Load Rating of Bridges and Culverts with Missing or Incomplete As-Built Information (2022)

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.

B-1   A P P E N D I X B Survey Results

B-2 Load Rating of Bridges and Culverts with Missing or Incomplete As-Built Information Table B.1. Responses to Q5, Q6, Q13, Q14, and Q17 State Q5 Bridges w/ missing info Q6 Bridges w/ missing info (%) Q13 Load rating procedure Q14 Documented procedure Q17 Current physical condition AL Yes <5 No Yes AR Yes Over 40 Yes Yes Yes AZ Yes 10–20 No Yes CA Yes 10–20 Yes Yes Yes CO Yes 5–10 Yes Yes Yes CT Yes 5–10 No Yes DC Yes <5 No Yes DE Yes <5 Yes Yes Yes FL Yes 20–40 Yes Yes Yes GA Yes 20–40 Yes No Yes HI Yes <5 No Yes IA Yes <5 No Yes ID Yes 10–20 Yes Yes Yes IL Yes 20–40 Yes Yes Yes IN Yes 5–10 Yes No Yes KY Yes Over 40 Yes Yes Yes LA Yes 10–20 Yes No Yes MA Yes 10–20 Yes Yes Yes MD Yes 10–20 Yes Yes Yes ME Yes 10–20 No Yes MI Yes <5 Yes Yes Yes MN No N/A N/A N/A MO Yes 5–10 No Yes MS Yes <5 No Yes MT Yes Over 40 No Yes NC Yes 5–10 Yes Yes Yes ND Yes <5 No Yes NE Yes <5 No Yes NJ Yes <5 Yes Yes Yes NM Yes 10–20 Yes Yes NV Yes 5–10 No Yes NY Yes <5 Yes Yes Yes OH Yes 5–10 No Yes OK Yes <5 No Yes OR Yes <5 Yes Yes Yes PA Yes 20–40 Yes Yes Yes RI Yes 20–40 No Yes SC Yes 10–20 Yes Yes Yes SD Yes <5 Yes No No TN Yes 10–20 No Yes TX Yes 10–20 Yes Yes Yes UT Yes 20–40 Yes Yes Yes VA Yes 5–10 Yes Yes Yes WA Yes <5 Yes Yes Yes WV Yes 5–10 Yes Yes Yes WY Yes 10–20 Yes Yes

Survey Results B-3   Legend Q5 Does your state/agency have bridges in its inventory that have missing or incomplete as-built information that in some way impacts your ability to complete a load rating of the bridge? Q6 Approximately what percentage of your agency’s bridges have missing or incomplete as-built information? Q13 Does your agency have a formal procedure in place for load rating bridges that have missing or incomplete as-built information? Q14 Is the procedure documented? Q17 Does your agency use information about the current physical condition of the bridge to aid in the load rating of bridges that have missing or incomplete as-built information?

B-4 Load Rating of Bridges and Culverts with Missing or Incomplete As-Built Information Table B.2. Responses to Q18, Q19, Q21, Q23, and Q29 State Q18 Historical info/plan info Q19 Use of NDT Q21 Destructive testing use Q23 Diagnostic load testing use Q29 Proof load testing use AL Yes Yes Yes Yes No AR Yes Yes No No No AZ Yes No No No No CA Yes Yes Yes No No CO Yes Yes No Yes No CT No Yes No Yes Yes DC Yes Yes Yes Yes No DE Yes Yes No No No FL Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes GA Yes No No No No HI Yes Yes No No No IA Yes Yes Yes Yes No ID Yes Yes Yes Yes No IL Yes Yes Yes No No IN Yes Yes Yes No Yes KY Yes Yes No Yes No LA Yes Yes Yes No No MA Yes Yes Yes Yes No MD Yes No No Yes Yes ME Yes No Yes Yes No MI Yes No Yes No No MN N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A MO Yes No No Yes No MS Yes No No No No MT Yes No No No No NC Yes No No No No ND Yes No No Yes No NE Yes No No Yes No NJ Yes No No No No NM Yes Yes No Yes No NV Yes Yes Yes Yes No NY Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes OH No No No Yes No OK No No Yes No No OR No Yes Yes Yes Yes PA Yes Yes No No No RI Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes SC Yes Yes Yes Yes No SD Yes No No No No TN Yes No No No No TX No Yes Yes No No UT No No No Yes No VA Yes No Yes Yes No WA No Yes No No No WV Yes No No No Yes WY Yes No No No No

Survey Results B-5   Legend Q18 Does your agency use historical information and information about bridges with plans to aid in the load rating of bridges that have missing or incomplete as-built information? Q19 Does your agency use non-destructive testing technologies to gather information about your bridges that have missing or incomplete as-built information? Q21 Does your agency use destructive testing technologies to gather information about your bridges that have missing or incomplete as-built information? Q23 Are you aware of your agency ever using diagnostic load testing as a tool for gathering more information about your bridges that have missing or incomplete as-built information? Q29 Are you aware of your agency ever using proof load testing as a tool for gathering more information about your bridges that have missing or incomplete as-built information?

Table B.3. Q7 Please select the types of bridges in your inventory that have missing or incomplete as-built information (only states that responded to Q7 options for types of bridges are reported) State Timber Steel truss Rolled steel beam/girder Reinforced concrete slab Reinforced concrete culvert Reinforced concrete beam/girder Prestressed concrete beam/girder Masonry Concrete encased steel beam/girder Built-up steel Other AL X X X X AR X X X X X X X X X X X AZ X X X X X X X X X X X CA X X X X X X X X X X X CT X X X X X X X X X DE X X FL X X X X X X X GA X X X X X X X X X IA X X X X X X X X X ID X X X X X IL X X X X X X X X X IN X X X X X X KY X X X X X X X X X X LA X X X X X X X MA X X X X X X X X X X X ME X X X X MI X X X X X MS X X X X X NC X X X ND X X X NE X NJ X X X X X X X NM X X X X X X NV X X X NY X X X X X X X OH X OK X X X X X OR X X X X X X PA X X X X X X X X X X RI X X X X X X X X X X SC X X X X X X SD X TN X X X X X TX X X X X X X UT X VA X WA X WV X WY X

Table B.4. Q7 Percentage of bridges of each type reported (only states that responded to Q7 options for types of bridges are reported) State Timber (%) Steel truss (%) Rolled steel beam/girder (%) Reinforced concrete slab (%) Reinforced concrete culvert (%) Reinforced concrete beam/girder (%) Prestressed concrete beam/girder (%) Masonry (%) Concrete encased steel beam/girder (%) Built-up steel (%) Other (%) AL 0 0 0 1.31 1.25 1.15 0.08 0.58 0 0 0 AR 1 1 31 14 23 21 1 0 0.01 0 0 AZ 0.25 0.5 0.5 4 3 1 0 0.25 0 0.5 0 CA 1 1 1 1 5 5 1 1 1 1 1 CO 0 0 1 0 2.5 1.5 1 0 0 0 0 DE 0 0 0 0 62.5 0 0 0 0 0 25 FL 50 40 5 10 25 5 15 0 0 0 0 HI 0 0 0 1.545 0.1671 1.545 0 0 0 0 0.167 IA 6.68 3.38 25.39 21.39 16.46 1.69 20.45 0.02 0 0 4.54 ID 0 0 0 3 3 3 4 0 1 0 0 IL 1 1 10 3 5 2 2 0 0 1 1 IN 0 1 1 1 6 1 1 0 0 0 0 KY 95 90 90 90 95 90 90 95 98 95 0 MA 0.21 0.08 1.87 2.79 0.67 0.33 0.97 2.33 0 0.15 0.92 ME 0 0 0 5 5 5 0 1 0 0 0 MI 0 0 0 0.02 0.8 0.07 0.04 0 0 0 0.2 MS 0.05 0 0 0.05 0.05 0.05 0 0 0 0 0.1 MT 7 10 0 1 1 1 19 0 0 0 10 NC 0 0 0 0 6 1 0 1 0 0 0 NE 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 NJ 0.03 0.2 0.5 0.2 1.2 0.2 0.7 0.2 0 0 0 NV 1 0 0 0 35 0 0 0 0 15 0 NY 0 0 0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0 1 OH 0 0 1 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 OR 0 0 0 0.39 1.17 0.8 0.76 0 0.03 0 0.04 RI 1 1 12 4 7 1 4 1 1 1 0 SC 1 1 1 0 3 5 5 0 0 0 0 SD 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 TN 0 0 0 1 10 5 1 0 1 0 1 TX 0.5 0 0 3 8 1 3 0.5 0 0 0 UT 0.9 0.5 6.3 6.2 6.1 1.2 5.3 0 0 0 0 VA 0 0 0 4 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 WA 0 0 0 0.2 1.2 0.2 0 0 0.03 0 0.15 WV 0 0 0 3 5 2 0 0 0 0 0 WY 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 0 0 2 0

Table B.5. “Other” option responses to Q7, Q8, Q11, Q20, and Q22 (only states that submitted “Other” responses to these questions are reported) State Q7 Types of bridges in inventory with missing/ incomplete as-built information Q8 Most common missing or incomplete information Q11 Bridge evaluation manual used by agency Q20 NDT technologies that agency has used Q22 Destructive technologies that agency has used AR Steel culvert, Steel RR Car Bridge AZ Concrete arch CA Railroad car, Military– Bailey/Pontoon CA rating manual + MBE CO Strain gauge CT Strain gauge DE RC Filled Arches, Composite material slab, CMP culvert State defined procedure FL Missing prestress diagrams Locate, drill, clean, and measure IA Variable IL Reinforced concrete 3-sided structure LA Weigh in Motion MA Concrete frame, Steel culvert Missing design vehicle/methodology Reinforcement exposure MI Reinforced concrete arch MS RC Channel Beam MT Missing prestress info on shop drawings OR Reinforced concrete arch Reinforcement exposure RI RI LRFR

Survey Results B-9   Table B.6. Q8 How would you describe the most common missing or incomplete information (you may select multiple answers)? (only states that responded to Q8 are reported) State Lack design drawings Lack as- built drawings Lack shop drawings Plans are unreadable or incomplete Missing material properties Missing rebar size, quantity, and location Missing geometric information Other AL X X X AR X X X AZ X X X X X X X CA X X X CO X X X X CT X X X X X DC X DE X X X FL X X X X X X GA X X X HI X X IA X X ID X X X X IL X X X X IN X X X X KY X LA X X X MA X X X X X X X MD X X X ME X MI X X X MO X X MS X X MT X X X X NC X X X X ND X X X NE X X X NJ X X X X NM X X X X NV X X X NY X OH X X X X X OK X X X X OR X X X X PA X X X X RI X X X X X X X SC X X X SD X X X TN X X X X TX X X UT X X X X X X VA X X X X X WA X X X WV X X X WY X X X X X

B-10 Load Rating of Bridges and Culverts with Missing or Incomplete As-Built Information Table B.7. Q15 Please provide the name of the reference/document to the procedure for load rating bridges and culverts with missing or incomplete as-built information. If it is available online, please provide the URL to the document. If it is not available online we would appreciate it if you would email or mail a copy of it to the research team. State Response AR AHTD Load Rating and Posting Manual. CA Caltrans Structure Maintenance and Investigations Inspection Procedures Manual Section 5.10 “Assigned Load Rating Procedures.” https://smi.onramp.dot.ca.gov/downloads/smi/files/Manuals/SM%26I%20Procedure%20 Manual/Section%205/Section%205_10%20(Revised)%20-%20Final%20Draft%20(09-2018)%20V2.pdf CO https://www.codot.gov/library/bridge/bridge-manuals/bridge-rating-manual/01-bridge-rating-guidelines.pdf/view DE Emailed document. FL https://fdotwww.blob.core.windows.net/sitefinity/docs/default-source/maintenance/str/lr/2020-load-rating-manual- 2020.pdf?sfvrsn=509ffb8e_0#page=17 6.1.4‰ÛÓBridges with Unknown Structural Components ID https://apps.itd.idaho.gov/apps/Bridge/manual/IMBE.pdf IL IDOT Structural Services Manual (2017) (to be updated in 2020). http://www.idot.illinois.gov/Assets/uploads/files/Doing-Business/Manuals-Guides-&- Handbooks/Highways/Bridges/Inspection/Structural%20Services%20Manual.pdf KY https://transportation.ky.gov/Maintenance/Documents/2020%20Bridge%20Inspection%20Procedures%20Manual.pdf MA MassDOT 2013 LRFD Bridge Manual, Chapter 7, Paragraph 7.2.5.5 provides the procedure. https://www.mass.gov/files/documents/2013/06/bfu/CHAPTER_7_LRFD_MassDOT.pdf MD Relevant section: Bridges with Unknown Structural Components: For bridges where necessary information is unavailable, such as concrete or masonry bridges with unknown structural details, an approximate load rating may be established through an evaluation by a qualified engineer, with the following guidelines: • If the structure has been carrying normal traffic for an appreciable period of time, and the current field conditions indicate no signs of structural distress from loads, the inventory and operating rating factor for each legal vehicle may be taken as 1.0, and the ratings for the permit vehicles shall be left blank. • If the engineer determines that the structure shows signs of distress or otherwise feels that engineering judgment should not apply, the SIRED will be notified and an assessment will be made regarding the need for posting, load testing or repair. MI https://www.michigan.gov/documents/mdot/MDOT_BRIDGE_ADVISORY_BA_2012-02_401291_7.pdf NC https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/Structures/Stucture%20Spec%20Memos/Engineering%20Judgement%20Load%20Rati ng%20(April%202016).pdf NJ https://www.state.nj.us/transportation/eng/structeval/pdf/LoadCapacityEngineeringJudgement.pdf NY It is based on design load, shortest span length, structure condition, and primary member rating. OR Section 15 of the ODOT LRFR Manual provides the procedure for load rating concrete structures without plans. The ODOT LRFR Manual can be downloaded through the following location: https://www.oregon.gov/odot/Bridge/Pages/Load-Rating.aspx PA Publication 238 Bridge Safety Inspection Manual. http://www.dot.state.pa.us/public/PubsForms/Publications/PUB%20238.pdf SC Load Rating Guidance Document is available online: https://www.scdot.org/business/load-rating-guidance-doc.aspx TX Bridge Inspection Manual. http://onlinemanuals.txdot.gov/txdotmanuals/ins/manual_notice.htm UT Defined in the UDOT Bridge Management Manual, Chapter 4, Section 4.3.2.3.7: https://www.udot.utah.gov/main/uconowner.gf?n=35942524323318753 VA http://www.virginiadot.org/business/resources/bridge/Manuals/IIM/SBIIM86.3.pdf WA https://www.wsdot.wa.gov/publications/manuals/fulltext/M36-64/Chapter5.pdf See Section 5-2.3. WV Emailed separately.

Survey Results B-11   Table B.8. Q9, Q10, Q11, Q12, Q24, Q25, Q26, and Q28 State Q9 Q10 Q11 Q12 Q24 Q25 Q26 Q28 AL Yes Yes (1) (1) (1) (1) No N/A AR Yes Yes (1) (2) N/A N/A N/A No AZ Yes No (1) (1) N/A N/A N/A Yes CA Yes Yes (2) (2) N/A N/A N/A No CO Yes No (1) (2) (2) (3) No N/A CT Yes Yes (1) (2) (1) (3) No N/A DC Yes Yes (1) (1) (1) (3) No N/A DE No Yes (2) (2) N/A N/A N/A No FL No Yes (1) (2) (5) (3) Yes N/A GA No Yes (1) (1) N/A N/A N/A No HI Yes No (1) (2) N/A N/A N/A No IA No No (1) (1) (1) (2) No N/A ID Yes Yes (1) (1) (1) (1) No N/A IL Yes Yes (1) (1) N/A N/A N/A Yes IN Yes Yes (1) (2) N/A N/A N/A No KY Yes Yes (1) (1) (5) (1) No N/A LA No Yes (1) (2) N/A N/A N/A No MA Yes Yes (1) (3) (1) (3) Yes N/A MD No Yes (1) (1) (4) (1) No N/A ME No No (1) (2) (1) (3) No N/A MI No No (1) (1) N/A N/A N/A No MO Yes Yes (1) (1) (4) (3) No N/A MS Yes Yes (1) (1) N/A N/A N/A No MT No No (1) (2) N/A N/A N/A No NC Yes Yes (1) (1) N/A N/A N/A No ND No No (1) (1) (1) (3) No N/A NE Yes No (1) (2) (2) (1) Yes N/A NJ No No (1) (2) N/A N/A N/A Yes NM No Yes (1) (1) (2) (2) No N/A NV No No (1) (2) (1) (3) No N/A NY Yes Yes (1) (1) (5) (1) Yes N/A OH No Yes (1) (1) (1) (3) No N/A OK No No (1) (1) N/A N/A N/A Yes OR No No (1) (2) (1) (3) Yes N/A PA No No (1) (1) N/A N/A N/A No RI Yes Yes (2) (3) (5) (1) No N/A SC Yes Yes (1) (2) (5) (1) No N/A SD No No (1) (1) N/A N/A N/A No TN Yes Yes (1) (1) N/A N/A N/A No TX Yes Yes (1) (1) N/A N/A N/A No UT No No (1) (1) (2) (1) Yes N/A VA Yes Yes (1) (2) (1) (3) No N/A WA No Yes (1) (1) N/A N/A N/A No WV Yes No (1) (1) N/A N/A N/A No WY No No (1) (1) N/A N/A N/A No

B-12 Load Rating of Bridges and Culverts with Missing or Incomplete As-Built Information Legend Q9 Does your agency currently consider the condition of the deck in load rating bridges that have missing or incomplete as-built information? Q10 Does your agency currently consider the condition of the substructure in load rating bridges that have missing or incomplete as-built information? Q11 What bridge evaluation manual does your agency use? (1) AASHTO (2) Other Q12 What load rating method does your agency use? (1) LFR (2) LRFR (3) ASR Q24 Approximately how many bridges that have missing or incomplete as-built information have been diagnostically load tested for the purpose of load rating? (1) 1 to 3 (2) 4 to 6 (3) 7 to 10 (4) 11 to 20 (5) More than 20 Q25 Do you expect to continue to use diagnostic load testing as a tool for assisting in the load rating of bridges that have missing or incomplete as-built information? (1) Yes (2) No (3) Maybe Q26 Does your agency follow or have a documented procedure for diagnostic load testing? Q28 Does your agency have plans to use diagnostic load testing as a tool for assisting in the load rating of bridges that have missing or incomplete as-built information?

Survey Results B-13   PA N/A N/A N/A No Yes 40 (2) RI (1) (1) No N/A Yes 30 (2) SC N/A N/A N/A Yes Yes 10 (1) SD N/A N/A N/A No No N/A N/A TN N/A N/A N/A No Yes 58 (1) TX N/A N/A N/A No Yes 35 N/A UT N/A N/A N/A No Yes 35 (1) VA N/A N/A N/A No Yes 12 (1) WA N/A N/A N/A No No N/A N/A WV (1) (2) No N/A Yes 5 (1) WY N/A N/A N/A No Yes 30 (1) Table B.9. Q30, Q31, Q32, Q34, Q35, Q36, and Q37 State Q30 Q31 Q32 Q34 Q35 Q36 (%) Q37 AL N/A N/A N/A No Yes 64 (3) AR N/A N/A N/A No Yes 43 (1) AZ N/A N/A N/A No Yes 40 (2) CA N/A N/A N/A No Yes 50 (2) CO N/A N/A N/A No Yes 58 (1) CT (1) (3) No N/A Yes 30 (1) DC N/A N/A N/A Yes Yes 24 (3) DE N/A N/A N/A No Yes 3 (2) FL (5) (1) Yes N/A Yes 48 (1) GA N/A N/A N/A No Yes 60 (1) HI N/A N/A N/A No Yes 25 (1) IA N/A N/A N/A No Yes 82 (3) ID N/A N/A N/A Yes Yes 2 (3) IL N/A N/A N/A Yes Yes 70 (1) IN (1) (3) No N/A Yes 5 (2) KY N/A N/A N/A No Yes 39 (1) LA N/A N/A N/A No Yes 40 (1) MA N/A N/A N/A No Yes 33 (1) MD (4) (1) No N/A Yes 51 (1) ME N/A N/A N/A Yes Yes 15 (2) MI N/A N/A N/A Yes Yes 60 (3) MO N/A N/A N/A No Yes 57 (1) MS N/A N/A N/A No No N/A N/A MT N/A N/A N/A No Yes 45 (1) NC N/A N/A N/A No Yes 4 (1) ND N/A N/A N/A No Yes 70 (3) NE N/A N/A N/A Yes Yes 80 (3) NJ N/A N/A N/A No Yes 63 (1) NM N/A N/A N/A No Yes 25 (1) NV N/A N/A N/A No Yes 40 (1) NY (1) (1) Yes N/A Yes 56 (2) OH N/A N/A N/A No Yes 3 (2) OK N/A N/A N/A No Yes 71 (2) OR (1) (2) Yes N/A Yes 60 (1)

B-14 Load Rating of Bridges and Culverts with Missing or Incomplete As-Built Information Legend Q30 Approximately how many bridges that have missing or incomplete as-built information have been proof load tested for the purpose of load rating? (1) 1 to 3 (2) 4 to 6 (3) 7 to 10 (4) 11 to 20 (5) More than 20 Q31 Do you expect to continue to use proof load testing as a tool for assisting in the load rating of bridges that have missing or incomplete as-built information? (1) Yes (2) No (3) Maybe Q32 Does your agency follow or have a documented procedure for proof load testing? Q34 Does your agency have plans or would like to use proof load testing as a tool for assisting in the load rating of bridges that have missing or incomplete as-built information? Q35 Are there bridges in the state inventory that are not owned by the state? Q36 Approximately what percentage of bridges in the state inventory are NOT owned by the state? Q37 Is the state responsible for the inspection/load rating of those bridges that are not state owned? (1) Yes, all of them (2) Yes, but only some of them (3) No

Table B.10. Q16 Please describe how your agency currently load rates its bridges that have missing or incomplete as-built information, including policies for posting weight restrictions, if any. Please be as specific/detailed as practical. If there are different procedures for different materials please describe each of them. If your agency considers the condition of the deck or substructure in the load rating please describe how it is considered. State Response AL The DOT load rates all bridges in the state regardless of the owner (state, county, city). 1. Concrete superstructure without plans for placement of rebar, encased steel beams, prestressed tendons, etc. The structure is load rated with a Professional Engineer [PE] Inspection. This inspection is based on a site visit by a PE who evaluates the current condition of the structure and makes a determination of the load rating values. When posting is necessary a gross weight is typically chosen. 2. Steel or timber superstructure without plans/as-built drawings. The bridge inspectors go out and take measurements of the girder size, spacing, deck width, etc. basically capturing what would be needed to create a bridge model for AASHTOWare BrR. 3. When the NBI grade of the deck or substructure is a 4 then the load rating values are halved. When the NBI grade of the deck or substructure is a 3 then the load rating values are dropped to 3 tons. This is typically done for county and city owned structures. The state structures will be monitored more closely or repaired in a timely manner. AZ Initially, we assigned Load Rating values to each structure based on its current condition, historic performance and our engineering judgment. We’re currently in process of developing a formal procedure to load rate the bridges with missing or incomplete as-built information. This may include non-destructive, destructive and load testing as necessary. CT Consider the condition of the structure, and age of service. Structures that are judged to maybe requiring restriction, proof tested can be performed. DC Perform survey and NDT. Use material data from similar bridges built the same time. GA Engineering judgment is utilized based on structure type, approximate year of construction and evaluation of condition to estimate a design truck load. From that, we calculate the dead load of the structure and analyze using simple spans for flexure and shear. HI If no plans, we sometimes look for similar bridges of the same era and assume similar reinforcing. We also use non-destructive testing to get an idea of the reinforcing. IA Engineering judgment unless the actual sections can be measured and material properties assumed based on age. IN The majority of our structures that are missing plans are reinforced concrete arches under fill. For these structures, engineering judgment evaluation is performed involving the inspector responsible for the structure. The load rating engineer and the inspector review the condition and traffic conditions. A spreadsheet is used that calculates an engineering judgment factor for each of Indiana’s legal vehicles based on a simple span moment comparison of the assumed design vehicle based on the year of construction. LA LADOTD Bridge Design and Evaluation Manual Bridge Design website: Bridge Design Downloads: Off-system. ME Steel girder bridges are field measured and then load rated. Concrete structures are evaluated for signs of distress. If none is found, a stamped memo is written stating the bridge is OK for legal loads. MO We use this method mainly for concrete bridges with unknown reinforcement. We utilize the AASHTO Manual for Bridge Evaluation (MBE) for this. For concrete structures that have been in service and are not showing signs of distress, we will assign them Operating Rating of 60 tons and Inventory Rating of 36 tons. For steel structures, we will request the structure’s dimensions and use this for the BrR model.

MS For timber girders, timber piles, steel piles and steel girders, the dimensions are field measured and assumptions based on the year built are used to assign material allowable stresses. The bridge is load rated using this information. MT For concrete or prestressed concrete, in the past Field Evaluation and Documented Engineering Judgment has been used to come up with ratings. A short memo was typically written to the file explaining that plans or shop drawings are not available, citing MBE Section 6.1.4 to determine that the bridge doesn’t need posting (based on the assumption that it has been carrying normal traffic and shows no sign of distress). We are in the midst of discussions about the need to reevaluate whether this is still appropriate now that SHVs are legal loads that we’re required to rate and post for—the concern is around whether or not our bridges have seen enough of these specific vehicles (SU6 and SU7 in particular) to justify that logic. In addition, we don’t have a way to address bridges that do show signs of deterioration. For steel and timber members, we are typically able to get measurements and then use the MBE, in addition to specific MDT timber guidance, to make assumptions about material properties. ND Our policy for load rating structures with incomplete information is currently in development. NE We assign load-carrying capacity for culverts based on the history of culvert design and standard plans. If deck or substructure [is] at the failure stage, we include them in the calculation for load-carrying capacity of the bridge. NM Steel/Timber—Collect dimension by field measurements; estimate materials properties based on construction date. Concrete Slab—Collect dimension by field measurements; estimate reinforcement by field scanning methods; estimate materials properties based on construction date. NV For concrete culverts, we use standard plans and/or field measurements if the date of construction is known. If the construction date is not known, we have typically used condition ratings and provisions from the MBE, 1st Edition to assign a load rating (Operating Rating RF = 1.0 for LFR). For other types of bridges, particularly railroad flat car bridges, we have used field measurements and assumed material properties (with reduction for damage in some cases) to calculate the load rating. OH Where possible, measurements are made to determine steel beam sections, concrete members are analyzed based on meeting minimum concrete reinforcement requirements. OK Most of our structures with missing plans are RC WPA structures. In those instances we load rate via engineering judgment. For steel structures we measure the structure and order material sampling. RI Along with AASHTO Manual for Bridge Evaluation (MBE), Rhode Island Department of Transportation (RIDOT) has their own guidelines attached: RIDOT Bridge Load Rating Guidelines November 2019. Generally, if as-built information is missing or incomplete, a field visit where detailed measurements are taken is warranted. At RIDOT’s discretion, the following methods may also be used: non-destructive testing, material sampling, load testing. The following excerpts from RIDOT Bridge Load Rating Guidelines describe how bridges that have missing or incomplete as-built information are load rated. Section 1.10.1 Review of Existing Bridge Plans and Documents (p. 13): “In cases where as-built or bid plans may not exist, complete field measurements of the structure will be required to perform the load rating.” “If the material strengths are not explicitly stated on the plans, RIDOT construction and material specifications applicable at the time of bridge construction shall be reviewed.” “In absence of any information and as a last resort, the MBE provides guidance and data on older bridge types and materials that allows the valuation of existing bridges.” Section 1.10.6 Materials (p. 16): “In the absence of any material data or when any AASHTO legal load rating factor for a bridge is below 1.0, consideration shall be given to performing steel and or concrete material sampling and testing to obtain a more realistic evaluation of the bridge. Please note that no material sampling and testing shall be performed unless approved by the Department. The engineer shall use sound judgment based on past experience with similar types of bridges to determine if material testing would be beneficial to the overall rating of the bridge. The engineer shall perform a trial test to see if material testing is practical and cost effective by changing the material properties used in the analysis to see what the reasonable impacts could be if material testing was performed. The results will be helpful to determine if material testing is feasible. For concrete structures, material testing shall be in accordance with MBE 6A.5.2.1 unless otherwise approved. For general material testing, refer to MBE Section 5.” Section 1.11 Bridges with Unknown Structural Components (p. 16–17): “There are bridges where common analytical methods are not

adequate to determine the load rating. For bridges where details such as reinforcing in a concrete bridge are not available from existing plans or field evaluation, knowledge of the live load used in the original design, the current condition of the structure, and the live load history may be used to provide a basis for determining a safe load capacity. Consideration may be given to non-destructive testing (NDT) and material testing to help determine the characteristics of the bridge. Such testing will sometimes provide enough information to produce a reliable load rating for the bridge. This shall only be done with approval from the Department. Per MBE Section 6.1.4, a concrete bridge with unknown details need not be posted for restricted loading if it has been carrying normal traffic and shows no visible signs of distress. Non-destructive load tests can also be helpful in establishing the safe load capacity for such structures if desired. Section 8 of the MBE provides guidance on the use of load tests, the interpretation of load test results, and the types of bridges that are suitable candidates for load tests. Proposed load tests, if required, shall be reviewed and approved by RIDOT.” Section 11.1 Potential Bridges Requiring Posting (p. 36): “A concrete bridge with unknown details need not be posted for restricted loading if it has been carrying normal traffic and shows no distress.” SD All of our missing data concerns concrete culverts. They are rated by field evaluation and engineering judgment to carry legal loads unless distress is noted. TN TDOT, as well as many cities and counties, built many culverts, slab bridges and reinforced concrete bridges using standard plans. If a bridge lacks design plans, the geometry, approximate year built, and bridge rail are compared to our inventory of standard plans. TDOT utilizes spreadsheets to expedite the search on these items. If the bridge can be reasonably matched to a set of drawings, they will be utilized in the load rating of the bridge. The load rating results are then compared to the performance of the structure, and distress in any component (including the substructure or deck) is considered. If necessary, the bridge will be posted based on the results. If no match is found, the bridge is left open/posted/closed based on performance and engineering judgment on a case-by-case basis. WY Structures with Missing Drawings: For concrete bridges missing reinforcing details and the design live load is known: Estimate the capacity of the bridge or box culvert (if the fill is less than 2') by assuming the load rating factor equals 1.0 for the design load (examples: HS15, HS20, HS20 Lane, HL93, etc.). Determine the load rating factors for the remaining rating vehicles by calculating the respective live load effects and using the estimated capacity determined from the design load. For concrete bridges missing reinforcing details and the design live load is unknown: Provide an administrative rating of 1.0 at the Inventory level and 1.67 at the Operating level for the HS20 truck and remaining rating vehicles. This method is acceptable when the minimum NBI Condition Rating for the bridge is above 4. Steel or Timber Structures Missing Drawings: Steel and timber girder bridges without drawings will require field measurements to perform the load rating.

Table B.11. Q20 Use the table below to select those NDT technologies that your agency has used. (only states that responded are reported) State (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) (21) AL X X X X X X X AR X X X CA X X X X X X CO X X X X X X X CT X X DC X DE X X FL X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X HI X X X X IA X X X X X X ID X X X X X X X X X X IL X X X X X IN X X KY X LA X X X X X X X X X X MA X X X X X X NM X X NV X X X X X X NY X X X X X X X X X X X X OR X X PA X X X X X X X RI X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X SC X X X X X X X X X X TX X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X WA X X X Legend (1) Sounding (chain drag, hammer tap) (2) Schmidt hammer (3) Dye penetrant (4) Pullout test (5) Profometer (rebar locator and cover meter) (6) Ground-penetrating radar (GPR) (7) Impact-echo (8) Infrared thermography (9) Impulse response (including crosshole logging) (10) Ultrasound (11) Half-cell potential (12) Electrical resistivity (13) Linear polarization resistance (14) Magnetic flux leakage (15) Eddy current (16) Magnetic particles (17) Radiography (including backscatter and tomography) (18) Air permeability (19) Penetration resistance (20) Moisture content

Survey Results B-19   Table B.12. Q22 Use the table below to select the destructive technologies that your agency has used (only states that responded are reported) State Concrete cores Metal samples Wood cores/samples Other AL X X X CA X X DC X FL X X X IA X X ID X X X IL X X IN X LA X X X MA X X X X ME X X MI X NV X X NY X X X OK X X OR X X X PA RI X X X SC X X TX X X UT VA X

Table B.13. Q27 Please provide the name of the reference/document to the procedure for diagnostic load testing that your agency follows. If it is available online, please provide the URL to the document. If it is not available online we would appreciate it if you would email or mail a copy of it to the research team. State Response FL The following section from the FDOT Bridge Load Rating Manual discusses load test candidates, and broadly outlines requirements for load tests: https://fdotwww.blob.core.windows.net/sitefinity/docs/default-source/maintenance/str/lr/2020-load-rating-manual- 2020.pdf?sfvrsn=509ffb8e_0#page=48 Earlier 1990s tests used a standard template for rapid proof testing. More recent tests are customized to each bridge, and are more typically diagnostic tests; these follow MBE Section 8. MA Bridge Rating through Nondestructive Load Testing NCHRP 12-28(13)A. http://onlinepubs.trb.org/Onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rrd_234supp.pdf NE Fouad Jaber is working with Nebraska State University to create a procedure/protocol for testing bridges on their load-carrying capacity. NY MBE. OR Section 8 of the AASHTO Manual for Bridge Evaluation. UT UDOT Bridge Management Manual, Chapter 4, Section 4.3.4: https://www.udot.utah.gov/main/uconowner.gf?n=35942524323318753

Table B.14. Q33 Please provide the name of the reference/document to the procedure for proof load testing that your agency follows. If it is available online, please provide the URL to the document. If it is not available online we would appreciate it if you would email or mail a copy of it to the research team. State Response FL (Same as earlier response to diagnostic testing.) The following section from the FDOT Bridge Load Rating Manual discusses load test candidates, and broadly outlines requirements for load tests: https://fdotwww.blob.core.windows.net/sitefinity/docs/default-source/maintenance/str/lr/2020- load-rating-manual-2020.pdf?sfvrsn=509ffb8e_0#page=48 Earlier 1990s tests used a standard template for rapid proof testing. More recent tests are customized to each bridge, and are more typically diagnostic tests; these follow MBE Section 8. NY MBE. OR Section 8 of the AASHTO Manual for Bridge Evaluation.

Table B.15. Q38 We are gathering example load ratings that have been completed for bridges that have missing or incomplete as-built information that demonstrate how agencies currently handle this problem. We would appreciate it if you could send us a few examples of such load ratings from your state/agency. State Examples of load ratings AL Continuous concrete slab with unknown rebar was load rated through a research project with Auburn University. A diagnostic load test was performed to validate a finite element model to further develop an AASHTOWare BrR bridge model. AR 24080—A Culvert structure that was built without design plans. X1539—A Concrete Culvert that had plans, but a precast option was substituted. 06749—A Continuous steel girder constructed with design plans. AZ Not available at this time; currently working on this. CA We can provide an example of an Assigned No Plans load rating. Our procedure assumes an era and owner specific design demand and then calculates ratings for each unique design/legal/permit vehicle based on demand comparisons and span length(s). CO Load ratings using field information and year of construction for timber and steel structures. Field inspection load ratings (visual ratings) for concrete culverts and off-system bridges. CT In the majority of cases, structures have missing material properties. The MBE is used to determine the assumed strength and type of the material. We have found that in our research of our state agencies’ historical construction specifications the MBE unknown properties are not representative of what was standard construction materials during those times of construction. Also, older design build culverts are missing reinforcing shop drawings. Currently, these structures will receive a judgment rating based on the condition and service history of the structure. DE I will email an example. FL I will provide a description within the email containing the examples. ID Please see Idaho Manual. IL Since state-owned structures >20' that are missing plan information are rarely encountered in IL, state examples include structures ≤20'. IDOT has a policy to load rate any state-owned structures ≥6', so most of state structures with incomplete information fall in this category. The examples include: reinforced concrete pipe culvert with a large fill depth, reinforced concrete box culvert with average fill depth, and prestressed concrete deck beam. Local structure examples include: steel beam, reinforced concrete through-girder, and precast concrete channel beam. Note that I have selected “Load factor rating” for Q12, but I wanted to note that IDOT allows ratings to be completed with ASR and LRFR as well. KY A steel bridge missing plans or as-builts, is measured in the field using Ultrasound, etc. to determine needed information. A concrete bridge or culvert missing plans or as-builts is load rat[ed] by engineering judgment using the condition of the structure. MA We cannot provide our most recent example for a load tested bridge since the rating has not been submitted yet. Bridge No. L-16-027 (BV4), Genevo Drive over Minechoag Brook in Ludlow, MA is a good example of a case where no plans existed, GPR and Impact-echo/Pulse Velocity were used to determine bar sizes and spacing and compression strength, respectively. MT N/A. We are currently in the midst of rerating the entire inventory to comply with SHV rating requirements, and are about 20% of the way through. I have been pulling these concrete/prestressed concrete bridges without plans or shop drawings from our contracts until we can figure out some guidance on how we want to move forward. NC Engineers performing analysis and load rating utilize guidance provided in the policy on applying Engineering Judgment (available via link provided) and information documented in the inspection report. The engineer summarizes their assessment of the structure and the corresponding rating in a brief report that is archived in the bridge file for reference upon subsequent inspection cycles. ND I cannot provide any examples at this time as our process is still in development.

NE We assign load-carrying capacity for culverts with no plans based on the history of culvert design and standard plans and the age of the culvert. Other bridges with no plans, we take measurement of the elements at the site and gather the required information to load rate them. NJ Our engineering judgment memorandum provides a step-by-step calculation that is performed for structures of specific material types with missing or incomplete as- built information. This methodology is used and is the same methodology for all applicable structure material types and configurations. As such, providing a specific example will not be of benefit. If you have questions on our procedure, please feel free to reach out to us and we will be more than happy to address your concerns. NY For previous question, note that NYSDOT inspects all state and local bridges (about 94% of highway bridges). Toll authorities are responsible for the inspection of the bridges they own and submit them to NYSDOT. OR If a concrete bridge without plans has a long history of service (20 years or more), successfully carrying Oregon Legal Loads without distress, its safe capacity can be assumed to be equal to the worst load effect of the Legal Loads (up to the SU4 vehicle). The HL-93 Design Truck Load Inventory Rating can be considered to be in proportion to the load effect of the Legal Truck Loads. This assessment is then reduced to account for NBI condition ratings that involve advanced deterioration or section loss (“Poor” or lower). A complete load rating example of a bridge without plans can be downloaded from the following location: ftp://ftp.odot.state.or.us/bridge/LoadRating/LRFR/Examples/No_Plans/ RI Example 1: Browning Mill Bridge No. 003801 This is a concrete arch bridge built in 1913. There are no original plans. The attached load rating reports include results from the non-destructive testing, material sampling and diagnostic load test that were performed. Example 2: Nonquit Pond Bridge No. 029201 This is a concrete encased steel stringer bridge built in 1935. There are no original plans. The attached load rating demonstrates the approach of extensive field measurements and non-destructive testing in lieu of missing information in order to complete the load rating analysis. Example 3: Manville Trench No. 038801 This is a masonry culvert built in 1901. There are no plans. Extensive field measurements were taken in order to complete the load rating analysis. There [are] 253 culverts in Rhode Island and only 42 qualify as NBI. In Rhode Island, only NBI structures are rated. SD We don’t have any examples. If the material properties are unknown, we have a list of properties based on construction date. TN The load ratings methods would be the same as for a bridge with plans since we generally attempt to match a set of standard plans to bridges. UT See bridges without plans supplemental calculations: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0B2RsOp2Y3K9vUWpyWmhocXpGbm8 VA Virginia will not be providing a submission for this item. WA Br. #503/150SP is a reinforced Concrete T-beam, built in 1953; it is 90 ft. long with 60 ft. main span and (2) 15 ft. cantilever spans. WV Appendix A of 2018 WV Bridge Load Rating Manual for In-Service Bridges (will email separately).

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 GHSA Governors Highway Safety Association 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 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED N C H RP Synthesis 571 ISBN 978-0-309-09415-3 9 7 8 0 3 0 9 0 9 4 1 5 3 9 0 0 0 0