adequate funding is

not available to maintain a desired level-of-service,the BMS calculates the economic consequences ofa lower level of service and provides an objectivemeans of setting priorities for bridges so that theimpact on agency and user costs is minimized.When a project has to be delayed, the BMS iscapable of using the deterioration models and costmodels to quantifi the bridge level effect, trafficgrowth, and the impact on road users; and todetermine the new optimal set of actions for thebridge at a later period. By exploring period-by-period project deferrals, multi-year programs canbe generated.Modem optimization approaches can takeseveral forms. The differences in optimizationapproaches tend to be in the specific techniquesused and in the way that network levelconsiderations are reflected in the analysis. Twocommon approaches are: i ) Top-down approach,where network-level issues are addressed first,then the results are used to guide project selectionand scheduling; 2) Bottom-up approach, wherean improved form of the project-level analysis isautomatically iterated and adjusted until allnetwork-level concerns are satisfied.



--`,`,``,,``,``,`,`,,``,`,,,,``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

8/13/2019 AASHTO-LRFR 2005

51/444

3-6 Manual for Condition Evaluation and LRFR of Highway Bridges3.3.3 Decision Support

The function of a BMS is to provide bridgeinformation and data analysis capabilities toimprove the decision-making abilities of BridgeManagers. A BMS must never make decisions.Bridges cannot be managed without the practical,experienced, and knowledgeable input from theEngineermanager. A BMS is never used inpractice to find one best policy among the possiblechoices. Instead, Managers should use the BMS asa tool to evaluate various policy initiatives, oftenreferred to as what if analysis. The availablechoices may relate to network level decisions orproject-level decisions.An optimization performed by a BMS is onlyas valid as its underlying assumptions. A BMSmay never have all the necessary information in itsdatabase. Often the missing information is mostlyintangibles, such as engineering experience, localneeds, and political considerations. A BMS maytherefore build in user adjustments at all criticaldecision areas,3.4 NATIONAL BRIDGE MANAGEM ENTSYSTEMS

Research efforts initiated in North Carolinaand a few other states in the 1980s resulted in theemergence of bridge management concepts thatwere further refined in subsequent FHWAdemonstration projects. In 1989, FHWA, inconjunction with six state DOTS, sponsored thedevelopment of a network-level bridgemanagement system for use by state and localtransportation officials. The effort resulted in thedevelo ment of the Ponti? computer program.Pontis has separate sets of models for optimizingbridge preservation and improvement activities,and a project programming model that integratesthe results of the preservation and improvementanalyses. Pontis uses a top-down optimizationapproach in that it optimizes the network needsbefore arriving at individual project needs. Thisprocess is most useful for network budgeting andprogramming. Recommendations for best actionfor each bridge are based on network-levelconsiderations.In 1985 NCHRP Project 12-28(2) wasinitiated. The first phase of this project developedthe modular elements necessary for a model formof effective bridge management at the networklevel. In the subsequent phases, a microcomputer-based software package (BRIDGITTM),meetingFHWA and AASHTO guidelines for bridgemanagement systems, was developed to handle theimmediate and long-term needs of highwayagencies. BRIDGITTMuses a project level-based

B



8/13/2019 AASHTO-LRFR 2005

52/444

Bridge Management Systems 3-7optimization strategy to provide network levelrecommendations. It recommends specific actionsfor each bridge, consistent with the overall networkstrategy. B R I D G I T ~ ~s usefui for ail areas ofbridge management, from programming andbudgeting to project selection to bridgemaintenance.A few states have opted to develop their ownBMS. The t w o US. national systems, Pontis@ ndBRIDGITTM, ave a generic design that can beadapted to accommodate the individual needs of anagency.



--`,`,``,,``,``,`,`,,``,`,,,,``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

8/13/2019 AASHTO-LRFR 2005

53/444



--`,`,``,,``,``,`,`,,``,`,,,,``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

8/13/2019 AASHTO-LRFR 2005

54/444

SECTION 4-INSPECTIONTABLE OF CONTENTS

...LISTOF FIGURES................................................................................................................. ........... -1114.1 GENER AL.................................................................................................................................... 4-1

4.2.1 Initial Inspections .............................................................................................................. 4-24.2.2 Routine Inspections ...........................................................................................................4-24.2.5 Special Inspections ............................................................................................................ 4-4

4.2 TYPES ......................................................................................................................................... 4-1

4.2.3 Damage Inspections .......................................................................................................... 4-34.2.4 In-Depth Inspections ......................................................................................................... 4-4

4.3 FREQUENCY................................................................................................................................ 4-54.4.1 General .............................................................................................................................. 4-54.4.2 Inspection Prog ram Manager ............................................................................................ 4-64.4.3 Inspection Team Lead er .........................................

AASHTO-LRFR 2005

Documents

Transcript of AASHTO-LRFR 2005