Current Practices and Guidelines for the Reuse of Bridge Foundations (2017)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

95 Appendix B1 Summary Table One large summary table provides the responses to all questions for all respondents. Responses on the summary table are coded with numbers corresponding to the relatively lengthy selections from the ques- tion response options. The key for these numbers is provided in Appendix B2. The summary table is a convenient method for identifying an agency’s response to a particular question quickly, or for evaluating all responses to a particular question quickly. Appendix B2 Key for Summary Table with Response Counts Tables for each survey question are presented. The tables are similar to the ones presented throughout Chapter Three of the Synthesis. The number “code” from Appendix B1 is listed with the accompanying question selection. Appendix B3 Responses to Short Answer Questions Some responses to the short answer questions were quite long, so the responses to all short answer ques- tions are presented in their own section of the appendix. Appendix B Survey Responses (Web-Only) Responding Agencies Agencies responding to the survey are shown in the following map. Additional responses were received from eight Canadian provinces and territories: Alberta, New Brunswick, Northwest Territories, Ontario, Prince Edward Island, Quebec, Saskatchewan, and Yukon.

96 97 Question: 1 2 2b 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 11b 12 12b 12c 12d 12e 12f 13 14 15 16 17 18 Agency Reuse? Policies Prohibiting? Policies for Reuse? Considered Reuse? Reasons Not to Reuse Policies for Reuse? Reasons for Reuse Noteworthy AADT Foundation Types Structure Types ABC/PBES ABC/PBES Frequency Reuse Applications Replacement Frequency Widening Frequency Repurposing Frequency Retrofit Frequency Clearance Frequency Historic Availability Historic Quality Basic Details Methods Condition Assessmen t Methods Other Data Service Life New Foundations Alabama 1 #N/A #N/A #N/A 2 1 2 3 6 7 2 5 2 1 2 2 #N/A 1 2 2 4 #N/A #N/A #N/A 1 2 1 2 4 14 1 2 7 9 2 Alaska #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A Arizona 1 #N/A #N/A #N/A 2 1 4 7 1 3 4 2 2 #N/A 2 #N/A 2 #N/A #N/A #N/A 2 2 1 3 7 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 7 2 Arkansas #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A California 1 #N/A #N/A #N/A 2 11 1 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 1 2 3 5 2 #N/A 4 5 #N/A #N/A #N/A 1 4 3 2 1 1 2 4 1 Colorado 1 #N/A #N/A #N/A 2 1 2 3 4 6 7 1 3 1 2 3 1 2 4 3 #N/A 1 2 3 4 3 3 3 2 #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A Connecticut 1 #N/A #N/A #N/A 1 2 3 4 6 8 9 2 1 2 3 4 1 2 1 2 3 #N/A 1 2 3 4 2 4 2 2 #N/A 2 2 1 2 3 7 9 1 2 3 6 1 3 4 5 6 7 3 Delaware 1 #N/A #N/A #N/A 1 10 3 1 1 1 3 #N/A 5 #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 1 1 1 1 2 3 4 7 1 2 1 1 Florida 1 #N/A #N/A #N/A 2 11 2 3 2 2 4 2 #N/A 2 6 7 #N/A 2 #N/A #N/A #N/A 2 2 1 2 10 14 1 2 3 4 5 1 3 5 1 Georgia 1 #N/A #N/A #N/A 2 6 9 2 3 2 1 2 2 #N/A 1 2 3 2 #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 1 1 1 1 1 1 Hawaii 1 #N/A #N/A #N/A 2 3 4 5 6 8 3 2 3 1 2 1 2 2 #N/A 1 2 4 3 2 #N/A 2 #N/A 3 3 1 4 10 1 2 7 1 3 4 2 Idaho 1 #N/A #N/A #N/A 3 1 3 5 6 7 2 2 3 1 2 1 2 3 #N/A 2 4 #N/A 2 #N/A 1 #N/A 3 2 1 7 13 1 5 6 2 Illinois 1 #N/A #N/A #N/A 1 1 2 4 7 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 4 2 #N/A 1 2 4 4 3 #N/A 2 #N/A 2 2 1 14 1 2 4 1 3 8 2 Indiana 1 #N/A #N/A #N/A 2 1 5 6 7 9 2 2 1 2 1 2 2 #N/A 1 2 6 5 #N/A #N/A #N/A 1 1 1 2 4 14 1 4 7 10 3 Iowa 2 2 2 1 1 2 3 4 6 8 #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A Kansas 1 #N/A #N/A #N/A 2 7 2 3 1 2 1 2 2 #N/A 1 2 #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 1 1 1 2 3 14 9 1 5 2 Kentucky 1 #N/A #N/A #N/A 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 1 2 3 1 2 1 2 4 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 4 4 2 1 2 3 3 1 2 3 14 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 Louisiana 1 #N/A #N/A #N/A 2 6 7 1 3 2 2 3 #N/A 2 #N/A 2 #N/A #N/A #N/A 3 2 1 10 10 2 Maine 1 #N/A #N/A #N/A 1 1 7 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 3 #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 2 2 1 2 3 4 7 9 10 2 5 1 Maryland #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A Massachusetts 1 #N/A #N/A #N/A 1 1 2 3 7 8 9 1 1 2 3 4 1 2 4 1 2 3 4 1 4 1 2 3 4 5 5 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 3 10 12 13 1 2 3 4 6 5 1 Michigan 1 #N/A #N/A #N/A 2 1 2 5 6 7 9 10 1 1 2 3 4 1 2 1 2 4 2 #N/A 1 2 3 5 5 5 2 #N/A 4 1 1 1 2 3 14 1 2 3 9 2 Minnesota 1 #N/A #N/A #N/A 2 1 6 7 9 2 3 4 1 2 1 2 2 #N/A 1 2 3 2 2 2 #N/A #N/A 1 1 1 2 3 1 2 3 5 6 2 Mississippi 1 #N/A #N/A #N/A 2 1 4 10 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 #N/A #N/A #N/A 1 1 1 1 9 3 Missouri 1 #N/A #N/A #N/A 2 1 3 4 6 7 1 3 4 2 3 1 2 2 #N/A 1 2 5 2 2 #N/A #N/A 2 1 1 1 2 3 9 1 2 3 1 3 5 2 Montana 1 #N/A #N/A #N/A 2 1 4 6 2 1 1 #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A Nebraska 1 #N/A #N/A #N/A 3 1 4 7 8 3 5 2 1 2 3 #N/A 1 2 1 1 #N/A #N/A #N/A 2 2 1 2 10 10 3 Nevada 1 #N/A #N/A #N/A 2 1 2 7 8 10 2 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 1 2 3 #N/A 2 4 #N/A 1 #N/A 4 #N/A 2 2 1 2 7 1 3 1 2 4 1 New Hampshire 1 #N/A #N/A #N/A 2 6 7 1 2 4 1 2 2 #N/A 1 2 #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 2 2 1 3 1 4 2 New Jersey 1 #N/A #N/A #N/A 1 1 7 8 9 11 3 4 1 2 1 2 1 3 1 5 3 #N/A #N/A #N/A 3 2 2 1 3 1 3 3 4 5 6 7 1 New Mexico #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A New York 1 #N/A #N/A #N/A 2 6 7 9 2 1 2 3 4 1 2 1 2 4 2 #N/A 1 2 3 4 5 3 3 2 1 2 2 2 1 2 10 1 2 3 5 6 1 North Carolina 1 #N/A #N/A #N/A 2 1 2 10 1 3 1 3 4 2 2 #N/A 1 2 6 7 1 6 #N/A #N/A #N/A 3 2 2 3 4 5 7 10 1 1 2 7 1 5 6 8 2 North Dakota 1 #N/A #N/A #N/A 2 7 2 1 2 2 #N/A 1 2 #N/A 2 #N/A #N/A #N/A 1 1 1 1 2 9 2 Ohio 1 #N/A #N/A #N/A 2 1 2 6 7 2 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 1 2 2 #N/A 1 2 5 5 5 #N/A #N/A 3 2 2 1 3 4 8 12 1 2 3 7 9 2 Oklahoma 1 #N/A #N/A #N/A 3 7 11 2 1 2 3 4 2 3 1 2 2 #N/A 2 #N/A 4 #N/A #N/A #N/A 2 2 1 1 10 2 Oregon 1 #N/A #N/A #N/A 2 7 11 3 1 2 1 4 1 2 3 #N/A 1 2 4 1 1 #N/A 2 #N/A 3 2 16 10 10 1 Pennsylvania 1 #N/A #N/A #N/A 2 2 7 8 9 11 3 1 2 3 1 1 2 3 3 #N/A 1 3 5 1 #N/A 1 #N/A 2 3 2 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 1 4 5 3 Rhode Island 1 #N/A #N/A #N/A 2 1 2 7 11 2 1 2 4 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 5 1 1 #N/A #N/A 1 3 2 1 2 1 2 3 9 1 South Carolina 1 #N/A #N/A #N/A 2 1 2 3 4 7 8 9 1 2 1 2 4 1 2 3 #N/A 1 2 3 5 2 3 2 #N/A 2 2 2 1 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 3 South Dakota 1 #N/A #N/A #N/A 2 7 11 2 1 2 2 3 1 2 2 #N/A 2 #N/A 2 #N/A #N/A #N/A 2 2 1 1 4 10 3 Tennessee 1 #N/A #N/A #N/A 2 1 11 2 2 3 4 1 1 2 1 3 1 2 4 5 5 #N/A 5 #N/A 1 1 1 1 3 4 1 8 2 Texas 1 #N/A #N/A #N/A 2 1 6 10 2 1 2 2 3 1 2 2 #N/A 1 2 #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 1 1 1 2 1 4 3 5 1 Utah 1 #N/A #N/A #N/A 2 1 2 6 7 2 3 2 2 1 2 1 2 #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 2 2 1 1 1 3 4 5 7 1 Vermont 1 #N/A #N/A #N/A 2 1 2 7 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 #N/A #N/A #N/A 3 2 1 3 7 9 1 2 3 1 2 3 7 2 Virginia 1 #N/A #N/A #N/A 2 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 1 1 1 2 3 4 2 3 4 1 2 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 3 14 1 2 3 4 5 1 4 5 2 Washington #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A West Virginia 1 #N/A #N/A #N/A 3 3 7 1 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 #N/A 1 2 4 2 #N/A #N/A #N/A 2 2 1 3 12 13 1 2 3 6 7 1 4 5 6 7 1 Wisconsin 1 #N/A #N/A #N/A 1 1 2 7 2 5 2 1 2 2 #N/A 1 2 3 6 #N/A #N/A #N/A 2 2 1 2 1 2 3 1 2 Wyoming 1 #N/A #N/A #N/A 2 6 7 2 5 1 2 3 1 2 2 #N/A 1 2 1 2 #N/A #N/A #N/A 1 1 1 2 1 8 9 2 DC #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A Puerto Rico #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A Alberta 1 #N/A #N/A #N/A 2 4 6 7 1 3 2 3 2 2 #N/A 1 2 2 2 #N/A #N/A #N/A 2 2 1 3 16 1 2 1 4 1 New Brunswick 1 #N/A #N/A #N/A 2 1 2 4 7 10 3 1 2 1 2 4 1 2 3 1 4 1 2 5 4 #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 2 1 1 1 1 2 3 Northwest Territories 2 2 2 1 10 #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A Ontario 1 #N/A #N/A #N/A 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 1 2 1 4 1 2 3 4 5 5 5 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 3 1 2 3 5 9 1 Prince Edward Island 1 #N/A #N/A #N/A 2 7 1 3 2 1 2 4 2 #N/A 2 #N/A 2 #N/A #N/A #N/A 3 1 1 1 2 5 6 1 2 7 2 Quebec 1 #N/A #N/A #N/A 2 7 8 9 2 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 1 2 3 2 #N/A #N/A #N/A 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 4 8 1 Saskatchewan 1 #N/A #N/A #N/A 2 7 2 1 2 2 1 2 4 1 3 1 2 2 2 #N/A #N/A #N/A 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 Yukon 1 #N/A #N/A #N/A 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 4 2 #N/A 1 2 4 2 2 #N/A 2 #N/A 2 2 1 13 1 2 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 Total Respondents 53 2 2 2 2 51 51 51 50 50 50 50 14 50 39 39 11 15 14 49 49 49 49 49 49 No Reuse Reuse 19 20 21 21b 22 23 24 25 26 RSL Scour Capacity Type of Load Test Design Guidance ASD or LRFD? Techniques Monitor New? Monitor Reuse? 4 3 1 3 5 2 3 1 1 2 3 4 #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 4 1 1 2 2 2 1 3 4 4 #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 4 3 1 3 2 3 1 1 2 3 4 5 8 2 3 #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 4 1 1 3 4 6 1 2 3 3 1 2 4 5 6 2 2 4 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 2 2 4 3 2 1 2 1 3 1 1 9 2 2 4 1 1 2 3 2 1 1 2 3 4 2 4 4 3 1 2 3 1 3 1 2 4 3 3 1 1 1 3 6 3 3 2 3 4 5 6 8 3 3 4 1 1 3 5 2 1 2 1 2 4 6 8 3 3 #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 2 1 5 2 1 2 2 2 3 3 1 1 1 3 4 2 3 3 1 2 3 4 8 2 2 4 1 1 3 2 1 1 8 3 3 4 2 2 3 4 5 1 2 2 5 1 3 #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 1 2 1 3 4 1 2 3 2 1 2 4 5 6 4 4 4 1 1 3 6 1 2 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 3 3 3 1 1 6 2 2 1 2 5 2 2 4 2 1 1 1 2 3 1 1 4 3 1 2 3 1 2 1 1 2 3 4 8 3 3 #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 4 2 1 1 2 3 3 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 1 4 3 6 2 4 4 3 3 4 1 3 2 2 2 3 4 6 7 2 2 #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 1 1 1 3 1 2 3 1 1 2 4 6 8 9 2 2 4 2 1 2 3 4 2 3 4 4 1 2 3 4 6 2 2 4 2 1 2 1 2 1 3 1 2 1 2 4 2 2 1 2 3 4 8 9 2 2 4 2 1 2 4 2 3 3 4 4 3 7 4 4 1 3 4 9 2 4 1 1 1 6 2 1 9 2 3 4 1 1 2 3 2 3 1 8 3 3 4 1 1 3 5 2 2 1 1 2 3 3 3 4 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 3 8 1 1 4 1 1 2 3 1 3 1 2 8 1 1 #N/A 2 1 3 3 1 2 2 4 3 1 2 2 9 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 4 8 2 4 #N/A 1 1 2 3 2 1 1 2 4 5 6 3 3 #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 4 1 7 2 2 1 2 3 4 5 7 8 4 4 4 2 1 2 2 2 8 4 4 #N/A 3 1 4 2 3 3 3 #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 1 2 1 2 4 4 2 4 8 1 1 4 3 1 4 3 1 1 6 8 1 1 #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 1 2 1 2 3 4 4 2 1 2 4 5 6 8 3 2 4 2 1 3 4 1 2 8 3 2 3 2 1 2 3 4 2 1 2 3 8 3 3 1 2 1 5 1 4 3 2 3 8 3 3 1 2 1 2 4 4 1 2 4 5 7 1 1 45 49 49 6 46 49 48 49 49 12e 12f 13 14 15 16 17 18 etrofit Frequency learance Frequency istoric vailability istoric uality asic etails ethods ondition As es ment Methods ther ata Service Life e Foundations # /A # /A 1 2 1 2 4 14 1 2 7 9 2 # /A # /A # /A # /A # /A # /A # /A # /A # /A # /A 2 2 1 3 7 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 7 2 # /A # /A # /A # /A # /A # /A # /A # /A 1 4 3 2 1 1 2 4 1 # /A # /A # /A # /A # /A 2 2 1 2 3 7 9 1 2 3 6 1 3 4 5 6 7 3 # /A 1 1 1 1 2 3 4 7 1 2 1 1 # /A # /A 2 2 1 2 10 14 1 2 3 4 5 1 3 5 1 # /A # /A 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 # /A 3 3 1 4 10 1 2 7 1 3 4 2 1 # /A 3 2 1 7 13 1 5 6 2 2 # /A 2 2 1 14 1 2 4 1 3 8 2 # /A # /A 1 1 1 2 4 14 1 4 7 10 3 # /A # /A # /A # /A # /A # /A # /A 1 1 1 2 3 14 9 1 5 2 1 2 3 3 1 2 3 14 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 # /A # /A 3 2 1 10 10 2 # /A # /A 2 2 1 2 3 4 7 9 10 2 5 1 # /A # /A # /A # /A # /A # /A # /A # /A 2 2 2 2 1 2 3 10 12 13 1 2 3 4 6 5 1 # /A 4 1 1 1 2 3 14 1 2 3 9 2 # /A # /A 1 1 1 2 3 1 2 3 5 6 2 # /A # /A 1 1 1 1 9 3 # /A 2 1 1 1 2 3 9 1 2 3 1 3 5 2 # /A # /A # /A # /A # /A # /A # /A 2 2 1 2 10 10 3 4 # /A 2 2 1 2 7 1 3 1 2 4 1 # /A # /A 2 2 1 3 1 4 2 # /A 3 2 2 1 3 1 3 3 4 5 6 7 1 # /A # /A # /A # /A # /A # /A # /A # /A 1 2 2 2 1 2 10 1 2 3 5 6 1 # /A # /A 3 2 2 3 4 5 7 10 1 1 2 7 1 5 6 8 2 # /A # /A 1 1 1 1 2 9 2 # /A 3 2 2 1 3 4 8 12 1 2 3 7 9 2 # /A # /A 2 2 1 1 10 2 2 # /A 3 2 16 10 10 1 # /A 2 3 2 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 1 4 5 3 # /A 1 3 2 1 2 1 2 3 9 1 # /A 2 2 2 1 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 3 # /A # /A 2 2 1 1 4 10 3 5 # /A 1 1 1 1 3 4 1 8 2 # /A # /A 1 1 1 2 1 4 3 5 1 # /A # /A 2 2 1 1 1 3 4 5 7 1 # /A # /A 3 2 1 3 7 9 1 2 3 1 2 3 7 2 1 1 1 2 1 2 3 14 1 2 3 4 5 1 4 5 2 # /A # /A # /A # /A # /A # /A # /A # /A # /A # /A 2 2 1 3 12 13 1 2 3 6 7 1 4 5 6 7 1 # /A # /A 2 2 1 2 1 2 3 1 2 # /A # /A 1 1 1 2 1 8 9 2 # /A # /A # /A # /A # /A # /A # /A # /A # /A # /A # /A # /A # /A # /A # /A # /A # /A # /A 2 2 1 3 16 1 2 1 4 1 # /A # /A 2 1 1 1 1 2 3 # /A # /A # /A # /A # /A 2 2 2 2 1 2 3 1 2 3 5 9 1 # /A # /A 3 1 1 1 2 5 6 1 2 7 2 # /A # /A 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 4 8 1 # /A # /A 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 # /A 2 2 1 13 1 2 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 15 14 49 49 49 49 49 49 Reuse

98 Question 1 Has your agency reused bridge foundations? For the purposes of this survey, Foundation Reuse refers to any agency action that changes the design load of the foundation. Examples of foundation reuse include bridge replacement, bridge widening, bridge repurposing, and retrofitting for seismic or other purposes. Bridge deck replacement is not considered foundation reuse for the purposes of this survey. Key 53 Yes 1 51 96% No 2 2 4% I'm not sure. 3 0 0% Question 2 Does your agency have policies or guidelines explicitly prohibiting reusing bridge foundations? Key 2 Yes 1 0 0% No 2 2 100% I don't know. 3 0 0% Question 2b Although your agency has not reused bridge foundations, has your agency established specific policies, guidelines, and/or procedures for reusing bridge foundations (in case bridge foundations are eventually reused)? Key 2 Yes 1 0 0% No 2 2 100% I don’t know. 3 0 0% Question 3 Has your agency ever considered reusing any existing foundations? Key 2 Yes 1 2 100% No 2 0 0% I don't know. 3 0 0% Question 4 Please indicate the reasons your agency has not reused bridge foundations by selecting all responses below that apply. Key 2 Uncertainty regarding existing foundations (type of foundation, plan location, depth) 1 1 50% Concerns regarding structural integrity of existing foundations 2 1 50% Concerns regarding the load capacity of existing foundations 3 1 50% Concerns regarding the effect of scour on existing foundations 4 1 50% %005snoitadnuofgnitsixenostceffecimsiesgnidragersnrecnoC Concerns regarding the remaining service life of existing foundations 6 1 50% Reuse of existing foundations is not considered in existing design codes 7 0 0% Cheaper to build a new foundation than to retrofit an existing foundation 8 1 50% Unaware reusing bridge foundations was a viable option 9 0 0% Other: Replacement bridges have been longer and set at higher road elevations. Reuse of foundations was not a viable option. 10 1 50% Total responses: Total responses: Total responses: Total responses: Total responses: Number of Responses Number of Responses Number of Responses Number of Responses Number of Responses

99 Question 5 Has your agency established specific policies, guidelines, and/or procedures for reusing bridge foundations? Key 51 Yes 1 8 16% No 2 39 76% I don't know. 3 4 8% Question 6 What circumstances have motivated your agency to reuse bridge foundations? Please select all that apply. Key 51 Accelerated construction 1 30 59% Project schedule 2 20 39% Right-of-way constraints 3 13 25% Environmental/permitting considerations 4 16 31% Utility conflicts 5 7 14% Constructability 6 23 45% %87047snoitaredisnoccimonocE %52318noitavreserpcirotsiH %72419)htapekibotegdirbdaorliar.g.e(gnisopruperegdirB Emergency repair 10 11 22% Other: Existing foundation is in good condition. 11 3 6% Other: Minimize excavation and dewatering 12 1 2% Question 7 Has your agency reused bridge foundations on any especially noteworthy or challenging projects? Key 51 Yes 1 17 33% No 2 27 53% I don't know. 3 7 14% Question 8 In terms of annual average daily traffic (AADT), how heavily traveled are the bridges where your agency has reused foundations? Please select all that apply. Key 50 AADT ≤ 1,000 1 24 48% 1,000 < AADT ≤ 10,000 2 29 58% 10,000 < AADT ≤ 50,000 3 30 60% AADT > 50,000 4 16 32% I don't know. 5 4 8% Total responses: Total responses: Total responses: Total responses: Number of Responses Number of Responses Number of Responses Number of Responses

100 Question 9 What types of foundations has your agency reused? Please select all that apply. Key 50 %46231snoitadnuofwollahS %48242selipnevirD %23613stfahsdellirD %6184:yficepsesaelp,rehtO Question 10 For what types of structures has your agency reused bridge foundations? Please select all that apply. Key 50 %88441stnemtubaegdirB %89942sreipegdirB Arch bridge 3 5 10% Retaining walls 4 10 20% %215:yficepsesaelp,rehtO Question 11 Has your agency reused bridge foundations for an accelerated bridge construction (ABC) project involving prefabricated bridge elements and systems (PBES)? Key 50 Yes 1 14 28% No 2 25 50% I don't know. 3 11 22% Question 11b How many times has your agency reused bridge foundations for ABC projects involving PBES in the previous ten years (2006 - present)? Key 14 %001.etamitsenaedivorpt'nacIdna,wonkt'nodI %7582)sselroraeyrepecno(semit5ot1 %1233)raeyrepsemit2ot1(semit01ot6 %1234)raeyrepsemit5ot2(semit52ot11 %005)raeyrepsemit01ot5(semit05ot62 %006)raeyrepsemit01nahterom(semit05nahteroM Question 12 For what applications has your agency reused bridge foundations? Please select all that apply. For the purposes of this survey, bridge deck replacement is not considered foundation reuse. Key 50 %08041tnemecalpererutcurtsrepusrotnemecalperegdirB %28142gninediwerutcurtsrepusrogninediwegdirB %42213gnisopruperegdirB %03514snoitadnuofegdirbfotifortercimsieS Increase clearance (e.g. over a railway) 5 15 30% %216tiforterruocS:rehtO Other: Cantilever retaining wall 7 1 2% Total responses: Total responses: Total responses: Total responses: Total responses: Number of Responses Number of Responses Number of Responses Number of Responses Number of Responses

101 Question 12b How many times has your agency reused bridge foundations for bridge replacement or superstructure replacement in the previous ten years (2006 - present)? Key 39 %8171.etamitsenaedivorpt'nacIdna,wonkt'nodI %83512)sselroraeyrepecno(semit5ot1 %8173)raeyrepsemit2ot1(semit01ot6 %0144)raeyrepsemit5ot2(semit52ot11 %3155)raeyrepsemit01ot5(semit05ot62 %316)raeyrepsemit01nahterom(semit05nahteroM Question 12c How many times has your agency reused bridge foundations for bridge widening or superstructure widening in the previous ten years (2006 - present)? Key 39 %3151.etamitsenaedivorpt'nacIdna,wonkt'nodI %94912)sselroraeyrepecno(semit5ot1 %0143)raeyrepsemit2ot1(semit01ot6 %0144)raeyrepsemit5ot2(semit52ot11 %3155)raeyrepsemit01ot5(semit05ot62 %526)raeyrepsemit01nahterom(semit05nahteroM Question 12d How many times has your agency reused bridge foundations for bridge repurposing in the previous ten years (2006 - present)? Key 11 %7231.etamitsenaedivorpt'nacIdna,wonkt'nodI %4672)sselroraeyrepecno(semit5ot1 %913)raeyrepsemit2ot1(semit01ot6 %004)raeyrepsemit5ot2(semit52ot11 %005)raeyrepsemit01ot5(semit05ot62 %006)raeyrepsemit01nahterom(semit05nahteroM Question 12e How many times has your agency reused bridge foundations for seismic retrofit of bridge foundations in the previous ten years (2006 - present)? Key 15 %3351.etamitsenaedivorpt'nacIdna,wonkt'nodI %3582)sselroraeyrepecno(semit5ot1 %003)raeyrepsemit2ot1(semit01ot6 %714)raeyrepsemit5ot2(semit52ot11 %715)raeyrepsemit01ot5(semit05ot62 %006)raeyrepsemit01nahterom(semit05nahteroM Total responses: Total responses: Total responses: Total responses: Number of Responses Number of Responses Number of Responses Number of Responses

102 Question 12f How many times has your agency reused bridge foundations to increase clearance in the previous ten years (2006 - present)? Key 14 %1231.etamitsenaedivorpt'nacIdna,wonkt'nodI %0572)sselroraeyrepecno(semit5ot1 %4123)raeyrepsemit2ot1(semit01ot6 %4124)raeyrepsemit5ot2(semit52ot11 %005)raeyrepsemit01ot5(semit05ot62 %006)raeyrepsemit01nahterom(semit05nahteroM Question 13 Please describe the availability of historic records regarding existing foundations when your agency has reused bridge foundations. For the purposes of this question, historic records include "as-built" plans. Key 49 %92411.elbaliavasyawlaerasdrocercirotsiH %94422.elbaliavayllausuerasdrocercirotsiH %22113.elbaliavasemitemoserasdrocercirotsiH %004.elbaliavarevenerasdrocercirotsiH I don’t know. 5 0 0% Question 14 Please describe the information in historic records regarding existing foundations. For the purposes of this question, historic records include "as-built" plans. Key 49 Historic records always indicate foundation type, plan location, and dimensions. 1 15 31% Historic records include most information regarding foundation type, plan location, and dimensions. 2 31 63% Information regarding foundation type, plan location, or dimensions is frequently missing from or conflicting in historic records. 3 3 6% Information regarding foundation type, plan location, or dimensions is always or almost always missing from or conflicting in historic records. 4 0 0% %005.wonkt'nodI Total responses: Total responses: Total responses: Number of Responses Number of Responses Number of Responses

103 Question 15 What methods has your agency used to characterize basic details and/or perform condition assessment of existing foundations being considered for reuse? Please select all that apply. Basic details include foundation type, material, location, and dimensions (including depth). Condition assessment refers to characterizing the structural integrity of existing foundations. Key 49 Research and discovery of existing records 1 48 98% Excavation to expose foundation (field observation) 2 25 51% Core drilling of foundation 3 21 43% Sonic echo (SE)/Impulse response (IR) 4 7 14% Bending wave 5 1 2% Ultraseismic 6 0 0% Seismic (reflection, refraction, surface waves (SASW/MASW), tomography) 7 8 16% Electrical resistivity (ER) / Induced polarization (IP) 8 1 2% Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) 9 4 8% Parallel seismic 10 6 12% Magnetic logging 11 0 0% Cross-borehole tomography 12 3 6% Geophysical methods, but I don't know which ones specifically. 13 5 10% Other, please specify: 14 6 12% Restrike with pile driving analyzer (PDA) 5 Lack of settlement in response to traffic loads (i.e. observed performance) 1 None of the above 15 0 0% I don't know. 16 2 4% Question 16 What methods has your agency used to perform condition assessment of the exposed portion of existing substructures and/or foundations being considered for reuse? Please select all that apply. Key 49 Inspection reports 1 44 90% Core drilling of foundation 2 31 63% Tests of concrete chloride and/or sulfate concentrations (from exposed foundation) 3 20 41% Sacrificial steel and inspection 4 10 20% Half-cell potential testing 5 4 8% Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) 6 4 8% Impact Echo (IE) 7 6 12% Other, please specify: 8 0 0% None of the above 9 1 2% I don't know. 10 3 6% Total responses: Total responses: Number of Responses Number of Responses

104 Question 17 In addition to the condition assessment data indicated in the previous question, what other data does your agency consider in order to predict remaining service life? Please select all that apply. Key 49 Traffic loads 1 26 53% Climate 2 8 16% Groundwater table location and fluctuation 3 14 29% Extreme event loadings 4 16 33% Soil/groundwater corrosion potential 5 20 41% Subsurface drainage conditions 6 9 18% Winter maintenance practices 7 9 18% Other, please specify: 8 3 6% Corrosion rates 1 2% Scour 2 4% None of the above 9 8 16% I don't know. 10 6 12% Question 18 Does your agency explicitly consider service life as part of the design of new foundations? Key 49 Yes 1 20 41% No 2 21 43% I don't know. 3 8 16% Question 19 Please explain how your agency has evaluated the remaining service life (RSL) of foundations being considered for reuse. Alternatively, upload or provide links to online versions of established policies or procedures for evaluating remaining service life. If you have already provided the documents in response to a previous question, you do not need to provide them again. Key 45 I do know: 15 33% Summary (select to bring up large text box) 1 14 31% I don't know. 4 30 67% Question 20 Will a foundation be considered for reuse if scour countermeasures are required to provide the necessary foundation capacity? Key 49 Yes 1 21 43% No 2 19 39% I don't know. 3 9 18% Total responses: Total responses: Total responses: Total responses: Number of Responses Number of Responses Number of Responses Number of Responses

105 Question 21 What methods has your agency used to predict the nominal resistance (load capacity) of existing foundations being considered for reuse? Please select all that apply. Key 49 Identify capacity value from original bridge project documents (e.g. project plans, geotechnical report, construction records, foundation installation logs, etc.) 1 43 88% Presumptive capacity based on soil type 2 18 37% Static analysis methods 3 28 57% Numerical methods 4 11 22% Load testing 5 6 12% Other, please specify: 6 1 2% Full scale bridge load testing from test vehicle 1 I don't know. 7 2 4% Question 21b What types of load testing has your agency performed on existing foundations being considered for reuse? Please select all that apply. Key 6 Conventional static load test 1 2 33% High strain dynamic load test 2 4 67% %003)tset ”cimantatS“ aka( tset daol )dipaR( esluP ecroF %004:yficeps esaelp ,rehtO Question 22 Under what design guidance or standards has your agency evaluated foundations to be reused? Please select all that apply. Key 39 AASHTO specifications from date of original foundation construction 1 15 38% AASHTO specifications from date of foundation reuse 2 31 79% State-specific provisions 3 11 28% Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code 4 0 0% Question 23 When foundations have been reused, has working stress design or a reliability-based design approach (e.g. LRFD) been used? Key 49 Working stress design has been used for most applications of foundation reuse. 1 19 39% Reliability-based design (e.g. LRFD) has been used for most applications of foundation reuse. 2 15 31% Working stress design and reliability-based design approaches have been used approximately equally. 3 9 18% I don't know. 4 6 12% Total responses: Total responses: Total responses: Total responses: Number of Responses Number of Responses Number of Responses Number of Responses

106 Question 24 What techniques and/or technologies have been used to facilitate foundation reuse? Please select all that apply. Key 48 %36031gnitoof degralnE Addition of driven piles 2 35 73% Addition of drilled shafts 3 21 44% Addition of micropiles 4 25 52% Addition of tiebacks 5 14 29% Replacement of backfill with lightweight fill 6 13 27% Ground improvement 7 5 10% Pier stem widening 8 21 44% Other, please specify: 9 4 8% Reduce loads (e.g. lightweight concrete) 2 4% Soil nails 1 2% Question 25 Does your agency monitor the performance of new foundations? Key 49 Always 1 12 24% Sometimes 2 14 29% Never 3 19 39% I don't know. 4 4 8% Question 26 Does your agency conduct performance monitoring after reusing bridge foundations? Key 49 Always 1 10 20% Sometimes 2 12 24% Never 3 18 37% I don't know. 4 9 18% Total responses: Total responses: Total responses: Number of Responses Number of Responses Number of Responses

107 Colorado New abutment behind existing abutment for avoiding work in the water channel. Underpinning and strengthening existing pier spread footing for heavy modern HL-93 live load. Widening existing pier/abutment bent for accommodating additional lanes or shoulders. South Carolina Historical swingspan replacement in high seismic area. New Hampshire Memorial Bridge replacement Portsmouth, NH http://memorialbridgeproject.com/ Kentucky Reuse of piers in Ohio river near Milton, KY and Madison, IN Massachusetts A list of projects where foundations were reused will be mailed to the PI. Two projects stand out that included ABC construction using heavy lift/SPMTs where single or two span bridges with high ADTS. These where located in Athol and Wellesley Massachusetts. There are also other examples of historic structures and the fast 14 project. Maine Reuse of existing foundations of a 1957 viaduct with 7 foundations on spread footing on bedrock and 12 foundations on HP10x42 steel H-piles North Carolina Reuse of existing spread footing with adding micropiles to mitigate for scour hole at the one corner of the spread footing which caused the hammerhead column to tilt. Missouri 1. Foundations/piers reused at Miami, MO over Missouri River 2. Foundations/piers reused at Glasgow, MO over Missouri River 3. New superstructure and bridge slide onto existing piers/foundations 4. Upcoming bridge widening and bridge slide at Poplar St., St. Louis over Mississippi River 5. Foundations/piers reused at St. Charles, MO WB I-70 over Missouri River. 6. 60720 Bus. 54 in Audrain, also Rte. W over Meramec River (two of many smaller superstructure replacements) Prince Edward Island Widening a deck-truss structure with trapezoidal box girders on either side. Pier cap widened at top by post-tensions reinforced concrete Virginia The George P Coleman Bridge in Yorktown VA where the deteriorating existing spans were replace with new double-swing steel deck trusses. Michigan *Reused foundation for bridge slide-US-131 over 3 mile rd *Reused foundations built over large diameter sewer-M-39 Tireman Louisiana One of the main piers of the Huey P Long bridge over the Mississippi River in New Orleans was widened to accommodate a bridge widening project. West Virginia We reinforced existing piers for the Dick Henderson Memorial Bridge over the Kanawha River. The existing piers were in good shape but needed reinforcement to accommodate a wider superstructure. The footers were increased in size and used micropiles for added stability. The columns were reinforced with pier jackets. Arizona Virgin River Bridge No. 6 on Interstate 15 was reconstructed and widened using the existing foundations Alberta Two side-by-side 300m long river bridges needed superstructure replacement and we were advised by the Department of Fisheries that we would not receive permits for berms in the river, thereby effectively requiring us to reuse the existing foundations. Massachusetts Arch structures. Oregon Concrete Abutment walls on spread footings or pile supported footings New Hampshire Deepwater piers New Brunswick Timber crib abutments North Carolina Use drilled shafts for bridge widening South Carolina footings on piles Virginia large rectangular caissons Arizona steel cased concrete filled drilled pipe piles Quebec Expected remaining service life of existing foundation (including repairs) must be compatible with the service life of the new superstructure Ontario Bridges designed for 75 year service life. critical steel components Georgia Evaluate condition and age of existing foundations Rhode Island RIDOT follows the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Specifications which require a 75-year design life Nevada Required by AASHTO code. Kentucky Try to get 75-100 year life Yukon We follow Canadian Standards. New York The material requirements of the specifications have been developed to provide the required service life for typical conditions. If atypical conditions are anticipated, additional consideration is given to the design, materials and construction procedures. Massachusetts 2013 LRFD Bridge Manual: 2.1.2: The goal of a bridge project states added 75 year design life from completion of construction. Follow AASHTO, 75 year service life criteria Oregon New foundations are designed in accordance with AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications which are typically associated with a 75-year service life of the structure. Alberta Design of foundation is based on ultimate and serviceability limit states. Materials selected for foundation construction are based on exposure conditions. Piers on spreadfootings are not permitted in rivers due to risk of scour - must be on piles. Saskatchewan Pick pile types that will have longer durability, consider protective coatings, oversize piles 9. Other types of foundations reused: 7. Please briefly describe any noteworthy or challenging applications of foundation reuse 18. Please explain how your agency considers service life in the design of new foundations.

108 Saskatchewan Check historical file records and design loading conditions. Ohio Do not evaluate remaining service life. Decision based on condition and test results Georgia Engineering assessment of condition and age of structure Kentucky Evaluate testing and come up with service life Illinois I upload the documents earlier Nevada Not specifically calculated. Yukon We follow Canadian Standards. New York The field conditions are evaluated to determine if it is reasonable to expect the existing foundation to continue to perform adequately for the proposed increase in service life. Alberta Pier condition is inspected (primarily visually) for signs of distress. Pier is evaluated for loads based on existing geotechnical information. Ontario for steel piles estimate probable rate of corrosion, add protective coating or add additional sacrificial thickness Pennsylvania In District 6 we perform an design related evaluation (LRFD or LFD) of the existing substructure and determine whether a foundation should be reused, retrofitted or replaced. We almost exclusively reuse shallow foundations. Vermont The Structures Design Section works collaboratively with our Geotechnical Design group. We vet various ideas for determining the remaining service life that could include records plans, collecting and analyzing concrete cores from the abutment, etc. Massachusetts For steel piles, Confirm sufficient sacrificial thickness. For concrete footings, test for chlorides in abut or pier wall above ground. Florida Remaining service life has been evaluated through a combination of visual observation, coring and in-situ testing as well as laboratory testing. Depending on the project, all or some of the following items may be implemented; 1. Visual crack, delamination, and spall survey. 2. Half-cell potential survey on accessible surfaces. 3. Expose reinforcing steel for visual observation. 4. Continuity testing of the exposed reinforcement. 5. Measure concrete cover at locations where reinforcement is exposed. 6. Collect cores and perform chloride profile analysis and carbonation testing. 7. Conduct petrographic analysis. 8. Perform unconfined compressive strength testing of cores. 9. Collect samples and perform chloride ion content analysis. Arizona AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications along with new geotechnical investigation data Utah AASHTO LRFD design guidelines. Nevada AASHTO code criteria. Quebec Demand/capacity Massachusetts Design to latest AASHTO specs and MassDOT bridge manual. Check applicable limit states. Wisconsin Existing piers are evaluated using current LRFD criteria. Maine LRFD load and resistance factors are a function of a target reliability. Alberta Using load evaluation principles. Saskatchewan Using the limit states design as per the Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code Minnesota same criteria for new foundation Ontario see answer to previous Illinois state specific load and resistance factor Florida Engineering judgment based on: NBR = (Original Design Cap) x (Factor of Safety required during original construction) x (Conservatism Factor, based on original construction QA method) Pennsylvania The substructures are evaluated in our LRFD programs, if they "fail" in LRFD we then analyze them using ASD or WSD Saskatchewan 3.5 Arizona 95% capacity with limited structural movement Utah AASHTO LRFD design guidelines. Massachusetts Design to latest AASHTO specs and MassDOT bridge manual. Check applicable limit states. Nevada Per AASHTO code. Pennsylvania Present performance ratio requirements or past factor of safety requirements. Quebec Variable depending on soil nature and type of foundation Ohio current applicable reliability Minnesota same criteria for new foundation Alberta This depends on various factors, such as inspectability of the foundation components, redundancy of the components and component failure mode. For various typical pier components this might range from 3.00 to 3.50. Illinois I don't know but since they have be in service successfully for so long. we can accept a lower reliability than the design of a new foundation which does not have a history of performance Maine Target reliabilities for spread footing and pile design in LRFD range from 2.0 to 3.5 depending on the component 23. What is the target reliability? 23. How has the reliability been evaluated? 19. Please explain how your agency has evaluated the remaining service life (RSL) of foundations being considered for reuse

109 South Dakota As part of the normal yearly bridge inspection procedures Utah Bi-annual bridge inspections. Prince Edward Island Biennial inspection program. Yukon By frequent inspections to monitor any movement or settlement New Brunswick Inspections are done every 4 years for a new structure and every 2 years on all other structures Georgia Only through Construction Inspection and also through routine inspections Nevada Required through FHWA bridge inspection policy. Alberta Through regular bridge inspections. Mississippi Through routine bridge inspections North Carolina Using Survey method to check for movement Kentucky Visual Florida Visual survey for signs of stress or settlement. Ohio monuments and settlement platforms Minnesota movement sensors, shape arrays Connecticut Typically only for spread footings...monitor for movement with survey, tilt plates, inclinometer, etc New York Performance of foundations is typically monitored with survey, instrumentation, or some combination depending on the issue Tennessee Performance on new and reused foundations are monitored through the bridge inspection program. From question about scour countermeasures: note that overall hydraulic adequacy of opening is a primary consideration for foundation reuse. 26. Please explain how performance is monitored.

Abbreviations and acronyms used without definitions in TRB publications: A4A Airlines for America AAAE American Association of Airport Executives AASHO American Association of State Highway Officials AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials ACI–NA Airports Council International–North America ACRP Airport Cooperative Research Program ADA Americans with Disabilities Act APTA American Public Transportation Association ASCE American Society of Civil Engineers ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials ATA American Trucking Associations CTAA Community Transportation Association of America CTBSSP Commercial Truck and Bus Safety Synthesis Program DHS Department of Homeland Security DOE Department of Energy EPA Environmental Protection Agency FAA Federal Aviation Administration FAST Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act (2015) FHWA Federal Highway Administration FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration FRA Federal Railroad Administration FTA Federal Transit Administration HMCRP Hazardous Materials Cooperative Research Program IEEE Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers ISTEA Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers MAP-21 Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (2012) NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration NASAO National Association of State Aviation Officials NCFRP National Cooperative Freight Research Program NCHRP National Cooperative Highway Research Program NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration NTSB National Transportation Safety Board PHMSA Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration RITA Research and Innovative Technology Administration SAE Society of Automotive Engineers SAFETEA-LU Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (2005) TCRP Transit Cooperative Research Program TDC Transit Development Corporation TEA-21 Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (1998) TRB Transportation Research Board TSA Transportation Security Administration U.S.DOT United States Department of Transportation

TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD 5 0 0 F ifth S tre e t, N W W a s h in g to n , D C 2 0 0 0 1 A D D R ESS SER VICE R EQ UESTED NO N-PRO FIT O RG . U.S. PO STAG E PA ID CO LUM BIA, M D PER M IT NO . 88 Current Practices and Guidelines for the Reuse of Bridge Foundations NCHRP Synthesis 505 TRB ISBN 978-0-309-38992-1 9 7 8 0 3 0 9 3 8 9 9 2 1 9 0 0 0 0