NCHRP Report PDF
NCHRP Report PDF
NCHRP Report PDF
REPORT 782
Proposed Guideline
for Reliability-Based
Bridge Inspection Practices
NATIONAL
COOPERATIVE
HIGHWAY
RESEARCH
PROGRAM
MEMBERS
Victoria A. Arroyo, Executive Director, Georgetown Climate Center, and Visiting Professor, Georgetown University Law Center, Washington, DC
Scott E. Bennett, Director, Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department, Little Rock
Deborah H. Butler, Executive Vice President, Planning, and CIO, Norfolk Southern Corporation, Norfolk, VA
James M. Crites, Executive Vice President of Operations, Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport, TX
Malcolm Dougherty, Director, California Department of Transportation, Sacramento
A. Stewart Fotheringham, Professor and Director, Centre for Geoinformatics, School of Geography and Geosciences, University of St. Andrews,
Fife, United Kingdom
John S. Halikowski, Director, Arizona DOT, Phoenix
Michael W. Hancock, Secretary, Kentucky Transportation Cabinet, Frankfort
Susan Hanson, Distinguished University Professor Emerita, School of Geography, Clark University, Worcester, MA
Steve Heminger, Executive Director, Metropolitan Transportation Commission, Oakland, CA
Chris T. Hendrickson, Duquesne Light Professor of Engineering, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA
Jeffrey D. Holt, Managing Director, Bank of Montreal Capital Markets, and Chairman, Utah Transportation Commission, Huntsville, Utah
Gary P. LaGrange, President and CEO, Port of New Orleans, LA
Michael P. Lewis, Director, Rhode Island DOT, Providence
Joan McDonald, Commissioner, New York State DOT, Albany
Abbas Mohaddes, President and CEO, Iteris, Inc., Santa Ana, CA
Donald A. Osterberg, Senior Vice President, Safety and Security, Schneider National, Inc., Green Bay, WI
Steven W. Palmer, Vice President of Transportation, Lowes Companies, Inc., Mooresville, NC
Sandra Rosenbloom, Professor, University of Texas, Austin
Henry G. (Gerry) Schwartz, Jr., Chairman (retired), Jacobs/Sverdrup Civil, Inc., St. Louis, MO
Kumares C. Sinha, Olson Distinguished Professor of Civil Engineering, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN
Gary C. Thomas, President and Executive Director, Dallas Area Rapid Transit, Dallas, TX
Paul Trombino III, Director, Iowa DOT, Ames
Phillip A. Washington, General Manager, Regional Transportation District, Denver, CO
EX OFFICIO MEMBERS
Thomas P. Bostick (Lt. General, U.S. Army), Chief of Engineers and Commanding General, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, DC
Alison Jane Conway, Assistant Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, City College of New York, NY, and Chair, TRB Young Member Council
Anne S. Ferro, Administrator, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, U.S. DOT
David J. Friedman, Acting Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. DOT
LeRoy Gishi, Chief, Division of Transportation, Bureau of Indian Affairs, U.S. Department of the Interior
John T. Gray II, Senior Vice President, Policy and Economics, Association of American Railroads, Washington, DC
Michael P. Huerta, Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration, U.S. DOT
Paul N. Jaenichen, Sr., Acting Administrator, Maritime Administration, U.S. DOT
Therese W. McMillan, Acting Administrator, Federal Transit Administration, U.S. DOT
Michael P. Melaniphy, President and CEO, American Public Transportation Association, Washington, DC
Gregory G. Nadeau, Acting Administrator, Federal Highway Administration, U.S. DOT
Cynthia L. Quarterman, Administrator, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. DOT
Peter M. Rogoff, Under Secretary for Policy, U.S. DOT
Craig A. Rutland, U.S. Air Force Pavement Engineer, Air Force Civil Engineer Center, Tyndall Air Force Base, FL
Joseph C. Szabo, Administrator, Federal Railroad Administration, U.S. DOT
Barry R. Wallerstein, Executive Officer, South Coast Air Quality Management District, Diamond Bar, CA
Gregory D. Winfree, Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology, Office of the Secretary, U.S. DOT
Frederick G. (Bud) Wright, Executive Director, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC
Paul F. Zukunft (Adm., U.S. Coast Guard), Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Department of Homeland Security
N AT I O N A L C O O P E R AT I V E H I G H W AY R E S E A R C H P R O G R A M
Robert Connor
Purdue University
West Lafayette, IN
Adrian Ciolko
KPFF Consulting Engineers
Evanston, IL
Robert Kogler
Rampart, LLC
Arlington, VA
Philip Fish
Fish and Associates, Inc.
Middleton, WI
David Forsyth
TRI/Austin
Austin, TX
Subscriber Categories
Research sponsored by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration
NCHRPREPORT 782
Project 12-82(01)
ISSN 0077-5614
ISBN 978-0-309-30791-8
Library of Congress Control Number 2014946785
2014 National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
COPYRIGHT INFORMATION
Authors herein are responsible for the authenticity of their materials and for obtaining
written permissions from publishers or persons who own the copyright to any previously
published or copyrighted material used herein.
Cooperative Research Programs (CRP) grants permission to reproduce material in this
publication for classroom and not-for-profit purposes. Permission is given with the
understanding that none of the material will be used to imply TRB, AASHTO, FAA, FHWA,
FMCSA, FTA, or Transit Development Corporation endorsement of a particular product,
method, or practice. It is expected that those reproducing the material in this document for
educational and not-for-profit uses will give appropriate acknowledgment of the source of
any reprinted or reproduced material. For other uses of the material, request permission
from CRP.
NOTICE
The project that is the subject of this report was a part of the National Cooperative Highway
Research Program, conducted by the Transportation Research Board with the approval of
the Governing Board of the National Research Council.
The members of the technical panel selected to monitor this project and to review this
report were chosen for their special competencies and with regard for appropriate balance.
The report was reviewed by the technical panel and accepted for publication according to
procedures established and overseen by the Transportation Research Board and approved
by the Governing Board of the National Research Council.
The opinions and conclusions expressed or implied in this report are those of the
researchers who performed the research and are not necessarily those of the Transportation
Research Board, the National Research Council, or the program sponsors.
The Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, the National Research
Council, and the sponsors of the National Cooperative Highway Research Program do not
endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers names appear herein solely
because they are considered essential to the object of the report.
The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific
and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the
authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal
government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone is president of the National Academy of Sciences.
The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel
organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the
National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also
sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior
achievements of engineers. Dr. C. D. Mote, Jr., is president of the National Academy of Engineering.
The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members
of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the
responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government
and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Victor J. Dzau is president of the
Institute of Medicine.
The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of
science and technology with the Academys purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in
accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the
National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and
the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine.
Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone and Dr. C. D. Mote, Jr., are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council.
The Transportation Research Board is one of six major divisions of the National Research Council. The mission of the Transportation Research Board is to provide leadership in transportation innovation and progress through research and information exchange,
conducted within a setting that is objective, interdisciplinary, and multimodal. The Boards varied activities annually engage about
7,000 engineers, scientists, and other transportation researchers and practitioners from the public and private sectors and academia,
all of whom contribute their expertise in the public interest. The program is supported by state transportation departments, federal
agencies including the component administrations of the U.S. Department of Transportation, and other organizations and individuals interested in the development of transportation. www.TRB.org
www.national-academies.org
AUTHOR ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The research reported herein was performed under NCHRP Project 12-82 by the Department of Civil
and Environmental Engineering at the University of Missouri (MU). The University of Missouri was the
Contractor for this study. Dr. Glenn Washer, Associate Professor of Civil Engineering at MU, was the
Principal Investigator. Dr. Robert Connor, Associate Professor of Civil Engineering at Purdue University,
was the Co-Principal Investigator. The other authors of this report are Adrian Ciolko, Group Manager
Bridges & Infrastructure at KPFF Consulting Engineers; Robert Kogler, Principal at Rampart, LLC.; Philip
Fish, Founder and Chairman at Fish and Associates, Inc.; David Forsyth, NDE Division Manager at TRI/
Austin; Christopher Applebury, Research Assistant and M.S. Candidate at MU; and Massoud Nasrollahi,
Research Assistant and Ph.D. Candidate at MU.
The Research Team gratefully acknowledges the helpful insights and comments provided by the project
panel during the course of the research. The Research Team would also like to acknowledge the assistance
provided by the Texas and Oregon Departments of Transportation during the execution of the case study
portions of the research.
FOREWORD
By Waseem Dekelbab
Staff Officer
Transportation Research Board
This report presents a proposed Guideline for reliability-based bridge inspection practices and provides two case studies of the application of the proposed Guideline. The Guideline describes a methodology to develop a risk-based approach for determining the bridge
inspection interval according to the requirements in the Moving Ahead for Progress in
the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) legislation. The goal of the methodology is to improve
the safety and reliability of bridges by focusing inspection efforts where most needed and
optimizing the use of resources. The material in this report will be of immediate interest to
bridge engineers.
The National Bridge Inspection Standards (NBIS) mandate the frequency and methods
used for the safety inspection of highway bridges. The inspection intervals specified in the
NBIS require routine inspections to be conducted every 24 months, and that interval may
be extended to 4 years for bridges that meet certain criteria and are approved by FHWA. For
bridges with fracture-critical elements, hands-on inspections are required every 2 years. The
specified intervals are generally not based on performance of bridge materials or designs, but
rather on experience from managing almost 600,000 bridges in the National Bridge Inventory.
These inspection intervals are applied to the entire bridge inventory, but they may not be
appropriate for all bridges. For example, recently constructed bridges typically experience
few problems during their first decade of service and those problems are typically minor.
Under the present requirements, these bridges must have the same inspection frequency
and intensity as a 50-year-old bridge that is reaching the end of its service life. In the case of
bridges with fracture-critical elements, newer bridges with improved fabrication processes
and designs that mitigate the effects of fatigue are inspected on the same interval and to the
same intensity as older bridges that do not share these characteristics.
A more rational approach to determining appropriate inspection practices for bridges
would consider the structure type, age, condition, importance, environment, loading,
prior problems, and other characteristics of the bridge. There is a growing consensus that
these inspection practices should meet two goals: (1) improving the safety and reliability
of bridges and (2) optimizing resources for bridge inspection. These goals can be accomplished through the application of reliability theory.
Research was performed under NCHRP Projects 12-82 and 12-82(01) by the University
of Missouri to develop a proposed bridge inspection practice for consideration for adoption
by AASHTO. The methodology developed is based on rational methods to ensure bridge
safety, serviceability, and effective use of resources.
The report includes two parts: Part IProposed Guideline for Reliability-Based Bridge
Inspection Practices and Part IIFinal Research Report: Developing Reliability-Based
Inspection Practices that documents the entire research effort.
CONTENTS
7
7
8
8
10
11
12
12
13
14
15
17
17
18
19
19
19
19
20
21
21
21
23
23
23
24
Chapter 1Introduction
1.1Process
1.1.1Scope
1.1.2Purpose
1.2Background
1.2.1Reliability and Probability
1.2.2Consequences
25 References
26
39
51
54
59
97
Chapter 1Background
137
139
139
140
141
142
143
144
144
146
146
150
151
153
159
159
160
161
164
164
164
164
167
169
170
170
173
175
176
176
176
177
182
183
183
184
188
188
3.1Introduction
3.2Overview of Methodology
3.3Reliability
3.3.1Reliability Theory
3.3.2Failure
3.3.3Damage Modes and Deterioration Mechanisms
3.3.4Lifetime Performance Characteristics
3.4Key Elements of RBI
3.4.1The OF
3.4.2CFs
3.4.3Inspection Procedures in RBI
3.4.4RAP
3.5Data to Support RBI Analysis
3.5.1Quantitative vs. Qualitative Analysis
3.5.2Data Needed for Assessment
3.5.3Industry Data
3.6Case Studies of the Methodology
3.6.1Summary Overview of RAP Meeting
3.6.2RAP Meeting Attendees
3.6.3Schedule and Agenda
3.6.4Back-Casting Procedure
3.6.5Statistical Analysis of NBI Data
3.6.6Bridge Inventories in Texas and Oregon
3.6.7Time-in-Condition Rating
3.6.8Overview of Case Study Results
3.6.9CFs
3.7Back-Casting Results for Oregon
3.7.1Environments
3.7.2CFs
3.7.3Back-Casting Results for Oregon
3.8Back-Casting Results for Texas
3.8.1Environments
3.8.2CFs
3.8.3Back-Casting Results for Texas
3.9Discussion of the Case Studies in Texas and Oregon
3.9.1Back-Casting Results
189
189
190
190
195 References
197 Abbreviations
198
204
210
Note: Many of the photographs, figures, and tables in this report have been converted from color to grayscale
for printing. The electronic version of the report (posted on the Web at www.trb.org) retains the color versions.
Pa rt I
SUMMARY
Definitions
Definitions5
group or family.
CHAPTER 1
Introduction
This guideline describes a methodology for developing Risk-Based Inspection (RBI) practices for highway bridges. The goal of the methodology is to improve the safety and reliability of bridges by focusing inspection efforts where most needed and optimizing the use
of resources. The guideline provides a framework and procedures for developing suitable
inspection strategies based on a rational engineering assessment of inspection needs. The
methodology considers the structure type, age, condition, importance, environment, loading,
prior problems, and other characteristics that contribute to the reliability and durability of
highway bridges.
The methodology requires bridge owners to perform a reliability assessment of bridges within
their bridge inventory to identify those bridges that are most in need of inspection to ensure
bridge safety, and those where inspection needs are less. This assessment is conducted by considering the reliability and safety attributes of bridges, assessing the likelihood of damage and
associated deterioration mechanisms, and evaluating the potential outcomes or consequences
in terms of safety and serviceability. Through this process, inspection needs are prioritized to
improve the safety and reliability of the bridge inventory overall.
This chapter of the document provides an introduction and overview of the process, as well
as background information on the underlying theories and common practices for RBI and reliability assessments. Chapter 2 of the document describes the methodology for conducting a reliability assessment for bridges. This includes providing a definition of element failure suitable as
an analysis tool, and a description of the key factors to be assessed in the typical reliability assessment conducted for inspection planning purposes. This chapter also describes the composition
of the Reliability Assessment Panel (RAP) that will conduct the assessments.
Chapter 3 describes the process for determining the appropriate maximum inspection interval
and scope of inspection, based on analysis as described in Chapter 2. The underlying approaches
for identifying inspection intervals and the techniques or methods to be used for the inspections are discussed. Finally, Chapter 4 provides an overview of the overall process, guidance for
bridge owners on beginning an RBI program, transitioning from traditional, calendar-based
approaches, and general guidance on the training that may be required.
There are six appendices in the document that describe in more detail the process and
mechanics of the analysis. Guidance for determining the factors necessary to perform a reliability assessment are included in Appendices A, B, and C. Guidance on inspection methods
and nondestructive evaluation (NDE) technologies that can be used for conducting RBIs is
described in Appendix D. Appendix E contains commentary regarding specific, common
attributes of bridges that influence damage modes and deterioration mechanisms, and relate
to bridge reliability. Finally, Appendix F includes three example implementations of the
methodology applied to bridges of common design: a multi-girder concrete bridge with
6
Introduction7
1.1Process
The process involves an owner (e.g., state) establishing an expert panel to define and assess
the durability and reliability characteristics of bridges within the state. The expert group analyzes
portions of the bridge inventory to assess inspection needs by using engineering rationale, experience, and typical deterioration patterns to evaluate the reliability characteristics of bridges and
the potential outcomes of damage. This is done through a relatively simple process that consists
of three primary steps:
Step 1: What can go wrong, and how likely is it? Identify possible damage modes for the elements of a selected bridge type. Considering design, loading, and condition characteristics
(attributes), categorize the likelihood of serious damage occurring into one of four occurrence
factors (OFs) ranging from remote (very unlikely) to high (very likely).
Step 2: What are the consequences? Assess the consequences, in terms of safety and serviceability, assuming the given damage modes occur. Categorize the potential consequences into one
of four consequence factors (CFs) ranging from low (minor effect on serviceability) through
severe (i.e., bridge collapse, loss of life).
Step 3: Determine the inspection interval and scope. Use a simple 4 4 matrix to prioritize
inspection needs and assign an inspection interval for the bridge based on the results of
Steps 1 and 2. Damage modes that are likely to occur and have high consequences are prioritized over damage modes that are unlikely to occur or are of little consequence in terms of
safety. An RBI procedure is developed based on the assessment of typical damage modes for
the bridges being assessed.
Inspections are conducted according to the RBI procedure developed through this process.
Results of the inspection are assessed to determine if the existing RBI procedure needs to be
modified or updated as a result of findings from the inspection.
Through this process, individual bridges, or groups of bridges of similar design characteristics,
can be assessed to evaluate the inspection needs based on an engineering analysis of the likelihood
of serious damage occurring and the effect of that damage on the safety and serviceability of the
bridge. This approach considers the structure type, age, condition, and operational environment
in a systematic manner to provide a rational assessment process for inspection planning. A documented rationale for the inspection strategy utilized for a given bridge is developed. The damage
modes most important to ensuring the safety and serviceability of the bridge are identified such
that inspection efforts can be focused to improve the reliability of the inspection results.
1.1.1Scope
This guide is focused on the inspection of typical highway bridges of common design characteristics. Atypical structures, such as long-span truss bridges, cable-stayed bridges, suspension bridges, and other unique or unusual bridge designs may require certain considerations
not presently captured in this guideline; this guideline provides for inspection planning for
the superstructure, substructure, and deck for typical highway bridges. Scour and underwater
inspections have existing methodologies for evaluation, and, as such, are not included herein.
Bridges assessed using this methodology are assumed to have a current load rating that indicates
that the structural capacity is sufficient to carry allowable loads.
1.1.2Purpose
The purpose of this document is to provide guidance for bridge owners for conducting
reliability-based assessments for determining the frequency and scope of inspections for typical
highway bridges. This document is intended to be used by bridge owners for assessing their
bridge inventories in order to prioritize inspection needs based on an engineering analysis that
considers the bridge type, age, loading, condition, and other characteristics of a bridge. This
guideline is intended for application to typical bridges with common and ordinary forms of
deterioration and damage. Advanced deterioration and/or specific defects such as fatigue cracks
due to primary stresses or severe corrosion damage in concrete typically require more detailed
engineering analysis than provided herein.
1.2Background
The periodic inspection of highway bridges in the United States plays a critical role in ensuring
the safety, serviceability, and reliability of bridges. Inspection processes have developed over time
to meet the requirements of the National Bridge Inspections Standards (NBIS)(2) and to meet the
needs of individual bridge owners in terms of managing and maintaining their bridge inventory.
The inspection frequency mandated by the NBIS requires the inspection interval (maximum time
period between inspections) not to exceed 24 months. Based on certain criteria, that interval may
be extended up to 48 months with approval from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
(3). Maximum inspection intervals of less than 24 months are utilized for certain bridges according to criteria developed by the bridge owner, typically based on age and known deficiencies. Most
bridge owners utilize the uniform maximum inspection interval of 24 months, as mandated by
the NBIS, for the majority of the bridges in their inventory, and the reduced intervals for bridges
with known deficiencies. Only 15 states utilize the 48 month policy, often only for culverts. The
uniform inspection interval of 24 months was specified at the origination of the National Bridge
Inspection Program in 1971 based on experience, engineering judgment, and the best information available at the time. The uniform approach provides a single maximum inspection interval
for most bridges, regardless of the bridge age, design, or environment. To date, this mandated
inspection interval has provided an adequate level of safety and reliability for the bridge inventory nationwide. However, such a uniform inspection interval does not consider explicitly the
likelihood of failure based on bridge condition, design, or operating environment, or the potential consequences of a failure. A uniform inspection interval does not recognize that a newly
constructed bridge with improved durability characteristics and a few years of exposure to the
service environment may be much less likely to develop serious damage over a given time interval
than an older bridge that has been exposed to the service environment for many years. Bridges
that are in benign, arid operating environments are inspected at the same interval as bridges in
aggressive marine environments, where significant damage from corrosion may develop much
more rapidly. Current practices make it difficult to distinguish if the same or improved safety
and reliability could be achieved by varying inspection methods or frequencies to meet the needs
of a specific bridge based on its design and operational environment. The current approach also
makes it difficult to analyze if a given inspection activity is excessive, or if it provides little or no
measure of increased assurance of the safety and reliability of bridges. Given that any inspection
activity carries with it a certain amount of risk to both the inspector and to the traveling public,
inspections that are excessive or that provide little benefit may present added, unnecessary risks.
Otherwise, inspections that are inadequate or fail to distinguish the importance of critical damage
modes may also present certain added risks that require analysis.
Recognizing the variability in the design, condition, and operating environments of bridges
would provide for inspection requirements that better meet the needs of individual bridges to
Introduction9
improve both bridge and inspection reliability. Other industries are increasingly recognizing
the limitations of prescribed inspection frequencies and are developing methodologies for efficiently assessing inspection needs, ensuring the safety and reliability of systems, and focusing
inspection resources most effectively (1, 46). Methodologies for assessing inspection needs
based on the likelihood of a service failure, combined with the consequences of such a failure,
is a common approach to inspection planning and to developing effective inspection strategies.
These approaches are typically described as risk-based, where inspection planning is conducted
considering the reliability of a component, i.e., how likely is it that the component or machine
will fail during a certain time period, and the consequences of such an event. Damage modes and
deterioration mechanisms are typically assessed explicitly to determine the likelihood of failure
during a given time period, and to identify the appropriate inspection methods to detect critical
damage prior to failure.
A risk-based approach has been adopted in many industries as a tool for inspection planning, to focus attention on the component or machine that represents the greatest risk. Risk is
defined as the product of the probability of an event and the associated consequences:
Risk = Probability Consequence
Probability in this equation is the likelihood of an adverse event or failure occurring during a
given time period. This is sometimes expressed quantitatively as a probability of failure (POF)
estimate for a given time interval, or as a qualitative assessment of the likelihood of an adverse
event based on experience and engineering judgment. Consequence is a measure of the impact
of the event occurring, which may be measured in terms of economic, social, safety, or environmental impacts.
Risk can be expressed quantitatively using POF estimates or models and quantitative measures of consequences, such as the cost of a certain event or the loss of service of a component.
Risk can also be expressed qualitatively by estimating whether the likelihood of a certain event
is high, medium, or low, and determining a qualitative estimate of the consequences. Presenting risk qualitatively is a common and effective method for evaluating risk and for assessing
relative risk efficiently. Figure 1 shows a qualitative risk matrix (1, 5). This matrix shows a good
representation of the overall concept and basic principles of risk. A high likelihood (probability)
of occurrence combined with a high consequence results in a high risk, located in the upper
right corner of the figure. Low likelihood combined with a low consequence results in low risk,
located in the lower left-hand corner of the figure. High risk and low risk elements typically
do not create challenges in decision making; items that are high risk may not be acceptable
and actions are required to lower the risk, either by reducing the likelihood of an event, or by
reducing the consequences, or both. Items that are low risk are typically acceptable and may
require little or no action. In the medium risk area, questions may arise about how much risk
is acceptable, and what the appropriate decision-making strategies are for mitigating that risk.
In terms of inspection strategies, items that are high risk are prioritized for more frequent and
possibly more intense inspections to reduce uncertainty and to monitor the development of
damage to ensure that safety is maintained. Items that are low risk may have longer inspection
intervals and have less intense inspection protocols.
An important concept in risk analysis is to understand that high likelihood does not necessarily mean high risk, if the consequences are small. Similarly, high consequence does not necessarily mean high risk, if the likelihood is small. The level of risk can only be determined once both
of these variables are assessed.
A risk-based planning approach focuses attention not on the items that are most likely to fail,
but rather those items whose failure is most important, by considering both the likelihood of
Figure 1.Risk
matrix showing
high-, medium-,
and low-risk values.
failure and the associated consequences. The setting of inspection frequencies or intervals is not
a rigid process, such as is the case for uniform or calendar-based inspection frequencies. Rather,
it is a process that evolves and changes over the life of a component such that inspection frequencies change as risk increases (or decreases). Therefore, the frequency of inspection is aligned with
the needs and the associated risks, focusing attention on the most at-risk items. This approach
has been widely accepted in many industries with facilities that can be considered analogous to
highway bridges: very large, expensive, and complex structural systems that are exposed to rugged environmental conditions and mechanical loading (1, 4, 6).
Introduction11
is required to estimate the reliability of bridge elements based on past experience, engineering
knowledge, and a rational process to systematically assess bridges of common design and construction characteristics. The process involves engineers with experience and expertise in the
performance of bridges within a particular operational environment using engineering judgment to assess the probability (likelihood) of failure during some future time period. When
combined with an assessment of the consequences, an effective analysis can be conducted to
identify inspection needs efficiently.
1.2.2Consequences
The primary purpose of bridge inspection is to ensure the safety and serviceability of highway
bridges. As a result, the consequences to be assessed in prioritizing the importance of different
damage modes are assessed in terms of bridge safety and serviceability. The consequence of failure, or of serious damage developing in a bridge element, typically depends on the role of that
element in the structural system of the bridge, and on the operating environment surrounding
the bridge. For example, the consequence of an abutment having severe corrosion damage might
be low, while the same damage in a main superstructure member may be high. The consequence
of damage developing at the soffit of a bridge deck, such as concrete spalling, might be low if the
bridge is over a flood plain, but high if the bridge is over an interstate highway. The consequence
associated with a given damage mode can be assessed through engineering judgment, through
common or related experience, or through theoretical analysis.
The process developed and described herein requires the determination of two key parameters: an estimate of the reliability of given bridge elements, based on the likelihood (probability)
that the element would fail during a given time interval, and an assessment of the consequences of
that failure. These data are then used to determine an appropriate inspection interval and scope
(procedures and methods) for a bridge. As such, the methodology described is a reliability-based
bridge inspection planning process for ensuring the safety and serviceability (i.e., reliability) of
highway bridges.
CHAPTER 2
Reliability Assessment
of Bridge Elements
This section describes the methodology for reliability assessment of the bridge elements. Section 2.1 describes and defines failure as applied to typical bridge elements for the reliability
assessment. Section 2.2 describes the methodology for evaluating the probability or likelihood
that failure will occur (OF). Section 2.3 describes the methodology for evaluating the consequences of that occurrence (CFs). Finally, Section 2.4 discusses the panel that conducts the
assessment, the RAP.
12
This condition description is widely understood and there is significant past experience in the
conditions warranting a rating of 3 throughout the bridge inventory. This condition description is not absolute, but provides a frame of reference for the analyst considering the likelihood
of damage occurring to a serious extent. In terms of the AASHTO Bridge Element Inspection
Guide, this condition generally aligns with elements in condition state (CS) 4, severe. (8)
Category
Remote
2
3
4
Low
Moderate
High
Description
Remote likelihood of occurrence,
unreasonable to expect failure to occur
Low likelihood of occurrence
Moderate likelihood of occurrence
High likelihood of occurrence
unlikely that severe damage (i.e., failure) would occur in the next 72 months. This is based on
the rationale that the deck is presently in good condition, and has attributes that are well-known
to provide resistance to corrosion damage. As such, an OF of Low or Remote might be used
to describe the likelihood of failure due to this damage mode. Alternatively, suppose the deck is
in an environment where de-icing chemicals are frequently used, the reinforcement is uncoated,
and the current rating for the deck is a 5, Fair Condition, indicating that there are signs of distress in the deck. Based on this rationale, the likelihood of serious damage developing would be
much greater, resulting in an OF rating of Moderate or High. Past experience with decks of
a similar design, characteristics of the specific operating environment, and attributes of the deck
are combined with engineering judgment and used to support the assessment of the specific OF
for a given deck. Methodologies for determining credible damage modes and their associated
attributes are included in Appendix A.
Certain key attributes will ideally be identified as part of criteria for reassessment of bridge
inspection requirements, following subsequent RBIs. These key attributes are typically associated with condition, which may change over the service life of the bridge as deterioration occurs.
When changes in these condition attributes cause a change in the likelihood of a given damage
mode resulting in failure (i.e., the OF), reassessment of the inspection requirements is necessary.
Deterioration rate data, trends, and theoretical models can be used to support the categorization of the OFs by providing insight regarding the average, typical, or expected behavior of
elements of a similar design. Transition probabilities, Weibull statistics, or regression trends,
developed based on past inspection results, can provide insight into the anticipated behavior
of a group of similar bridge elements. Care should be taken to ensure that the bridge elements
being assessed have similar or the same attributes as those represented by the data. Theoretical
models may also be used to support these assessments. However, the complexity and variations
in the operational environment, construction variability, and current condition can be difficult
to capture in these models. Results need to be verified using engineering judgment.
Category
Consequence
on Safety
Consequence on
Serviceability
Low
None
Minor
Moderate
Minor
Moderate
High
Moderate
Major
Severe
Major
Major
Summary Description
Minor effect on serviceability,
no effect on safety
Moderate effect on serviceability,
minor effect on safety
Major effect on serviceability,
moderate effect on safety
Structural collapse/loss of life
In assessing the consequences of a given damage mode for a given element, the RAP must establish which outcome characterized by the CFs in Table 2 is the most likely. In other words, which
scenario does it have the most confidence will result if the damage were to occur. Using the illustration of brittle fracture in a girder, it is obvious that the most likely consequence scenario would
(and should) be different for a 150-foot span two-girder bridge than for a 50-foot span multigirder bridge. For the short-span, multi-girder bridge, an engineer may state with confidence
that the most likely consequence scenario is high or moderate and that the likelihood of
severe consequences is very remote for a multi-girder bridge, based on his or her experience
and the observed behavior of multi-girder bridges. For the two-girder bridge, the consequence
scenario is likely to be Severe. As this example illustrates, the CF simply ranks the importance of
the damage mode as being higher for a two-girder bridge than for a multi-girder bridge. For many
scenarios, qualitative assessments based on engineering judgment and documented experience are
sufficient to assess the appropriate CF for a given scenario; for others, analysis may be necessary
using suitable analytical models or other methods. A series of more detailed criteria for specific
elements [i.e., decks, steel girders, prestressed (P/S) girders, etc.] are provided in the Appendix B
that can be utilized during the assessment to determine the appropriate CF for a given element
failure scenario. These criteria, combined with owner-specific requirements developed in the RAP
or from other rational sources for assessing bridges and bridge redundancy, are then used to determine the appropriate CF for a given scenario.
notes and sketches included in the file, and have an understanding of the scope and the methods of the inspections used for the bridges under consideration.
2. State Program Manager or Bridge Management Engineer: Individual familiar with the
characteristics and the behavior of the bridge inventory throughout the state.
3. Bridge Maintenance Engineer: An individual familiar with the standard methods and techniques used for bridge maintenance, the level of maintenance typical for the bridges under
consideration, and the outcomes of bridge maintenance.
4. Materials Engineer: A materials engineers who is familiar with the history of materials performance within the state. This individual should be experienced with the materials historically
used within the state, be knowledgeable of any prior problems with the quality or with the
performance of the materials used, and be knowledgeable of typical deterioration patterns.
5. Structural Engineer: An engineer with sufficient training and experience to understand the
consequences, in a structural sense, of bridge element failures. For example, the structural engineer should be able to recognize the load paths in a structure and to understand the importance
of elements in the overall structural system of the bridge.
6. Independent Experts: The RAP may include independent experts, academics, or consultants
to address specific or complex damage modes, provide independent review, and/or supplement the knowledge of the panel as needed.
7. Facilitator: A RAP facilitator may be used to assist in the RAP analysis, to lead expert elicitations, and help build consensus during the analysis process.
The expert panel may also include representatives from the FHWA to monitor the process, to
fulfill oversight responsibilities, and to assist with the implementation of the methodology used
for inspection planning.
CHAPTER 3
Determination of Inspection
Interval and Scope
This section describes the process of determining the inspection interval and scope based on
the assessment completed as described in Chapter 2. This process leads to a prioritization of
inspection needs, highlights critical damage modes for bridges, and results in an RBI practice.
This is a relatively easy task for elements where the OF is high and the CF is severe, and hence
an interval of 12 months or less is needed. However, if the OF is remote and the CF is low, then
it would also seem reasonable and justifiable that the inspection interval should be greater
than the longest interval assumed in the OF assessment (72 months). (If the OF is remote, this
indicates the members of the RAP concluded that there is a remote likelihood of occurrence,
unreasonable to expect failure to occur in the next 72 months for this element and damage
mode.) This information, coupled with the observation that failure, should it occur, is a low
consequence, may justify the use of an inspection interval longer than 72 months.
Figure 2. Risk matrix
for determining
maximum inspection
intervals for bridges.
The actual inspection interval selected is based on the shortest inspection interval determined
from the analysis. In other words, whichever element has the shortest maximum inspection
interval, based on the likelihood of failure and associated consequence. In certain circumstances,
there may be one element of the bridge that results in a much shorter inspection interval than the
other elements of the bridge. In such a case, a different inspection interval may be identified for
that particular element, based on engineering judgment and the discretion of the bridge owner.
For most cases, multiple elements would be expected to have the same or very similar intervals,
with the shortest interval being selected for practical reasons.
3.1.2Sampling
When using the RBI approach, it may be appropriate to inspect a representative sample of
a bridge element, using the inspection method identified. This can be used to reduce or limit
inspection activities that provide little or no measure of increased benefit or that introduce risks
that are unjustified. The sampling population size (number of locations or area, for example)
should reflect the nature and type of damage to be assessed through the inspection. When damage modes are expected to be widespread and relatively uniform, such as spalling in a bridge
deck, an appropriate sampling based on area may be justified. For example, inspecting 25%
of the bridge deck to assess if delaminations are present. When damage modes are isolated or
non-uniform, such as fatigue cracks, sufficient sampling must be based on analysis to identify
the location and number of inspections. Criteria and analysis supporting the sampling should
be documented.
Identify bridge maintenance needs (minor patching, clearance of debris, vegetation control, etc.).
Confirm general conditions have not significantly changed.
Monitor unreported vehicular damage to a structure.
Evaluate traffic safety issues (maintaining signage, roadway delineations, etc.).
Intervals for maintenance inspection would typically not exceed 2 years. Such maintenance
inspections may be integrated into the business practice of a district or region.
CHAPTER 4
current condition. For those bridges where past experience is greatest, uncertainty regarding
both the development of the damage and the associated consequences is reduced. Bridges that
are more complex, suffer from advanced forms of deterioration, or have unique design attributes
require a higher level of assessment, as shown schematically in Figure 4. More data and a more
sophisticated or more specialized assessment may be required. Therefore, to initiate an RBI
practice, bridge owners can conduct a general, fully qualitative assessment of their inventory and
assign or determine the scope of the initial assessment to be conducted.
Bridges that are of common and simple design, and are in good condition, are identified for
analysis first. These bridges can be considered to be in a low risk category because they are of
simple design and there is significant experience and confidence in their performance. For example, bridge owners conduct a simple analysis of their inventory to determine bridges that are
multi-girder, short span, and in generally good condition for assessment first. Reliability assessment for these bridges may be relatively simple. Conducting the reliability assessment of these
bridges first helps develop the RBI practice and develops the knowledge and experience of
the RAP members. After this analysis is completed, the assessment moves on to bridges that
are more complex, require more data for assessment, or require more sophisticated analysis to
determine the factors necessary for a reliability assessment.
References
1. American Petroleum Institute (API), API Recommended Practice 580, Risk-Based Inspection. 2002: Washington,
D.C., p. 45.
2.National Bridge Inspection Standards, in 23 CFR part 650. 2004: USA., p. 7441974439.
3.FHWA, Revisions to the National Bridge Inspection Standards (NBIS). 1988: p. 21.
4. American Bureau of Shipping (ABS), Surveys Using Risk-Based Inspection for the Offshore Industry. 2003:
Houston, TX.
5.ASME, Risk-Based Inspection: Development of Guidelines. General Document. 1992: p. 155.
6.ASME, Inspection Planning Using Risk-Based Methods. 2007: p. 92.
7.FHWA, Recording and Coding Guide for the Structural Inventory and Appraisal of the Nations Bridges,
U.S.DOT., Editor: 1995:.
8.AASHTO, AASHTO Bridge Element Inspection Manual. 2010, AASHTO Publications: Washington, D.C.
p.170.
9.AASHTO, The Manual For Bridge Evaluation. 2008, AASHTO Publications: Washington, D.C.
10. Washer, G.A., and Chang, C.A., Guideline for Implementing Quality Control and Quality Assurance For
Bridge Inspection. 2009, Transportation Research Board: Washington, D.C. p. 65.
25
APPENDIX A
A 1 Introduction
28
A 2 Damage Modes
28
29
30
31
32
32
33
34
34
34
35
36
37
38
26
A 3 Element Attributes
A 3.1 Screening Attributes
A 3.1.1 Qualitative Assessment of Elements and Details
A 3.2 Identifying Key Attributes
A 3.3 Ranking Attributes
A 1 Introduction
The Occurrence Factor (OF) is used within an RBI to estimate the likelihood of serious damage (i.e., failure) developing in a bridge element during a specified time interval, based on engineering rationale. This rationale is developed through a systematic process that considers and
documents the anticipated damage modes for bridge elements. The characteristics, or attributes,
of bridge elements that contribute to their reliability, considering the expected damage modes,
are identified. The damage modes and attributes are identified through an expert panel process
described herein, and subsequently used in a rational process that identifies those bridges with
elements that are highly reliable and durable, and those bridges with elements that are more
likely to suffer from deterioration and damage.
The overall process for estimating the OFs is as follows:
1. Identify the likely damage modes that will affect a bridge element from commonly known
damage modes, past experience, and engineering judgment.
2. Identify attributes that contribute to the reliability and the durability of the element considering the damage modes identified.
3. Rank the importance of each attributes influence on the reliability and the durability of the
bridge element.
4. Develop rationale based on the damage modes and attributes of the bridge element to estimate the likelihood of serious damage (i.e., failure) occurring during the specified interval.
An empirical scoring procedure based on the key attributes identified for a given element is
used to provide a rational method of estimating the OF. The analysis can be used to construct
criteria that can be applied to individual bridges, or groups of very similar bridges, to categorize
the likelihood of serious damage (i.e., failure) occurring in the next 72-month time frame into
one of four categories, ranging from remote to high, i.e., the OF.
The OF represents a probability of failure (POF) estimate over a time interval of 72 months.
This time period was selected based on engineering factors that included prior research, analysis
of data from the National Bridge Inventory (NBI), expert judgment, and data from corrosion
and damage models. It was also selected as a time interval for which an engineer could reasonably be expected to estimate future performance within four fairly broad categories, ranging
from remote to high, based on key attributes that describe the design, loading, and condition
of a bridge or bridge element. In addition, this time interval was selected to provide a suitable
balance between shorter intervals, when the POF could be unrealistically low due to the typically slow progression of damage in bridges, or longer intervals, where uncertainty would be
increasingly high.
The analysis provides the rationale for categorizing the OF on a rating scale from remote,
when the likelihood is extremely small such that it would be unreasonable to expect failures, to
high, where the likelihood is increased. This rating scale is shown in Table A1. In some cases,
the OF may be an estimate of the likelihood of a certain adverse event occurring that results in a
failure, such as impact from an over-height vehicle or an overload.
Category
2
3
4
Low
Moderate
High
Remote
Description
Remote likelihood of occurrence,
unreasonable to expect failure to occur
Low likelihood of occurrence
Moderate likelihood of occurrence
High likelihood of occurrence
The following sections describe how a Reliability Assessment Panel (RAP) identifies the damage modes to be assessed, determines important attributes for each damage mode, and ranks
and scores those attributes to support assessment of an individual bridge or families of bridges
of nearly identical attributes, damage modes, and design. The RAP is an expert panel assembled
by the bridge owner as described in section 2.4 of the main report.
A 2 Damage Modes
The first step in the process is to answer the question What can go wrong? For most common
bridges, the damage modes that affect the bridge are well known. Spalling and cracking of the
concrete as a result of corrosion, or section loss and fatigue cracking in steel elements, are typical examples. The RAP, through a consensus process, develops a listing of the credible damage
modes for the elements of a bridge or a family of bridges being assessed. A credible damage
mode is one that could reasonably or typically be expected to occur during the service life of the
bridge element. Current and past research and experience should be considered in developing
the listing. An expert elicitation process described in section A 2.1 may be used to identify the
typical damage modes for consideration. This process may also be used to identify unusual or
uncommon damage modes that may be relevant for a particular bridge inventory. Table A2 lists
damage modes that may be identified by the RAP, as examples to illustrate typical damage modes
for several common bridge elements.
Prestressed Girder
Damage Modes
Corrosion damage/section loss
Fatigue cracking
Fracture
Impact damage
Corrosion damage (spalling/cracking)
Strand fracture
Shear cracking
Flexural cracking
Impact damage
Corrosion damage (spalling/cracking)
Damage to bearing areas
Unexpected settlement/rotation
2. Identify damage modes: The facilitator poses a question to the RAP such as: The inspection
report indicates that the element is rated in serious condition. In your expert judgment, what
is the most likely cause (i.e., damage mode) that has produced/resulted in this condition?
This question is intended to elicit from the panel a listing of damage modes that are likely to
occur for the element.
Each expert is asked to independently list the damage modes he/she judges are most likely to
have caused the element to be rated in serious condition. The expert records each damage mode
he/she identifies, and provides an estimate of the relative likelihood that the damage mode was
the cause. This is done by assigning relative probabilities to each damage mode, typically with
a minimum precision of 10% (the sum of the ratings should be 100%). The expert notes any
supporting rationale for their estimate. The individual results from each member of the RAP are
then aggregated to evaluate consensus among the panel on the most likely damage modes for
the element. An iterative process may be necessary to develop consensus on the credible damage modes for a given bridge element. However, for most elements, the damage modes are well
known and consensus can be reached quickly.
Expert 1
Expert 2 Expert 3
Expert 4
Expert 5
Expert 6
Average
60%
60%
50%
50%
70%
50%
57%
30%
10%
0%
100%
30%
10%
0%
100%
30%
10%
10%
100%
20%
20%
10%
100%
10%
20%
0%
100%
20%
20%
10%
100%
23%
15%
5%
100%
Steel Girder
Damage Modes
Spalling resulting from steel corrosion
Widespread cracking
Rubblization of concrete due to freeze/thaw
damage or ASR
Corrosion damage
Fatigue cracking
Fracture
Impact damage
Spalling resulting from corrosion
Damage to bearing areas
Unexpected settlement/rotation
The elicitation process is repeated for each key element of the bridge to develop a listing of
damage modes to be considered in the analysis. For example, considering a typical steel girder
bridge with a bare concrete deck and concrete piers and abutments, damage modes for each
element of the bridge that might be identified by a RAP are shown in Table A4. For the deck
in this illustration, the most common damage mode is identified as spalling of the deck due to
corrosion damage of the reinforcing steel; widespread cracking, and damage due to alkali-silica
reactivity (ASR) and/or freeze-thaw cycles. For the steel girder, corrosion damage (section loss)
is identified as the most likely damage mode; fatigue cracking, fracture, and impact are also
identified by the RAP. For the piers and abutments, damage modes included corrosion damage
that results in spalling, damage to the bearing areas (beams seats, for example), and unexpected
settlement or rotation. Such a listing is developed through a consensus process by the RAP for a
specific bridge and element types under consideration, as previously discussed.
Once this listing of damage modes has been identified, the next step in the process is to identify key attributes that contribute to the reliability and durability of the element, considering
these damage modes.
A 3 Element Attributes
Attributes are characteristics of a bridge element that affect is reliability. These attributes
are typically well-known parameters affecting the performance of bridge elements during their
service lives. For example, bridge elements can have good attributes that are known to provide
good service-life performance. A bridge deck can have good qualities such as having adequate
concrete cover and use of epoxy-coated reinforcing steel for corrosion resistance. Alternatively,
bridges may have qualities or attributes that contribute to more rapid deterioration or increased
likelihood of damage. Using the concrete deck example, heavy use of de-icing chemicals, minimal concrete cover, and unprotected reinforcement would be examples of attributes that contribute to more rapid deterioration. For a steel girder, fatigue-prone details may be an attribute
indicating increased likelihood of damage. The identification of key attributes is simply a listing
of these attributes and a relative ranking of their importance in terms of the reliability and the
durability of the element.
These attributes can be generally grouped into three categories: Design, Loading, and Condition attributes. Design attributes are characteristics of a bridge element that are part of the elements design. Design attributes are usually intrinsic characteristics of the element that do not
change over time, such as the amount of concrete cover or material of construction [concrete,
high performance concrete (HPC), etc.]. In some cases, preservation or maintenance activities
that contribute to the durability of the bridge element may be a design attribute, such as the use
of penetrating sealers as a preservation strategy.
Loading attributes are characteristics that describe the loads applied to the bridge element that
affect its reliability. This may include structural loading, traffic loading, or environmental loading. Environmental loading may be described in macro terms, such as the general environment
in which the bridge is located, or on a local basis, such as the rate of de-icing chemical application
on a bridge deck. Loading attributes describe key loading characteristics that contribute to the
damage modes and deterioration processes under consideration.
Condition attributes are characteristics that relate to the current condition of a bridge or a
bridge element. These can include the current element or component level rating, or a specific
condition that will affect the reliability of the element. For example, if the damage mode under
consideration is concrete damage at the bearing, the condition of the bridge joint may be a key
attribute in determining the likelihood that severe corrosion will occur in the bearing area.
Relevant attributes are identified for the damage modes and underlying deterioration mechanisms determined by the RAP. In many cases, attributes are well-known characteristics of bridges
and bridge elements that contribute to the reliability and durability of the elements. However,
because bridge designs, environments, and management policies differ, attributes and their
relative importance may also differ between bridge owners. Therefore, it is necessary that the
RAP identify those attributes that contribute most significantly, including any special or unique
attributes that might contribute significantly (either positively or negatively) to the likelihood of
damage for bridges in their inventory. Attributes that are not relevant or do not have significant
impact on durability and reliability should not be included in the analysis.
Once the attribute listing has been completed, attributes that match these criteria can be
identified. The RAP should identify the appropriate value or condition for the attribute to
use as a screening tool. In any scoring scheme there is the possibility, and hence a concern,
that the value of key attributes can be diminished when the scoring for all of the relevant attributes are combined. Screening attributes are useful to ensure key conditions are identified, to
address this concern.
For example, if considering the likelihood that the steel bridge will suffer corrosion damage that reduces its rating to a 3, and the current rating is 4, the RAP may consider that such
condition indicates that there is a high likelihood of further damage developing over the next
72-month period, regardless of other attributes. In such a case, the analysis can move forward to
an assessment of the consequences without assessing the specific attributes of the element, since
the likelihood has already been assessed to be high.
Design features may be useful as screening criteria, particularly if the features result in the
likelihood of serious damage being unusually uncertain. For example, for bridges that possess
details susceptible to Constraint-Induced Fracture (CIF), there is a high potential for sudden
brittle fracture. For fracture-critical bridges in particular, inspection will provide no protection
as the CIF occurs without any warning and before any detectable cracks are observed. Hence,
it would be prudent to screen these bridges from the analysis, because the likelihood of serious
damage is unusually uncertain. Another strategy, such as retrofitting the critical details, should
be performed to ensure safety.
Another example would be to screen steel beam elements in bridges that have open decking.
Since the open decking allows drainage directly onto the steel beams, the deterioration of these
bridges would not be similar to steel beams with typical concrete decks. Therefore, it would be
prudent for these bridges to be screened from the analysis of steel beam bridges, as they may
require separate analysis. It may be appropriate to treat these bridges as a separate group, developing the analysis to consider key attributes of those bridges with open decking.
In some cases, it may be more practical to screen bridges from the analysis entirely through a
qualitative reliability assessment of the overall inventory, as described in the following section.
A 3.1.1 Qualitative Assessment of Elements and Details
A simple qualitative assessment can also be used early in the RAP process to identify appropriate families or groups of bridges to be analyzed. This tool can be used to separate potentially
problematic details or elements that may require more in-depth analysis. These elements may
include, for example, rocker bearings in long-span bridges, modular expansion joints, or other
details that have the potential to affect the reliability of a bridge uniquely. The qualitative assessment uses a simple three-level scale, as shown in Table A5. This tool can be used to perform an
assessment of a bridge inventory and sort bridges that include attributes that are perceived to
have low reliability or require special analysis. The assessment is useful for identifying bridges
that can be easily assessed from those for which more detailed or individual assessments may
be required. For example, assume the RAP is going to assess multi-girder rolled beams, but it
considers those beams with rocker bearing to require special analysis and to potentially have low
reliability (relative to bridges with other bearing types); these bridges are simply screened from
the process using the qualitative assessment, such that the balance of the bridges in that family
can be assessed appropriately. A separate analysis that addresses this specific attribute can then
be developed, if necessary.
This qualitative screening process would typically be used early in the reliability assessment
process to identify an appropriate family or group of bridges and make assessments more efficient.
Table A5.Qualitative
reliability scale for
screening details.
Relative Reliability
High
Moderate
Low
Loading
Attributes
MacroEnvironment
MicroEnvironment
Condition Attributes
Existing Condition
Joint Condition
Deck Type
Maintenance Cycle
Age/Yr of
Construction
Condition History/
Trend
Debris Accum.
given damage mode can be identified through expert elicitation of the RAP. For example, the
facilitator could ask the following question pertaining to a particular damage mode, X:
Consider damage mode X for the subject bridge element. If you were asked to assess the likeli-
hood of serious damage occurring in the next 72 months, what information would you need
to know to make that judgment?
The resulting input from the RAP can be categorized appropriately and ranked according to
the relative importance of the attribute for predicting future damage for the identified damage
mode and element. Rationale for each attribute should be documented. Many of the most common attributes are described in Appendix E, and can be documented by reference. For attributes
not included in Appendix E, a brief summary of the rationale for the attribute should be developed and recorded by the RAP.
As an example, Table A6 illustrates typical attributes identified by a RAP for corrosion damage
on a steel girder element. Based on an expert elicitation, the primary attributes that contribute to
the likelihood of serious corrosion damage developing for a steel girder bridge element include
design attributes, loading attributes, and condition attributes, as shown in the table. The rationale for these attributes is relatively simple and straightforward. For example, the presence of
deck joints and the quality of the drainage system may indicate whether or not the bridge has
deck drainage that is likely to spill de-icing chemicals directly onto the steel girder, thereby resulting in an increased likelihood of corrosion occurring. Built-up members are more likely to suffer
crevice corrosion and would therefore be more likely to suffer serious corrosion damage than a
rolled or welded section. The attribute of deck type considers if there is open decking that allows
de-icing chemicals to drain directly onto the girder, thereby increasing the likelihood of corrosion damage, etc. These attributes are identified by the RAP by applying common engineering
knowledge to develop criteria from which a steel bridge element can be assessed to determine if
it is likely to suffer serious corrosion damage, or if corrosion damage is unlikely. Elements that
have little exposure to de-icing chemicals, are in mild environments, and are currently in good
condition may be unlikely to develop serious corrosion in the near future. Conversely, a steel
element with active corrosion present, which is in an aggressive environment, and/or is exposed
frequently to de-icing chemicals, is more likely to develop serious corrosion damage.
Total Points
High
20
Moderate
15
Low
10
supports the RAP assessment of the OF. For attributes that are ranked with high importance, a
scale of 20 points can be assigned, 15 points for an attribute that has a moderate importance, and
10 points for an attribute that plays a minor role, but is still an important indicator. For example,
for the corrosion of a steel beam, a leaking joint which results in drainage of de-icing chemicals
directly onto the superstructure is highly important in assessing the likelihood of serious corrosion damage occurring. Therefore, this attribute would be assigned a 20 point scale. Age of
the structure contributes to the likelihood of corrosion damage, but to a much lesser extent,
relatively, such that it would have 10 points allocated. Maintenance cycle, built-up members,
and debris build-up are moderate indicators; these may be assigned a point scale of 15 points.
Once the importance of the attribute is identified, different conditions or situations may be
described to distribute points appropriately based on the engineering judgment of the RAP.
Again, a simple high-, moderate- and low-ranking model should be used to distribute scores
among different conditions or situations that are appropriate for a given attribute. Depending
on the number of different conditions or situations, scoring may be distributed over two, three,
or four different levels for a given attribute. Using a joint as an illustration, if the joint is leaking
or can reasonably be expected to be leaking, it will have the highest effect and might be scored the
full 20 points. If the joint is debris-filled or exhibiting moderate leakage, a score of, for example,
15 points may be appropriate; if there is a joint, but it is not leaking, a score of 5 points may be
assigned. If the subject bridge is jointless, a score of 0 points may be used. The distribution of
scoring for a particular attribute is determined by the RAP. Numerous examples for scoring various attributes are included in the Attribute Index and Commentary located in Appendix E. The
RAP should assess if the suggested scores in Appendix E are appropriate, based on the characteristics of the bridges being assessed, and assign appropriate scoring regimes for attributes selected.
or decreased to provide suitable results. Since operational environments and design and construction practices vary, rankings for attributes and associated values may need to be adjusted.
When a large number of attributes are identified, the relative weight of the most important
attributes becomes diminished relative to the overall scoring, and may need to be adjusted to
appropriately characterize the anticipated reliability of the element. Screening attributes can also
be used for this purpose. Sensitivity studies and Monte Carlo simulation may also be used to
assess the relative weights designated for attributes and calibrate the scoring regime developed.
The effectiveness and accuracy of the scoring regime developed can also be evaluated using
back-casting, a process for analyzing historical inspection records to verify the effectiveness of
the data model (i.e., attributes and scoring) developed. In a back-casting assessment, the attributes and scoring regime are applied to historical inspection records to assess their effectiveness
for identifying the likelihood of serious damage occurring.
Regardless of the method(s) used to calibrate the data model, engineering judgment should
be used to verify the adequacy of the data model developed.
Category
Description
Likelihood
Remote
Remote probability of
occurrence, unreasonable to
expect failure to occur
1/10,000
Low
Moderate
Moderate likelihood of
occurrence
1/1,0001/10,000
1/1001/1,000
High
>1/100
Expressed as a Percentage
0.01% or less
Low
0.1% or less
Moderate
1% or less
High
>1%
category, where the likelihood in less than 1/100 but greater than 1/1,000. Estimates from
deterioration rate information or from statistical modeling can also be used to support the
categorization of the OF.
The quantitative description can be also be used as a vehicle for expert elicitation by using
common language equivalents for engineering estimates. For example, if you asked an expert
to estimate the probability of serious corrosion damage (widespread spalling, for example) for
a particular bridge deck given its current condition, a common engineering response might
include a percentage estimate, for example, less than 0.1% chance or less than 1 in a thousand.
This estimate can then be mapped to the qualitative scale as being low. Such estimates are
typically very conservative, particularly for lower, less likely events. For engineering estimates
of the likelihood of a failure occurring for a given bridge element, the qualitative scale can be
interpreted as shown in Table A9.
under consideration shares the same operational environment as the elements from which
data were obtained. Key elements of the operational environment include the average daily
traffic (ADT), average daily truck taffic (ADTT), macro-environment of the bridges (severe
environment vs. benign environment), micro-environment (salt application, joint and drainage conditions, exposure to overspray), and typical maintenance and management.
Similarity of Key Attributes: Key attributes that affect the damage modes and mechanisms
for the bridge element should be similar for the bridge under consideration to those from
which deterioration rate data were obtained. This may include materials of construction,
design attributes, and condition attributes. Quality of construction and years in service may
also be a factor.
Deterioration rate data typically describe the mean or average behavior of the bridge element
based on the observed behavior of a population of similar elements. Statistical descriptors of the
dispersion of the data, such as the standard deviation, may be provided and then used as indicators of the variability of the data. Applying such data to a specific bridge assumes that the specific
bridge has the same design, operational environment, and attributes as those in the larger population from which the statistics were derived. Attributes identified through the RAP process may
be used to judge if a particular bridge or family of bridges could be expected to perform above
the average or mean, or below.
Statistical data from a bridge management system or other databases can also be used to inform
this process if it is available. This data can be useful in determining the damage modes and the
overall deterioration behavior of similar bridge elements in the past. However, this data should not
be used exclusively because past experience does not necessarily indicate what would occur in the
future. Therefore, it is important that the RAP utilize their collective engineering judgment, experience, and rationale for identifying and assessing damage modes that can affect bridge elements.
Lastly, when using such data, one would have to decide which data to use: the mean, or say,
two standard deviations below the mean. If the mean is used, there may be a 50-50 chance that the
bridge being assessed will deteriorate more quickly than predicted by using the mean deterioration data. However, using some confidence limit, say 2 standard deviations from the mean, may
be overly conservative and result in all bridges, good or bad, having unrealistically high estimates
of likelihood. Thus, using such data without the ability to also consider or incorporate specific
information (condition, design data, details, etc.) from the bridge under consideration must be
done with caution, and with a full understanding of the ramifications of such an approach.
inspection result is from an RBI procedure, i.e., the inspection was capable of identifying the necessary condition attributes. This allows all bridges that are of this same rating (and similar design,
loading, and condition attributes) to be treated collectively in a process that is data-driven and
does not require much detailed analysis of individual bridges. If the condition rating or condition state changes, then the bridges can be reevaluated, according to the RAP criteria. If the
condition does not change between periodic inspections, reassessment may not be necessary.
It is important to note that this process is significantly different than assigning an inspection
interval based simply on the current condition of the bridge, for example, deciding to inspect all
steel bridges with a rating of 7 on a longer interval than all of those rated a 6. The RAP analysis
forms a rationale that identifies not only the current condition attributes that affect the reliability
of the element, but also the design and loading attributes of the bridge or bridge element that
affect the potential for damage to occur. This RAP evaluation forms an engineering rationale for
the decision-making process that considers not only the condition of the element, but also the
damage modes and the potential for that damage to occur.
For element-level inspection schemes, the attributes identified by the RAP may map directly
to an element and element condition state. For example, consider that the RAP identifies leaking joints as an attribute driving the likelihood of section loss in the bearing area of a steel beam.
The element condition state (joint leaking) is recorded in the inspection process and can be used
as a criterion for that attribute score. In some cases, all of the attributes identified by the RAP
as being critical to the likelihood of failure of an element may be included in a comprehensive
element-level inspection process, in other cases, they may not.
For NBI-based inspection schemes, attributes identified by the RAP may map to sub-element
data collected in addition to the required condition ratings for the primary components of the
bridge. These data could be used if it is collected under a standardized scheme for rating and
data collection for the sub-elements. For the primary components, the generalized nature of the
component rating makes this more difficult for specific attributes.
Mapping of the attributes from the RAP analysis to the elements, sub-elements, or element
condition states should not be performed until the RAP analysis has been completed independently. In some cases, the RAP analysis may identify attributes or factors not presently included
in the available data, and these data may need to be obtained from other sources. For example, for
the case of fatigue cracking in a steel beam, element condition states would indicate fatigue cracking, but not the presence of fatigue sensitive details, i.e., the potential for cracking may be high,
even though no cracking is currently present. This is an important consideration in the assessment
of appropriate scope and interval of inspection. This data may be readily available in the bridge file,
or may need to be ascertained from design plans, records, or other data on the bridge design. In
any case, the RAP analysis shall not be constrained by the data presently available; the RAP should
identify what data is needed and then assess if that data is readily available. In some cases, additional data may need to be collected to support the analysis.
APPENDIX B
41
42
42
43
43
43
43
46
46
46
48
48
48
B 1Introduction
B 1.1 Definitions
50
50
B 4References
39
B 1 Introduction
Within an RBI, the Consequence Factor (CF) is used to categorize the outcome or the result
of the failure of a bridge element due to a given damage mode. For example, brittle fracture is
one of the key damage modes pertaining to steel bridges. Should brittle fracture of a girder occur,
the next logical question becomes, what is the consequence? This would obviously depend on
the specific scenario for the fracture. If the member were classified as fracture critical, such an
event may be catastrophic, or one that would be considered to be a severe consequence. However, if the girder were one member of a multi-girder short-span bridge, the consequence of that
fracture would likely to be much less serious, perhaps requiring a lane closure or even temporary closure of the bridge, or a high consequence. (Multi-girder bridges described herein are
bridges with four or more main load bearing members.) In fact, in some cases, such an event
may only have moderate consequences.
The CF is used to categorize the consequence of failure of a bridge element into one of four
broad categories: Low, Moderate, High, and Severe. Table B1 indicates the general descriptions
for each of the CF categories used for the RBI assessment. The general descriptions are indicated in terms of safety and serviceability of the bridge, graduated with qualitative descriptions.
Both long- and short-term consequences should/may be considered.
To assess the appropriate category for a particular element and damage mode, typical scenarios
or outcomes of a failure must be considered. In some cases, there may be a single scenario that
could result from the failure of an element; in other cases, more than one possible scenario needs
to be considered. Using the example of brittle fracture of a single beam in a multi-girder, shortspan bridge as noted above, it is unlikely that the result from a brittle fracture is a low consequence,
which has a minor effect on serviceability and no effect on public safety. It is much more likely that
such a fracture may have a moderate consequence, which has a moderate effect on serviceability
and a minor effect on public safety. It is also possible that the fracture will have a high consequence,
which has a major effect on serviceability and a moderate effect on public safety, and may require
urgent repair. There may also be a remote possibility that the fracture causes a catastrophic collapse, or a severe consequence. It is necessary to determine which of these consequences is most
realistic and establish sufficient rationale based on experience, engineering judgment, and/or theoretical analysis to exclude those consequences that are not credible scenarios.
While the immediate effect on the structure is primarily what is evaluated (e.g., collapse after
member failure), it is also appropriate to consider longer term consequences. For example, in the
example cited above, if the fracture were to result in a lane closure on a portion of interstate that carries a very high ADTT, the consequence on the traveling public could be high to even severe, though
no concerns regarding the structural performance of the bridge may actually exist. Rather, the resulting impacts on serviceability could be such that a more frequent inspection interval is justified.
There are many cases in which the critical consequence is obvious. There are also many that
require considerable judgment and/or analytical effort to ensure the appropriate CF is selected.
Table B1. General description of the CF categories.
Level
Category
Consequence
on Safety
Consequence on
Serviceability
Low
None
Minor
Moderate
Minor
Moderate
High
Moderate
Major
Severe
Major
Major
Summary Description
Minor effect on serviceability,
no effect on safety
Moderate effect on serviceability,
minor effect on safety
Major effect on serviceability,
moderate effect on safety
Structural collapse/loss of life
In these cases, it is important that the rationale used to support the determination is recorded.
There are many situations in which analysis and/or experience can be used to justify selecting
one scenario over another. However, the level and the type of analysis that is required must be
defined, as well as what constitutes sufficient experience and when it is appropriate to use
experience to justify the categorization of the consequence.
This section describes, through example, situations in which analysis or experience is needed to
justify the selection of an appropriate CF. Since not every situation can be included or foreseen,
the reader must use the information provided and consider it a road map or framework on how
to select the appropriate consequence. The Reliability Assessment Panel (RAP) may use this guidance to develop basic rules or common practices for very common scenarios they anticipate in the
analysis. The RAP should consider existing rules, policies, or common practices within its state
regarding the considerations for identifying structural redundancy and other factors that may
influence the assessment of the consequences. If no rules, policies, or common practices exist, it
may be necessary for the RAP to develop its own basic guidelines before performing consequence
assessments.
B 1.1 Definitions
This section provides definitions for the terms analysis and experience as used in the context
of this document to support the selection of the most appropriate CF.
Analysis: As used herein, refers to the effort put forth using accepted methods of structural
analysis to quantitatively evaluate the outcome of a given event or scenario based on certain initial
conditions. Laboratory and field experimental testing are also acceptable methods that can be used
to demonstrate, quantitatively, the outcome of a given event or scenario. Analysis requirements
may be beyond the scope of most engineering specifications currently used for design and rating,
and special assessments may be required in certain conditions. Hence, the owner and the engineer
must agree upon the level of analysis, loading, material properties, etc. that will be used for the basis
of the analysis. Similarly, any laboratory or field testing must properly simulate or represent in-situ
conditions (i.e., scale of the specimen or test, loading, failure mode, etc.) in order to be considered
acceptable.
Experience: As used herein, refers to the use of previous knowledge alone to qualitatively
evaluate the outcome of a given event based on certain initial conditions. In order to use experience, the user must be able to demonstrate at least the following:
1. The characteristics of the structure being evaluated are identical or sufficiently similar to the
structure for which the RAP has previous documented experience.
2. The result of the damage mode is identical for the bridge(s) used as a reference. For example,
strand fracture as a result of corrosion or impact may be effectively the same. In both cases,
the strand failed.
The information on which the decision is based must be included in the documentation of the
RBI assessment. It may consist of the location, structure type, damage type, reason for selection,
or other rationale and evidence used to form the decision so that a permanent record is available
for future RAPs.
failure scenario are described. This section is intended as guidance for evaluation. Specific situations and scenarios may vary, and the RAP should utilize good engineering judgment supported
with analysis or documented experience where necessary. Local rules, policies, and practices of
the bridge owner should be considered in the assessments.
As stated, when assessing the CF, the immediate and short-term outcomes, or the results of the
failure of an element should be considered. The immediate consequence refers to the structural
integrity and safety of the traveling public when the failure occurs. Considerations include whether
a bridge will remain standing when the damage mode occurs, and whether the traveling public will
remain safe. For example, failure of a load bearing member in a multi-girder redundant bridge is
not expected to cause loss of structural integrity, excessive deflections, or collapse. As a result, the
traveling public is not immediately affected when the failure occurs. Another scenario would
be for a fracture-critical bridge, where the loss of a main member could cause excessive deflection or collapse thereby causing the bridge to be immediately unsafe for the traveling public.
The safety of the structure and the public should be considered for determining the immediate
consequence.
The short-term consequence refers to serviceability concerns and short-term impacts to the
traveling public after a given damage mode occurs. Load posting, repairs, and speed reductions
can be considered serviceability concerns. Lane, sidewalk, or shoulder closures as a result of the
damage mode impact the traveling public and can cause delays. For example, a multi-girder
redundant bridge that experiences the loss of a load bearing member is expected to remain
standing; however, once the failure is discovered, a typical response is to close a lane or shoulder
until the bridge is repaired. Therefore, the traveling public will be affected. The serviceability of
the structure and the impact to the traveling public should be considered when determining the
short-term consequence.
For example, the failure of a member in a multi-girder bridge may be a moderate immediate
consequence because the bridge is expected to remain standing and no excess deflections are
expected to occur. However, if this bridge is located on an interstate located downtown in a
major city, the short-term consequence of the member failure may be high or severe because a
lane closure may be required, which would cause significant traffic delays. Therefore, the CF for
this bridge may be high based upon the short-term consequence.
Tables B2 through B6 provide additional guidance for commonly encountered situations for
bridge decks, typical superstructures, and substructures. These tables provide descriptions of
typical immediate and short-term effects from common damage modes and sample situations.
The tables also include factors the RAP may consider in differentiating CF categories. For example, for the damage mode of spalling in a bridge deck, the CF may be different for a low ADT
bridge than for a high ADT bridge, based on serviceability considerations. The CF may be different for a bridge that crosses a roadway than one that crosses a small stream, based on concerns
regarding debris falling into traffic, etc. These tables are not intended to be comprehensive, but
rather are intended to provide guidance and examples to assist an RAP with developing criteria
for determining the CF for typical damage modes for common bridge designs under analysis.
This scenario is the least serious of all the CF categories. The likelihood of structural collapse
resulting from the damage mode is not credible and the effect on the serviceability of the bridge
is minor.
Low
Descripon
Immediate: Damage to the top of the deck does not present a
safety concern for the traveling public. Falling debris from the
boom of deck does not affect the safety of the public.
Short term: Minimal serviceability concerns may require
maintenance. Lile or no impact to traveling public.
Immediate: Damage to the top of the deck presents a minimal
safety concern to the traveling public. Falling debris from the
boom of deck presents a minimal safety concern.
Moderate
High
Severe
Sample Situaons
Bridge carrying low volume and/or
low speed roadway
Bridge with concrete deck over a
non navigable waterway or unused
right of way land
Moderately traveled roadway where
damage would cause minimal delays
Bridge with stay in place forms over
roadway where spalls would not
reach roadway or waterway
Factors to Consider
This scenario can be characterized by consequences that are classified as moderate in terms
of their outcome. The likelihood of collapse and loss of life is very remote, and there is a minor
effect on the safety of the traveling public.
Requirements for Selection
In order to classify the consequence of a given failure scenario as moderate, the user must
demonstrate that the damage mode will typically result in a serviceability issue. The damage mode
ADT/ADTT
Feature under
Feature carried
Stay in place
forms
Low
Moderate
Descripon
Immediate: Lile to no impact on structural capacity is
expected based upon structural analysis or documented
experience. Public safety is unaffected.
Severe
Factors to Consider
Sample Situaons
ADT/ADTT
Feature under
Feature carried
Redundancy
Composite
construcon
Load carrying
capacity/rang
poses no serious threat to the structural integrity of the bridge or to the safety of the public.
Generally, damage that will require repairs that can be addressed in a programmed fashion (i.e.,
non-emergency) would be classified as having a moderate consequence. Member or structural
redundancy should be a consideration, and, in cases where the member is non-redundant, it
may be prudent to classify an event higher in consequence. Situations in which the selection of
this CF may be appropriate are as follows:
Spalling damage in a deck soffit or concrete girder for a bridge over multi-use path, railroad,
volume rural roadway that would cause moderate delays for drivers.
Fatigue cracks that require repair but are not the result of primary member stresses, such as
Low
Moderate
High
Severe
Descripon
Immediate: Lile to no impact on structural capacity is
expected based upon structural analysis or
documented experience. Falling debris does not affect
the safety of the public.
Short term: Minimal serviceability concerns may
require maintenance. Lile or no impact to traveling
public.
Immediate: Structural capacity is expected to remain
adequate based upon structural analysis or
documented experience. Falling debris presents a
minimal safety concern to the public.
Short term: Moderate serviceability concerns. Speed
reducon or load posng may be needed. Traffic is
moderately impacted as a result of lane, shoulder, or
sidewalk closure on or under bridge.
Immediate: Structural capacity is expected to remain
adequate. Falling debris presents a moderate safety
concern to the public.
Short term: Major serviceability concerns. Load
posng, repairs, or speed reducon may be needed.
Traffic is greatly impacted as a result of lane, shoulder,
or sidewalk closure on or under bridge.
Immediate: Structural collapse. Falling debris presents
a major safety concern to the public. Possible loss of
life.
Short term: Potenal for significant traffic delays on or
under bridge.
Sample Situaons
Factors to Consider
the examples above. However, other types of fatigue cracks may be more serious. For example,
consider cracking in a single plate of a built-up riveted girder. These types of cracks would normally be expected to be much more serious. They may require categorization as having high or a
severe consequence, if it is assumed that the crack propagates such that the load carrying capacity
of the girder is lost. However, in many cases, riveted built-up members are composed of two
or three cover plates, two angles, and the girder web. If it could be shown by analysis that even
after complete cracking of one of these individual components (e.g., complete cracking of one
of the cover plates) the member still has plenty of reserve capacity, then it might be reasonable
to classify the event as a moderate consequence scenario. The individual making this assessment
would also want to consider overall system redundancy and other factors.
Hence, if analysis can be used to show that a condition that is generally perceived to be more
serious, but is actually not so, then it may be justified to classify the event as having a moderate consequence. Experience may also be utilized to assess if a given failure scenario is a high consequence
event or a moderate consequence event. In cases where a given owner may have had the same or
very similar experience with several other identical or sufficiently similar bridges, the owner may
ADT/ADTT
Feature under
Feature carried
Redundancy
Composite
construcon
Load carrying
capacity/rang
Low
Descripon
Immediate: Lile to no impact on structural capacity is
expected based upon structural analysis or documented
experience. Falling debris does not affect the safety of
the public.
Short term: Minimal serviceability concerns may require
maintenance. Lile or no impact to traveling public.
Moderate
High
Severe
Sample Situaons
Factors to Consider
ADT/ADTT
Feature under
Feature carried
Redundancy
Composite
construcon
Load carrying
capacity/rang
be able demonstrate that a lower CF is justifiable. Very high load ratings (e.g., 150% of the minimum required) and redundancy could also be factors to consider when selecting this CF category.
Of course, if experience and judgment are used to determine CF, then sufficient documentation
would need to be available to justify the selection of a given CF.
This scenario can be characterized by consequences that are more serious in terms of their
outcome. The likelihood of collapse and loss of life may be more measurable, but still relatively
remote.
Requirements for Selection
The user must be able to demonstrate that the possibility of collapse and loss of life are still
relatively remote when identifying a given failure scenario as having a high consequence. Though
the bridge may require repairs, the outcome would not be catastrophic in nature.
Low
Descripon
Immediate: Falling debris does not affect the safety of the
public. Structural capacity of the bridge remains adequate.
Short term: Minimal serviceability concerns may require
maintenance. Lile or no impact to traveling public.
Immediate: Falling debris from substructure presents a
minimal safety concern to the public. Structural capacity is
expected to remain adequate based upon structural
analysis or documented experience.
Moderate
High
Severe
Sample Situaons
Factors to Consider
Examples of high consequence events would include scenarios that require short-term closures
for repairs, lane restrictions that have a major impact on traffic, load postings, or other actions
that majorly affect the public. Situations where the selection of this CF may be appropriate are
as follows:
Failure of a main member in a multi-girder bridge with sufficient load path redundancy.
Spalling damage in a deck soffit or concrete girder for a bridge over a navigable waterway or
a moderate-/high-volume roadway.
Spalling in a concrete deck bridge on a high-volume roadway.
Lane or shoulder closure on or under a roadway that would cause major delays for drivers.
Impact damage on a multi-girder bridge.
Again, using brittle fracture of a girder as an example, consider the response to the fracture of
an exterior girder in a multi-girder bridge. If the girders are spaced relatively closely, a reasonable
strategy would be to place barriers on the bridge to keep traffic off the shoulder and hence, off
the faulted girder. Though one girder out of several was compromised, experience indicates the
remaining girders have sufficient capacity to carry traffic safely.
In the above example, it is important to note the reaction to the fracture was not based on
calculations, but was based entirely upon experience. If the owner performed calculations that
quantifiably showed that the bridge had sufficient reserve capacity in the faulted condition, i.e.,
with one girder fractured, it might be reasonable to identify the event as having a moderate
consequence.
Guidance on such analysis exists in the literature and it can be performed for common bridges
and common bridge types. However, simplified analytical procedures may also suffice. For example, there is considerable discussion regarding redundancy of multi-girder systems, both concrete
and steel, as reported in NCHRP Report 406: Redundancy in Highway Bridge Superstructures (1).
This document provides direction on determining the capacity and the redundancy as a function of span, girder spacing, and the number of loaded lanes using system factors. The research
resulted in the development of system factors that quantify redundancy based on an assessment
of the reliability of the bridge systems, rather than simply the individual bridge members. Using
the recommended system factors may greatly reduce the analytical effort needed in assessing a
bridge. The major conclusion from this research was that bridges designed to AASHTO bridge
specifications generally possess sufficient reserve capacity. In addition, NCHRP Project 12-87,
Fracture-Critical System Analysis for Steel Bridges was underway at the time this report was
prepared and once complete may be of use in performing system analysis.
If experience is used as the reason to justify a reduction from a high consequence to a moderate
consequence, the experience referenced would have to be for a type of structure and a damage mode
outcome that is nearly identical to the one under consideration, as described in section B 1.1. (For
example, corrosion, fatigue, or fracture can all lead to a failed girder. Hence, although the damage modes are different, the outcome is the same.) Therefore, the RAP would have to adequately
document and demonstrate that the cited case(s) are of sufficient similarity. Owners may cite
examples both in their own state and from other states. Another desirable characteristic would
be whether or not the experience with a given response has been observed more than once. For
example, an owner may have experience with a certain type of rolled steel beam bridge and
truck impact. Experience with truck impacts on several similar steel bridges may demonstrate
that for the bridge under consideration, impact to the superstructure would not result in a set
of circumstances that justify identifying the event as having a high consequence. Based on this
experience, it may be appropriate to identify the event as having only moderate consequences.
Another example would be a case in which there is severe spalling at the bearing of a member
in a prestressed, multi-girder bridge that is over a small creek or a flood plain. Hence, there is
no concern regarding spalled concrete hitting someone or something below the bridge (minor
effect on public safety). If calculations could be made to show that if the bearing were to completely fail, there would only be moderate effects on serviceability, then it would be reasonable
to state this is a moderate consequence event. In the absence of detailed calculations and/or
substantial experience regarding the specific scenario, it would be required to be identified as
having a high consequence, based on the criteria discussed.
This is the most critical CF category and can be characterized by events that, should they
occur, are anticipated to result in catastrophic outcomes. Structural collapse and loss of life are
likely should the failure occur.
Requirements for Selection
Due to the catastrophic nature implied by this consequence scenario, it should not be selected
arbitrarily as a catch-all or just to be conservative. The user must have reasonable justification
that shows that the failure scenario being considered is likely to be consistent with a severe consequence event.
Examples of severe consequence events would include failure of the pin or hanger in a bridge
with a suspended truss span or a two-girder system, or strand fractures in a pre- or posttensioned element that results in a non-composite member falling into a roadway below, such
as what was observed in Washington Township, PA (2). Failure of a pier due to severe corrosion
of the reinforcement or to a lack of reinforcement would also be an example of a severe consequence event. Situations in which the selection of this CF may be appropriate are as follows:
Fracture in a non-redundant steel bridge member.
Failure of a non-composite girder over traffic.
Spalling of a concrete soffit, concrete girder, or concrete abutment over a high-volume road-
B 4 References
1.Ghosn, M., Moses, F., NCHRP Report 406: Redundancy in Highway Bridge Superstructures. 1998, TRB,
National Research Council: Washington, D.C.
2.Clay, N., et al., Forensic Examination of a Noncomposite Adjacent Precast Prestressed Concrete Box Beam
Bridge. Journal of Bridge Engineering. 15(4): p. 408418.
3.Connor, R. J., R. Dexter, and H. Mahmoud, NCHRP Synthesis 354: Inspection and Management of Bridges with
Fracture-Critical Details. 2005, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies: Washington, D.C.
APPENDIX C
C 1 Inspection Intervals
C 1.1 Important or Essential Bridges
51
C 1 Inspection Intervals
Figure C1.Risk
matrix for a typical
highway bridge.
Inspection intervals are determined based on the reliability analysis using a simple four by four
matrix as shown in Figure C1, which illustrates a risk matrix for a typical highway bridge. Engineering judgment is required for establishing the specific divisions applied to the risk matrix; the
divisions are generally applied to ensure that the likelihood of damage remains low during the
interval between inspections, such that there are multiple inspections conducted before there is
a high likelihood of failure occurring. When consequences are relatively high, should the failure
occur, the interval is further reduced to provide an extra margin of safety.
For the risk matrix shown in Figure C1, divisions have been made to separate the bridges
requiring more frequent inspections (Category I) from those requiring less frequent inspections (e.g., Categories III, IV, and V). The inspection interval categories are shown in Table C1.
Bridges with elements falling in Category II require the typical inspection interval of 24 months,
currently used under the NBIS.
The inspection intervals and the divisions on the risk matrix are engineering-based to ensure
a high margin of safety and that multiple periodic inspections take place before the likelihood of
failure becomes high. In other words, the intervals are determined such that the likelihood of
failure remains low, and the intervals are further reduced as consequences increase to provide
additional levels of safety. For example, recall that the RAP assessment of the likelihood of a
damage mode resulting in a failure (as defined in Section 2.1) is based on a 72-month timeframe. For a given element, if there is low likelihood of a failure (OF = 2), and the consequence
of that failure is moderate (CF = 2), the inspection interval of 72 months (Class IV) is identified
on the matrix. This is justified because the analysis has indicated that there is a low likelihood of
failure, and even if the failure occurs, there will be only a moderate effect on the serviceability
of the bridge. However, if the consequence of the failure were high, then the inspection interval is reduced to 48 months (Class III) and 24 months (Class II) if the consequence is severe.
Alternatively, if the likelihood of failure is moderate (OF = 3) over 72 months, the maximum
inspection interval is less than 72 months, regardless of the consequence; 48 months if the consequence were only low (benign) (CF = 1) or moderate (CF = 2) and 24 months if the consequence were high (CF = 3). Similarly, if the likelihood of failure were remote over the 72-month
timeframe, it may be justified to have a maximum interval of more the 72 months, particularly
if the consequences are assessed to be benign (CF = 1). As the consequences increase, this
interval is reduced.
Maximum Interval
I
II
III
IV
V
12 months or less
24 months
48 months
72 months
96 months
and toward the lower left corner of the matrix. For example, Figure C2 illustrates a risk matrix an
owner could apply to bridges for which an additional measure of reliability is desired. This may
be due to the importance of the bridge to the effectiveness of the transportation system overall,
and/or because the bridge serves essential purposes. Criteria for identifying these essential or
important bridges should be developed by the bridge owner, but would typically consider such
factors as ADT, functional classification of the route, and importance to local transportation
functions. Owners may already have criteria for identifying essential or important bridges for
which added measures of reliability are desired.
APPENDIX D
Inspection Technologies
55
55
56
54
D 1 Introduction
D 1.1 NDE Method Technical Readiness Levels and Costs
Inspection Technologies 55
D 1 Introduction
This appendix provides general guidance for the inspection methods to be utilized in a
risk-based inspection (RBI) practice. The section includes a description of nondestructive
evaluation (NDE) technologys technical readiness and relative costs to assist decision makers in determining appropriate and practical technologies for the detection and evaluation
of typical damage modes and deterioration mechanisms in highway bridges. This section
also includes tables that indicate the relative reliability of different inspection methods and
NDE technologies to assist decision makers regarding the application and effectiveness of
the technologies.
Description
Examples
Fundamental sensor research,
nano-sensors, laser-induced
breakdown spectroscopy (LIBS)
In-situ corrosion sensors, positron
annihilation, backscatter x-ray,
thermal crack detection
Electromagnetic-acoustic
transducer (EMAT) sensors,
ultrasonic stress measurement,
magnetic flux leakage for
embedded strands thermal crack
detection
Symbol
Description
Low cost, state forces, or $100s of dollars to
apply/bridge
Moderate Cost, $1,000$10,000 typical costs/bridge
High cost, >$10,000 to apply
Examples
Dye penetrant, magnetic
particle, impact echo,
ultrasonic thickness,
thermography
GPR, ultrasonic crack
detection, impact echo
Health monitoring, x-ray
diffraction, radiography
Name
Magnetic particle
testing
Dye penetrant
testing
TRL
Ultrasonic testing
Ultrasonic
thickness gage
Eddy current
testing
Acoustic emission
Infrared
thermography
Ground
penetrating radar
Ultrasonic pulse
velocity
Cost
Material
Primary Usage
Steel
Steel
Steel
Steel
Steel
Steel
Concrete
Concrete
Concrete
IE
Impact echo
4/5
Concrete
CD
Chain drag
Concrete
Delaminations in concrete
HC
Half-cell potential
Concrete
Corrosion potential
Concrete
Concrete
Concrete
Concrete
RT
S
SAW
MFL
Radiographic
testing
Sounding
Surface acoustic
wave
Magnetic flux
leakage
Inspection Technologies 57
Table D4. Symbolic guide to
inspection method reliability
and effectiveness.
Key
Low
Moderate - low
Moderate - high
High
Routine
Visual
Hands-On
Visual
Sounding1
IR
GPR
Impact
Echo
Chain
Drag
Spalling/patches
Delamination
(dry)
Deck cracking
(distributed)
Corrosion
damage
Freeze-thaw/
pulverized/
cracks
Delamination
in soffit2
NA
ASR
Half
Cell
Chloride
Ion
Content
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Active corrosion/
corrosion
potential
1
Chloride
Ion
Content
Spalling/patches
NA
NA
Delamination
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Damage Mode
or Mechanism
Routine
Visual
Hands-On
Visual
Debonding/
overlay
delamination
Corrosion
damage
Freeze-thaw/
pulverized/
cracks
Delamination
in soffit1
ASR
Active corrosion/
corrosion
potential
1
Sounding
IR
GPR
Impact
Echo
Chain
Drag
NA
Routine
Visual
Hands-On
Visual
Sounding
IR
GPR
Impact
Echo
Chain
Drag
SAW
Spalling/patches
Delamination/
debonding
Overlay
cracking
Routine
Visual
Hands-on
Visual1
PT2
MT2
UT2
UT-T
ET2
NA
Section loss
Coatings
failure
Steel pins
pack rust
Cracks in
steel pins
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Routine
Visual
Hands-on
Visual
IR
GPR
IE
MFL
RT
UPV
Chloride
Ion
Content
Spalling/patches
NA
Delamination
NA
Strand corrosion
NA
Freeze-thaw/
pulverized/
cracks
Delamination
in soffit1
ASR
Active corrosion/
corrosion
potential
1
Sounding
NA
NA
NA
APPENDIX E
61 Introduction
61
62
62
62
63
63
64
65
65
65
66
66
67
67
67
67
69
69
69
71
72
73
73
73
75
76
76
76
77
78
78
78
79
79
79
Scoring Scheme
Screening Attributes
S.1 Current Condition Rating
S.2 Fire Damage
S.3 Susceptible to Collision
S.4 Flexural Cracking
S.5 Shear Cracking
S.6 Longitudinal Cracking in Prestressed Elements
S.7 Active Fatigue Cracks Due to Primary Stress Ranges
S.8 Details Susceptible to Constraint-Induced Fracture (CIF)
S.9 Significant Level of Active Corrosion or Section Loss
S.10 Design Features
Design Attributes
D.1 Joint Type
D.2 Load Posting
D.3 Minimum Vertical Clearance
D.4 Poor Deck Drainage and Ponding
D.5 Use of Open Decking
D.6 Year of Construction
D.7 Application of Protective Systems
D.8 Concrete Mix Design
D.9 Deck Form Type
D.10 Deck Overlays
D.11 Minimum Concrete Cover
D.12 Reinforcement Type
D.13 Built-Up Member
D.14 Constructed of High Performance Steel
D.15 Constructed of Weathering Steel
D.16 Element Connection Type
D.17 Worst Fatigue Detail Category
D.18 Skew
D.19 Presence of Cold Joints
D.20 Construction Techniques and Specifications
D.21 Footing Type
D.22 Subsurface Soil Condition
59
80
80
81
81
82
82
83
83
84
84
84
85
86
86
86
87
87
88
88
89
89
90
90
91
92
92
93
93
94
94
94
95
Loading Attributes
L.1 ADTT
L.2 Dynamic Loading from Riding Surface
L.3 Exposure Environment
L.4 Likelihood of Overload
L.5 Rate of De-icing Chemical Application
L.6 Subjected to Overspray
L.7 Remaining Fatigue Life
L.8 Overtopping/High Water
Condition Attributes
C.1 Current Condition Rating
C.2 Current Element Condition State
C.3 Evidence of Rotation or Settlement
C.4 Joint Condition
C.5 Maintenance Cycle
C.6 Previously Impacted
C.7 Quality of Deck Drainage System
C.8 Corrosion-Induced Cracking
C.9 General Cracking
C.10 Delaminations
C.11 Presence of Repaired Areas
C.12 Presence of Spalling
C.13 Efflorescence/Staining
C.14 Flexural Cracking
C.15 Shear Cracking
C.16 Longitudinal Cracking in Prestressed Elements
C.17 Coating Condition
C.18 Condition of Fatigue Cracks
C.19 Presence of Fatigue Cracks due to Secondary or Out of Plane Stress
C.20 Non-Fatigue-Related Cracks or Defects
C.21 Presence of Active Corrosion
C.22 Presence of Debris
95 References
Introduction
This section includes suggested attributes for the reliability assessment of bridges. Users can
select attributes from this listing. It is also recommended that users develop additional attributes
that meet the needs of their individual agencies. This commentary is organized into four sections: Screening, Design, Loading, and Condition. The Screening section describes attributes that
may be used to quickly identify bridges that should not be included in a particular analysis, either
because they already have significant damage or they have attributes that are outside the scope
of the analysis being developed. In many cases, these attributes may require engineering analysis
beyond that which is typically conducted during a reliability assessment using this Guideline.
Screening attributes are typically attributes that:
Make the likelihood of failure very high.
Make the likelihood of failure unusually uncertain.
Identify a bridge with different anticipated deterioration patterns than other bridges in a group.
Design attributes are characteristics of a bridge element that are part of the elements design.
Design attributes are frequently intrinsic characteristics of the element that do not change over
time, such as the amount of concrete cover or material of construction [concrete, high performance concrete (HPC), etc.]. In some cases, preservation or maintenance activities that contribute to the durability of the bridge element may be a design attribute, such as the use of
penetrating sealers as a preservation strategy.
Loading attributes are characteristics that describe the loads applied to the bridge element.
These may include structural loading, traffic loading, or environmental loading. Environmental
loading may be described in macro terms, such as the general environment in which the bridge
is located, or on a local basis, such as the rate of de-icing chemical application on a bridge deck.
Loading attributes describe key loading characteristics that contribute to the damage modes and
deterioration mechanisms under consideration.
Condition attributes describe the relevant bridge element conditions that are indicative of its
future reliability. These can include its current element or component level rating, or may be a
specific condition that will affect the durability of the element. For example, if the deterioration
mechanism under consideration is corrosion at the bearing areas, the condition of the bridge joint
may be a key attribute in determining the likelihood that corrosion will occur in the bearing area.
The listing of attributes included here is not intended to be comprehensive or mandatory.
Users should consider adding attributes that are important to their specific inventory. Users are
encouraged to document the rationale for including additional attributes in the reliability assessment, along with an appropriate scoring scheme. Users may also wish to omit certain attributes
if they are not relevant to their inventory or do not contribute to the reliability and durability of
bridges within their inventory. The suggested weightings are also exemplary in nature and may
need to be adjusted to meet the needs of a particular bridge inventory.
Scoring Scheme
Attributes are assigned points based on the importance or contribution of the attribute in
terms of the durability and the reliability of the element being assessed. In general, the scoring
scheme utilizes a three-stage assessment of the importance of the attribute as shown in Table E1.
The Ranking Descriptor is intended to provide some verbal description of the weight associated
with each score. As shown, three relative course levels are presented: Low, Moderate, and High.
The RAP may wish to modify the suggested scoring for a given attribute, based on local conditions, past experience, and previous performance within its bridge inventory and operational
Total Points
High
20
Moderate
15
Low
10
environment. The scoring scheme should effectively develop sound engineering rationale to
support risk-based inspection practices.
Screening Attributes
S.1 Current Condition Rating
Reason(s) for Attribute. The current condition rating characterizes the overall condition of the component being rated according to the NBIS rating scale. Bridge components
that have condition ratings of 4 or less have been rated to be in poor condition. In some cases,
these components may already be on a reduced (12 month or less) inspection frequency.
Users may wish to use this criterion to screen bridges that are already in poor condition and,
as a result, require more in-depth analysis to identify their inspection needs. Users could also
assign the OF of high without further assessment, since the component is already in poor
condition.
For element-level inspection approaches, National Bridge Elements (NBEs) or Bridge Management Elements (BMEs) could be utilized within the screening criteria, as appropriate for
specific bridge inventories and inspection practices. Generally, elements indicated with condition states of 4 would be appropriate for consideration as a screening tool for elements selected
to match the needs and practices within the specific bridge inventory.
Assessment Procedure. This screening attribute is scored based on whether the current
condition rating is 4 or less or greater than 4. The current condition rating from the most recent
inspection report should be used. If using an element-level approach, the RAP should identify
appropriate elements and condition states for screening.
Current condition rating is less than
or equal to 4
fire. Based on this observation, bridges that have experienced a fire may be screened from the
reliability assessment until an inspection, which has been conducted approximately 12 months
or more after the fire, confirms that the fire has not affected the typical durability characteristics
of the bridge components. The purpose of this screening is to ensure that damage from the fire
has not manifested after the damage inspection.
Assessment Procedure. This attribute is scored based only on the occurrence of a fire on
or below the structure being assessed. It is assumed that an appropriate assessment immediately
following the fire incident (i.e., damage inspection) has been performed.
Fire incident has occurred and an inspection
12 months after the fire has not occurred
The effects on the strength and the durability of a prestressed element due to flexural cracking
are generally more significant than for a reinforced concrete element.
Assessment Procedure. Flexural cracks will typically present themselves with a vertical orientation either near the bottom flange at mid-span or near the top flange over intermediate
supports, if the member is continuous.
Engineering judgment must be exercised in determining whether any present flexural cracking is moderate to severe. Crack widths in reinforced concrete bridges exceeding 0.006 inches to
0.012 inches reflect the lower bound of moderate cracking. The American Concrete Institute
Committee Report 224R-01 (1) presents guidance on what could be considered reasonable or
tolerable crack widths at the tensile face of reinforced concrete structures for typical conditions.
These values range from 0.006 inches for marine or seawater spray environments to 0.007 inches
for structures exposed to de-icing chemicals, to 0.012 inches for structures in humid, moist environments. In prestressed concrete bridge structural elements, tolerable crack width criteria have
been adopted in the Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute (PCI) Manual for the Evaluation and
Repair of Precast, Prestressed Concrete Bridge Products (MNL-37-06). The PCI Bridge Committee
recommends that flexural cracks greater in width than 0.006 inches should be evaluated to affirm
adequate design and performance.
Presence of moderate to severe flexural
cracking in reinforced or prestressed concrete
bridge elements
Screen
Proceed
Design Attributes
D.1 Joint Type
Reason(s) for Attribute. Bridge joint types can be categorized as either closed systems or
open systems. Compared to open joint systems, closed joint systems provide for higher durability
based on the way their designs shield the inner workings of the joint from dirt and debris. This,
in turn, increases the amount of time before a joint begins to leak onto other bridge components.
The presence of open-type deck joints increases the probability of chloride-contaminated water
leaking onto bridge elements below the deck, thus increasing the likelihood of corrosion-related
damage.
Assessment Procedure. This attribute is rated based on the presence of open joints.
Open joint system
10 points
0 points
20 points
0 points
Underclearance
Code
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Railroad
>23 ft
23 ft
22.5 ft
22 ft
21 ft
20 ft
depend on the traffic composition of the roadway below, such as the average daily truck traffic (ADTT).
This attribute is generally based on the total vertical clearance between the bottom of the
girders and the riding surface of the roadway below. The functional classification of the roadway
below the bridge may also be a consideration. NBIS data fields record the vertical clearance and
the functional classification of the route passing under the bridge, and are rated using the model
provided in the coding guide (3), which is provided in Table E2.
Assessment Procedure. This attribute should be scored based on appropriate measurements or on the information stored in the bridge file. The suggested scoring models shown
below consider only the vertical clearance of the bridges. Users may wish to consider the functional classification or the typical traffic pattens below the bridge in their assessment. In the
scoring models shown, increased importance is given to over height clearances for prestressed
concrete bridges relative to steel and conventionally reinforced bridges. This is due to the potential for strand corrosion when the concrete cover is damaged by impact, and the increased rate
of deterioration for strands relative to mild steel.
Prestressed Concrete Girders
Vertical clearance is 15 feet or less
20 points
15 points
10 points
0 points
15 points
12 points
7 points
0 points
10 points
No problems noted
0 points
20 points
0 points
is presently modeled as a diffusion process, using Ficks Law, which depends on time, temperature, the permeability of the concrete, and the concentration of chlorides at the components
surface. Additionally, if the concrete has suffered damage, such as cracking or spalling, chlorides
can more easily concentrate at the reinforcement, effectively expediting the corrosion process.
The quality of the concrete used in bridge construction has generally improved over time
due to concrete technology innovation, improvements in quality control, and in better supplier understanding of optimal material selection for strength and durability. Therefore, it is
reasonable to expect that a concrete component constructed to modern standards is likely to
have improved corrosion resistance characteristics compared to older components. Additionally, older structures have been exposed to the surrounding environment for a longer period of
time, and are therefore more likely to be affected by corrosion.
With respect to steel girders, the year the bridge was designed can provide valuable information
about the susceptibility of the bridge to fatigue cracking and fracture. Over the years, there have
been numerous changes in design specifications that have resulted in the improved fatigue and
fracture resistance of bridges. Four key dates have been identified; 1975, 1985, 1994, and 2009,
with regard to changes in design specifications. These dates were selected for the following reasons:
1975
Fatigue
The modern fatigue design provisions, based on the research of Fisher and others, were fully
incorporated into the AASHTO Specifications with the 1974 Interims. The basic detail categories
have not changed significantly since their introduction. Hence, 1975 was selected as a differentiator regarding fatigue design of steel bridges. Prior to 1975, fatigue design was based on principles that were not generally appropriate for welded structures. Although these early provisions
appeared in the 1965 version of the specifications and were in place through 1976, it was felt that
it was reasonably conservative to ignore the earlier provisions and set the cutoff date at 1975.
Fracture
In 1974, partly in response to the Point Pleasant Bridge collapse (1967), mandatory Charpy
V-Notch (CVN) requirements were set in place for welds and base metals as a part of the
AASHTO/AWS Fracture Control Plan. The purpose of these CVN requirements was to ensure
adequate fracture toughness of materials used in bridges. Furthermore, modern fatigue design
provisions, based on the research of Fisher and others, were fully incorporated into the AASHTO
Specifications as previously discussed. Hence, 1975 was selected as a differentiator regarding
fatigue and fracture design of steel bridges.
1985
In 1985, AASHTO introduced changes to address and to prevent distortion-induced fatigue
cracking. A common example of distortion-induced fatigue cracking is web-gap cracking.
Hence, considering the specifications introduced in 1975 and 1985, bridges designed after 1985
are less likely to be susceptible to fatigue due to primary or secondary stress ranges than bridges
built prior to these revisions.
1994
In 1994, the AASHTO design specifications changed from load factor design (LFD) to load
and resistance factor design (LRFD). The LRFD method is intended to ensure greater reliability
in bridge design. There were several changes regarding the load models and the load distribution
factors used for the fatigue limit state. These changes were intended to result in a more realistic
and reliable fatigue design. Hence, for the fatigue limit state, bridges designed after 1994 would
be expected to have improved reliability.
2009
In 2008, language was introduced into the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications
which directly addressed the issue of CIF. The article provided prescriptive guidance to ensure
that details susceptible to CIF are avoided. It is included in the 2009 and later versions of the
AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications.
Assessment Procedure. The year of construction is intended to characterize the years of
environmental exposure a component has experienced or the fatigue susceptibility of the design.
The suggested values are intended to put elements into four broad classes that range from very
old to relatively new. For elements that have been replaced, the year of the replacement should
be used. Elements that have been rehabilitated should use the original construction date. These
ranges are advisory; users may consider modifying these categories based on experience with
their bridge inventory or significant changes to construction practices that may have occurred
within their state. For steel-girder categories, users should consider if the design specification used in the design of the bridge matched the contemporary specifications at the time, as
described above. If, for example, the LRFD provisions of 1994 were not implemented in the state
until 2000, then the ranges should be adjusted accordingly.
Concrete Bridge Decks, Prestressed Girders, Substructures
Built before 1950
10 points
6 points
3 points
0 points
20 points
10 points
5 points
0 points
20 points
10 points
5 points
3 points
0 points
10 points
5 points
0 points
The permeability of a concrete mix depends on several factors including the water to cementitious ratio, the use of densifying additives, and the use of mix-improving additives. Supplementary cementitious materials such as fly ash, ground-granulated blast furnace slag, and silica fume
have been shown to reduce permeability. Additionally, a properly designed and placed concrete
mix with a lower water to cementitious ratio will have a lower permeability.
Materials and criteria that have been identified as being beneficial in enhancing the performance of concrete bridge decks can be found NCHRP Synthesis 333: Concrete Bridge Deck
Performance (5).
Assessment Procedure. The evaluation of a bridges concrete mix design should be based
on information contained in the bridges design plans and on engineering judgment. Many
different types of concrete mixtures can be considered to be high performance, therefore, users
should consider the corrosion resistance characteristics of the particular mixture and assess if
the concrete mix used is expected to provide an increased durability relative to a typical concrete
mix design. Past experience with concrete mixes of similar characteristics should be considered.
The concrete used is not considered to be high performance
15 points
0 points
10 points
Removable forms
0 points
10 points
Bare deck
0 points
historically poor performance of bridge elements with inadequate cover. The depth of concrete
cover characterizes how far corrosive agents need to travel in order to reach the embedded steel
reinforcement. Several studies have identified that the depth of concrete cover over the top reinforcing steel mat is the most significant factor contributing to the durability of decks (5). The
importance of adequate concrete cover is also an important durability factor for other concrete
elements. The value used for this attribute should be the actual amount of concrete cover, which
may not necessarily be the design cover. If quality control procedures are adequate to ensure that
the design cover matches the as-built cover, the design cover may be used. If such quality control
procedures have not been utilized or have historically been inadequate, it may be necessary to
assess the as-built cover.
In 1970, the general recommendation for concrete cover was a minimum clear concrete cover
of 2 inches over the top-most steel. Currently, the AASHTO Standard Specifications for Highway
Bridges (2002) requires a minimum concrete cover of 2.5 inches for decks that have no positive corrosion protection and are frequently exposed to de-icing chemicals. Positive corrosion
protection may include epoxy coated bars, concrete overlays, and impervious membranes. The
AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications (2004) also requires a minimum concrete cover of
2.5 inches for concrete that is exposed to de-icing chemicals or on deck surfaces that are subject
to stud or chain wear. The concrete cover may be decreased to 1.5 inches when epoxy coated
reinforcement is used.
It is also important to note that the type of damage and the rate of damage development vary
with the amount of concrete cover. It has been reported that the type of damage changes from
cracks and small, localized surface spalls to larger delaminations and spalling as the concrete
cover increases (4). There is also an increase in the time to corrosion initiation and a reduction
in the rate of damage development when cover increases, as shown schematically in Figure E1.
In summary, as concrete cover increases, the time to corrosion initiation increases due to the
increased depth that chloride ions must penetrate to initiate the corrosion process. As corrosion
progresses, an increased concrete cover provides confinement that reduces the rate and the type
of damage that develops at the surface of the concrete element.
It should be noted that concrete cover greater than 3 inches can result in increased cracking,
providing pathways for the intrusion of water and chlorides. This may be a consideration in
special cases in which the concrete cover is unusually large.
Assessment Procedure. This attribute is scored based on the actual, physical clear cover
which with the specified bridge element operates. The user should consider whether quality
control practices used at the time of construction were adequate to provide confidence that the
as-built concrete cover conforms to the design concrete cover, or if there are indications that the
concrete cover may not be adequate. In these cases, the as-built concrete cover may be required
and can be easily obtained using a covermeter.
1.5 inches or less, unknown
20 points
10 points
0 points
can typically be identified from the structures design plans. If suitable information is unavailable, engineering judgment should be used.
Reinforcement is uncoated carbon steel
15 points
0 points
15 points
0 points
10 points
0 points
Assessment Procedure. This attribute is scored based on whether or not the element is
constructed using weathering steel and is detailed and located in a manner that minimizes the
contact of the steel with de-icing chemicals and moisture. If it is unknown if the element is composed of weathering steel, the element should be scored accordingly. The assessment procedure
assumes that the steel is used in the proper environment and is detailed properly. Guidance
on the appropriate application of uncoated weathering steel can be found in FHWA Technical Advisory T-5140.22 (7). The document also includes recommendations for maintenance to
ensure continued successful performance of the steel.
Element is not constructed of weathering
steel or location and detailing may allow
impact of ambient or de-icing chemicals
on steel surfaces
10 points
0 points
15 points
7 points
0 points
20 points
15 points
5 points
0 points
If the element has multiple types of connections, the worst type of connection should be
scored for this attribute.
Element connected with welds
15 points
7 points
0 points
D.18Skew
Reason(s) for Attribute. Bridge skew can introduce unanticipated forces in a bridge deck,
deck joints, and superstructures. Thermal expansion of the superstructure and deck may introduce uneven strain distributions and/or torsional forces. As a result, bridges with high skew
angles may suffer atypical deterioration patterns including cracking in bridge decks, failure of
joints and bearing, and distortion-induced cracking at diaphragms (812).
Assessment Procedure. This attribute is typically scored based on the recorded skew angles
for a bridge. Angles of 30 degrees or greater may be used as a value for evaluating the potential
for adverse skew angle effects. This attribute may also be used as a screening attribute.
Skew 30 or more
20 points
Skew 2030
10 points
0 points
superstructure. This may result in accelerated deterioration patterns including coating failure
and section loss for steel members, corrosion damage in concrete members, and/or corrosion
damage in the deck.
Assessment Procedure. This attribute is typically scored based on the presence of known
cold joints within the deck span. Data to support this assessment may come from inspection
reports, because cold joints that are performing as designed may not be known.
Presence of cold joints
10 points
0 points
20 points
0 points
15 points
Pile foundation
0 points
Assessment Procedure. Subsurface soil conditions susceptible to these effects are typically
known to geotechnical engineers and/or maintenance personnel. This attribute may be identified based on soil testing results or experience.
Poor or unknown subsurface soil conditions
20 points
0 points
Loading Attributes
L.1ADTT
Reason(s) for Attribute. The ADTT on a bridge is used to characterize the frequency of
occurrence of large external loads on the bridge due to heavy vehicles. Large transport trucks
or other heavy vehicles place stress on a bridge as static and dynamic loads, the latter reflecting
impact and other dynamic amplification effects.
As ADTT levels increase, the rate of damage formation and accumulation in concrete is typically expected to increase. This is in part because the stresses caused by traffic loads accelerate the
effects of the internal expansion forces from reinforcement corrosion (4). These loads, especially
when placed on a bridge with existing deterioration, will open cracks and possibly allow corrosive elements to enter the cracks or increase the crack density. Experience has shown that bridge
decks exposed to heavy truck traffic generally deteriorate at a much higher rate than decks with
little or no truck traffic.
For steel girders, research has shown that trucks produce nearly all of the fatigue damage in
highway bridges. Hence, a bridge with high truck traffic (high ADTT) will have a higher probability of fatigue damage. Of course, the converse is also true, bridges with little or no truck
traffic (e.g., HOV bridges) are unlikely to experience fatigue cracking.
It is important to note that ADTT only considers the load side of the equation. The likelihood of fatigue cracking also depends on the resistance side of the equation, which is addressed
by the D.16 Element Connection Type and D.17 Worst Fatigue Detail Categories. Although
ADTT does not provide an exact correlation to the stress ranges an element will experience, it
does provide a reasonably good understanding of how quickly fatigue damage may accumulate.
Assessment Procedure. This attribute should be scored based on the ADTT.
For steel structures, the scoring limits for ADTT were taken from a recent study on fracture
critical bridges titled A Method for Determining the Interval for Hands-On Inspection of Steel
Bridges with Fracture Critical Members (13). Although these limits were developed primarily with
fracture critical bridges in mind, it was decided these limits could be applied to other highway
bridges as well for the fatigue limit state. The reasoning behind the limits as documented in Parr
and Connors report is as follows:
The ADTT limit of 15 comes from the fact that for bridges where the ADT is less than 100,
the ADT is generally not reported in the NBIS. During the Purdue University Workshop, it was
agreed than an ADTT of 15% (of the ADT) was a reasonably conservative estimate of the proportion of trucks crossing a typical low volume bridge. Hence, 15% of the lowest ADT reported
in the NBIS (ADT = 100) yields an ADTT of 15.
The lower bound value of 100 was set such to separate bridges in rural areas versus moderately traveled bridges. The upper bound limit of an ADTT equal to 1,000 was obtained by simply
increasing the moderate limit by a factor of 10. It was included simply to create a boundary
between heavily and moderately traveled bridges.
For concrete bridges, high ADTT will likely have the most significant effect on the durability of the bridge deck. Superstructure components will be affected to a much lesser extent; if
designed to modern standards, high ADTT may have little effect on the durability of superstructure components. Deck joints may also deteriorate more rapidly in the presence of high ADTT.
Users may wish to adopt different thresholds for the scoring model, depending on typical
traffic patterns and needs.
Concrete Bridge Deck, Prestressed Concrete Girder
ADTT is greater than 5,000
20 points
ADTT is moderate
10 points
ADTT is minor
5 points
No heavy trucks
0 points
Steel Girders
ADTT is greater than 1,000
20 points
15 points
5 points
0 points
15 points
0 points
Assessment Procedure. The assessment procedure is similar to other environmental exposure classifications that are already in practice. Marine environments are deemed to be the most
severe due to the high levels of ambient chlorides and moisture. Moderate environments are
those in which corrosive agent levels (water and chlorides) are elevated but lower than those
found in marine or other severe exposures. Industrial environments are less severe than
marine but may contain other harmful chemicals. Under modern regulatory constraints, airborne pollutant levels associated with industrial environments are minimized, and this should
be considered in the assessment of industrialized environments. Benign environments are
those in which application of de-icing chemicals is minimal or nonexistent; the environments
may be arid and atmospheric pollutants typical.
Severe/Marine
20 points
Moderate/Industrial
10 points
Benign
0 points
15 points
10 points
0 points
critical roadways that may receive the focus of local maintenance crews for the application of deicing chemicals. Obviously, the more frequent the snowfall, the more often de-icing chemicals
are likely to be applied. Users may have other data or information regarding the application of
de-icing chemicals that can be used to develop rationales identifying those bridges exposed to
high levels of de-icing chemicals and those where de-icing chemical use is minimal.
High (more than 100 applications per year)
20 points
Moderate
15 points
10 points
None
0 points
15 points
7 points
0 points
Steel Girder
Severe overspray exposure
20 points
10 points
0 points
that have longer remaining fatigue lives, there is a lower probability of failure due to fatigue
cracking than for elements with shorter remaining fatigue lives.
Assessment Procedure. The remaining fatigue life of an element can be determined using
any established method. Insufficient fatigue life refers to a fatigue life that is less than the required
service life or some other interval defined by the owner (e.g., less than 10 years). It is noted that
it is possible to calculate a life of less than the length of time the bridge has been in service (i.e., a
negative fatigue life). In many cases, although a negative fatigue life has been calculated, there is
no evidence of fatigue cracking on the structure. Although a negative fatigue life does not make
physical sense, it does suggest that the probability of failure due to fatigue cracking is greater. In
such cases, more in-depth evaluation efforts are justified, such as field testing or monitoring to
obtain in-service stress range histograms or a more accurate finite element model of the structure. Often, the more in-depth evaluations reveal that there is significant remaining fatigue life.
Sufficient fatigue life refers to a fatigue life that exceeds the expected service life, or a defined
life required by the owner (e.g., 10 years until replacement) of the element, but is not infinite.
Infinite life is the case in which fatigue cracking is not expected to propagate during the life of
the structure. It is noted that a greater penalty is placed on not having any knowledge of the
remaining fatigue life than on having performed a fatigue analysis that determined a negative
fatigue life.
Unknown remaining fatigue life
10 points
7 points
3 points
0 points
20 points
No overtopping/high water
0 points
Condition Attributes
C.1 Current Condition Rating
Reason(s) for Attribute. The condition rating for a bridge component describes the existing, in-place bridge as compared with the as-built condition. The condition ratings provide
an overall characterization of the general condition of the entire component. It is reasonable to assume that a given element that has already shown signs of damage is more likely
to deteriorate to a serious condition than an element showing little or no signs of damage.
It is typical for a concrete component with a condition rating of 5 or less to have observable corrosion damage in the form of cracking or spalling (either as open spalls or patched
spalls). Such damage provides pathways for the increased penetration of chlorides ions and
for increased rates of damage accumulation. For steel elements, low condition ratings are
frequently emblematic of significant corrosion damage. Fatigue cracking or member distortions due to unexpected settlement, etc. may be present. Conversely, components with a high
condition rating (6 or above) typically have lower levels of existing deterioration. Consequently, some consideration should be given to the overall component rating when assessing
the durability of the bridge element.
Assessment Procedure. For this attribute, a condition rating of 5 or less is considered to
have a much higher likelihood for accelerated damage than component with higher condition ratings. A condition rating of 6 is considered to have a smaller likelihood of accelerated
damage.
Condition rating is 5 or less
20 points
Condition rating is 6
5 points
0 points
20 points
10 points
0 points
15 points
5 points
No evidence of rotation
0 points
20 points
15 points
5 points
Bridge is jointless
0 points
washing out joints, and periodic application of the sealers help preserve bridge elements
and extend their service lives. Conversely, a bridge that does not receive periodic maintenance and preservation activities is likely to experience damage and deterioration much
earlier in its service life, and deteriorate at a higher rate relative to a bridge receiving consistent,
periodic maintenance.
Assessment Procedure. This attribute is scored based on the bridge maintenance policies
and practices within the particular inventory being assessed. The RAP panel should consider
the policies and practices within its state with regard to the intensity of maintenance activities within particular regions, districts, or municipalities. For example, state-owned bridges
typically receive more consistent and thorough maintenance than locally-owned bridges.
Bridges located in rural areas may receive less intense maintenance than those located near
population centers, etc. The RAP should consider specific situations within its bridge inventory when assessing this attribute, and develop criteria for establishing which bridges receive
regular maintenance that can be expected to prevent deterioration, and those bridges which
do not.
Bridge does not receive routine maintenance
20 points
10 points
0 points
20 points
0 points
consider when scoring this attribute include build-up at the deck inlet grates, clogged drains or
pipes, section loss in pipes, etc.
Deck drains directly onto superstructure or substructure
components, or ponding on deck results from poor drainage
20 points
10 points
Adequate quality
0 points
20 points
10 points
5 points
No corrosion-induced cracking
0 points
15 points
10 points
0 points
C.10Delaminations
Reason(s) for Attribute. Delaminations are subsurface cracks in concrete generally parallel
to the concrete surface. Delaminations are caused by the formation of horizontal cracking as a
result of volumetric expansion of the reinforcing steel during the corrosion process. Delaminations are typically emblematic of the corrosion of embedded steel, and thus provide an early
indicator of where future spalling is likely to occur. This attribute is intended to consider that
concrete elements with delaminations are more likely to experience deterioration and damage in
the future, relative to elements in which delaminations are not present. The detection of delaminations in concrete can reduce the uncertainty in determining if there is active corrosion that is
manifesting in damage to the concrete.
This attribute may also be used to characterize conditions for a deck overlay. Under these
conditions, delaminations are indicative of a loss of bond between the overlay and the substrate.
Overlays that are debonding are likely to deteriorate more rapidly than an overlay with good
bonding characteristics.
It is implied that some form of NDE has been conducted to address this attribute, as delaminations are not visibly detectable. This typically includes hammer sounding or chain drag, but
may include other techniques such as infrared thermography, impact echo, or other methods.
Assessment Procedure. This attribute is scored based on inspection results that indicate
the extent of delaminations present in a given concrete element. This attribute should be scored
based on the amount of surface area of the structure that includes delaminations. Suggested
values for the significant levels of delamination are indicated below.
Significant amount of delaminations present
(greater than 20% by area) or unknown
20 points
10 points
5 points
No delaminations present
0 points
15 points
10 points
5 points
No repaired areas
0 points
20 points
15 points
5 points
No spalling present
0 points
C.13Efflorescence/Staining
Reason(s) for Attribute. This attribute is intended to consider the increased likelihood
of corrosion damage associated with the presence of efflorescence on the surface of concrete
elements. Efflorescence is a white stain on the face of a concrete component which results
from the crystallization of dissolved salts. While efflorescence is typically considered an aesthetic problem, it may be indicative of a problem with the concrete mix and may contribute
to corrosion initiation. Efflorescence on the soffit of a bridge deck typically indicates that
water is passing freely through the deck, likely carrying with it chlorides that may cause corrosion of the reinforcing steel. When rust stains are present, the corrosion of reinforcing
steel is assured.
Extensive leaching causes an increase in the porosity and the permeability of the concrete,
thus lowering the strength of the concrete and making it more vulnerable to hostile environments (e.g., water saturation and frost damage, or chloride penetration and the corrosion of
embedded steel). Those concretes that are produced using a low water-cement ratio, adequate
cement content, proper compaction, and curing are the most resistant to leaching that results in
efflorescence on the surface of the concrete (19).
Assessment Procedure. This attribute is scored based on inspection results. The scoring for
this attribute is based on the existence of efflorescence stains and whether or not rust stains have
also been deposited from corroding reinforcement.
Moderate to severe efflorescence with rust staining;
severe efflorescence without rust staining
20 points
10 points
Minor efflorescence
5 points
No efflorescence
0 points
10 points
No flexural cracking
0 points
10 points
No shear cracking
0 points
15 points
0 points
10 points
5 points
0 points
10 points
0 points
15 points
5 points
0 points
10 points
0 points
or not the corrosion is active. This attribute may also be used as a screening tool in a reliability
assessment.
Significant amount of active corrosion present
20 points
15 points
7 points
0 points
15 points
0 points
References
1. ACI Committee 224, ACI 224R-01: Control of Cracking in Concrete Structures. 2001, American Concrete
Institute: Farmington Hill, Michigan.
2. Fisher, J.W., and Lichtenstein, A., Hoan Bridge Forensic Investigation Failure Analysis Final Report. 2001,
Wisconsin Department of Transportation: Madison, WI.
3. FHWA, Recording and Coding Guide for the Structure Inventory and Appraisal of the Nations Bridges. 1995,
Federal Highway Administration: Washington, D.C.
4. Skeet, J., G. Kriviak, and M. Chichak, Service Life Prediction of Protective System for Concrete Bridge Decks in
Alberta. 1994, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada: Alberta Transportation and Utilities, Research & Development.
5. Russell, H.G., NCHRP Synthesis 333: Concrete Bridge Deck Performance. 2004, Transportation Research
Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C.
6. Clemena, G.G. and Y.P. Virmani, Corrosion Protection: Concrete Bridges. 1998, McLean, VA: U.S. Dept. of
Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Research and Development, Turner-Fairbank Highway
Research Center.
7. FHWA, Uncoated Weathering Steel in Structures, in Federal Highway Administration Technical Advisory
T-5140.22. 1989, FHWA: Washington, D.C.
8. Huang, H., Shenton, H.W., and Chajes, M.J. Load distribution for a highly skewed bridge: Testing and
analysis. Journal of Bridge Engineering, 2004, 9(6), 558562: ASCE, Reston, VA.
9. Coletti, D., B. Chavel, and W.J. Gatti, Challenges of Skew in Bridges with Steel Girders. Transportation
Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2251 2011: Transportation Research Board
of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., pp. 4756.
10. Fu, G., Feng, J., Dimaria, J., and Zhuang, Y., Bridge Deck Corner Cracking on Skewed Structures, 2007. MDOT
Report RC 1490.
11. Menassa, C., Mabsout, M., Tarhini, K., and Frederick, G. Influence of Skew Angle on Reinforced Concrete Slab
Bridges. Journal of Bridge Engineering, 2007. 12(2), pp. 205214: ASCE, Reston, VA.
12. Tindal, T.T. and Yoo, C.H. Thermal Effects on Skewed Steel Highway Bridges and Bearing Orientation.
Journal of Bridge Engineering, 2003, 8(2), p. 5765: ASCE, Reston, VA.
13. Connor, R.J. and M.J. Parr, A Method for Determining the Interval for Hands-On Inspection of Steel Bridges
with Fracture Critical Members. 2008: Purdue University. p. 32.
14. McLean, D.I., et al., NCHRP Synthesis 266: Dynamic Impact Factors for Bridges,. 1998, TRB, National
Research Council: Washington, D.C.
15. Silano, L.G. and P. Brinckerhoff, Bridge Inspection and Rehabilitation: A Practical Guide. 1993, New York, NY:
John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
16. Connor, R.J., M.R. Urban, and E.J. Kaufmann, NCHRP Report 604: Heat Straightening Repair of Damaged Steel Bridge GirdersFatigue and Fracture Performance,. 2008, Transportation Research Board of the
National Academies, Washington, D.C.
17. Weyers, R.E., et al., SHRP-S-360: Bridge Protection, Repair, and Rehabilitation Relative to Reinforcement
Corrosion: A Methods Application Manual, Strategic Highway Research Program, report. 1993, Transportation
Research Board of the National Academies: Washington, D.C.
18. FHWA, FHWA-RD-99-177: Portland Cement Concrete (PCC) Partial-Depth Spall Repair, 1999, Federal
Highway Administration: McLean, VA.
19. Oak Ridge, N.L., Primer on Durability of Nuclear Power Plant Reinforced Concrete StructuresA Review of
Pertinent Factors. 2006, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. p. 114.
20. PCI, Manual for the Evaluation and Repair of Precast, Prestressed Concrete Bridge Products: Including Imperfections or Damage Occurring During Production, Handling, Transportation, and Erection. 2006: Chicago, IL.
21. Naito, C., Sause, R., Hodgson, I., Pessiki, S., and Macioce, T., Forensic Examination of a Noncomposite Adjacent Precast Prestressed Concrete Box Beam Bridge. Journal of Bridge Engineering, 2010, 15(4), p. 408418:
ASCE, Reston, VA.
APPENDIX F
Illustrative Examples
98
98
98
98
99
99
99
99
100
102
105
106
107
107
109
109
109
109
110
110
110
110
112
112
114
115
116
117
117
117
117
117
118
118
119
119
121
123
124
126
126
F 1Introduction
F 2 Example 1: Prestressed Concrete Bridge
F 2.1 Bridge Profile
F 2.1.1 Overview
F 2.1.2 Concrete Bridge Deck
F 2.1.3 Prestressed Girders
F 2.1.4 Substructure
F 2.2 Assessment
F 2.2.1 Concrete Bridge Deck
F 2.2.2 Prestressed Girder
F 2.2.3 Substructure
F 2.3 Consequence Assessment
F 2.4 Scoring Summary
F 2.5 Criteria for a Family of Bridges
F 1 Introduction
This section provides three illustrative examples of applying reliability-based analysis to
establish an inspection interval and strategy. The first is an example of a bridge constructed
with a superstructure composed of prestressed girders, the second example is a bridge
with a multi-girder steel superstructure, and the third example is a multi-girder reinforced
concrete superstructure. The RAP assembled by a bridge owner would typically conduct this
analysis. For these examples, typical attributes that could be identified by a RAP have been
selected for illustrative purposes. Attribute scoring sheets are shown to illustrate the process
of applying a numerical scoring process for identified attributes to estimate the reliability
of bridge elements, and to develop rationale for determining the appropriate inspection
interval.
In the examples shown, Occurrence Factor (OF) categories were determined by applying the
following equation:
X=
Si 4
So
Where Si is the score recorded for each attribute and So is the maximum score for each
attribute, such that the ratio Si So is a value between 0 and 1. OFs were then applied
such that values of X between 0 and <1 were identified as Remote, values 1 or greater but
less than 2 Low, etc. This provides a simple methodology for ranking bridges according
to their important attributes that contribute to the durability and reliability of the bridge,
and estimating the appropriate OF. This scoring methodology should be calibrated by the
RAP for its specific bridge inventory to ensure results are consistent with sound engineering
judgment.
The examples also describe the Consequence Factors that were selected for each bridge, along
with the rationale for selection. Based on these results, an appropriate inspection interval is
identified for each bridge based on the risk matrix (Figure C1). The IPN for each damage mode
is also calculated to illustrate how the process prioritizes damage modes to support inspection
procedures for that bridge.
Illustrative Examples 99
F 2.2 Assessment
This section will show how the methodology is applied to determine the OFs, the
Consequence Factors, and the corresponding inspection intervals for this bridge. A detailed
scoring of each damage mode will be presented with written descriptions of how the
consequence of damage was considered. The results are then summarized in a table that
provides the maximum inspection interval based on the risk matrix and the IPN determined
from the analysis.
The primary elements of this bridge are a concrete bridge deck, prestressed concrete girders,
piers, and abutments. For the concrete bridge deck element, the RAP identified typical damage
modes of widespread corrosion-induced cracking and spalling. Since each of these damage mode
results from the effects of corrosion, these damage modes were combined into a single damage
mode named Corrosion Damage.
For the prestressed concrete girders, the RAP identified the following damage modes:
Considering the damage modes identified for each element, attributes relating to each
damage mode were identified and ranked, as described in the Guideline. The following sections contain illustrative examples of attribute scoring sheets developed for the different
elements and damage modes for the bridge and the estimated OFs based on the attribute
scoring.
F 2.2.1 Concrete Bridge Deck
The RAP determined that certain attributes of a bridge deck that contribute to the likelihood of
corrosion damage are common and well known, and that these same attributes would generally
apply to other bridge decks in its inventory, as well as other typical concrete elements. Additionally, because corrosion will affect most concrete elements and associated damage modes, repetition of certain common attributes could be reduced by having a single corrosion profile for an
element. This corrosion profile could then be applied to all damage modes stemming from corrosion for a given element more efficiently. As such, a corrosion profile was developed to assess
the corrosion-resistance characteristics of a concrete bridge deck or other concrete element. This
profile included typical attributes that were well known to affect the durability of concrete, but did
not depend on the current condition or individual characteristics of an element. The attributes
identified included:
Supporting rationale for each of these attributes from the commentary (Appendix E) was
used. Utilizing these corrosion profile attributes and the suggested rankings in the commentary,
the RAP developed a simple scoring sheet to calculate the corrosion profile for a bridge deck as
shown in the table below.
Score
10
15
10
10
15
60 out of 140
Attributes were identified by the RAP that affected the reliability and durability of a bare
concrete deck. These attributes include the corrosion profile score, plus attributes based on the
loading and the condition of a particular deck. The RAP identified screening criteria of the Current Condition Rating and Fire Damage for concrete bridge decks, to identify decks that may
require further assessment. Other attributes of bare concrete decks were identified and ranked.
The scoring plan was then applied to the subject concrete deck.
Score
Pass
Pass
60
L.1 ADTT
ADTT is moderate (210 vehicles)
10
Score
0
C.10 Delaminations
No delaminations found
C.13 Efflorescence/Staining
Minor efflorescence without rust observed
80 out of 290
1.1 Low
This bridge deck is still relatively new, was built to modern standards for durability and corrosion resistance, and has very little damage accumulation. As a result, the deck received very
low scores for the attributes identified. Based on the attribute score, the RAP estimated that the
likelihood of the failure for the deck (based on the criteria described in Section 2.1) in the next
72 months was low, i.e., the OF was Low (OF = 2).
F 2.2.2 Prestressed Girder
For the assessment of a prestressed girder, the corrosion profile scoring model was also used.
As with the corrosion profile for bridge decks, this basic profile can be applied across many
concrete elements. In this case, the prestressed girder scored the same as the deck.
Corrosion Profile, Prestressed Girder
Attribute
Score
10
15
10
10
15
Score
0
60 out of 140
The RAP then considered the identified damage modes for a prestressed girder element, identified and ranked attributes, and applied the scoring model for each damage mode as shown
below.
Bearing Area Damage, Prestressed Girder
Attribute
Score
60
65 out of 240
1.08 Low
Score
60
C.10 Delaminations
No delaminations found
C.13 Efflorescence/Staining
No signs of efflorescence
Score
60 out of 235
1.02 Low
Score
Pass
Pass
0
0
0
0
0 out of 55
0 Remote
Score
Pass
Pass
60
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
Score
0
65 out of 285
0.91 Remote
Based on the attributes identified by the RAP, the OF for the bearing area damage and corrosion between the beam ends was estimated to be Low (OF = 2). For the damage modes of shear
cracking, flexural cracking and strand fracture, the OF was Remote (OF = 1).
F 2.2.3 Substructure
For the piers and abutments, the RAP considered that the most likely damage modes were
corrosion-induced cracking and spalling, or a settlement or rotation of one of the substructure elements. However, settlement and rotations were determined to not be relevant damage
modes because the bridge substructure is founded on rock. To estimate the likelihood for the
corrosion damage mode, the panel once again used the generalized corrosion profile scoring.
The panel then considered appropriate attributes for estimating the OF for the corrosion
damage mode, identified and ranked key attributes, and scored the piers and abutments for
the bridge, as shown below.
Score
10
15
10
15
10
15
75 out of 140
Score
75
C.10 Delaminations
No delaminations found
C.13 Efflorescence/Staining
No signs of efflorescence
80 out of 290
1.10 Low
Based on the attribute scoring, the OF for the damage mode of Corrosion Damage was
assessed to be Low (OF = 2).
for this bridge was reviewed and the bridge possessed a capacity far in excess of the required Inventory and Operating ratings. Hence, the RAP concluded that the loss of one girder would at most
have a Moderate (CF = 2) consequence based on the following rationale:
The bridge is redundant, based on AASHTO definitions;
The bridge is very similar to other bridges for which a member failure has occurred, but did
Substructure
Damage
Corrosion
Damage
Bearing Area
Damage
Corrosion
Between Beam
Ends
Flexural/Shear
Cracking
Strand Fracture
Corrosion
Damage
Occurrence
Factor (OF)
Consequence
Factor (CF)
Maximum
Interval
OF x CF
(IPN)
Low (2)
Moderate (2)
72 months
Low (2)
Moderate (2)
72 months
Low (2)
Moderate (2)
72 months
Remote (1)
Moderate (2)
72 months
Remote (1)
Moderate (2)
72 months
Low (2)
Low (1)
72 months
by the analysis, such as shear or flexural cracking, corrosion-induced cracking, spalling, or efflorescence, were either not present or minimal if the CS ratings for the element were CS 1 or CS 2. Therefore, for the prestressed girder element, elements that are rated as CS 1 and CS 2 would not have the
damage characteristics the panel identified as key to the potential for serious damage to develop.
Bridges with any portion of the prestressed element rated as CS 3 would likely have one or more of
these condition attributes present, and therefore would require reanalysis and possibly a reduced
inspection interval. Similar criteria were developed for each of the elements assessed by the RAP.
The RAP also identified that longitudinal cracking in prestressed elements was a key condition attribute not adequately represented in its element-level inspection scheme. As a result,
the RBI procedure for bridges in this family needed to include a requirement that longitudinal
cracking be assessed during the inspection. This requirement was included in the RBI procedure
as a special emphasis area for this family of bridges.
The RAP developed a listing of criteria, including design characteristics and using surrogate
element data for certain condition attributes, to apply to the overall family of similar bridges in
its inventory. These criteria are based on the engineering assessment documented through the
RAP analysis. Example criteria to identify the family of bridges included:
The RAP determined that bridges meeting these criteria will be treated as a family under
the RBI methodology. If a particular bridge violates any of these criteria, it must be reassessed
according to the attribute scoring criteria developed for this family of bridges.
Table F2 summarizes the information from the RAP analysis to be included in the RBI procedure for these bridges. Longitudinal cracking in the prestressed elements is indicated as a special
emphasis area for the inspection, to ensure this key damage mode is assessed during subsequent
inspections. Other IPNs for identified damage modes are low, indicating a standard RBI inspection is required for the bridge.
Element
Deck
Prestressed Girder
Substructure
IPN
4
4
4
2
2
2
The most recent inspection rated the deck condition as 6-Satisfactory. According to the
inspection report, the underside of the deck has hairline transverse cracks, spaced 2 to 3 feet
apart, with efflorescence stains. The underside of the approach span at abutment 1 has heavy
efflorescence stains on the left side.
F 3.1.3 Steel Girders
The continuous steel girder superstructure is constructed from four painted steel girders with
steel diaphragms. These girders are riveted at the connection plates. No problems were found
at the connection plates during a recent in-depth inspection. The bottom flanges of the girders
have corrosion with missing paint. These locations have some pack rust formation. The superstructure was assessed to have a condition rating of 6-Satisfactory.
Based on the inspection report, no fatigue or fracture related damage is present. Based on the
provided design plans, it was determined that the girders are riveted built-up members, so the
worst fatigue detail category is D.
F 3.1.4 Substructure
The substructure was constructed of normal grade reinforced concrete with uncoated carbon
steel reinforcement. The minimum cover was determined to be 3-38 inches. Drainage from the
deck is leaking onto the substructure from the deck due to leaking joints.
There is no observed evidence of rotation or settlement. The concrete piers have random hairline cracks with some moderate surface scaling below the high water line. Hairline to 132 inch
(0.03125 inch) diagonal and vertical cracks with minor efflorescence stains have been reported
on the concrete abutments. The concrete pier caps have some hairline cracks but appear to be in
good condition. There is spalling in the concrete piers exposing rebar. The substructure condition
was assessed to be 6-Satisfactory.
F 3.2 Assessment
The primary elements of this bridge are a concrete bridge deck with an asphalt overlay, riveted
steel girders, deck joints, piers, and abutments. For the concrete bridge deck element the typical
damage modes identified were concrete cracking and spalling. Since each of these damage modes
results from the effects of corrosion, these damage modes were again grouped into a single damage mode termed Corrosion Damage. The same corrosion profile as developed for the previous example was used for the deck. The asphalt overlay for the deck was assessed individually
for debonding and spalling/potholes. For the steel girders, the damage modes considered were:
Corrosion Damage,
Fatigue Damage, and
Fracture Damage.
The RAP determined through consensus that tilting of the piers or unexpected settlement
were not credible damage modes. This was based on the rationale that the bridge had been in
service for more than 50 years without any signs of tilt or rotation, the geographic area was not
susceptible to subsurface erosion or unexpected settlements, and the roller bearings were insensitive to moderate displacements of the substructure.
F 3.2.1 Concrete Bridge Deck
The concrete deck was assessed for the damage mode of corrosion damage, using the corrosion
profile for concrete elements and attributes identified for the deck, as shown below.
Score
10
15
10
15
10
20
10
96 out of 140
Score
Pass
Pass
96
L.1 ADTT
ADTT is minor (130 vehicles)
C.10 Delaminations
UnknownAsphalt overlay prevents effective sounding
20
Score
10
141 out of 290
1.94 Low
Based on the attributes identified by the RAP, the OF for corrosion damage was assessed to
be Low (OF = 2).
F 3.2.2 Asphalt Overlay
The asphalt overlay was assessed by the panel using a simple expert elicitation. The general
consensus of the panel was that the typical service life of an asphalt overlay was less than 10 years.
The RAP agreed that the likelihood of failure of the asphalt overlay was greater than 1% over a
72-month interval, given that the overlay was already in service. The OF for the overlay failure
was determined to be High (OF = 4) by consensus of the panel.
F 3.2.3 Steel Girders
The steel girders were assessed for three damage modes: Fatigue Damage, Corrosion Damage,
and Fracture Damage. Key attributes were identified by the RAP as shown below. Supporting
data and rationale for each attribute are included in the commentary.
Score
Pass
20
15
L.1 ADTT
ADTT is 130 vehicles
15
10
67 out of 110
2.44 Moderate
Score
Pass
15
10
10
20
15
10
20
2.1 Moderate
Score
Pass
Pass
20
10
L.1 ADTT
ADTT is 130 vehicles
15
Score
10
55 out of 125
1.76 Low
The RAP analysis of key attributes for the damage modes indicated that the steel superstructure has a moderate likelihood of fatigue damage (OF = 3), a moderate likelihood of developing
corrosion damage (OF = 3), and a low likelihood of fracture (OF = 2).
F 3.2.4 Substructure
The substructure was assessed for the damage mode of corrosion damage, using the corrosion
profile for concrete elements and attributes identified for the piers and abutments.
Score
10
15
15
10
20
10
86 out of 140
Score
86
20
10
C.10 Delaminations
Minor localized delaminations on footings
20
C.13 Efflorescence/Staining
Moderate efflorescence without rust staining
10
2.22 Moderate
Based on the attribute scoring, the RAP estimated the OF was Moderate (OF = 3) for corrosion
damage for the piers and abutments. A considerable amount of damage has already accumulated
in the form of spalling with exposed reinforcement and moderate cracking.
than or equal to this bridge, had similar skew, had similar girder spacing, and had a non-composite
deck. In all cases, none of the bridges collapsed, though some displayed minor sagging. The bridges
carried full service load up until the time that fracture was detected in later inspections. Hence, the
RAP determined that the consequence associated with fracture of one of the girders should be set
as High (CF = 3) based on the following rationale:
The bridge is redundant, based on AASHTO definitions;
The bridge is very similar to other bridges where full-depth girder fractures occurred, but did
Damage
Deck
Overlay
Steel Girders
Corrosion Damage
Debonding/Spalling
Fatigue
Corrosion
Fracture
Corrosion Damage
Substructure
Occurrence
Factor (OF)
Low (2)
High (4)
Moderate (3)
Moderate (3)
Low (2)
Moderate (3)
Consequence
Factor (CF)
Moderate (2)
Low (1)
High (3)
High (3)
High (3)
Low (1)
Interval
72 months
48 months
24 months
24 months
48 months
48 months
OF x CF
(IPN)
4
4
9
9
6
3
IPN
4
9
9
6
3
From the design plans, the minimum cover was determined to be 1-1316 inches. Based on the
most recent inspection report, the deck is considered to be in CS 6-Satisfactory. This deck contains concrete edge joints with silicon sealant. The seals are considered to be in good condition
but are leaking water. No other ponding or drainage issues are noted.
F 4.1.3 Reinforced Concrete Girders
The superstructure for this bridge consists of seven reinforced concrete girders that
are constructed from normal grade concrete and uncoated mild steel reinforcement. Each
girder, per span, has hairline vertical flexure cracking. The right exterior girder has a spall
on the bottom end which measures 12 inches tall by 3 inches wide by 5 inches deep due
to impact.
One of the exterior girders has an 8-inch diameter spall resulting from an over-height vehicle
collision. Girders five and six also have scrapes and spalls from an over-height vehicle collision.
The superstructure is considered to be in CS 5-Fair. From the design plans, the minimum concrete cover is 3-58 inches.
F 4.1.4 Substructure
The substructure for this bridge is also constructed of normal grade concrete with
uncoated mild steel reinforcement. From the design plans, the minimum cover was determined to be 2- inches. The columns have random hairline cracks and the top of column
four has an area of delamination that is 29 inches tall by 21 inches wide. Both abutments
have hairline to 116-inch vertical cracks and spalling with exposed reinforcement on their
right sides.
All bents have water staining resulting from leaking joints. Bent cap one, span one, has horizontal cracks with delamination in the bottom left corner. Bent cap two, span two, has an area
of cracking and delamination that is 16 inches wide by 8 inches tall near girder six. Bent cap two,
span three, also has an area of cracking and delamination that is 27 inches wide by 4 inches tall
near girder six.
The substructure has neoprene pad bearings which have curled on the ends but are still in
satisfactory condition. The overall condition rating for the substructure is 5-Fair. There are no
signs of settlement or rotation and the substructure itself is founded on rock.
F 4.2 Assessment
The primary elements of this bridge are a concrete bridge deck, reinforced concrete girders, and piers and abutments. For the concrete bridge deck element, the typical damage mode
identified was corrosion damage (concrete cracking and spalling). The same corrosion profile
developed for the previous examples was also used for this deck. For the reinforced concrete
girders, the damage modes considered were:
Bearing Area Damage,
Corrosion Between Beam Ends, and
Flexural and Shear Cracking.
Based on the owners inventory data and experience, there has been no occurrences of significant
shear cracking in bridges of similar design to the one being analyzed. However, there have been
isolated cases of cracking due to flexural stresses, possibly resulting from overloaded trucks. Based
on this experience, the RAP determines that flexural cracking is an important damage mode, while
the likelihood of shear cracking is more remote, generally. To provide focus on the flexural cracking
experience in this particular inventory, the RAP determines that shear cracking and flexural cracking should be separated into distinct damage modes. Additionally, the RAP determined through
consensus that the likelihood of overload would have the greatest influence on the likelihood of
flexural cracking progressing; existing flexural cracking had moderate effect, and the fact that bridge
may be load posted has only a small effect. As such the RAP assigns 20 points to L.4, Likelihood of
Overload, only 10 points to D.2, Load Posting and 15 points to C.14, Flexural Cracking. The key
attributes for flexural cracking were therefore determined by the RAP to be as follows:
The screening criteria for Flexural Cracking (S.4) was also utilized to identify bridges with
significant flexural cracking, which may require individual engineering assessment. For shear
cracking, the relevant attributes identified by the RAP were:
Again, the screening attribute S.5 for unresolved shear cracking is utilized to identify any
bridges with shear cracking that may require engineering assessment.
For the substructure, the damage mode considered was:
Corrosion Damage (cracking and spalling due to the effects of corrosion).
Score
0
Score
6
15
10
15
10
15
10
86 out of 140
Score
Pass
Pass
86
L.1 ADTT
ADTT is high (5,500 vehicles)
20
10
10
C.10 Delaminations
No delaminations noted
Score
5
136 out of 290
1.88 Low
Based on the attributes identified by the RAP, the OF for corrosion damage in the deck was
estimated as Low (OF = 2).
F 4.2.2 Reinforced Concrete Girders
The reinforced concrete girders were assessed for the damage modes of bearing area damage,
corrosion between the beam ends, and flexural and shear cracking.
Corrosion Profile, Reinforced Concrete Girder
Attribute
Score
10
15
15
10
15
10
81 out of 140
Score
81
Score
15
15
Score
81
20
20
C.10 Delaminations
Unknown
20
15
2.15 Moderate
Score
Pass
Score
0
10
15
25 out of 45
2.22 Moderate
Score
Pass
10
10 out of 45
0.88 Remote
The attribute scoring indicated an OF of Moderate (OF = 3) for corrosion between beam ends
and flexural cracking, an OF of Low (OF = 2) for bearing area damage, and an OF of Remote
(OF = 1) for shear cracking.
F 4.2.3 Substructure
The substructure was assessed for the damage mode of corrosion damage, using the corrosion
profile for concrete elements and attributes identified for the piers and abutments.
Corrosion Profile, Substructure
Attribute
Score
10
15
Score
0
15
10
15
10
81 out of 140
Score
81
20
15
10
C.10 Delaminations
Unknown
20
15
C.13 Efflorescence/Staining
No efflorescence noted
2.28 Moderate
Based on their analysis, the RAP assessed that the likelihood of failure due to corrosion damage
was moderate for the pier and abutments (OF = 3). Already, a considerable amount of damage has
accumulated in the form of localized delaminations and spalling resulting in exposed reinforcement.
F 4.3 Consequence
For the concrete bridge deck, the RAP considered the scenario that the corrosion damage
in the deck resulted in spalling of either the driving surface of the deck or deck soffit. In this
case, the bridge carries a high-volume highway over another, lower-volume roadway. The
roadway on the bridge carries 22,000 vehicles a day, and the roadway below the bridge carries
60 vehicles a day. Based on this information, any spalling from the deck soffit has the potential
to fall into the roadway below and strike a motorist. However, given the low traffic volume
and speed on the roadway below, the RAP considered the likelihood of this occurring to be
relatively small. Therefore, the consensus of the RAP was that the appropriate Consequence
Factor was High (CF = 3). For spalling of the riding surface, the panel determined that such a
scenario was likely to have an effect on serviceability of the deck, and may require a reduction
in the posted traffic speed. Therefore, the consensus of the RAP was that this represented a
Consequence Factor of Moderate (CF = 2). For this case, the scenario of concrete falling into
the roadway below the bridge provides the Consequence Factor for corrosion damage in the
bridge deck.
To determine the Consequence Factor for the concrete beams, the RAP considered the
scenario that one of the reinforced concrete beams lost 100% of its load carrying capacity due to corrosion damage between the beam ends, flexural or shear cracking, or bearing
area damage. The RAP considered that the superstructure is reinforced concrete with a
composite deck such that redundancy in the structure would prevent the total collapse
of a girder. The RAP also reviewed data from two very similar bridges for which corrosion damage had resulted in loss of load carrying capacity in one girder of a multi-girder,
reinforced concrete bridge with a composite deck. The RAP determined that these two
bridges could be considered very similar to the bridge being analyzed because their span
lengths were within 10% of the bridge under consideration and they utilized a nearly identical girder spacing and deck configuration. In both cases, the corrosion damage had reduced
a single girders load carrying capacity effectively to zero, however, the bridge exhibited little
or no additional dead load deflection and was capable of carrying normal live loads. Lane closures were required on the bridges as the result of the faulted girder, resulting in a significant
impact on traffic.
The load rating information for the bridge was reviewed and the bridge possessed a capacity
far in excess of the required Inventory and Operating ratings. However, the bridge carries a high
ADT, such that a lane closure would have a major impact on traffic. Additionally, the roadway
under the bridge is a low-volume road that may be impacted by the shoring required or debris.
As a result, the Consequences Factor was determined to be High (CF = 3) based on the following
rationale:
The bridge is redundant, based on AASHTO definitions;
The bridge is very similar to other bridges for which a member failure has occurred, but did
Damage
Deck
Reinforced
Concrete
Girders
Corrosion Damage
Bearing Area
Damage
Corrosion
Between Beam
Ends
Flexural Cracking
Shear Cracking
Substructure
Corrosion Damage
Occurrence
Factor (OF)
Low (2)
Consequence
Factor (CF)
High (3)
Maximum
Interval
48 months
OF x CF
(IPN)
6
Low (2)
High (3)
48 months
Moderate (3)
High (3)
24 months
Moderate (3)
Remote (1)
High (3)
High (3)
24 months
48 Months
9
3
Moderate (3)
High (3)
24 months
For the reinforced concrete substructure, areas of delaminations are present in several locations and both abutments have areas of spalling with exposed reinforcement. Here, the most
likely damage mode will result in spalling of the concrete. The RAP considers that this bridge is
located over a roadway, and the piers are immediately adjacent to the roadway such there is a
chance that concrete spalling off of a pier could strike a passing motorist. Based on this factor,
the consequence scenario for this damage mode was assessed to be High (CF = 3).
Element
Deck
Reinforced Concrete
Girder
Substructure
IPN
6
6
9
9
3
9
each of which have the potential to result in debris falling into the roadway below the bridge.
As a result, the RAP determined that enhanced inspection for corrosion damage was needed as
part of the RBI procedure. Available technologies to complete the delamination survey include
hammer sounding, infrared thermography (IR) and Impact Echo (IE). The RAP recommends
delamination surveys be completed during the periodic inspections to mitigate the risk of debris
falling into the roadway below the bridge unexpectedly.
Flexural cracking also has a high IPN, indicating that this damage mode is of high importance
and needs to be prioritized during subsequent RBIs for the bridge. Flexural cracking is included
as a special emphasis item for subsequent inspections.
P ART I I
131
SUMMARY
132
Findings
Reliability theories and practices were applied through the research to develop a guideline
for Risk-Based Inspection (RBI) that provides a new approach for bridge inspection. The
methodology consists of bridge owners performing a reliability assessment of bridges within
their inventories to identify those bridges that are most in need of inspection to ensure
bridge safety, and those for which inspection needs are less. This assessment is conducted
by an expert panel at the owner level known as a Reliability Assessment Panel (RAP). The
RAP conducts a reliability-based engineering assessment of the likelihood of serious damage
resulting from common deterioration mechanisms, over a specified time period, and the likely
outcome or consequences if that damage were to occur. The reliability-based assessment can
be described by a simple, three-step process:
Step 1: What can go wrong, and how likely is it? Identify possible damage modes for the
elements of a selected bridge type. Consider design, loading, and condition characteristics
(attributes), and then categorize the likelihood of serious damage occurring into one of
four Occurrence Factors (OFs) ranging from remote (very unlikely) to high (very likely).
Step 2: What are the consequences? Assess the consequences in terms of safety and serviceability, assuming the given damage modes occur. Categorize the potential consequences
into one of four Consequence Factors (CFs) ranging from low (minor effect on serviceability) through severe (i.e., bridge collapse, loss of life).
Step 3: Determine the inspection interval and scope. Prioritize inspection needs and assign
an inspection interval for the bridge, based on the results of Steps 1 and 2.
This assessment is based on common and well-known design, loading, and condition
attributes that affect the durability characteristics of bridges. The attributes are identified
and prioritized through expert elicitation processes. A simple reliability matrix, shown in
the figure to the left, is used to identify the appropriate inspection interval for the bridge, based
on the reliability analysis. Damage modes that tend toward the upper right corner of the
matrix, meaning they are likely to occur and have high consequences if they did occur,
require shorter inspection intervals and possibly more intense or focused inspections. Damage modes that tend toward the lower left corner, meaning they are unlikely occur and/or
consequences are low if they did occur, require less frequent inspection.
Inspection intervals determined through the RBI process may be longer or shorter than
those specified by traditional uniform, calendar-based approaches, depending on needs
identified by the reliability-based engineering assessment. Inspections conducted under the
RBI process are typically more intense and thorough than traditional inspection practices,
and require condition assessment of bridge elements to meet the needs of the reliabilitybased assessment. Inspection needs are prioritized to improve the reliability of the inspection process, and bridge-specific inspection procedures can be developed based on the
reliability analysis. The methodology developed is intended for typical highway bridges of
common design characteristics.
The methodology developed through the research capitalizes on the extensive body of
knowledge and experience with in-service bridge behavior, and the common deterioration
mechanisms that cause bridges to deteriorate during their service lives. The process allows
for the integration of emerging technologies such as improved data on long-term bridge
performance and advanced modeling and analysis techniques, when available. The methodology was developed with suitable flexibility to address owner-specific needs and conditions,
while providing systematic processes and methods to support consistent application of the
technology.
133
The methodology developed through the research was tested using two case studies in
different states. During these case studies, the processes described in the Guideline for RBI
analysis were implemented using state forces to develop RBI intervals for typical highway
bridges with superstructures constructed of steel and prestressed members. The RBI intervals determined through the RBI were verified through analysis of historical records for a
sample of bridges in each state.
The reliability-based inspection practices developed through the research differ from
traditional, calendar-based approaches. The new approach to bridge inspection provides a methodology to improve the safety and reliability of bridges by focusing inspection resources where most needed. This also leads to optimized allocation of resources, as
inspection requirements are better matched to inspection needs through a reliability-based
engineering assessment.
Conclusions
This research developed inspection practices to meet the goals of (1) improving the safety
and reliability of bridges and (2) optimizing resources for bridge inspection. The goals of the
research have been achieved through the development of a new guideline document entitled
Proposed Guideline for Reliability-Based Bridge Inspection Practices, Part I of this report,
which has been developed based on the application of reliability theories. This document
meets the project objective of developing a suggested practice for consideration for adoption
by AASHTO, based on rational methods to ensure bridge safety, serviceability, and effective
use of resources. A reliability-based approach was fully developed and documented through
the Guideline. This new inspection paradigm could transform the calendar-based, uniform
inspection strategies currently implemented for bridge inspection to a new, reliability-based
approach that will better allocate inspection resources and improve the safety and reliability
of bridges.
The implementation of the Guideline developed through the research was tested by conducting case studies in two states. These studies demonstrated and verified the effectiveness
of the procedures developed in the research for identifying appropriate inspection intervals
for typical highway bridges. It was shown through these studies that the RBI practices identified appropriate inspection intervals of up to 72 months. It was concluded from these studies
that implementation of the RBI practices did not adversely affect the safety and serviceability
of the bridges analyzed in the study, based on the analysis of historical inspection records.
These studies also successfully demonstrated the implementation of the Guideline and the
procedures therein using state DOT personnel.
The results reported herein demonstrated and verified that inspection intervals of up
to 72 months were suitable for certain bridges. Such extended inspection intervals would
allow the reallocation of inspection resources toward bridges requiring more frequent and
in-depth inspections, resulting in improved safety and reliability of bridges. As such, the
project goals of developing a reliability-based bridge inspection practice that could improve
the safety and reliability of bridges, and optimizes the use of resources, were achieved
through the research.
Suggestions
The research reported herein has demonstrated the effectiveness of the RBI procedures for
determining suitable inspection intervals for typical highway bridges, and as such, broader
implementation of the technology is suggested.
134
The procedure, methods, and approach described herein can be applied for atypical
bridges as well. For example, non-redundant bridge members can be assessed using this
approach, as illustrated in previous research (60). The approach can also be applied to complex bridges, or to bridges with advanced deterioration. Analysis requirements may be more
detailed and advanced; development of such analysis may be pursued to provide a uniform
strategy for bridge inspection across the entire bridge inventory.
Finally, the back-casting procedure utilized herein may be considered for implementation
when RBI practices are to be used. Back-casting provides a means for verification of models
developed by the RAP and quality assurance of the RBI process. As such, the back-casting
procedure provides a critical tool for the implementation of RBI technology.
135
CHAPTER 1
Background
136
As such, the goals of this project were to develop reliabilitybased inspection practices to meet the goals of:
(1) Improving the safety and reliability of bridges and
(2) Optimizing resources for bridge inspection.
The objective of this project was to develop a proposed
bridge inspection practice for consideration for adoption
137
CHAPTER 2
Research Approach
study of the current state-of-the-practice and state-of-theart for reliability and RBI practice was conducted as part of
this project to determine the most applicable methodologies
for the inspection of highway bridges. The best practices and
the successful implementations of these inspection practices
were reviewed, analyzed, and considered by the Research
Team. An expert panel meeting/workshop was held that
included bridge inspection experts from state departments
of transportation to provide bridge-owner perspective on the
tools being developed through the research.
Several different approaches for developing a reliabilitybased inspection practice for highway bridges were considered, ranging from pure probabilistic structural reliability
theories to fully qualitative risk analysis. The system that
was developed is intended to incorporate the best practices
and concepts from both schools of thought. The resulting
methodology provides a reliability-based inspection practice
that is implementable within the existing bridge inspection
programs in the United States. Important consideration in
developing the methodology included:
The approach should be practically implementable and
realistic.
The approach needs to be sufficiently flexible to meet the
138
report (3), provide a technical foundation for the methodology developed. The approach has been customized to provide
a practical, implementable tool that can be expanded and
developed over time. The research resulted in the development of the Guideline, which documents the tools, methodologies, and requirements for RBI practices.
139
CHAPTER 3
3.1Introduction
The Guideline developed under this project describes the
methodology for RBI practices for typical highway bridges.
The goal of the methodology is to improve the safety and reliability of bridges by focusing inspection efforts where most
needed and optimizing the use of resources. The Guideline
provides a framework and procedures for developing suitable
inspection strategies, based on a rational, reliability-based
engineering assessment of inspection needs. The methodology
considers the structure type, age, condition, environment, loading, prior problems, and other characteristics that contribute to
the reliability and durability of highway bridges.
Generally, the methodology involves bridge owners performing a reliability assessment of bridges within their bridge
inventory to identify those bridges that are most in need of
inspection to ensure bridge safety, and those for which inspection needs are less. The assessment is conducted by considering the reliability and safety attributes of bridges and bridge
elements. This reliability assessment is conducted by an expert
panel assembled by a bridge owner (e.g., state) known as an
RAP. This panel conducts an engineering assessment of the
likelihood of serious damage resulting from common deterioration mechanisms, over a specified time period, applied to
key elements of a bridge. This assessment is based on common
and well-known design, loading, and condition attributes that
affect the reliability characteristics of bridge elements. These
attributes influence the likelihood that a particular element
will fail over a given time period, i.e., its reliability. The attributes are identified and prioritized through an expert elicitation process. This process capitalizes on the experience and
knowledge of bridge owners regarding the performance of
the bridges within specific operational environments, given
typical loading patterns, ambient environmental conditions,
construction quality, etc.
The reliability estimate is combined with an evaluation of
the potential outcomes or consequences, in terms of safety
140
from current inspection practices generally, because the damage modes typical for the specific bridge are identified and
prioritized. The inspection is required to be capable of
assessing each of these damage modes sufficiently to support
the assessment of future needs. As a result, the inspections
may be more thorough than traditional practices, including
hands-on access to key portions of a bridge such that damage is
effectively identified to support the RBI assessment. The results
of the inspection are assessed to determine if the existing RBI
procedure needs to be modified or updated as a result of findings from the inspection. For example, as a bridge deteriorates
over time and damage develops, as reported in the inspection
results, inspection intervals may be reduced to address the
inspection needs for the bridge as it ages.
The overall process for assessment under the developed
Guideline is shown schematically in Figure 1. The process
begins with the selection of a bridge or family of similar
bridges to be analyzed. For the selected bridge or bridges, the
RAP identifies common damage modes for elements of the
bridge given the design, materials, and operational environment. Key attributes are identified and ranked to assess OFs
that categorize the likelihood of serious damage developing
over a specified time interval. CFs that categorize the poten-
Step 1: What can go wrong, and how likely is it? Identify possible damage modes for the elements of a selected bridge
type. Considering design, loading, and condition characteristics (attributes), categorize the likelihood of serious
damage occurring into one of four Occurrence Factors
(OFs) ranging from remote (very unlikely) to high (very
likely).
Step 2: What are the consequences? Assess the consequences in
terms of safety and serviceability assuming the given damage modes occur. Categorize the potential consequences
into one of four Consequence Factors (CFs) ranging from
low (minor effect on serviceability) through severe (i.e.,
bridge collapse, loss of life).
Step 3: Determine the inspection interval and scope. Use
a simple reliability matrix to prioritize inspection needs
and assign an inspection interval for the bridge based on
the results of Steps 1 and 2. Damage modes that are likely
to occur and have high consequences are prioritized over
damage modes that are unlikely to occur or are of little
consequence in terms of safety. An RBI procedure is developed based on the assessment of typical damage modes
for the bridges being assessed that specifies the maximum
inspection interval.
Inspections are conducted according to the RBI procedure
developed through this process. The RBI procedure differs
141
Figure 2. Reliability
matrix for determining
maximum inspection
intervals for bridges.
3.3Reliability
A key element in the RBI process is to understand the
meaning and role of reliability in the context of determining
inspection needs and inspection planning. This section of the
report provides supporting data and background information regarding important aspects of reliability and its underlying theories, and how these support RBI.
Reliability is defined as the ability of an item to operate safely
under designated operating conditions for a designated period
of time or number of cycles. The inspection practices documented in the Guideline are based on the concepts and theories of reliability. The reliability of a bridge element is defined
in terms of its safe operation and adequate condition to support the serviceability requirements for bridges. This definition is broader and more applicable to determining bridge
inspection needs than structural reliability estimates, which
are typically defined as a function of the load-carrying capacity of the structure and notional POF estimates. The challenge
142
143
3.3.2Failure
A key step in assessing the reliability of a bridge element is
understanding how and why elements fail, and the typical
deterioration mechanisms that cause the elements to fail.
The damage modes and deterioration mechanisms that typically affect bridge elements are well known, in most cases.
For example, corrosion is obviously a significant deterioration mechanism in concrete and steel bridge elements that
causes them to fail. The likelihood of the failure occurring
in some future time interval depends on attributes of the element, such as its materials of construction, design, durability,
and current condition, as well as what conditions are used
to describe an element as failed. For bridges, catastrophic
collapse would be one obvious condition that could be used to
define failure, but such failures are very rare. Important concerns for bridge inspections extend well beyond simply avoiding rare catastrophic failures. Ensuring the safety of the bridge,
in terms of structural capacity, serviceability, and safety of
the traveling public are important factors in determining the
inspection needs of a bridge.
Therefore, failure requires a suitable definition that captures the need to ensure the structural safety of the bridge,
the safety of travelers on or below the bridge, and the serviceability of the bridge. Failure, utilized in this context, is defined
as when an element is no longer performing its intended function to safely and reliably carry normal loads and maintain
serviceability. For example, a bridge deck with severe spalling
may represent a failed condition for the bridge deck even
though the deck may have adequate load-carrying capacity, because the ability of the deck to reliably carry traffic is
compromised. Therefore, for the case of reliability assessments
for determining bridge inspection needs, it was necessary to
adopt a commonly understood definition of failure that considers common deterioration patterns in bridges and that can
effectively be assessed through the inspection process. Additionally, failure must be defined in a commonly understood
manner that can be readily assessed, is consistent with the historical experiences of bridge managers, and is sufficiently
general to be easily applied across the broad spectrum of
design characteristics and elements that exists across the
bridge inventory. To meet this need, the NBIS condition
144
145
Corrosion rate
Workmanship
Crack width
Prestress losses
Crack depth
Impact factor
Cracking density
Thickness
Loading rate
Surface chloride
concentration
Critical chloride
concentration
Dead load
Truck live load
Water-cement ratio
Chloride diffusion
146
3.4.1 The OF
Within the RBI process, an estimate of the POF for a given
bridge element is expressed as an OF. This factor is an estimate of the likelihood of severe damage occurring in a specified time interval, considering the likely damage modes and
deterioration mechanism acting on the element. Key attributes of the element that affect the likelihood are considered and documented to support the estimate. This section
describes the approach and methodology for estimating the
probability, or likelihood, of failure for bridge elements for
the purpose of inspection planning.
There are a variety of methodologies for estimating the
expected performance of components or elements. These
range from fully quantitative methods to fully qualitative
methods. For example, the American Petroleum Institutes
Recommended Practice 581 has, for certain critical components, empirical equations that estimate the POF for the
component given certain attributes of the component and
its operational environment (29). These empirical equations
include factors associated with the attributes of specific components and are used to calculate the expected POF over some
defined time period. In other cases, physics-based models for
Annual Failure
Probability
<0.0001 (1/10,000)
0.0001-0.01 (1/10,000
1/100)
>0.01 (1/100)
147
Category
Remote
2
3
4
Low
Moderate
High
Description
Remote likelihood of occurrence,
unreasonable to expect failure to occur
Low likelihood of occurrence
Moderate likelihood of occurrence
High likelihood of occurrence
148
Table 4. OF categories and associated interval estimates of POF.
Level
Qualitative
Rating
Description
Likelihood
Expressed as a
Percentage
Remote
Remote probability of
occurrence, unreasonable to
expect failure to occur
1/10,000
0.01% or less
Low
Medium
High
Moderate likelihood of
occurrence
High likelihood of occurrence
1/10001/10,000
1/1001/1,000
>1/100
0.1% or less
1% or less
> 1%
149
uncertain, and
Identify a bridge with different anticipated deterioration
150
3.4.2CFs
The second factor to be assessed under the RBI process is
the CF, a categorization of the likely outcome presuming a
given damage mode were to result in failure of the element
being considered. The assessment of consequence is geared
151
Category
Consequence
on Safety
Consequence on
Serviceability
Low
None
Minor
Moderate
Minor
Moderate
High
Moderate
Major
Severe
Major
Major
Summary Description
Minor effect on serviceability,
no effect on safety
Moderate effect on serviceability,
minor effect on safety
Major effect on serviceability,
moderate effect on safety
Structural collapse/loss of life
152
153
inspection intervals may be longer based on rational assessments of potential damage, inspection scopes may need to be
appropriately adjusted. As a result, determination of the reliability of the inspection method becomes a factor in the overall approach to the inspection process. Reliability data such as
that provided in the Guideline is expected to be refined and
developed over time, as the reliability-based approach is implemented for existing bridge inventories. The tables provided in
the Guideline provide the framework for including such analysis in the RBI methodology. These tables provide user guidance
for identifying appropriate inspection methods and/or NDE
technologies to address specific anticipated damage modes.
3.4.3.2Element-Level vs. Component-Level
Inspections
There exists under the current implementation of the NBIS
a variety of approaches to collecting, documenting, and storing data on bridge inventories within individual states. While
many states are licensed to use the PONTIS bridge management system, which is an element-level process for storing
inspection information and evaluating future programmatic
needs, the degree to which states fully implement the elementlevel inspection process varies. Other states use the componentbased system that is required under the NBIS; still others use a
span-by-span approach. However, to implement the RBI process, more detailed information than that typically required
for a component-based system is needed. A component-level
approach, which is intended to provide a single average or overall rating for the three major bridge components, does not provide sufficient data for assessing the likelihood of future damage
developing for most cases, and as such will not support an RBI
analysis. Information on the specific damage modes present on
the bridge, their location, and their extent are needed to assess
inspection needs. As a result, inspection needs under an RBI
process are more closely aligned with more detailed, elementlevel systems. The key characteristics that are needed to support
the RBI assessment are as follows:
Report the damage mode or modes affecting key elements
of the bridge,
Report the location and extent of the damage, and
Report on key damage precursors as developed through
the RAP assessment.
Precursors identified through the RAP process may include
evaluating specific elements of the bridge such as the joints
or drainage systems. Specific conditions that are precursors
necessary to assess the likelihood of damage in the future will
also be needed, such as the presence of rust-stained efflorescence or fatigue cracking. Many of these may be found in the
current AASHTO Bridge Element Inspection Manual (26), in
3.4.4RAP
The RAP is an expert panel assembled at the owner level
to conduct analysis to support RBI by assessing the reliability characteristics of bridges within a particular operational
environment and the potential consequences of damage. The
performance characteristics of bridges and bridge elements
vary widely across the bridge inventory due to a number of
factors. Variations in the ambient environmental conditions
obviously have a significant effect, since some states have significant snowfall, and, as a result, apply de-icing chemicals to
bridges frequently, while other states are arid and warm, such
that de-icing chemicals may be infrequently or never applied.
Design and construction specifications vary between states.
Typical details such as drainage features, and use of protective
coating or other deterioration inhibitors, for example, sealers for concrete, vary between bridge owners as do traditional
construction practices, construction details, and materials of
construction. In terms of consequences, redundancy rules and
traditional policies vary somewhat between bridge owners,
with some bridge owners requiring four members to be considered redundant, while others require only three, for example. Owners may also have policies specifying girder spacing
or other configuration requirements. All of these factors
contribute to the operational environment of a bridge that
affects the likelihood and rate of deterioration of bridges and
bridge elements, and, to a lesser extent, the assessment of the
potential consequences of that damage. As a result, knowledge and expertise of the operational environment, historical
performance characteristics, bridge management and maintenance practices, and design requirements for bridges and
bridge elements are essential for conducting reliability-based
assessments.
The role of such expert knowledge of a specific operational environment is a typical component for reliability or
risk-based assessments of inspection needs. It is necessary
that individuals with historical knowledge of the operational
environment and typical deterioration patterns within that
environment participate in the process. This participation
is needed to effectively assess reliability characteristics of
bridge elements and to identify and prioritize key attributes
and factors that support the rational characterization of the
OFs and CFs. To utilize this expert knowledge, which is inherently local to a specific bridge inventory, a RAP is formed at
the owner level to conduct the reliability-based assessment.
TheRAP panel typically will consist of four to six experts
from the bridge-owning agency. This team should include
154
an inspection team leader or program manager that is familiar with the inspection procedures and practices as they are
implemented for the inventory of bridges being analyzed.
The team should include a structural engineer who is familiar with the common load paths and the overall structural
behavior of bridges, and a materials engineer who is familiar
with the behavior of materials in the particular environment
of the state and has past experience with materials quality
issues. Experts from outside the bridge-owning agency, such
as academics or consultants, may be used to fill technical
gaps, provide independent review, or simply supplement the
RAP knowledge base as needed. A facilitator may also be used
to assist in the RAP process.
3.4.4.1 RAP Expert Elicitation
Expert elicitation is a method of gathering insight into the
probability or likelihood of failure of a component, or of evaluating associated consequences when insufficient operational
data exists to make a quantitative, frequency-based estimate.
When failures are rare, or it is necessary to predict future failures, expert elicitation is used to provide quantitative or qualitative estimates (categories) for use in assessing inspection
needs or the likelihood of adverse future events. Processes for
expert elicitations are common in nuclear applications and
other safety-critical industries for performing risk assessments of operating events and assessing in-service inspection
needs (21, 22, 47, 48). Key elements of the elicitation process
include assembling appropriate subject matter experts and
framing the problem to be assessed for the experts in order
to elicit objective judgments. Consensus processes are used to
aggregate expert judgments and ensure contributions from
all of the experts involved (21). For RBI for bridges, expert
elicitation is used to:
Categorize the OF based on expert judgment:
ing the element under consideration and its operational environment. The following question is then posed to the RAP:
The inspection report indicates that the element is in serious
condition. In your expert judgment, what is the most likely
cause (i.e., damage mode) that has produced/resulted in this
condition? This elicits from the panel a listing of damage
modes that are likely to occur for that element.
Each expert is asked to independently list the damage
modes he/she judges are most likely to have resulted in a failure of the element. The expert records each damage mode
and provides an estimate of the relative likelihood that each
damage mode would have resulted in the element being in
serious condition. The expert does this by assigning relative
probabilities to each damage mode, typically with a minimum precision of 10% (the sum of the ratings should be
100%). The expert may note supporting rationale for the estimate. The individual results from each member of the RAP
are then aggregated to evaluate consensus among the panel
on the most likely damage modes for the element. An iterative
process may be necessary to develop consensus on the credible damage modes for a given bridge element and identify
damage modes that are not credible. However, for many elements, the damage modes are well known and consensus may
be reached quickly.
Attributes are then identified through a follow-up process.
In most cases, the key attributes for a given damage mode can
be identified by posing the following question to the RAP:
Consider damage mode X for the subject bridge element. If
155
156
Table 6. Example of expert elicitation worksheet for steel girder
damage modes.
Damage Mode
100%
90%
Likelihood of Occurrence
80%
70%
60%
Participant 1
50%
Participant 2
40%
Participant 3
Participant 4
30%
Participant 5
20%
Participant 6
10%
Participant 7
Participant 8
0%
Corrosion
Fatigue
Overload
Impact/fire
Damage Mode
157
Loading Attributes
Attribute
Deck
Joints/Drainage
Built-Up Members
Rank
Attribute
Rank
Macro Env.
H,S
Micro Env.
Deck Type
M,S
Material Type
L,S
Age
Condition Attributes
Attribute
Existing
Condition
Joint Condition
Maintenance
Cycle
Condition
History
Trend
Rank
Debris Accum.
H,S
H,S
H
M
158
Likelihood (%)
Low
Moderate
High
Severe
159
High
Detail of
Analysis
Qualitative
Analysis
Semi-qualitative analysis
Low
Quantitative
Analysis
160
161
Figure 8. Graph showing Weibull distributions for time-incondition for prestressed bridges in Oregon.
162
which damage will propagate for a specific concrete component. These factors were assumed constant for the purposes
of evaluating how quickly the effects of corrosion might be
realized across different geographic regions.
Ficks second law of diffusion was used as the governing equation to account for differences between geographic
locations, such as temperature levels and ambient chloride
concentrations. Ficks second law of diffusion is generally
stated as:
d 2C
dC
= D 2
dt
dx
Where
C = the chloride content
D = the apparent diffusion coefficient
x = the depth from the exposed surface, and
t = time
The chloride diffusion coefficient, D, is modeled as a function of both time and temperature, which represents the rate
at which chloride ions travel through uncracked concrete.
Higher temperatures allow for an increase in chloride diffusion as the ions have more energy to move, as compared to
those in cooler temperatures.
For the modeling, the benchmark concrete mixture
assumed contained only Portland cement with no special
corrosion protection strategies. The value of 0.05 percent by
weight of concrete was used as the threshold chloride level
for corrosion initiation for the uncoated rebar. This was done
to represent a worst case scenario for corrosion initiation,
given that no corrosion mitigation strategies were employed.
Complete details on the analysis process are available in the
literature.
Six states across the United States that represented different geographical regions and thus different chloride build-up
rates on the surface of the concrete, resulting from chlorides
in the environment and de-icing chemical application, were
modeled. These states included Arizona, Arkansas, Florida,
New York, Washington, and Wisconsin. For each state, chloride diffusion rates were modeled for rural highway bridges,
urban highway bridges, and also for marine zones, where
appropriate. Cover depths of 1 inch and 3 inches were used
to illustrate the effect of concrete cover over the range of typical cover. Representative results of the analysis for an urban
highway bridges are presented here.
Figure 9 visually illustrates the difference in the modeled
time to corrosion initiation for different geographic regions.
As shown in Figure 9, there are vast differences in the model
time to corrosion initiation for different locations across
the country. For aggressive climates, such as New York and
Wisconsin, corrosion initiated in as little as ~7 years, while
in less aggressive environments, such as Arizona, corrosion
163
164
Two case studies were conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of the RBI method. The objectives of the case studies
were as follows:
165
Table 9. Listing of RAP meeting attendees in Oregon and Texas.
Name
Emp.
Current Position
Highest
Degree
P.E.
Oregon
Participant A
Oregon DOT
B.S.M.E.
Participant B
Oregon DOT
B.S.C.E.
Participant C
Oregon DOT
Senior Engineer
Ph.D.
Participant D
Oregon DOT
B.S.C.E.
Participant E
Oregon St U.
Professor
Ph.D. Str.
Eng.
Participant F
Knife River
Corp
Chief Engineer
Ph.D.
Participant G
Oregon DOT
Bridge Maintenance
Participant H
Oregon DOT
M.S. of
Economics
Participant I
Oregon DOT
B.S.C.E., AE
Struct. Eng.
Participant A
TX DOT
B.S.C.E.
Participant B
TX DOT
B.S.C.E.
Participant C
TX DOT
M.E.C.E.
Participant D
TX DOT
B.S.C.E.
Participant E
TX DOT
B.S.C.E.
Texas
166
167
Figure 11. Example screen from software application showing pull-down menus for scoring attributes.
168
data model to be used to determine the appropriate maximum inspection interval for a specific bridge or family of
bridges. To verify if the use of these models provided a suitable inspection interval that did not compromise the safety
and serviceability of bridges, a back-casting procedure was
used. In the back-casting procedure, the data models developed by the RAP were applied to individual bridges based
on historical inspection records. For example, the data model
may be applied to a bridge based on the year 2000 inspection
records for the bridge, resulting in an RBI interval that would
have been determined in the year 2000, were RBI practices
applied at that time. These results were then compared with
the actual performance of the bridge, based on the inspection
records for the years 2002, 2004, 2006, etc. to determine if the
RBI inspection interval would have adequately addressed the
inspection needs for the bridge. The criteria for determining
the effectiveness of the data model included:
1. Did the condition rating for any component change significantly during the RBI interval in a manner that was not
captured or anticipated effectively, but would have been
captured (or detected sooner) by a standard, 24-month
interval?
2. Were there any significant maintenance or repair actions
completed that would have been delayed as a result of implementing an RBI interval (relative to a standard, 24-month
interval)?
3. Were there any significant factors or criteria not identified through the RAP analysis that were needed in the data
models to provide suitable results?
169
number of samples required to represent the overall population, considering the parameter to be measured. It was
anticipated that the RBI criteria developed by the RAPs would
include the current condition rating for a bridge as one of the
criteria (attributes). Therefore, it was desired to select a sampling of bridges that has the same variation as the population
overall, namely, that the natural variation of the inspection
results of the overall population is represented in the sampling selected, based on the condition ratings provided in the
inspection files. Experimental data from the FHWA visual
inspection study (58) was used as a basis for the estimate,
assuming that the variance of condition rating for all components in the FHWA study. Based on population sampling
statistics, assuming that the desired accuracy was 0.5 condition ratings with 95.5% confidence resulted in a desired
sample size of 17 bridges. For a confidence interval of 95%,
the sample size for back-casting would be 10 bridges. Based
on these results, the sampling of bridges included a minimum
of at least 10 bridges; in the study, 17 bridges were selected
from Texas and 22 bridges were selected in Oregon.
170
Table 10. Bridge population statistics for Texas and Oregon.
Description
Concrete
Steel
1,089
109,160
15
30
48.5
Prestressed concrete
3,612
154,877
49
43
28.9
Other
602
12,408
49.3
Total
7,353
363,444
100
100
40.8
Concrete
29,098
704,514
56
23.40
48.0
Steel
7,423
776,717
14
25.90
38.1
Prestressed concrete
13,781
1,392,706
27
46.30
23.6
Other
1,576
131,465
4.40
33.0
Total
51,878
3,005,403
100
100
39.6
171
172
maximum inspection interval recommended using the proposed methodologies). For example, if one used the surrogate
data of condition rating of 7 for superstructure, substructure,
and deck to identify bridges with an appropriate inspection
interval of 72 months, these data provide quantitative evidence
to support that rationale, as discussed in Section 3.5. These
data were used in the case studies to support surrogate data
analysis based on the data models developed by each RAP.
In this analysis, the condition rating of 7 was used as surrogate data for the condition attributes to assume the OF
would be low for condition-related damage modes. For these
cases, the inspection interval of 72 months may be applied,
based on these data.
3.6.7.1 Inspection Intervals
Inspection intervals were determined based on the reliability matrix introduced in the Guideline. Figure 17 shows
the proposed reliability matrix that is used for typical
highway bridges. This matrix illustrates the appropriate
173
174
sometimes with poor quality concrete, that results in punchthrough as a result of repetitive loading and age. Because much
of the state is relatively arid, and use of de-icing chemicals is
minimal, decks may have longer lives than they might in an
area where corrosion is a significant issue. If the deck is thin
and concrete quality is poor, punch-through can occur. Like
rutting, this damage mode is due to local (state) policies and
construction practices, namely that very thin decks were used
during certain historical time intervals, and concrete quality
was not well controlled at the time. In a state where corrosion
damage was more prevalent, such a deck would deteriorate
severally due to corrosion before such punch-through could
occur. Like rutting, this damage mode is not likely common
in other states. These relatively unique damage modes illustrate the utility of the RAP approach.
A summary of identified damage modes is shown in Table11
for Oregon and Texas. It can be seen that damage modes of
concrete deck and substructure are similar for Oregon and
Texas. For superstructures, only the impact damage mode was
common between prestressed and steel bridges analyzed in the
two states, as would be expected, since the superstructures are
of different material types.
During the Oregon RAP, the panel expanded its assessment from open prestressed shapes, such as typical
AASHTO shapes and Bulb-Tees, to include adjacent box
girders bridges and prestressed slabs. The consensus of
the panel was that the damage modes and attributes were
Spalling
Rutting
Cracking (Non-corrosion
Induced)
Cracking (Shear)
Strand Corrosion
Fire Damage
Impact
Rebar Corrosion within the Span
Bearing Seat Problems
Superstructure
Substructure
Settlement
Corrosion Damages
Fire
Overload Damages
ASR
Texas (Steel)
Spalling
Punch-Through
Cracking
Delamination
Fatigue Cracking
Section Loss
Fire Damage
Impact
Deflection Overload
Bearing Failure
Settlement
Corrosion Damage
Overload Damage
ASR
175
3.6.9CFs
Designed expert elicitations were also used to develop
CFs for each of the damage modes during the RAP meetings.
For most damage modes, singular failure scenarios were
assessed for each bridge component. The failure scenarios
considered consisted of the component condition rating
being serious (CR = 3), not necessarily structural failure.
For decks, for example, the scenario considered in that the
deck deterioration would typically be considered serious
(CR = 3) during a normal inspection. For superstructure
components (i.e., prestressed girders or steel girders), loss of
load-carrying capacity for one member was considered. For
Oregon, the CF for deck damage and substructure damage
was considered to be generally Moderate. For superstructure components, the initial CF developed in the RAP was
High for most damage modes (except bearing area damage);
this factor was subsequently discretized during the analysis
process.
For Texas, issues were identified during the RAP meeting with the CF descriptions, as previously described, and
these CF descriptions were subsequently adjusted during
the back-casting to address these issues. These revisions
adjusted the descriptions of different CF levels, but not the
levels themselves.
The CFs were subsequently assessed during the backcasting according to a series of scenarios to test and evaluate
the influence of different parameters on the analysis. These
focused largely on the CF assigned to the bridge superstructure. The scenarios included considering the CF as uniformly
Table 12. Example attributes rankings for deck spalling from the
Oregon RAP.
Attributes
Cracking
Delamination
ADTT
Location /
Environment
Age
Dynamic Loading
Rebar Corrosion
De-icing
Rank
H M L
8
8
>25%
>5000
8
8
>50
8
Rust/Black/Low
Cover
8
8
High
Limits
M
Existing model
11%-24%
501-4999
Valley (general
environment)
10-49
Existing Model
L
<10%
<500
Desert
<10
No stains,
Epoxy/high
cover
Low
176
High and considering the CF as uniformly Moderate, or determining the CF based on structural redundancy and feature
under the bridge. For the latter, the CF was based on the following criteria:
The CF was Moderate for the superstructure if:
Superstructure consisted of more than four members AND
Beam spacing of 10 ft or less AND
Bridge not over a roadway.
3.7.1Environments
The environmental conditions considered in the analysis of bridges in Oregon differed according to the damage
mode being considered. For example, for corrosion of super
structure metals (rebar or strands), the RAP identified three
separate areas with coastal and mountainous regions being
the most aggressive environment, while desert portions of the
state represented the least aggressive environment, obviously.
However, for spalling of bridge decks, the panel identified
areas of the state where de-icing chemical use was highest
because these areas are urban areas with high traffic volumes.
For the damage mode of rutting, travel corridors that experience high traffic volumes likely to be using studded tires were
identified. Generally, these corridors were identified because
they connected major urban areas and resort locations. The
environments identified by the Oregon RAP are summarized
in Table 13.
3.7.2CFs
There were six different CF cases considered in analyzing
results in Oregon, as shown in Table 14. These different cases
were selected to illustrate how different criteria established
by an RAP might affect the outcome of the analysis. These
included considering all superstructure damage modes as
Spalling
Rutting
Environment
Coastal and Mountainous
Valley or General
Environment
Desert
Portland
Salem
Bend
La Grande
I-5
I-84
Reason
Aggressive environment, high humidity and/or use of deicing chemicals
177
Table 14. CF cases used for back-casting
in Oregon.
Case No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
Description
High consequence for superstructure damage modes
Moderate consequence for superstructure damage
modes
Superstructure damage mode CF is determined by
redundancy and facility under bridge (screening not
used)
Superstructure damage mode CF is determined by
redundancy and facility under bridge screening
for CS 4 or 5 is used
All criteria in scenario 3 plus deck damage has high
consequence if ADT > 10000, screening not used
All criteria in scenario 5 plus considering screening
factors for CS 4 or 5
High consequence, considering all superstructure damage modes as Moderate consequence, and determining the
CF based on the redundancy of the bridge, as described in
Section 3.6.9. Additional analysis was done to test the effect
of including, or not including, the screening criteria of elements with a condition state identified as CS 4 or 5. It should
Figure 19. Example of the back-casting process showing NBI condition ratings
over time and the inspection interval determined through RBI analysis.
178
determined through the RBI analysis for each year there was
an available element-level inspection report is shown enclosed
in a box near the bottom of the figure. In a few isolated cases,
there were not element-level reports available for every year,
though NBI data was available. This example was selected as
an illustration of applying the RBI analysis for each historical
inspection result, and how that outcome may vary over the
course of the life of a bridge. In this case, the inspection interval was reduced and then later increases following a repair,
based on the condition of the bridge. This was not common
occurrence, but it is useful as an illustration of how the results
of the back-casting are summarized in the figure, and how the
RBI inspection interval could vary over the life of the bridge
based on the RBI analysis. Also shown on the graph are any
repairs that had been completed on the bridge, and the year
that these repairs were completed.
It is very important to recognize that the RBI process is
not intended to predict or track the NBI ratings. In some cases,
changes in the inspection interval determined from the RBI
analysis may coincide with changes in the NBI condition rating,
because either these ratings are included in the analysis or the
rating changes coincide with changes in the element condition states that are included in the analysis. In other cases,
these may not coincide, because the RBI analysis depends not
only on the current condition, but also the potential for serious damage to occur looking forward based on the bridge
attributes (as expressed through the OFs) and the consequence of that damage. For example, a bridge rated in good
condition according to the NBI condition rating may have a
relatively short inspection interval, either because the potential for damage is high based on the attributes of the bridge,
or the consequences are high based on the redundancy or other
circumstances influencing the CF. The research team believes
this feature, i.e., the ability to look forward with an RBI analysis, is a significant advantage over the present calendar-based
system. At present, in the current calendar-based approach
there is no rational way to attempt to address the negative (or
positive) attributes associated with future condition of a given
specific bridge or family of bridges.
Overall, the results of back-casting verified that the methodology was capable of determining an effective and safe
inspection interval. There were no instances of bridge deteriorating to a serious condition during the RBI inspection
intervals recommended using the proposed methodology.
The process was effective in differentiating inspection intervals based on the risk profiles developed through the RAP
process, i.e., the OFs stemming from attribute scoring and
the CFs. In some cases, bridges that were in generally good
condition according to the NBI ratings resulted in short
inspection intervals, indicating that the process was sensitive
to risk factors that are not necessarily revealed through condition ratings. In other words, even though the condition of
the bridge at the present time was generally good, there was
a high likelihood of deterioration based on the design, environment, or loading of the bridge. In other cases, bridges that
included components rated in fair condition were assigned
longer intervals.
Table 15 shows the overall results for each of the CF cases
for the last inspection record analyzed for the 22 bridges, typically from an inspection conducted sometime between 2011
and 2013. The CF Case 4 is highlighted in the table because
this case, which includes consideration of the redundancy of
the bridge, traffic under the bridge, and screening any bridges
with elements with CS 4 or 5 reported, is a durable and widely
applicable category. These data are based on the consequence
cases described above and the data models developed through
the RAP. The year of construction, superstructure type (simple span or continuous), the facility under the bridge, and
the scour rating are also shown in the table. These data were
obtained from the NBI data for these bridges. This table also
presents results for Cases 1 and 2, with CF for the superstructure always high or always moderate, respectively. These data
represent the simplest analysis of the CF for a superstructure.
Cases 5 and 6, which included an ADT criteria for deck CF are
also shown, to illustrate how a more restrictive criteria for the
deck would affect the analysis.
Scour ratings were not a part of the RBI analysis, as scour
generally has its own evaluation procedures. Additionally, the
scour rating was not considered in the overall analysis because
this is a unique characteristic of the specific bridge, and therefore may skew the results for a population of bridges selected
at random. A bridge owner may choose to screen bridges with
poor scour ratings as a policy; however, screening bridges in
this manner in the current analysis would not be beneficial
in measuring the overall effectiveness of the RBI procedures.
Table 16 shows the summary of the RBI results for the
Oregon bridges in terms of percentage of the sample population. Based on these analyses, again focusing on CF Case 4,
approximately 41% of bridges would remain on a biennial
inspection schedule, while just over 59% of bridges would
have a larger interval of 48 or 72 months. These data illustrate
the effect of using different criteria to identify the CF for the
population of bridges, and results were as expected: relatively
simple but conservative use of CF of high for the superstructure results in fewer bridges identified with extended
intervals, using a less conservative moderate factor results
in more bridges on extended intervals, etc.
The overall results of the back-casting, considering each
of the analyses conducted at each existing inspection record,
are shown in Table 17. These results include 157 separate
analyses done based on the inspection records, and for each
of the six cases for determining the CF and OF described in
Table 14 above. CF Cases 5 and 6, which include consideration
of the ADT on the bridge deck, show only a modest differ-
179
Table 15. Overall results for each of the CF cases in Oregon.
1973
1973
1996
1987
1987
9546
1967
00988A
01056A
9358
16873
18175
1967
1970
1965
1991
1999
01895A
1995
9915
8994
8896
20666
1970
1962
1963
2009
19739
2007
19738
2006
19284
2005
Case 6
1962
Case 5
01741B
07935A
07935B
17451
16454
16453
Water
Highway
Relief for
waterway
Water
Water
Water
Highway
Highway
Highway/
waterway
Water
Water
Highway
Water
Water
Railroad
waterway
Highway
Water
Water
Water
Railroad
waterway
Railroad
waterway
Other
Scour
Rating
Case 4
1975
1973
Simple
span
(SS) or
Cont.
(C)
SS
C
Case 3
02376B
07801A
Facility
Under
Case 2
Year
Built
Case 1
Bridge
ID
3
N
48
24
48
24
48
24
48
24
24
24
24
24
SS
24
24
24
24
24
24
SS
SS
C
SS
SS
3
3
8
N
N
24
24
48
24
48
48
48
48
48
48
48
48
48
24
48
48
48
24
24
48
48
48
48
24
48
48
48
24
24
48
24
48
24
24
24
24
C
C
SS
SS
C
5
5
N
8
8
24
24
24
48
48
48
48
48
72
48
48
48
24
72
48
48
24
24
72
48
48
24
24
48
48
48
24
24
48
48
24
48
48
48
48
48
C
SS
SS
SS
N
U
3
8
24
24
48
48
48
48
48
72
24
24
48
72
24
24
48
72
24
24
48
48
24
24
48
48
24
48
48
48
24
24
24
48
48
48
24
24
48
48
48
48
48
48
24 month
64%
9%
32%
41%
45%
55%
Inspection Interval
48 month
72 month
36%
0%
82%
9%
59%
9%
50%
9%
55%
0%
45%
0%
Inspection Interval
24 month
48 month
72 month
62%
38%
0%
8%
82%
10%
28%
62%
10%
34%
57%
9%
39%
58%
3%
44%
53%
3%
180
181
Figure 21. NBI condition rating history and RBI inspection intervals
for Bridge 07935A.
Superstructure
Cracking (S1)
Strand Corrosion (S2)
Impact (S3)
Rebar Corrosion Within the
Span (S4)
Bearing Seat Problems (S5)
Substructure
Settlement (F1)
Corrosion (F2)
182
identifier (D1, D2, etc.). Figure 22 includes the risk matrix for
Bridge 16454 with the damage modes located on the matrix
according to the results of the RBI analysis (OF and CF). As
shown in this figure, the results of the RBI analysis are plotted in appropriate locations on the diagram. The locations on
these plots describe the inspection interval identified, and can
also be used to calculate the IPN to identify the most important damage modes as identified through the RBI process. For
example, in the plot shown, the IPN for S1, S2, and S4 = 9,
indicating that these damage modes (cracking, strand corrosion, and rebar corrosion) have high importance related to
the risk profile for the bridge. These data are useful for identifying emphasis areas for the inspection of the bridge, and
could be included in inspection procedures or guidance as
a normal outcome of the RBI assessment. Such risk-based
inspection procedures may improve the reliability of inspection and communicate the engineering-based RBI assessment
of the key damage modes for a bridge to inspectors in the field.
Appendix C includes the controlling damage modes for the
RBI analysis of bridges in Oregon. Frequently, several of the
damage modes had similar risk profile, such that there is not a
controlling damage mode. This is typical for bridges in good
condition, such that inspection intervals are typically longer.
These controlling damage modes evolve during the service life
of the bridge, as damage develops and affects the OF.
3.7.3.2 Surrogate Data for a Family of Bridges
An analysis was conducted of the overall inventory in
Oregon based on the results of the RAP analysis. The objec-
183
Table 19. List of criteria for data-driven screening process based on RBI.
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
#326
CS 1 only
Rutting
Notes
Deck Condition
Deck Condition
Dynamic Loading
Fire or Incident
Deck Wearing
Surface Condition
Superstructure
Superstructure
Impact
Cracking
Impact
No Overtopping
NBI Item 54
17 ft. or greater
10
NBI Item 70
11
NBI Item 71
Coded 5
Coded 4 or
greater
12
NBI Item 41
Coded A
Cracking
13
#362 Impact(SF)
None
Rebar Corrosion
14
Superstructure Elements
#104, 109, 115
CS 2 or less
15
NBI Item 59
7 or greater
16
CS 2 or less
17
CS 2 or less
18
NBI Item 34
19
#360 Settlement SF
20
NBI Item 60
7 or greater
21
Not U, 6 or 0-4
Settlement
22
Substructure Elements
CS 2 or less
Corrosion Damage
30 degrees or
less
Substructure
CS 1 or
uncoded
Bridge Height
Open, No
Restrictions
Traffic Impact
Smart Flag
Settlement
Settlement
Corrosion Damage
Superstructure
Condition Rating
Bearing Issues
Bridge Skew
Substructure
Condition
Scour
Sub. Element
Conditions
3.8.1Environments
The environmental conditions considered in the analysis of
bridges in Texas also differed depending on the damage mode
being considered for the RAP. Generally, the RAP identified
an east-west interstate highway, I-20, as dividing the state into
areas where de-icing chemical were likely to be used (north)
and areas where they are very unlikely to be used (south).
These environments were applied for most damage modes,
such as spalling of bridge decks. For the damage mode of section loss in steel members, the RAP identified that the coastal
areas were the most aggressive environment, followed by areas
north of I-20 and a moderately aggressive environment, and
all other areas being the least aggressive environment.
3.8.2CFs
There were four different CF cases considered in analyzing
results in Texas, as shown in Table 20. These different cases
were selected to illustrate how different criteria established by a
RAP might affect the outcome of the analysis. These included
considering all superstructure damage modes as high
Table 20. CF cases used for back-casting in Oregon.
Case No.
1
2
3
4
Description
High CF for superstructure
Superstructure CF is determined by redundancy and
facility under bridge (screening not used)
Superstructure damage mode CF is determined by
redundancy and facility under bridgescreening
for pin and hanger used
All criteria in scenario 3 plus deck damage has high
consequence if ADT > 10000
184
Case 1
Case 2
Case 3
Case 4
Year Built
01-139-0-0769-01-007
02-127-0-0014-03-194
02-127-0-0094-04-057
02-220-0-1068-02-058
05-152-0-0067-11-188
08-030-0-AA01-31-001
12-085-0-1911-01-003
12-102-0-0027-13-195
1956
Waterway
1963
Highway
1939
Waterway
1957
Highway
1990 Highway, Railroad
1985
Waterway
1943
Waterway
1979
Highway
C
C
SS
C
C
SS
SS
SS
5
N
8
N
N
5
8
N
24
24
48
24
48
48
24
48
24
24
72
24
48
48
48
48
24
24
72
24
48
48
48
48
24
24
48
24
48
48
48
48
12-102-0-0500-03-320
15-015-0-0025-02-162
15-015-0-B064-55-001
18-057-0-0092-14-210
18-061-0-0196-01-133
19-019-0-0610-06-162
23-141-0-0251-05-020
23-215-0-0011-07-056
24-072-0-0167-01-059
1990
1967
1964
1973
1960
1971
1934
1948
1970
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
N
N
5
N
N
N
8
8
N
48
48
48
48
24
24
48
48
48
48
48
72
48
24
24
48
48
48
48
48
72
24
24
24
48
24
48
24
48
72
24
24
24
48
24
48
Bridge ID
Facility Under
Highway
Highway
Waterway
No Feature Under
Highway
Highway
Waterway
Waterway
Highway
Structure
Type
Scour
Condition
consequence, and determining the CF based on the redundancy of the bridge, as described in Section 3.6.9. Additional
analysis was done to test the effect of including, or not including, the screening criteria for a bridge with a pin and hanger
connection. This screening criteria were not identified during
the RAP process, although it would likely have been identified
during the course of a full-scale implementation of RBI. Again,
this screening factor affects the OF, making the likelihood high
for any component containing a problematic detail such as a
pin and hanger. Using these screening criteria does not change
the CF, but may change the inspection interval. Finally, the CF
was adjusted to consider the consequences for deck damage
modes as high for bridges with high ADT, again determined by
bridges with ADT of 10,000 or greater (according to NBI data).
The CF Case 3 is considered the most appropriate case for the
analysis, and is highlighted in the following tables.
3.8.3.1Examples
Inspection Interval
24 month
48 month
72 month
35%
65%
0%
29%
59%
12%
35%
53%
12%
47%
47%
6%
185
Table 23. Results of back-casting including
all analysis.
CF Case No.
1
2
3
4
Inspection Interval
24 month
48 month
72 month
29%
71%
0%
27%
58%
15%
32%
53%
15%
44%
50%
6%
Figure 23. Historical NBI data and RBI inspection intervals for a
steel bridge in Texas with a pin and hanger connection.
186
Superstructure
Section Loss (S1)
Impact (S2)
Fatigue Cracking (S3)
Overload Damages (S4)
Substructure
Settlement (F1)
Corrosion (F2)
187
Table 25. List of criteria for data-driven screening process based on RBI
for Texas.
No.
Item
Notes
Age
NBI Item 58
10
NBI Item 70
Coded 5
Cracking
11
NBI Item 71
Coded 4 or
greater
Legal Load
Capacity
Impact
No Overtopping
12
NBI Item 41
Coded A
Cracking
Open, No
Restrictions
NBI item 54
17 ft or greater
15
NBI Item 59
7 or greater
30 degrees or
less
Substructure
Superstructure
Impact
Superstructure
Condition
Bearing Area
Damage
18
NBI Item 34
20
NBI Item 60
7 or greater
Corrosion Damage
21
Not U, 6 or 0-4
Settlement
Deck condition
Deck Condition
Bridge Height
Superstructure
Condition Rating
Bridge Skew
Substructure
Condition
Scour
188
for the extended inspection interval. These data were also analyzed without regard to the age criteria identified in Table25.
This resulted in a slight increase: 1068/7423 = 14.38%.
189
CHAPTER 4
Conclusions, Recommendations,
and Suggested Research
This research developed inspection practices to meet the
goals of (1) improving the safety and reliability of bridges and
(2) optimizing resources for bridge inspection. The goals of
the research have been achieved through the development
of a new guideline document entitled Proposed Guideline
for Realibility-Based Bridge Inspection Practices, which has
been developed based on the application of reliability theories. This document meets the project objective of developing a recommended practice for consideration for adoption
by AASHTO, which is based on rational methods to ensure
bridge safety, serviceability, and effective use of resources.
A reliability-based approach was fully developed and documented through the Guideline. Background information and
foundation for key elements of the process have been further
expanded in the present report, to provide additional details
and perspectives on the research conducted as part of the project. However, the primary outcome of the study is the comprehensive Guideline developed, which provides a new paradigm
for bridge inspection. This new paradigm could transform
the calendar-based, uniform inspection strategies currently
implemented for bridge inspection to a new, reliability-based
approach that will better allocate inspection resources and
improve the safety and reliability of bridges.
The implementation of the Guideline developed through the
research was tested by conducting case studies in two states.
The objectives of the case studies were to demonstrate the
implementation of the methodologies with state DOT personnel, and verify the effectiveness of RBI analysis in determining
suitable inspection intervals for typical highway bridges. The
verification of the methodology was analyzed using a backcasting procedure that compared historical inspection records
and the results of RBI analysis. These studies demonstrated
and verified the effectiveness of the procedures developed in
the research for identifying appropriate inspection intervals for
typical highway bridges. It was shown through these studies
that the RBI practices identified appropriate inspection intervals of up to 72 months. It was concluded from these studies
4.1Recommendations
The research reported herein has demonstrated the effectiveness of the RBI procedures for determining suitable
inspection intervals for typical highway bridges, and as such,
implementation of the RBI technology is recommended. The
research also demonstrated that inspection intervals of up to
72 months were suitable for certain bridges and did not affect
the safety and serviceability of bridges analyzed in the study.
Such extended inspection intervals would allow the reallocation of inspection resources toward bridges requiring more
frequent and/or in-depth inspections, resulting in improved
safety and reliability of bridges. Based on these results, implementation of RBI technology and inspection intervals of up
to 72 months for certain bridges should be pursued.
The procedure, methods, and approach described herein
can be applied for atypical bridges as well. For example,
190
allow for the new methodology to be implemented. Therefore, a strategy for converting the established bridge inspection programs from a uniform, calendar-based system to a
reliability-based system is required. This section of the report
describes implementation strategies and tasks to establish a
new paradigm for bridge inspection based on the RBI processes described in the Guideline.
A number of implementation challenges exist looking forward toward the adoption of the RBI methodology. Inspection
program organizational structures and personnel may need
to be modified to accommodate the larger role of engineering and inspection planning required for RBI compared to
a uniform, calendar-based approach. Personnel with suitable
experience and knowledge to effectively conduct the necessary
assessment will be required. In an era where government agencies are suffering significant fiscal challenges, often resulting
in staff reductions, developing and retaining the necessary
resources may be a challenge. A strong technical foundation
for RBI will need to be developed to justify maintenance of
the resources needed.
Training and knowledge development to support RBI will
also be needed to implement the technology on a widespread
basis. Developing the necessary tools to train individuals in
the various aspects of the technology and processes will be an
important part of technology transfer and implementation.
There will also be a significant political challenge to modifying an existing inspection system, which has been in effect for
many years, with a process that may result in fewer inspections
for certain bridges, even if the process results in an improvement in the safety of bridges overall. Engineers, inspectors.
and maintenance personnel are likely to perceive the benefits of a more rational system, but the non-technical audience may be more difficult to convince. Data from additional
case studies or pilot implementation, economic impacts, and
safety analysis will be required to provide evidence to support
the new approach for inspection planning. However, because
deterioration patterns for bridges typically require a long time
period to manifest, and failures are rare, generating empirical
data to measure improvements in safety will be a significant
challenge. The implementation strategy described in this section is designed to address these issues, and will require some
investment of resources to execute and complete effectively.
Given these challenges, the implementation strategy has
been developed to meet the following goals:
Provide a technical foundation for widespread implemen-
approach.
Activities in the implementation strategy to provide a
technical foundation for widespread implementation of the
191
technology include conducting additional case studies in certain states to test and develop the technology further, developing training modules and software to support the technologies,
and conducting a study focused on the economic and safety
impacts of transitioning to the new inspection approach.
To develop community support, the implementation plan
proposes developing an oversight committee to monitor and
develop the Guideline and address bridge-owner needs, and
developing an effective communication strategy. Throughout
the implementation activities described herein, the FHWA
can play an important role in assisting with moving the technology toward eventual acceptance.
4.2.1.1 Implementation Tasks
The strategy developed for implementing RBI for bridges
in the United States will require a number of steps be completed to test and refine the technology, develop support for
transition to a new approach to inspection planning, and
eventually gain widespread acceptance of the new technology.
The implementation plan developed for the project consists
of a number of individual tasks to be completed to achieve
the desired goals.
Task 1. Establishment of an oversight committee.
Task 2. Additional case studies.
Task 3. Development of training modules.
Task 4. Develop a communications strategy.
Task 5. Economic and safety impact study.
Task 6. Software development and integration
The sections that follow address each of the implementation tasks to be completed toward widespread adoption
of the RBI technology.
4.2.1.2Task 1. Establishment of
an Oversight Committee
An important element of the longer-term implementation of
RBI practices will be the establishment of a committee structure
to oversee the development and maintenance of the technology.
Implementation of the proposed methodology will require a
significant shift in paradigm for inspection planning for highway bridges. Consequently, there will need to be a long-term
commitment with respect to maintaining and implementing
the new methodologies contained in the RBI Guideline. As is
common with many design codes and standards, a committee
is needed to oversee, maintain, and further develop the Guideline. This committee may be a subcommittee of the AASHTOs
Standing Committee on Bridges, or a subcommittee of the
existing T-18 committee on Bridge Management, Evaluation
and Rehabilitation, or even the committee itself.
The committee should have the goal of providing objective oversight and management of the Guideline and requirements for RBI. Committee membership should be diversified,
and include representatives from states in different geographic
regions and with different types of bridge inventories. Participation of the FHWA in this committee would be desirable.
During the transitional stages, which should be anticipated,
the committee should include both states implementing or
developing RBI processes, and states that are not yet utilizing RBI. Care should be taken to ensure the participation of
the community as a whole in the committee, including both
bridge owners adopting the RBI Guidelines and those who
have not yet made the transition. An important aspect of the
proposed methodology is transparency, and any committee
overseeing progress will require critical voices to be effective.
The role of the committee should be as follows:
1. Oversee implementation of the technology across different
states and act as a focal point for information interchange
regarding states experience, research, and developments.
2. Identify and recommend research and development needs
to support the technology.
3. Recommend and approve changes to the RBI Guideline
document.
It is envisioned that the oversight committee or sub
committee will be a long-term or even permanent organization that will serve the larger bridge community.
4.2.1.3 Task 2. Additional Case Studies
Additional case studies may be needed to test the application of the Guideline, identify implementation challenges, and
provide additional data on the impact of transitioning to an
RBI approach. The objectives of the case study should include:
Assess the effect of RBI outcomes on the inspection prac
192
193
Table 26. Outline of training for inspectors.
Module I Background
Topics
Deterioration mechanism for
bridges
Fundamentals of reliability
theory and application to
inspection
Reliability assessments for
RBI
Notes
Overview of typical deterioration patterns
Background overview of the underlying theories for RBI,
reliability matrices, and likelihood
RAP process and basis for inspection procedures
Module II Practices
194
195
References
196
33. Straub, D. and M.H. Faber, Computational Aspects of Risk-Based
Inspection Planning. Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure
Engineering, 2006, Wiley: p. 179192.
34. Moore, M., et al., Reliability of Visual Inspection for Highway Bridges.
2001, Federal Highway Administration: McLean, VA.
35. Agrawal, A., A. Kawaguchi, and C. Zheng, Bridge Element Deterioration
Rates, TIRC/NYSDOT, Editor. 2009, The City College of New York,
Department of Civil Engineering: Albany, New York. p. 105.
36. Ehlen, M.A., M.D.A. Thomas, and E.C. Bentz, Life-365 Service
Life Prediction Model Version 2.0.1 Users Manual. 2009, Life-365
Consortium II.
37. Steel Bridge Design Handbook, Chapter 23, Corrosion Protection of
Steel Bridges. 2010, National Steel Bridge Alliance.
38. Albrecht, P. and J.T.T. Hall, Atmospheric Corrosion Resistance of
Structural Steels. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, 2003.
15(1), ASCE: p. 224.
39. Vu, K.A.T. and M.G. Stewart, Structural reliability of concrete
bridges including improved chloride-induced corrosion models.
Structural Safety, 2000. 22(4), Elsevier: p. 313333.
40. Sun, X., et al., Analysis of Past National Bridge Inventory Ratings
for Predicting Bridge System Preservation Needs. In Transportation
Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No.
1866, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies.
2004. p. 3643.
41. Russell, H.G., NCHRP Synthesis 333: Concrete Bridge Deck Performance. 2004, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C. p. 188.
42. Ramey, G.E. and R.L. Wright, Bridge Deterioration Rates and
Durability/Longevity Performance. Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction, 1997. 2(3): p. 98104.
43. A. Sohanghpurwala, NCHRP Report 558: Manual on Service Life of
Corrosion-Damaged Reinforced Concrete Bridge Superstructure Elements. 2006, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C.
44. Albrecht, P. and J. Terry T. Hall, Atmospheric Corrosion Resistance
of Structural Steels. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, 2003.
15(1), ASCE: p. 224.
45. Klinesmith, D.E., R.H. McCuen, and P. Albrecht, Effect of Environmental Conditions on Corrosion Rates. Journal of Materials in
Civil Engineering, 2007. 19(2), ASCE: p. 121129.
46. Administration, NASA, Nondestructive Evaluation Requirements for Fracture-critical Metallic Components. 2008, NASA:
Washington, D.C.
47. Boring, R.L. A Review of Expertise and Judgement Processes for Risk
Estimation, in European Safety and Reliability Conference. 2007.
Stavanger, Norway.
48. Boring, R., Gertman, D, Joe, J., Marble, J., Galyean, W., Blackwood, L.,
Blackman, H., Simplified Expert Elicitation Guideline for Risk Assessment of Operating Events. 2005, Nuclear Regulatory Commission:
Washington, D.C. p. 16.
49. API, Risk-Based Inspection, API Recommended Practice 580. 2002:
p. 45.
50. Andersen, G.R., et al., Risk Indexing Tool to Assist in Prioritizing
Improvements to Embankment Dam Inventories. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 2001. 127(4), ASCE:
p. 325334.
51. Ayyub, B.M. Uncertainties in Expert-Opinion Elicitation for Risk
Studies. 2000. Santa Barbara, California, USA: ASCE.
52. Hetes, B., et al., Expert Elicitation Task Force White Paper. 2009, EPA
Science Policy Council: Washington, D.C.
53. Bulusu, S. and K. Sinha, Comparison of Methodologies to Predict
Bridge Deterioration. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the
Transportation Research Board, No. 1597, 1997, p. 3442.
54. Hong, T.-H., et al., Service life estimation of concrete bridge
decks. KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering, 2006. 10(4), Springer:
p. 233241.
55. ASTM, Corrosiveness of Various Atmospheric Test Sites As Measured
by Specimens of Steel and Zinc, in Metal Corrosion in the Atmosphere, W.H.A.S.K. Coburn, Editor. 1968. p. 397.
56. FHWA, Characterization of the Environment. 2000, Washington, D.C.
57. FHWA, Characterization of the EnvironmentRevisit of Exposure
Sites in the Continental US. 2003. Washington, D.C.
58. Moore, M.E., Phares, B.M., Graybeal, B.A., Rolander, D.D., and
Washer, G.A., Reliability of Visual Inspection of Highway Bridges,
FHWA, Editor. 2001, U.S.DOT: Washington, D.C.
59. Ghosn, M.M., Redundancy in highway bridge superstructures. 1998,
Washington, D.C.
60. Connor, R.J. and M.J. Parr, A Method for Determining the Interval for
Hands-On Inspection of Steel Bridges with Fracture Critical Members.
2008, Purdue University. p. 32.
197
Abbreviations
ADT
Average Daily Traffic
ADTT
Average Daily Truck Traffic
BME
Bridge Management Element
BMS
Bridge Management Software
CF
Consequence Factor
CFR
Code of Federal Regulation
CIF
Constraint-Induced Fracture
CS
Condition State
CVN
Charpy V-Notch
DOT
Department of Transportation
EMAT
Electromagnetic-Acoustic Transducer
GPR
Ground Penetrating Radar
HPC
High Performance Concrete
HPS
High Performance Steel
HS
High Strength
IE
Impact Echo
IPN
Inspection Priority Number
IR
Infrared Thermography
LFD
Load Factor Design
LIBS
Laser-Induced Breakdown Spectroscopy
MT
Magnetic Particle Testing
NBE
National Bridge Elements
NBI
National Bridge Inventory
NBIS
National Bridge Inspection Standards
NDE
Nondestructive Evaluation
NHI
National Highway Institute
OF
Occurrence Factor
PCI
Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute
PDF
Probability Density Function
POD
Probability of Detection
POF
Probability of Failure
PT
Dye Penetrant Testing
QA
Quality Assurance
QC
Quality Control
RAP
Reliability Assessment Panel
RBI
Risk-Based Inspection
SIP Stay-in-Place
SI&A
Structural Inventory and Appraisal
TRL
Technical Readiness Level
UPV
Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity
UT-T
Ultrasonic Thickness Gauge
198
APPENDIX A
200
Bridge/Superstructure/Cracking (Shear)
201
Bridge/Superstructure/Strand Corrosion
201
Bridge/Superstructure/Fire Damage
202 Bridge/Superstructure/Impact
202
202
203 Bridge/Substructure/Settlement
203
199
Cracking/Spalling
High
Medium
Low
Remote
Condition
#358 CS 4
Or
#359 CS 4 or
CS 5
#358 CS 3
Or
#359 CS 3
#358 CS 2
Or
#359 CS 2
#358 CS 1
Or
#359 CS 1
Delamination/Patch
Condition
Screening
Degree of
Severity
Max
Score
Similar Items in
Guideline
Type of
Attributes
Attributes
Bridge/Deck/Spalling
15
Source of data
20
<500
15
Desert
20
Bridge File
<10 years
20
20
>25%
CS 4 or CS 5
11%-24%
CS 3
<10%
CS 2
501-4999
Valley
(general
environment)
10-49 years
<40mph +
CS 2 or CS 3
+ <40mph
CS 1
L.1
ADTT
Loading
>5000
L.3 (Exposure
Environment)
Location
/Environment
Loading
Coastal and
Mountain
Age
Design
>50 years
L.2
Dynamic Loading
Loading
Rebar Corrosion
Condition
Rust/Black/Low
Cover
No stains,
Epoxy/high
cover
20
Concrete Elements(Oregon
Coding Guide Page 38-41)
L.5
De-icing
Loading
High (Regions
like Portland,
Bend, Salem,
La Grand )
Low (All
Other
Regions)
15
CS 2 +
<40mph
CS 1
ADT
Loading
>15000
vpd
D.10
Wearing
Surface Type
Design
AC
I-5 highway
Portland to
Salem and I-84
Portland
L.3
(potential to be
exposed to high ADT
with studded tires)
C.2
Location
Current
Condition
(amount of
rutting)
Loading
Condition
Low
100014999 vpd
Bare
Concrete/S
TR
overlay/Ep
oxy
All other
locations
Present
(>0.5")
Remote
<1000vpd
Max
Score
L.1
Medium
Degree of
Severity
Type of
Attributes
High
Screening
Similar Items in
Guideline
Attributes
Bridge/Deck/Rutting
Source of data
20
Item 29 NBI
Open Grid
15
20
Items 3, 4, and 5
NBI, or
Geographical map
None
(<0.5")
4H
&
4M
(M)
+
15
(Oregon Coding
Guide Pages 22 &
23)
200
Medium
Low
Remote
Unsealed
cracks exist
in the deck
that are of
moderate
size (0.025
to 0.060 in.
wide) and
density (3
to 10
apart).
Unsealed cracks
exist in the deck
that are of
moderate size
(0.025 to 0.060
in. wide) or
density (3 to 10
apart).
C.9
Cracking
Condition
Unsealed cracks
exist in the deck
that are of severe
size (>0.060 in.
wide) and/or
density (<3
apart)
D.18
L.1
D.20
Skew
ADTT
Thickness
Design
Loading
Design
>30 o
>5000
<7"
501-4999
<30o
<500
>7"
L.2
Profile/
Dynamic
Loading
Loading
>40 mph +
CS 3
<40mph +
CS 2 or
CS 3 +
<40mph
CS 2
+ <40mph
S.10
Span Type
Screening
CS 1
Max
Score
High
Degree of
Severity
Screening
Type of
Attributes
Similar Items
in Guideline
Attributes
20
#358 Deck
Cracking Smart
Flag (Oregon
Coding Guide Page
79)
M
H
H
15
20
20
Item 34 NBI
Item 109 NBI
Bridge File
20
Loading
D.18
D.6 (Year of
Construction)
Skew
Design
Age
Design
D.20
AASHTO
Shear
Design
Screening
AASHTO
requirements were
not considered in
design
Remote
Other
Max
Score
Overload
Low
Degree of
Severity
If it has already
posted for less than
legal load or exposed
to overload
Mediu
m
Screening
Type of
Attributes
High
Similar Items in
Guideline
Attributes
Bridge/Superstructure/Cracking (Shear)
Source of data
20
Item 41 NBI
(See also Oregon Coding
Guide on page 95 )
>30
<30
10
Item 34 NBI
<2000
>2000
10
AASHTO
requirements
were
considered
in design
201
C.8 (Corrosion
Induced Cracking)
C.1
High
Medium
Low
ENV
Loading
Coastal
and
Mountain
Valley
(general
environment)
Desert
Existing
Damage
Condition
CS 4
CS 3
CS 2
Current
Condition
Condition
5 and less
6
between 1.5"
and 2.5"
D.11 (Minimum
Concrete Cover)
Cover
Design
1.5" or
Less,
Unknown
D.12 (Reinforcement
Type)
Strand Type
Design
Uncoated
Design
Has Strand
Exposure
to outside
environment
Remote
Bridge/Superstructure/Fire Damage
Reason(s) for Attribute
Incidences of fire on or below a highway bridge are not
uncommon. This type of damage is most frequently caused
by vehicular accidents that result in fire, but secondary causes
such as vandalism, terrorism, or other damage initiators
should not be discounted. If fire does occur on or below a
bridge, an appropriate follow-up assessment should be conducted to determine how the fire has affected the load carrying capacity and the durability characteristics of the main
structural members and the deck. This assessment is typically
performed during a damage inspection immediately following the incident.
Damage to bridge components resulting from a fire is
either immediately apparent during the damage inspection,
Source of data
20
Geographical Map
20
Prestressed/Post Tensioned
Concrete Elements
(Oregon Coding Guide Page 40)
7 or
greater
20
Greater
than or
equal 2.5"
20
Bridge File
10
Bridge File
10
Bridge File
CS 1
Do not
have
Exposure
to outside
environment
Item 59 NBI
(See also page 42 and 104
Oregon Coding Guide)
Epoxy
coated
Unknown
Screening
Degree of
Severity
Max
Score
L.3 (Exposure
Environment)
Type of
Attributes
Similar Items in
Guideline
Attributes
Bridge/Superstructure/Strand Corrosion
or may manifest within the first 12-to-24 month interval following the fire. Based on this observation, bridges that have
experienced a fire may be screened from the reliability assessment until an inspection, which has been conducted approximately 12 months or more after the fire, confirms that the
fire has not affected the typical durability characteristics of
the bridge components. The purpose of this screening is to
ensure that damage from the fire has not manifested after the
damage inspection.
Assessment Procedure
This attribute is scored based only on the occurrence of a
fire on or below the structure being assessed. It is assumed
that an appropriate assessment immediately following the
fire incident (i.e., damage inspection) has been performed.
202
L.8
High Water
Low
Design
<15'
15-16
>17'
Remote
Max
Score
Medium
Degree of
Severity
Clearance
High
Screening
D.3
Type of
Attributes
Similar Items in
Guideline
Attributes
Bridge/Superstructure/Impact
Source of data
10
Look at item 71
in NBI databaseif the code is 3 the
chance of over
top is occasional
Screening
L.3 (Exposure
Environment)
ENV
Medium
Low
Loading
Coastal and
Mountain
Valley
(general
environme
nt)
Desert
#362 CS 2
Existing
Damage
Condition
Prestressed
/Post
Prestressed/
Post Tensioned Tensioned
Concrete
Concrete
Elements
Elements
CS 4
CS 3
Between
1.5" and
2.5"
D.11 (Minimum
Concrete Cover)
Cover
Design
1.5" or Less,
Unknown
D.12 (Reinforcement
Type)
Strand Type
Design
Uncoated
Remote
Degree of
Severity
Max
Score
High
Screening
Similar Items in
Guideline
Type of
Attributes
Attributes
#362 CS 1
Prestressed
/Post
Tensioned
Concrete
Elements
Prestressed
/Post
Tensioned
Concrete
Elements
20
#362-Traffic Impact
Smart Flag
(page 83 Oregon Coding
CS 3
Greater
than or
equal 2.5"
Epoxy
Coated
Guide)
Prestressed/Post Tensioned
Concrete Elements
(Oregon Coding Guide Page
40)
20
20
20
Bridge File
CS 1
CS 2
Source of data
C.21
Corrosion
Condition
CS 4
D.18
Skew
Design
>30 o
C.22
Debris
Condition
Medium
CS 3
Flood region
Debris
INS.RPT
Max
Score
High
Screening
Degree of
Severity
Type of
Attributes
Similar Items in
Guideline
Attributes
H+
20
Prestressed/Post Tensioned
Concrete Elements
(Oregon Coding Guide
Page 40)
<30 o
10
Not
Susceptible
10
other
L+
10
Item 41 NBI
(See also Oregon Coding
Guide on page 95)
15
Bridge File
20
20
Low
CS 2
L.4
Overload
Loading
If it has already
posted for less
than legal load
or exposed to
overload
S.10
Design Details
Design
Simple Support
Continuous
Support
Integral
Abutments
C.4
Failed Joints
Condition
CS 3
CS 2
CS 1
C.2
Existing Damage
Condition
CS 3
CS 2
CS 1
Remote
CS 1
Jointless
Item 34 NBI
Item 113 NBI
(See also Oregon Coding
Guide on page 121)
Deck JointsOregon
Coding Guide Page 54-60
Bridge Bearing
ElementsOregon
Coding Guide Page 61-66
203
Medium
Low
D.21
Footing
Type
Design
Spread FTG on
soil/unknown
Foundation
Drill Shaft
friction Pile
/ETC
D.22
Subsurface
Condition
Condition
Limestone
C.3
Existing
Settlement
Condition
Active (No
monitor data)
S.10
Scour
Rating
Screening
4-6 (Oregon
Scour Code)
Remo
te
Degree of
Severity
Max
Score
High
Screening
Type of
Attributes
Similar
Items in
Guideline
Attributes
Bridge/Substructure/Settlement
Source of data
20
Bridge File
solid, Rock
20
Bridge File
Occurred
but arrested
None
20
>7
<3
Item #360 on
page 81 Oregon
Coding Guide
Item 113 NBI
(See also
Oregon Coding
Guide on page
124)
C.8 (Corrosion
Induced Cracking)
C.1
High
Medium
Low
ENV
Loading
Coastal
and
Mountain
Valley
(general
environment)
Desert
Existing Damage
Condition
CS 4
CS 3
CS 2
Current Condition
Condition
5 and less
6
Between 1.5"
and 2.5"
D.11 (Minimum
Concrete Cover)
Cover
Design
1.5" or
Less,
Unknown
D.12 (Reinforcement
Type)
Rebar Type
Design
Uncoated
C.4
L.5
Failed Joints
De-icing
Condition
CS 3
Loading
High
(Regions
like
Portland,
Bend,
Salem, La
Grand)
CS 2
Remote
Screening
Degree of
Severity
Max
Score
L.3 (Exposure
Environment)
Type of
Attributes
Similar Items in
Guideline
Attributes
20
Geographical Map
20
Prestressed/Post Tensioned
Concrete Elements
(Oregon Coding Guide Page 40)
7 or
greater
20
Greater
than or
equal 2.5"
20
10
Bridge File
20
15
CS 1
Low (All
Other
Regions)
CS 1
Item 59 NBI
(See also page 42 and 104
Oregon Coding Guide)
Epoxy
coated
Joint
less
Bridge File
204
APPENDIX B
205 Bridge/Deck/Spalling
205
Bridge/Deck/Punch Through
206 Bridge/Deck/Cracking
206 Bridge/Deck/Delamination
207 Bridge/Superstructures/Sectionless
207 Bridge/Superstructures/Impact
208
Bridge/Superstructures/Fatigue Cracking
208
Bridge/Superstructures/Fire Damage
209
Bridge/Superstructures/Deflection Overload
209
209 Bridge/Substructures/Settlement
205
Low
Clear Cover
Design
<1"
1"-2"
>2"
20
Overlay
Design
Yes
No
10
C.10
Delamination
Condition
Yes
No
20
D.8
Mixed design
(Water)
Design
Poor Mix/Poor
H2O
All Else
15
Bridge file
ADTT
Thickness
Loading
Design
>5000
<7"
<5000
>8"
L
M
10
15
D.20
D.19
Cold Joints
Design
Yes
No
15
Condition
Yes
No
15
Loading
Above I-20
All Else
20
Bridge file
Condition
50+
Other
15
Screening
D.11
D.10
L.1
C.9
L.3
D.6
Cracking (map
dense)
Environment
Age Years of
Services
7"-8"
Degree of
Severity
Max
Score
Medium
Screening
Type of
Attributes
High
Similar Items in
Guideline
Remote
Attributes
Bridge/Deck/Spalling
Source of data
Bridge file
Type of
Attributes
High
Medium
Low
Degree of
Severity
Max
Score
Source of data
Thickness
Design
<7"
7"-8"
>8"
20
Bridge file
Map Cracking
Condition
Yes
No
20
Delamination /
spall to rebar
Condition or
Screening if
more than
10%
Delamination
and spalling
>6%
Delamination
and spalling
<1%
15
D.8
Screening
15
Bridge file
L.1
ADTT
Loading
20
Item 29 NBI
10
Similar Items in
Guideline
D.20
C.9
L.3
Environment
Loading
Previous Punch
outs /rep
Screening/Yes
or No
>5000
Above I-20
Delamination
and spalling
2%-5%
<5000
All Else
Remote
Attributes
Bridge/Deck/Punch Through
206
Existing Cracking
Condition
Yes
No
20
D.20
Construction
Tech/Spec
Design
Bad
All Other
15
Bridge file
L.3
Environment
Loading
Above I-20
All Else
20
Bridge file
Design Details
(Cold Joints, Skew)
Design
Yes
None
20
Bridge file
D.11
Cover
Design
<1"
1"-2"
>2"
20
Medium
Low
1"-2"
>2"
20
No
10
<1%
20
20
All Else
15
Bridge file
<5000
10
Item 29 NBI
>8"
15
Bridge file
No
15
Low
Degree of
Severity
Max
Score
C.9
Medium
Screening
Type of
Attributes
High
Remote
Similar Items in
Guideline
Attributes
Bridge/Deck/Cracking
Source of data
Clear Cover
Design
<1"
D.10
Overlay
Design
Yes
C.12
Spalling
Condition
>6%
C.10
Delamination
Condition
Yes
L.1
Mixed design
(Water)
ADTT
Loading
Poor Mix/Poor
H2O
>5000
D.20
Thickness
Design
<7"
D.19
Cold Joints
Cracking (map
dense)
Environment
Age Years of
Services
Design
Yes
D.8
C.9
L.3
D.6
Design
2%-5%
No
7"-8"
If
more
than
10%
Degree of
Severity
Max
Score
D.11
Screening
Type of
Attributes
High
Remote
Similar Items in
Guideline
Attributes
Bridge/Deck/Delamination
Source of data
Condition
Yes
No
15
Loading
Above I-20
All Else
20
Bridge file
Condition
50+
Other
15
207
Low
Environment
Loading
Coast
North of I-20
All Else
20
Bridge file
Existing Section
Loss
Condition
Yes
No
20
D.18
Deck Drainage
onto
Superstructure
Design
Yes
No
10
Bridge file
C.22
Debris
Condition
Yes
No
10
C.4
Joint Leakage
Condition
Yes
No
10
D.13
Built-Up Riveted
Design
Yes
No
20
D.19
Design
Yes
No
15
D.6
Age Exposure
Design
Other
10
C.21
Corrosion
Condition
50+
CR 3 or
Greater/No
Coating or
Weather Steel
Else
10
L.3
S.9
Degree of
Severity
Max
Score
Medium
Screening
Type of
Attributes
High
Similar Items in
Guideline
Remote
Attributes
Bridge/Superstructures/Sectionless
Source of data
Condition
Yes
D.3
Design
<=15'-6"
17'-6"<H<=15'-6"
Max
Score
Existing Impacts
Degree of
Severity
C.6
Medium
Screening
Type of
Attributes
High
Source of data
No
20
17'-6"<
Or No
Highway under
the bridge
20
Low
Remote
Similar Items in
Guideline
Attributes
Bridge/Superstructures/Impact
208
Medium
Low
Detail Category
Design
E0 or E'
D or
Unknown
C or
Better
15
History of
Previous
Cracking that
was repaired
Condition
Yes
No
15
D.6
Year built
Design
Before 1975 or
Unknown
After
1985
20
D.18
Skew Angle
Design
>30
<30
10
Item 34 NBI
L.1
ADTT
Active or
unmitigated
cracking due to
any cause
Loading
>5000
<5000
20
Item 29 NBI
D.17
C.18
Screening
1976-1984
Remote
Degree of
Severity
Max
Score
Type of
Attributes
High
Similar Items in
Guideline
Screening
Attributes
Bridge/Superstructures/Fatigue Cracking
Repair Must
be shown to
be working
Bridge/Superstructures/Fire Damage
Reason(s) for Attribute
Incidences of fire on or below a highway bridge are not
uncommon. This type of damage is most frequently caused
by vehicular accidents that result in fire, but secondary causes
such as vandalism, terrorism, or other damage initiators
should not be discounted. If fire does occur on or below a
bridge, an appropriate follow-up assessment should be conducted to determine how the fire has affected the load carry
ing capacity and the durability characteristics of the main
structural members and the deck. This assessment is typically
performed during a damage inspection immediately following the incident.
Damage to bridge components resulting from a fire is
either immediately apparent during the damage inspection, or
Source of data
Assessment Procedure
This attribute is scored based only on the occurrence of a
fire on or below the structure being assessed. It is assumed
that an appropriate assessment immediately following the
fire incident (i.e., damage inspection) has been performed.
209
--
Medium
Low
Load Posting
Condition
Cond Posting
Des Post
None
20
Item 41 NBI
Previous*
Overload
Damage
Condition
Yes
No
20
Bridge file
Highway
Ownership
Condition
Local
State
15
Item 22 NBI
Remote
Degree of
Severity
Max
Score
--
High
Screening
D.2
Type of
Attributes
Similar Items in
Guideline
Attributes
Bridge/Superstructures/Deflection Overload
Source of data
L.3
C.8 (Corrosion
Induced Cracking)
C.1
ENV
Existing
Damage
Current
Condition
Loading
Above I-20
Condition
CS 4
Condition
Medium
Low
Remote
All else
H
CS 1
20
7 or greater
20
Item 60 NBI
between
1.5" and
2.5"
Greater
than or
equal 2.5"
20
Bridge File
10
Bridge File
20
Design
D.12
Rebar Type
Design
Uncoated
Epoxy
coated
5 or less
Joint
less
Condition
Geographical Map
(Texas Coding Guide Page 16
20)
5 or less
Cover
Joints Condition
20
CS 2
D.11
7 or greater
CS 4
Source of data
CS 3
1.5" or
Less,
Unknown
C.4
Degree of
Severity
Max
Score
High
Screening
Type of
Attributes
Similar Items in
Guideline
Attributes
Low
D.21
Footing
Type
Design
Spread FTG on
soil/unknown
foundation
Drill shaft
friction pile
/etc
D.22
Subsurface
Condition
Condition
Limestone
Solid, rock
C.3
Existing
Settlement
Condition
Active (no
monitor data)
Occurred
but arrested
None
S.10
Scour
Rating
Screening
4-6
>7
Or
N
Degree of
Severity
Max
Score
Medium
Screening
High
Remote
Type of
Attributes
Similar
Items in
Guideline
Attributes
Bridge/Substructures/Settlement
20
Bridge File
20
Bridge File
<3
Source of data
20
Item #405
Texas Coding
Guide on page
31
Item 113 NBI
(See also item
#407 on Texas
Coding Guide
on page 32)
210
APPENDIX C
211
Table C1. Controlling damage modes for RBI analysis of bridges in Oregon (CF Case 4).
212
Table C2. Controlling damage modes for RBI analysis of bridges in Texas (CF Case 3).
211
Table C1. Controlling damage modes for RBI analysis of bridges in Oregon
(CF Case 4).
Bridge ID
Inspection
Interval
Based on
Case 4
02376B
48
07801A
24
01741B
24
07935A
48
07935B
48
17451
24
16454
24
16453
9546
00988A
01056A
9358
16873
18175
48
24
48
24
24
72
48
01895A
48
9915
8994
8896
20666
24
24
48
72
19739
48
19738
48
19284
48
212
Table C2. Controlling damage modes for RBI analysis of bridges in
Texas (CF Case 3).
Inspection
Interval Based on
Case 3
01-139-0-0769-01-007
02-127-0-0014-03-194
02-127-0-0094-04-057
02-220-0-1068-02-058
05-152-0-0067-11-188
24
24
72
24
24
Corrosion in substructure
Fatigue cracking
All damage modes equal
Cracking in decksection loss, impact
Fatigue cracking
08-030-0-AA01-31-001
48
12-085-0-1911-01-003
12-102-0-0027-13-195
12-102-0-0500-03-320
15-015-0-0025-02-162
15-015-0-B064-55-001
48
48
48
48
72
18-057-0-0092-14-210
24
18-061-0-0196-01-133
24
19-019-0-0610-06-162
23-141-0-0251-05-020
23-215-0-0011-07-056
24-072-0-0167-01-059
24
48
48
24
Bridge ID
Impact
Corrosion in substructure
All damage modes equal
All damage modes equal