The National Academies Press

Currently Skimming:

Pages 112-204

The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.

From page 112... ... 112 A P P E N D I X C Tabulated State DOT Survey Responses Read the entire page →
From page 113... ... Responses to Survey Question 1: How often does your agency use the following types of abutments? Typical schematics of each type of abutment listed are provided below for reference. Read the entire page →
From page 114... ... Responses to Survey Question 1 Continued: State and the District of Columbia Integral abutments Semi-integral abutments Stub abutments Mechanicallystabilized abutments Full-height, closed abutments Full-height, spillthrough abutments Ohio Occasionally Often Occasionally1 Oklahoma Often Rarely Often Rarely Occasionally Never Oregon Occasionally Occasionally Occasionally Occasionally Occasionally Occasionally2 Pennsylvania Often Rarely Often Often Often Never Rhode Island Occasionally Rarely Occasionally Occasionally Often Never South Carolina Often Rarely Rarely Never Rarely Never South Dakota Often Occasionally Occasionally Never Rarely Previously Tennessee Always Never Never Never Rarely Never Texas Previously Rarely Always Never Previously Never Utah Always Often Rarely Never Often Occasionally3 Vermont Often Often Previously Occasionally Occasionally Previously Washington Rarely Often Occasionally Occasionally Rarely Rarely West Virginia Often Often Occasionally Occasionally Occasionally Previously Wisconsin Occasionally Often Occasionally Occasionally Rarely Previously Wyoming Often Occasionally Often Rarely Rarely Previously 1This section is not necessarily my forte. Others will need to assist. Read the entire page →
From page 115... ... Responses to Survey Question 2: Please indicate the types of approach pavement or slabs used by your agency and their typical length and thickness, as applicable. Part 1: Reinforced concrete slab approach State and the District of Columbia Reinforced concrete slab approach Included in Thickness (in.) Read the entire page →
From page 116... ... Responses to Survey Question 2, Part 1 Continued: State and the District of Columbia Reinforced concrete slab approach Included in Thickness (in.) Length (ft) Read the entire page →
From page 117... ... Responses to Survey Question 2: Please indicate the types of approach pavement or slabs used by your agency and their typical length and thickness, as applicable. Part 2: Unreinforced concrete slab approach State and the District of Columbia Unreinforced concrete slab approach Included in Thickness (in.) Read the entire page →
From page 118... ... Responses to Survey Question 2, Part 2 Continued: State and the District of Columbia Unreinforced concrete slab approach Included in Thickness (in.) Length (ft) Read the entire page →
From page 119... ... Responses to Survey Question 2: Please indicate the types of approach pavement or slabs used by your agency and their typical length and thickness, as applicable. Part 3: Rigid pavement (no approach slab) Read the entire page →
From page 120... ... Responses to Survey Question 2, Part 3 Continued: State and District of Columbia Rigid pavement (no approach slab) Included in Thickness (in.) Read the entire page →
From page 121... ... Responses to Survey Question 2: Please indicate the types of approach pavement or slabs used by your agency and their typical length and thickness, as applicable. Part 4: Flexible pavement (no approach slab) Read the entire page →
From page 122... ... Responses to Survey Question 2, Part 4 Continued: State and District of Columbia Flexible pavement (no approach slab) Included in Thickness (in.) Read the entire page →
From page 123... ... Responses to Survey Question 3: Are the abutment and the approach slab/pavement rigidly tied so they move together, or are they jointed such that they may move independently of each other? If you have further details on the connection, such as steel bar/dowel size and spacing, please provide it in the comments box. Read the entire page →
From page 124... ... Responses to Survey Question 3 Continued: State and the District of Columbia Integral abutments Semi-integral abutments Stub abutments Mechanicallystabilized abutments Full-height, closed abutments Full-height, spillthrough abutments Ohio8 - - - - - - Oklahoma Rigid - Rigid - - - Oregon Rigid Rigid Rigid Rigid Rigid Rigid9 Pennsylvania Rigid10 NA Rigid Independently Rigid NA Rhode Island Independently Independently Independently NA Independently NA South Carolina11 Rigid Rigid Rigid NA Independently NA South Dakota Rigid12 Rigid Rigid NA NA NA Tennessee Rigid NA NA NA Rigid NA Texas NA Rigid13 Rigid NA NA NA Utah Rigid Rigid Independently NA Rigid Rigid Vermont Rigid Rigid NA Independently Independently NA Washington NA Rigid Rigid Rigid NA NA West Virginia Rigid Rigid Rigid Rigid Rigid NA14 Wisconsin15 - - - - - - Wyoming Rigid Independently Independently NA Independently NA 1We currently use no joint at abutments, and move it to the ends of approach slabs supported by sleeper slab. 2Our approach slabs are always tied to the abutment. Read the entire page →
From page 125... ... Responses to Survey Question 4: Does your agency use precast approach slabs or any other experimental bridge approach systems? If so, please describe the system. Read the entire page →
From page 126... ... Responses to Survey Question 4 Continued: State and the District of Columbia Response North Carolina NA North Dakota No Ohio We have used some experimental approach systems in the past. Oklahoma - Oregon Yes for ABC projects. Read the entire page →
From page 127... ... Responses to Survey Question 5: If you use an approach slab, is a sleeper slab typically used to support it in your currently preferred design? State and the District of Columbia Yes No State and the District of Columbia Yes No Alabama X Montana X Alaska X Nebraska6 X Arkansas X Nevada X Colorado1 X New Jersey X Connecticut X New Mexico X D.C. Read the entire page →
From page 128... ... Responses to Survey Question 6: What types of backfill materials are specified by your agency for use behind abutments? State and the District of Columbia Granular or porous granular material Controlled-density fill material Crushed gravel/rock Manufactured sand Material is not specified Other Alabama X Alaska X X Arkansas X X X Colorado1 Structure Backfill (Class I) Read the entire page →
From page 129... ... Responses to Survey Question 6 Continued: State and the District of Columbia Granular or porous granular material Controlled-density fill material Crushed gravel/rock Manufactured sand Material is not specified Other Oklahoma X Oregon9 X Pennsylvania10 X Rhode Island X South Carolina X South Dakota X Tennessee X Texas11 X X X Cement stabilized and flowable fill Utah X Vermont X Washington X West Virginia12 X Wisconsin X Wyoming13 X 1Sometimes flowfill is used to replace Structure Backfill (Class I) Read the entire page →
From page 130... ... Responses to Survey Question 7: Please indicate which of the following properties of the backfill are specified by your agency, and their requirements, as applicable: State and the District of Columbia Moisture content at placement Required compaction Gradation according to AASHTO or USCS Limit of fines (% passing No. 200 sieve) Read the entire page →
From page 131... ... Responses to Survey Question 7 Continued: State and the District of Columbia Moisture content at placement Required compaction Gradation according to AASHTO or USCS Limit of fines (% passing No. 200 sieve) Read the entire page →
From page 132... ... Responses to Survey Question 7 Continued: State and the District of Columbia Moisture content at placement Required compaction Gradation according to AASHTO or USCS Limit of fines (% passing No. 200 sieve) Read the entire page →
From page 133... ... Responses to Survey Question 8: What material unique from the backfill is required to be placed behind the abutment backwall? State and the District of Columbia Waterproofing membrane system Geosynthetic Expanded polyurethane Geocomposite drain No material is specified Other Alabama X Alaska X Arkansas1 X Colorado Geotextile reinforcement Connecticut X D.C. Read the entire page →
From page 134... ... Responses to Survey Question 8 Continued: State and the District of Columbia Waterproofing membrane system Geosynthetic Expanded polyurethane Geocomposite drain No material is specified Other Oregon Drainage pipe or prefabricated vertical drain is required behind abutment backwall depending on soil type Pennsylvania7 X X 2" preformed cellular polystyrene, BC-667M, sheet 4 Rhode Island X South Carolina8 Stone aggregate underdrain with perforated drainpipe South Dakota X X X Tennessee X Texas X Utah X Vermont Sometimes GEO foam or expanded polystyrene foam Washington X West Virginia9 X Wisconsin X Wyoming10 - - - - - - 1Waterproofing membrane used on abutments with staged-construction. 2Waterproofing membrane for semi-integral abutments. Read the entire page →
From page 135... ... Responses to Survey Question 9: Does your agency use ground improvement methods for the subgrade soil? If so, please describe them. Read the entire page →
From page 136... ... 10We typically do not use ground improvement methods on a regular basis, but will occasionally use surcharging, wick drains, or possible other methods if needed. 11This is done rarely and most often with MSE abutments. Read the entire page →
From page 137... ... Responses to Survey Question 10: Does your agency specify any construction acceptance or performance criteria of the approach after construction (e.g., ride quality) Read the entire page →
From page 138... ... Responses to Survey Question 10 Continued: State and the District of Columbia Yes No Description North Dakota X Ohio Yes, we have PN 555 which uses localized and overall IRI requirements for each lane of the bridge. Overall, each lane must meet an average IRI of 130 in./mi or less if no corrective work is required. Read the entire page →
From page 139... ... Responses to Survey Question 11: Is water runoff from the bridge deck and approach slab/pavement captured and redirected using surface drains such as gutters, flume, and paved ditches? State and the District of Columbia Yes, water from both the bridge and the approach is captured and redirected Only water from the bridge deck is captured and redirected Only water from the approach is captured and redirected Water is not captured from either the approach or the bridge deck Alabama X Alaska X Arkansas X Colorado X Connecticut1 X D.C. Read the entire page →
From page 140... ... Responses to Survey Question 11 Continued: State and the District of Columbia Yes, water from both the bridge and the approach is captured and redirected Only water from the bridge deck is captured and redirected Only water from the approach is captured and redirected Water is not captured from either the approach or the bridge deck Ohio7 Oklahoma X Oregon X Pennsylvania8 X Rhode Island X South Carolina X South Dakota X Tennessee X Texas9 X Utah10 X Vermont X Washington X West Virginia X Wisconsin X Wyoming X 1Preferred approach. 2Only a small portion of water from the reinforced concrete bridge approach is not captured. Read the entire page →
From page 141... ... Responses to Survey Question 12: Where is water collected from the bridge deck and/or approach ultimately released? State and the District of Columbia Openly onto the surface of a slope Openly at the bottom of a slope Openly into the underlying backfill or embankment fill An open draining system is generally specified, but specifics are not provided Into a culvert, storm drain, or other closed system Other Alabama X Alaska1 X X X Arkansas X X Colorado2 X Connecticut3 X D.C. Read the entire page →
From page 142... ... Responses to Survey Question 12 Continued: State and the District of Columbia Openly onto the surface of a slope Openly at the bottom of a slope Openly into the underlying backfill or embankment fill An open draining system is generally specified, but specifics are not provided Into a culvert, storm drain, or other closed system Other North Dakota X Ohio7 Oklahoma X Oregon X X X Pennsylvania X X Rhode Island X X South Carolina8 Concrete paved flume South Dakota X Tennessee9 X Texas10 X X X X X Utah X X Vermont X X Washington X West Virginia X X Wisconsin X X X Wyoming11 X 1Varies for each project. Sometimes direct to a rock-lined drainage swale constructed down the face of the roadway embankment slope. Read the entire page →
From page 143... ... Responses to Survey Question 13: Is a drainage pipe typically used in the backfill underneath the approach slab/pavement for sub-surface drainage? If so, please describe the preferred types of pipe, the presence of any geosynthetic or waterproofing membrane, subdrain location, and other pertinent requirements. Read the entire page →
From page 144... ... 6A perforated pipe is used behind the end bent. 7Perforated subdrain made from polyethylene corrugated tubing is used. Read the entire page →
From page 145... ... Responses to Survey Question 14: Where do you typically place an expansion joint(s) in your currently preferred design? Read the entire page →
From page 146... ... Responses to Survey Question 14 Continued: State and the District of Columbia Integral abutments Semi-integral abutments Stub abutments Mechanicallystabilized abutments height, closed Fullabutments Full-height, spillthrough abutments Oklahoma Location 1 - Location 2 - Location 2 - Oregon Location 14 Location 1 Location 2 Location 2 Location 2 Location 2 Pennsylvania Location 1 NA Location 1 Location 2 Location 1 NA Rhode Island Location 2 Location 2 Location 2 Location 2 Location 2 NA South Carolina Location 1 Either Either NA Location 2 Location 2 South Dakota Location 1 Location 1 Location 1 NA Location 1 NA Tennessee Location 1 NA NA NA Location 1 NA Texas NA Location 1 Either NA NA NA Utah Location 1 Location 1 Location 2 NA Location 1 Location 1 Vermont Location 1 Location 1 NA Location 1 Location 2 NA Washington Location 1 Location 1 Location 1 Location 1 NA NA West Virginia Location 1 Location 1 Location 2 Location 1 Location 2 NA Wisconsin None used None used Location 2 None used - NA Wyoming Either either Location 2 NA Location 2 NA 1MSE abutment joint location dependent on the abutment type placed on the MSE wall. For integral or semi-integral, Location 1 is used. Read the entire page →
From page 147... ... Responses to Survey Question 15: What types of expansion joints are used? State and the District of Columbia Compression seal Strip seal Backer rod and sealant Other Alabama X Alaska X X Arkansas X X Colorado1 X X Modular expansion joint Connecticut2 X X Asphaltic plug joints D.C. Read the entire page →
From page 148... ... Responses to Survey Question 15 Continued: State and the District of Columbia Compression seal Strip seal Backer rod and sealant Other Oregon X X X We also use precompressed foam silicone and asphaltic plug joints for joint rehabilitation and modular joints for new expansion joints with large movement. Pennsylvania X Tooth expansion dam, modular expansion dam Rhode Island X X X South Carolina X X X Finger joints South Dakota X X Precompressed membrane and sealant Tennessee X X X Texas X X X Utah11 X X X Vermont X X X Washington X West Virginia12 X X Wisconsin X Wyoming X X 1We are researching [a] Read the entire page →
From page 149... ... Responses to Survey Question 16: How often does your agency typically replace the seal of the joint adjacent to the approach slab/pavement? State and the District of Columbia Compression seals Strip seals Sealants used with backer rods Other seals Alabama1 Alaska NA 10 to 15 years 5 to 10 years Arkansas Colorado 2 to 4 7 to 10 1 to 2 20 to 25 Connecticut As needed During repaving or as needed During repaving or as needed D.C. Read the entire page →
From page 150... ... Responses to Survey Question 16 Continued: State and the District of Columbia Compression seals Strip seals Sealants used with backer rods Other seals North Carolina 10 - 15 years Foam joint 3 - 6 years Exp joint 10 - 15 years North Dakota 20 years 20 years Ohio7 Oklahoma8 Oregon9 5 to 7 years 10 to 12 years 3 to 5 years Pennsylvania10 Rhode Island Approximately every 20 years Approximately every 20 years Approximately every 10 years South Carolina No data available No data available No data available No data available South Dakota11 Approximately 20 years Varies greatly Tennessee 5 to 10 years 10 to 15 years 5 to 10 years Texas12 Rarely to never Rarely to never Rarely to never Utah13 Vermont 10 to 15 although there's been some problem compression joints lately. 10 to 15 years 8 to 10 Washington 10 to 20 10 to 20 West Virginia14 10 15 NA NA Wisconsin15 Wyoming 10 to 20 10 to 20 1Don't know 2"When necessary" is when the seal is protruding from the joint and may be caught by a snowplow. Read the entire page →
From page 151... ... Responses to Survey Question 17: What type(s) of joint between the approach slab/pavement and the wingwalls/traffic barriers is typically used by your agency? Read the entire page →
From page 152... ... Responses to Survey Question 17 Continued: State Unsealed joint Sealed joint Sealed joint only if the joint width is larger than the following limit (please specify) No joint; two elements are tied together by reinforcement Oregon11 X Pennsylvania12 X Rhode Island X South Carolina13 X South Dakota X Tennessee X Texas X Utah X Vermont X Washington X West Virginia14 X Wisconsin X Wyoming X 1Poured joint sealant in ½-inch-wide gap. Read the entire page →
From page 153... ... Responses to Survey Question 18: Does your agency conduct periodic inspection of the following types of distress/deterioration? If so, please specify the inspection frequency. Read the entire page →
From page 154... ... Responses to Survey Question 18 Continued: State and the District of Columbia Differential settlement (bump) Frequency Oregon Yes 24 months Pennsylvania13 Yes 2 years Rhode Island Yes 24 months South Carolina Yes 2 years South Dakota Yes NBI inspection Tennessee Yes 2 years Texas14 Yes Utah15 - Vermont Yes 2 to 5 years Washington West Virginia Yes 2 years (NBIS) Read the entire page →
From page 155... ... Responses to Survey Question 18: Does your agency conduct periodic inspection of the following types of distress/deterioration? If so, please specify the inspection frequency. Read the entire page →
From page 156... ... Responses to Survey Question 18, Part 2 Continued: State and the District of Columbia Joint seal failure Frequency Oklahoma Yes 2 years Oregon Yes 24 months Pennsylvania13 Yes 2 years Rhode Island Yes 24 months South Carolina Yes 2 years South Dakota Yes NBI inspection Tennessee Yes 2 years Texas14 Yes Utah15 - Vermont Yes 2 to 5 years Washington Yes 24+ months West Virginia Yes 2 years (NBIS) Wisconsin16 Yes Wyoming17 Yes Read the entire page →
From page 157... ... Responses to Survey Question 18: Does your agency conduct periodic inspection of the following types of distress/deterioration? If so, please specify the inspection frequency. Read the entire page →
From page 158... ... Responses to Survey Question 18, Part 3 Continued: State and the District of Columbia Void formation or approach embankment erosion under slab Frequency Oklahoma Yes 2 years Oregon Yes 24 months Pennsylvania13 Yes 2 years Rhode Island Yes 24 months South Carolina Yes 2 years South Dakota Yes NBI inspection Tennessee Texas14 Yes Utah15 - Vermont Washington West Virginia Yes 2 years (NBIS) Wisconsin16 Yes Wyoming17 Yes Read the entire page →
From page 159... ... Responses to Survey Question 18: Does your agency conduct periodic inspection of the following types of distress/deterioration? If so, please specify the inspection frequency. Read the entire page →
From page 160... ... Responses to Survey Question 18, Part 4 Continued: State and the District of Columbia Lateral spread of the approach embankment Frequency Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania13 Yes 2 years Rhode Island Yes 4 years South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas14 Yes Utah15 - Vermont Washington West Virginia Wisconsin16 Yes Wyoming17 Yes Read the entire page →
From page 161... ... Responses to Survey Question 18: Does your agency conduct periodic inspection of the following types of distress/deterioration? If so, please specify the inspection frequency. Read the entire page →
From page 162... ... Responses to Survey Question 18, Part 5 Continued: State and the District of Columbia Other distress type and frequency of inspection Frequency Ohio12 Oklahoma Yes 2 years Oregon Pennsylvania13 Yes 2 years Rhode Island South Carolina Yes 2 years South Dakota Tennessee Texas14 Utah15 - Vermont Washington West Virginia Wisconsin16 Wyoming17 Yes 1Don't know. 2Maintenance crew will notify if there is any joint failure when daily highway drive-by in the bridge areas. Read the entire page →
From page 163... ... Responses to Survey Question 19: What method(s) does your agency use to quantify the severity of the differential settlement/bump? Read the entire page →
From page 164... ... Responses to Survey Question 19 Continued: State and the District of Columbia Severity is not quantified IRI Rolling straight edge Qualitative Other Pennsylvania10 X X X Rhode Island X X South Carolina X South Dakota11 X Tennessee X Texas X Utah12 X X Vermont X Washington X West Virginia13 X Wisconsin14 - Wyoming X 1Don't know. 2Generally describe ride as "good, fair, or poor." 3Our road asset management team runs IRI on a regular basis (yearly, I believe) Read the entire page →
From page 165... ... Responses to Survey Question 20: What metrics are used to assess ride quality of the main roadway, the approach slab/pavement, and the bridge deck, and across the joints between these sections? If ride quality is not assessed, then please indicate so. Read the entire page →
From page 166... ... Responses to Survey Question 20 Continued: State and the District of Columbia Main roadway Approach slab/pavement Bridge deck Joints Maine Not assessed Not assessed Not assessed Not assessed Maryland Massachusetts Not assessed Not assessed Not assessed Not assessed Minnesota None Straightedge None Mississippi6 None Missouri Not assessed Not assessed Not assessed Not assessed Montana - - - - Nebraska IRI Profile index 0.5"/100 ft Profile index 0.5"/100 ft None Nevada - - - - New Jersey Rolling straightedge New Mexico IRI Straightedge Straightedge Unknown North Carolina IRI Qualitative Qualitative Qualitative North Dakota7 Not assessed Ohio8 IRI lot and localized criteria Part of bridge encounter, IRI overall and localized criteria Part of bridge encounter, IRI overall and localized criteria Part of bridge encounter, IRI overall and localized criteria Oklahoma By profilograph By profilograph Oregon Less than 1/8" in any direction using a 12-ft straightedge Less than 1/8" vertical over the length of joint nor more than 1/16" from a 12-ft straightedge Pennsylvania IRI IRI IRI IRI Rhode Island IRI NA < 100 dB /concrete scarification NA South Carolina Not assessed in measured manner Not assessed in measured manner Not assessed in measured manner Not assessed in measured manner South Dakota9 IRI 1/8" in 10 ft 1/8" in 10 ft Read the entire page →
From page 167... ... Responses to Survey Question 20 Continued: State and the District of Columbia Main roadway Approach slab/pavement Bridge deck Joints Vermont10 No metrics is used Washington11 NA West Virginia Not assessed Straightedge testing (surface not to exceed 1/8 inch deviation using 10-ft rolling straightedge) Straightedge testing (surface not to exceed 1/8 inch deviation using 10-ft rolling straightedge) Read the entire page →
From page 168... ... Responses to Survey Question 21: What criterion or criteria does your agency use to trigger repair or rehabilitation of a bump between the approach and the abutment or bridge deck, or between the approach and the main roadway? State and the District of Columbia No criterion is used to trigger repair or rehabilitation User-complaint criterion Safety criterion Smoothness/ride quality criterion Other Alabama X Alaska1 X Arkansas - Colorado X Connecticut X D.C. Read the entire page →
From page 169... ... Responses to Survey Question 21 Continued: State and the District of Columbia No criterion is used to trigger repair or rehabilitation User-complaint criterion Safety criterion Smoothness/ride quality criterion Other Nevada - New Jersey X Other: regular inspection every 2 years New Mexico X X North Carolina If the driving public's safety becomes a concern then repair or rehab is investigated North Dakota X Ohio Sometimes this causes investigation and action Sometimes this causes investigation and action From network inertial profiler data analysis Oklahoma X Other: seat of pants Oregon X X Rated by bridge inspector, which will be used in load rating for the impact factor Pennsylvania X Rhode Island Multiple call-ins From inspection South Carolina X South Dakota Other: Ride quality as perceived by area or region inspectors Tennessee X Texas5 X X Utah No explicit trigger threshold No explicit trigger threshold Vermont X X Washington X Read the entire page →
From page 170... ... Responses to Survey Question 21 Continued: State and the District of Columbia No criterion is used to trigger repair or rehabilitation User-complaint criterion Safety criterion Smoothness/ride quality criterion Other Wisconsin6 Other: Inspector/PM recommendation based on inspection Wyoming X X X 1Generally addressed based on local maintenance staff perception of need. Sometimes recommended as a work candidate in biennial inspection reports. Read the entire page →
From page 171... ... Responses to Survey Question 22: What maintenance/repairs are used by your agency to restore ride quality and how frequently must they be carried out? Part 1: Injection of a portland cement grout underneath approach slab/pavement, frequency State and the District of Columbia Injection of a portland cement grout underneath approach slab/pavement Frequency Alabama X Don't know Alaska1 Arkansas - Colorado Connecticut2 Comment response D.C. Read the entire page →
From page 172... ... Responses to Survey Question 22 Continued: State and the District of Columbia Injection of a portland cement grout underneath approach slab/pavement Frequency Oklahoma X Oregon X For filling void, not frequent about 1-2 times/year Pennsylvania X As needed and funds available Rhode Island South Carolina X A couple of times South Dakota X Occasionally Tennessee X Case-by-case basis Texas7 X Utah8 Comment response Vermont9 Washington X 24+ months West Virginia10 Wisconsin Wyoming Read the entire page →
From page 173... ... Responses to Survey Question 22: What maintenance/repairs are used by your agency to restore ride quality and how frequently must they be carried out? Part 2: Injection of expanded polyurethane underneath approach slab/pavement, frequency State and the District of Columbia Injection of expanded polyurethane underneath approach slab/pavement Frequency Alabama X Don't know Alaska1 X Rarely done Arkansas Colorado Connecticut2 D.C. Read the entire page →
From page 174... ... Responses to Survey Question 22, Part 2 Continued: State and the District of Columbia Injection of expanded polyurethane underneath approach slab/pavement Frequency Oklahoma X Oregon X For approach slab (AS) jacking and filling void, not frequent about 1-2 times/year. Read the entire page →
From page 175... ... Responses to Survey Question 22: What maintenance/repairs are used by your agency to restore ride quality and how frequently must they be carried out? Part 3: Replacement of approach slab/pavement, frequency State and the District of Columbia Replacement of approach slab/pavement Frequency Alabama X Don't know Alaska1 Arkansas Colorado Connecticut2 D.C. Read the entire page →
From page 176... ... Responses to Survey Question 22, Part 3 Continued State and the District of Columbia Replacement of approach slab/pavement Frequency Ohio6 X Oklahoma X Oregon X Rarely, since it is very expensive and can disrupt traffic. Construction staging is required. Read the entire page →
From page 177... ... Responses to Survey Question 22: What maintenance/repairs are used by your agency to restore ride quality and how frequently must they be carried out? Part 4: Other repair (please specify) Read the entire page →
From page 178... ... Responses to Survey Question 22, Part 4 Continued State and the District of Columbia Other repair (please specify) Frequency Ohio6 In-house or contractor performed ride corrections by variable depth mill and finish Oklahoma Oregon Occasionally (not often) Read the entire page →
From page 179... ... Responses to Survey Question 23: What are the typical service lives of the three most common bridge approach systems used by your agency? End of service life is when repair or replacement is required exclusive of the joint seal. Read the entire page →
From page 180... ... Responses to Survey Question 23: System #1: Continued State and the District of Columbia Abutment type Approach slab/pavement type Expansion joint location Typical life in years until rehabilitation/replacement Montana4 Nebraska Integral RC AS AS/RW 35 years Nevada New Jersey Stub RC AS AS/BD New Mexico Integral RC AS AS/BD 0 North Carolina Integral RC AS None Life of the structure North Dakota Integral RC AS AS/RW 20 years Ohio5 Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania6 Rhode Island FH,CL RC AS AS/BD 50-75 South Carolina Integral RC AS None No data available South Dakota Integral RC AS AS/RW Approximately 20 years Tennessee Integral RC AS AS/RW 10 Texas Stub RC AS AS/BD 7 Utah Integral RC AS AS/RW 8 Vermont Integral RC AS AS/RW 75 years Washington Semi-Integral RC AS AS/RW West Virginia Integral RC AS AS/RW 10 Wisconsin Wyoming Read the entire page →
From page 181... ... Responses to Survey Question 23: What are the typical service lives of the three most common bridge approach systems used by your agency? End of service life is when repair or replacement is required exclusive of the joint seal. Read the entire page →
From page 182... ... Responses to Survey Question 23: System #2 Continued: State and the District of Columbia Abutment type Approach slab/pavement type Expansion joint location Typical life in years until rehabilitation/replacement New Jersey FH, CL RC AS AS/BD New Mexico Semi-Integral RC AS AS/BD 0 North Carolina Stub RC AS AS/BD Life of the structure North Dakota Ohio5 Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania6 Rhode Island FH,CL RC AS AS/BD 50-75 South Carolina Other abutment type RC AS AS/BD No data available South Dakota Semi-Integral RC AS AS/RW Approximately 20 years Tennessee FH, CL RC AS AS/RW 10 Texas Stub RC AS AS/RW 7 Utah Semi-Integral RC AS AS/RW 8 Vermont Semi-Integral RC AS AS/RW 75 years Washington MSE AS/BD West Virginia Semi-Integral RC AS AS/RW 15 years Wisconsin Wyoming Read the entire page →
From page 183... ... Responses to Survey Question 23: What are the typical service lives of the three most common bridge approach systems used by your agency? End of service life is when repair or replacement is required exclusive of the joint seal. Read the entire page →
From page 184... ... Responses to Survey Question 23: System #3 Continued: State and the District of Columbia Abutment type Approach slab/pavement type Expansion joint location Typical life in years until rehabilitation/replacement Nevada New Jersey Integral RC AS AS/BD New Mexico MSE RC AS AS/BD 0 North Carolina North Dakota Ohio5 Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania6 Rhode Island FH,CL RC AS AS/BD 50-75 South Carolina Semi-Integral RC AS AS/BD No data available South Dakota Tennessee Texas Stub Rigid PV AS/RW 7 Utah Stub RC AS AS/BD 8 Vermont FH-CL RC AS AS/BD 75 Washington Stub None West Virginia Stub Flex PV AS/BD 2-5 years Wisconsin Wyoming 1Expansion joint location would be at the end of our 13' panel as shown in the details attached. 2All other types of abutments are used so infrequently that we do not have the necessary data to answer this question. Read the entire page →
From page 185... ... Responses to Survey Question 24: What issues do the most common bridge approach systems in your agency typically experience? Please indicate in the comments if there are differences in the issues experienced by Systems #1, #2, and #3. Read the entire page →
From page 186... ... Responses to Survey Question 24: Part 1 Continued: State and the District of Columbia Poor ride quality (bump) between approach slab/pavement and abutment or bridge deck Poor ride quality across approach slab/pavement Poor ride quality between approach slab/pavement and main pavement Failed sealant in expansion joint New Jersey Rarely Rarely Rarely Occasionally New Mexico Often Often Occasionally Often North Carolina Occasionally Rarely Occasionally Occasionally North Dakota Occasionally Occasionally Occasionally Occasionally Ohio Often Often Oklahoma Often Often Oregon Occasionally Occasionally Rarely Often Pennsylvania Rarely Rarely Often Often Rhode Island Occasionally Occasionally Occasionally Often South Carolina Rarely Rarely Occasionally Occasionally South Dakota Occasionally Occasionally Often Often Tennessee Occasionally Rarely Often Rarely Texas Occasionally Rarely Occasionally Often Utah Often Occasionally Often Often Vermont Occasionally Occasionally Rarely Occasionally Washington Occasionally Occasionally Occasionally Occasionally West Virginia Rarely Rarely Often Occasionally Wisconsin Often Rarely Occasionally Rarely Wyoming Occasionally Often Often Often Read the entire page →
From page 187... ... Responses to Survey Question 24: What issues do the most common bridge approach systems in your agency typically experience? Please indicate in the comments if there are differences in the issues experienced by Systems #1, #2, and #3. Read the entire page →
From page 188... ... Responses to Survey Question 24: Part 2 Continued: State and the District of Columbia Failed sealant in other joints between approach slab/pavement and traffic barrier, wingwalls, etc. Transverse cracking in approach slab/pavement Longitudinal cracking in approach slab/pavement New Mexico Often Rarely Rarely North Carolina Rarely Rarely Rarely North Dakota Rarely Occasionally Occasionally Ohio Oklahoma Often Oregon Often Occasionally Occasionally Pennsylvania Occasionally Occasionally Occasionally Rhode Island Occasionally Rarely Rarely South Carolina Occasionally Rarely Rarely South Dakota Occasionally Occasionally Rarely Tennessee Occasionally Rarely Rarely Texas Often Rarely Rarely Utah Rarely Occasionally Occasionally Vermont Rarely Rarely Rarely Washington Occasionally Occasionally Occasionally West Virginia Rarely Occasionally Occasionally Wisconsin Rarely Occasionally Occasionally Wyoming Occasionally Occasionally Occasionally Read the entire page →
From page 189... ... Responses to Survey Question 24: What issues do the most common bridge approach systems in your agency typically experience? Please indicate in the comments if there are differences in the issues experienced by Systems #1, #2, and #3. Read the entire page →
From page 190... ... Responses to Survey Question 24: Part 3 Continued: State and the District of Columbia Failed paving notch or seat at abutment (paving notch or seat refers to the structure supporting the approach at the abutment) Erosion of backfill material underneath approach slab/roadway Blockage of subdrain pipe Drainage infiltration into fills and subsoils North Carolina Rarely Occasionally Rarely Rarely North Dakota Occasionally Occasionally Rarely Occasionally Ohio Occasionally Oklahoma Often Oregon Rarely Occasionally Occasionally Pennsylvania Rarely Occasionally Rarely Occasionally Rhode Island Rarely Occasionally Occasionally Occasionally South Carolina Rarely Occasionally Rarely Rarely South Dakota Rarely Occasionally Often Occasionally Tennessee Rarely Occasionally Rarely Occasionally Texas Rarely Occasionally Rarely Occasionally Utah Rarely Occasionally Rarely Often Vermont Rarely Rarely Rarely Washington Occasionally Occasionally Occasionally Occasionally West Virginia Rarely Often Occasionally Rarely Wisconsin Rarely Often Rarely Often Wyoming Occasionally Rarely Rarely Often Read the entire page →
From page 191... ... Responses to Survey Question 25: What practices are typically used by your agency to mitigate or prevent issues with bridge approach systems? Please add any additional experiences and comments that you would like to share with researchers and other agencies related to problems with approach slab design and solutions to those problems including experimental or proposed solutions that are not part of current standards. Read the entire page →
From page 192... ... Responses to Survey Question 25: Part 1 Continued: State and the District of Columbia Poor ride quality (bump) between approach slab/pavement and abutment or bridge deck Poor ride quality across approach slab/pavement Poor ride quality between approach slab/pavement and main pavement Failed sealant in expansion joint Louisiana We have thickened our new approach slab design, and designed it as a simply supported span capable of carrying newer, heavier truck loads. Read the entire page →
From page 193... ... Responses to Survey Question 25: Part 1 Continued: State and the District of Columbia Poor ride quality (bump) between approach slab/pavement and abutment or bridge deck Poor ride quality across approach slab/pavement Poor ride quality between approach slab/pavement and main pavement Failed sealant in expansion joint North Carolina Construction inspection Construction inspection Construction inspection Routine joint replacement North Dakota Lift with foam Replace seal Ohio Oklahoma Mudjack, foam jack, or replacement Replace seal Oregon Joint repair Overlay Approach slab/pavement repair Joint repair Pennsylvania NA Repair at construction Patch filling, concrete fill underneath Replace gland, replace joint Rhode Island Grind or replace or add a layer of asphalt Add a layer of asphalt or replace Grind and add a layer of asphalt Replace South Carolina No specified plan No specified plan Rehab pavement at end of approach slab Replace sealant South Dakota Construction inspection Construction inspection Construction inspection Tennessee Mill and repave roadway Typically not an issue Mill and repave roadway Repair/replace Texas Utah Most common mitigation practice is asphalt fill to even out riding surface. Read the entire page →
From page 194... ... Responses to Survey Question 25: What practices are typically used by your agency to mitigate or prevent issues with bridge approach systems? Please add any additional experiences and comments that you would like to share with researchers and other agencies related to problems with approach slab design and solutions to those problems including experimental or proposed solutions that are not part of current standards. Read the entire page →
From page 195... ... Responses to Survey Question 25: Part 2 Continued: State and the District of Columbia Failed sealant in other joints between approach slab/pavement and traffic barrier, wingwalls, etc. Transverse cracking in approach slab/pavement Longitudinal cracking in approach slab/pavement Failed paving notch or seat at abutment (paving notch or seat refers to the structure supporting the approach at the abutment) Read the entire page →
From page 196... ... Responses to Survey Question 25: What practices are typically used by your agency to mitigate or prevent issues with bridge approach systems? Please add any additional experiences and comments that you would like to share with researchers and other agencies related to problems with approach slab design and solutions to those problems including experimental or proposed solutions that are not part of current standards. Read the entire page →
From page 197... ... Responses to Survey Question 25: Part 3 Continued: State and the District of Columbia Erosion of backfill material underneath approach slab/roadway Blockage of subdrainpipe Drainage infiltration into fills and subsoils Differential settlement Mississippi flowable fill None None Flowable fill or expandable foam Missouri Flowable fill or removal and backfill Unknown Unknown Unknown Montana Nebraska Good drainage details Rapped with filler fabric Nevada Replace fill New Jersey New Mexico Generally, nothing unless warranted. Typically erosion will occur at bridge with the steepest spill-through slopes and are hard to access. Read the entire page →
From page 198... ... Responses to Survey Question 25: Part 3 Continued: State and the District of Columbia Erosion of backfill material underneath approach slab/roadway Blockage of subdrainpipe Drainage infiltration into fills and subsoils Differential settlement Tennessee Consider mudjacking, compaction grouting, or foam injection. Typically not an issue Typically not an issue Consider mudjacking, compaction grouting, or foam injection. Read the entire page →
From page 199... ... Responses to Survey Question 26: Has your agency made any significant changes to the following items within the last 15 years to address issues with the bridge approach system? (If so, we would be interested in following up for more information.) Read the entire page →
From page 200... ... Responses to Survey Question 26 Continued: State Abutment type Abutment foundation type Backfill material and/or properties Approach slab design Expansion joint design Joint maintenance Water runoff collection and release Monitoring of ride quality Ohio X Oklahoma Oregon14 X X Pennsylvania X X X Rhode Island15 X X South Carolina X X X X X South Dakota X X Tennessee X X Texas16 X Utah Vermont X X X X Washington X West Virginia17 X X X Wisconsin Wyoming18 X X 1Mandated approach slab use for most bridges. 2We have used polyester concrete at modular joint's end dams for quicker construction. Read the entire page →
From page 201... ... For the minor route type the reinforcement is about half of what is in the major route. The sleeper slab is also eliminated. Read the entire page →
From page 203... ... Abbreviations and acronyms used without denitions 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) Read the entire page →
From page 204... ... Practices for Bridge A pproach System s N CH RP Synthesis 566 TRB TRA N SPO RTATIO N RESEA RCH BO A RD 500 Fifth Street, N W W ashington, D C 20001 A D D RESS SERV ICE REQ U ESTED ISBN 978-0-309-67406-5 9 7 8 0 3 0 9 6 7 4 0 6 5 9 0 0 0 0 Read the entire page →

From page 112...

... 112 A P P E N D I X C Tabulated State DOT Survey Responses

Read the entire page →

From page 113...

... Responses to Survey Question 1: How often does your agency use the following types of abutments? Typical schematics of each type of abutment listed are provided below for reference.

Read the entire page →

From page 114...

... Responses to Survey Question 1 Continued: State and the District of Columbia Integral abutments Semi-integral abutments Stub abutments Mechanicallystabilized abutments Full-height, closed abutments Full-height, spillthrough abutments Ohio Occasionally Often Occasionally1 Oklahoma Often Rarely Often Rarely Occasionally Never Oregon Occasionally Occasionally Occasionally Occasionally Occasionally Occasionally2 Pennsylvania Often Rarely Often Often Often Never Rhode Island Occasionally Rarely Occasionally Occasionally Often Never South Carolina Often Rarely Rarely Never Rarely Never South Dakota Often Occasionally Occasionally Never Rarely Previously Tennessee Always Never Never Never Rarely Never Texas Previously Rarely Always Never Previously Never Utah Always Often Rarely Never Often Occasionally3 Vermont Often Often Previously Occasionally Occasionally Previously Washington Rarely Often Occasionally Occasionally Rarely Rarely West Virginia Often Often Occasionally Occasionally Occasionally Previously Wisconsin Occasionally Often Occasionally Occasionally Rarely Previously Wyoming Often Occasionally Often Rarely Rarely Previously 1This section is not necessarily my forte. Others will need to assist.

Read the entire page →

From page 115...

... Responses to Survey Question 2: Please indicate the types of approach pavement or slabs used by your agency and their typical length and thickness, as applicable. Part 1: Reinforced concrete slab approach State and the District of Columbia Reinforced concrete slab approach Included in Thickness (in.)

Read the entire page →

From page 116...

... Responses to Survey Question 2, Part 1 Continued: State and the District of Columbia Reinforced concrete slab approach Included in Thickness (in.) Length (ft)

Read the entire page →

From page 117...

... Responses to Survey Question 2: Please indicate the types of approach pavement or slabs used by your agency and their typical length and thickness, as applicable. Part 2: Unreinforced concrete slab approach State and the District of Columbia Unreinforced concrete slab approach Included in Thickness (in.)

Read the entire page →

From page 118...

... Responses to Survey Question 2, Part 2 Continued: State and the District of Columbia Unreinforced concrete slab approach Included in Thickness (in.) Length (ft)

Read the entire page →

From page 119...

... Responses to Survey Question 2: Please indicate the types of approach pavement or slabs used by your agency and their typical length and thickness, as applicable. Part 3: Rigid pavement (no approach slab)

Read the entire page →

From page 120...

... Responses to Survey Question 2, Part 3 Continued: State and District of Columbia Rigid pavement (no approach slab) Included in Thickness (in.)

Read the entire page →

From page 121...

... Responses to Survey Question 2: Please indicate the types of approach pavement or slabs used by your agency and their typical length and thickness, as applicable. Part 4: Flexible pavement (no approach slab)

Read the entire page →

From page 122...

... Responses to Survey Question 2, Part 4 Continued: State and District of Columbia Flexible pavement (no approach slab) Included in Thickness (in.)

Read the entire page →

From page 123...

... Responses to Survey Question 3: Are the abutment and the approach slab/pavement rigidly tied so they move together, or are they jointed such that they may move independently of each other? If you have further details on the connection, such as steel bar/dowel size and spacing, please provide it in the comments box.

Read the entire page →

From page 124...

... Responses to Survey Question 3 Continued: State and the District of Columbia Integral abutments Semi-integral abutments Stub abutments Mechanicallystabilized abutments Full-height, closed abutments Full-height, spillthrough abutments Ohio8 - - - - - - Oklahoma Rigid - Rigid - - - Oregon Rigid Rigid Rigid Rigid Rigid Rigid9 Pennsylvania Rigid10 NA Rigid Independently Rigid NA Rhode Island Independently Independently Independently NA Independently NA South Carolina11 Rigid Rigid Rigid NA Independently NA South Dakota Rigid12 Rigid Rigid NA NA NA Tennessee Rigid NA NA NA Rigid NA Texas NA Rigid13 Rigid NA NA NA Utah Rigid Rigid Independently NA Rigid Rigid Vermont Rigid Rigid NA Independently Independently NA Washington NA Rigid Rigid Rigid NA NA West Virginia Rigid Rigid Rigid Rigid Rigid NA14 Wisconsin15 - - - - - - Wyoming Rigid Independently Independently NA Independently NA 1We currently use no joint at abutments, and move it to the ends of approach slabs supported by sleeper slab. 2Our approach slabs are always tied to the abutment.

Read the entire page →

From page 125...

... Responses to Survey Question 4: Does your agency use precast approach slabs or any other experimental bridge approach systems? If so, please describe the system.

Read the entire page →

From page 126...

... Responses to Survey Question 4 Continued: State and the District of Columbia Response North Carolina NA North Dakota No Ohio We have used some experimental approach systems in the past. Oklahoma - Oregon Yes for ABC projects.

Read the entire page →

From page 127...

... Responses to Survey Question 5: If you use an approach slab, is a sleeper slab typically used to support it in your currently preferred design? State and the District of Columbia Yes No State and the District of Columbia Yes No Alabama X Montana X Alaska X Nebraska6 X Arkansas X Nevada X Colorado1 X New Jersey X Connecticut X New Mexico X D.C.

Read the entire page →

From page 128...

... Responses to Survey Question 6: What types of backfill materials are specified by your agency for use behind abutments? State and the District of Columbia Granular or porous granular material Controlled-density fill material Crushed gravel/rock Manufactured sand Material is not specified Other Alabama X Alaska X X Arkansas X X X Colorado1 Structure Backfill (Class I)

Read the entire page →

From page 129...

... Responses to Survey Question 6 Continued: State and the District of Columbia Granular or porous granular material Controlled-density fill material Crushed gravel/rock Manufactured sand Material is not specified Other Oklahoma X Oregon9 X Pennsylvania10 X Rhode Island X South Carolina X South Dakota X Tennessee X Texas11 X X X Cement stabilized and flowable fill Utah X Vermont X Washington X West Virginia12 X Wisconsin X Wyoming13 X 1Sometimes flowfill is used to replace Structure Backfill (Class I)

Read the entire page →

From page 130...

... Responses to Survey Question 7: Please indicate which of the following properties of the backfill are specified by your agency, and their requirements, as applicable: State and the District of Columbia Moisture content at placement Required compaction Gradation according to AASHTO or USCS Limit of fines (% passing No. 200 sieve)

Read the entire page →

From page 131...

... Responses to Survey Question 7 Continued: State and the District of Columbia Moisture content at placement Required compaction Gradation according to AASHTO or USCS Limit of fines (% passing No. 200 sieve)

Read the entire page →

From page 132...

Read the entire page →

From page 133...

... Responses to Survey Question 8: What material unique from the backfill is required to be placed behind the abutment backwall? State and the District of Columbia Waterproofing membrane system Geosynthetic Expanded polyurethane Geocomposite drain No material is specified Other Alabama X Alaska X Arkansas1 X Colorado Geotextile reinforcement Connecticut X D.C.

Read the entire page →

From page 134...

... Responses to Survey Question 8 Continued: State and the District of Columbia Waterproofing membrane system Geosynthetic Expanded polyurethane Geocomposite drain No material is specified Other Oregon Drainage pipe or prefabricated vertical drain is required behind abutment backwall depending on soil type Pennsylvania7 X X 2" preformed cellular polystyrene, BC-667M, sheet 4 Rhode Island X South Carolina8 Stone aggregate underdrain with perforated drainpipe South Dakota X X X Tennessee X Texas X Utah X Vermont Sometimes GEO foam or expanded polystyrene foam Washington X West Virginia9 X Wisconsin X Wyoming10 - - - - - - 1Waterproofing membrane used on abutments with staged-construction. 2Waterproofing membrane for semi-integral abutments.

Read the entire page →

From page 135...

... Responses to Survey Question 9: Does your agency use ground improvement methods for the subgrade soil? If so, please describe them.

Read the entire page →

From page 136...

... 10We typically do not use ground improvement methods on a regular basis, but will occasionally use surcharging, wick drains, or possible other methods if needed. 11This is done rarely and most often with MSE abutments.

Read the entire page →

From page 137...

... Responses to Survey Question 10: Does your agency specify any construction acceptance or performance criteria of the approach after construction (e.g., ride quality)

Read the entire page →

From page 138...

... Responses to Survey Question 10 Continued: State and the District of Columbia Yes No Description North Dakota X Ohio Yes, we have PN 555 which uses localized and overall IRI requirements for each lane of the bridge. Overall, each lane must meet an average IRI of 130 in./mi or less if no corrective work is required.

Read the entire page →

From page 139...

... Responses to Survey Question 11: Is water runoff from the bridge deck and approach slab/pavement captured and redirected using surface drains such as gutters, flume, and paved ditches? State and the District of Columbia Yes, water from both the bridge and the approach is captured and redirected Only water from the bridge deck is captured and redirected Only water from the approach is captured and redirected Water is not captured from either the approach or the bridge deck Alabama X Alaska X Arkansas X Colorado X Connecticut1 X D.C.

Read the entire page →

From page 140...

... Responses to Survey Question 11 Continued: State and the District of Columbia Yes, water from both the bridge and the approach is captured and redirected Only water from the bridge deck is captured and redirected Only water from the approach is captured and redirected Water is not captured from either the approach or the bridge deck Ohio7 Oklahoma X Oregon X Pennsylvania8 X Rhode Island X South Carolina X South Dakota X Tennessee X Texas9 X Utah10 X Vermont X Washington X West Virginia X Wisconsin X Wyoming X 1Preferred approach. 2Only a small portion of water from the reinforced concrete bridge approach is not captured.

Read the entire page →

From page 141...

... Responses to Survey Question 12: Where is water collected from the bridge deck and/or approach ultimately released? State and the District of Columbia Openly onto the surface of a slope Openly at the bottom of a slope Openly into the underlying backfill or embankment fill An open draining system is generally specified, but specifics are not provided Into a culvert, storm drain, or other closed system Other Alabama X Alaska1 X X X Arkansas X X Colorado2 X Connecticut3 X D.C.

Read the entire page →

From page 142...

... Responses to Survey Question 12 Continued: State and the District of Columbia Openly onto the surface of a slope Openly at the bottom of a slope Openly into the underlying backfill or embankment fill An open draining system is generally specified, but specifics are not provided Into a culvert, storm drain, or other closed system Other North Dakota X Ohio7 Oklahoma X Oregon X X X Pennsylvania X X Rhode Island X X South Carolina8 Concrete paved flume South Dakota X Tennessee9 X Texas10 X X X X X Utah X X Vermont X X Washington X West Virginia X X Wisconsin X X X Wyoming11 X 1Varies for each project. Sometimes direct to a rock-lined drainage swale constructed down the face of the roadway embankment slope.

Read the entire page →

From page 143...

... Responses to Survey Question 13: Is a drainage pipe typically used in the backfill underneath the approach slab/pavement for sub-surface drainage? If so, please describe the preferred types of pipe, the presence of any geosynthetic or waterproofing membrane, subdrain location, and other pertinent requirements.

Read the entire page →

From page 144...

... 6A perforated pipe is used behind the end bent. 7Perforated subdrain made from polyethylene corrugated tubing is used.

Read the entire page →

From page 145...

... Responses to Survey Question 14: Where do you typically place an expansion joint(s) in your currently preferred design?

Read the entire page →

From page 146...

... Responses to Survey Question 14 Continued: State and the District of Columbia Integral abutments Semi-integral abutments Stub abutments Mechanicallystabilized abutments height, closed Fullabutments Full-height, spillthrough abutments Oklahoma Location 1 - Location 2 - Location 2 - Oregon Location 14 Location 1 Location 2 Location 2 Location 2 Location 2 Pennsylvania Location 1 NA Location 1 Location 2 Location 1 NA Rhode Island Location 2 Location 2 Location 2 Location 2 Location 2 NA South Carolina Location 1 Either Either NA Location 2 Location 2 South Dakota Location 1 Location 1 Location 1 NA Location 1 NA Tennessee Location 1 NA NA NA Location 1 NA Texas NA Location 1 Either NA NA NA Utah Location 1 Location 1 Location 2 NA Location 1 Location 1 Vermont Location 1 Location 1 NA Location 1 Location 2 NA Washington Location 1 Location 1 Location 1 Location 1 NA NA West Virginia Location 1 Location 1 Location 2 Location 1 Location 2 NA Wisconsin None used None used Location 2 None used - NA Wyoming Either either Location 2 NA Location 2 NA 1MSE abutment joint location dependent on the abutment type placed on the MSE wall. For integral or semi-integral, Location 1 is used.

Read the entire page →

From page 147...

... Responses to Survey Question 15: What types of expansion joints are used? State and the District of Columbia Compression seal Strip seal Backer rod and sealant Other Alabama X Alaska X X Arkansas X X Colorado1 X X Modular expansion joint Connecticut2 X X Asphaltic plug joints D.C.

Read the entire page →

From page 148...

... Responses to Survey Question 15 Continued: State and the District of Columbia Compression seal Strip seal Backer rod and sealant Other Oregon X X X We also use precompressed foam silicone and asphaltic plug joints for joint rehabilitation and modular joints for new expansion joints with large movement. Pennsylvania X Tooth expansion dam, modular expansion dam Rhode Island X X X South Carolina X X X Finger joints South Dakota X X Precompressed membrane and sealant Tennessee X X X Texas X X X Utah11 X X X Vermont X X X Washington X West Virginia12 X X Wisconsin X Wyoming X X 1We are researching [a]

Read the entire page →

From page 149...

... Responses to Survey Question 16: How often does your agency typically replace the seal of the joint adjacent to the approach slab/pavement? State and the District of Columbia Compression seals Strip seals Sealants used with backer rods Other seals Alabama1 Alaska NA 10 to 15 years 5 to 10 years Arkansas Colorado 2 to 4 7 to 10 1 to 2 20 to 25 Connecticut As needed During repaving or as needed During repaving or as needed D.C.

Read the entire page →

From page 150...

... Responses to Survey Question 16 Continued: State and the District of Columbia Compression seals Strip seals Sealants used with backer rods Other seals North Carolina 10 - 15 years Foam joint 3 - 6 years Exp joint 10 - 15 years North Dakota 20 years 20 years Ohio7 Oklahoma8 Oregon9 5 to 7 years 10 to 12 years 3 to 5 years Pennsylvania10 Rhode Island Approximately every 20 years Approximately every 20 years Approximately every 10 years South Carolina No data available No data available No data available No data available South Dakota11 Approximately 20 years Varies greatly Tennessee 5 to 10 years 10 to 15 years 5 to 10 years Texas12 Rarely to never Rarely to never Rarely to never Utah13 Vermont 10 to 15 although there's been some problem compression joints lately. 10 to 15 years 8 to 10 Washington 10 to 20 10 to 20 West Virginia14 10 15 NA NA Wisconsin15 Wyoming 10 to 20 10 to 20 1Don't know 2"When necessary" is when the seal is protruding from the joint and may be caught by a snowplow.

Read the entire page →

From page 151...

... Responses to Survey Question 17: What type(s) of joint between the approach slab/pavement and the wingwalls/traffic barriers is typically used by your agency?

Read the entire page →

From page 152...

... Responses to Survey Question 17 Continued: State Unsealed joint Sealed joint Sealed joint only if the joint width is larger than the following limit (please specify) No joint; two elements are tied together by reinforcement Oregon11 X Pennsylvania12 X Rhode Island X South Carolina13 X South Dakota X Tennessee X Texas X Utah X Vermont X Washington X West Virginia14 X Wisconsin X Wyoming X 1Poured joint sealant in ½-inch-wide gap.

Read the entire page →

From page 153...