TECHBRIEF Foundation Characterization

Program (FCP): TechBrief #1—

Workshop Report on the Reuse
of Bridge Foundations
By James G. Collin and Frank Jalinoos

FHWA Publication No.: FHWA-HRT-14-072

FHWA Contact: Frank Jalinoos, HRDI-50, 202-493-3044,
frank.jalinoos@dot.gov

Introduction
This TechBrief presents the results of a workshop held at
the 2014 Transportation Research Board (TRB) 93rd annual
meeting on the reuse of bridge foundations. The workshop
is the continuation of ongoing effort by the Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA) to identify research
and development needs with respect to foundation
characterization program (FCP). This program includes
the development and/or evaluation of new and exist-
ing methodologies for characterizing existing bridge
foundations for the determination of unknown geometry,
material properties, integrity, and load-carrying capacity.
The transportation system in the United States includes
more than 600,000 bridges built for grade separation,
interchange configurations, and crossings over natural
barriers such as rivers. The operation and functionality
of the highway network depends on the performance of
these structures. As of December 2012, the National Bridge
Inventory (NBI) included 607,380 structures (bridges and
culverts) with a span greater than 20 ft (6 m).(1) Of those
structures, 36,076 bridges over waterways (riverine
Research, Development, and and tidal) are identified as having unknown foundations.
Technology The term “unknown foundation” has been associated
Turner-Fairbank Highway with the population of existing bridges over waterways
Research Center that cannot be evaluated for hydraulic vulnerability
6300 Georgetown Pike related to scour. The number of bridges over
McLean, VA 22101-2296 land with unknown foundations, however, is not known
because this qualifier is not a reportable item in the NBI.
www.fhwa.dot.gov/research
 On January 16, 2013, a multidisciplinary 4. Research and development on founda-
taskforce was formed by FHWA at the tion reuse will also benefit unknown
TRB 92nd annual meeting consisting foundations.
of 14 FHWA and State transportation In support of foundation characterization
department stakeholders. The taskforce and reuse, the following specific recom-
members were selected based on their mendations were made:
recognized expertise in the areas of
unknown foundation and foundation 1. Research is needed for load testing of
assessment issues. During this meeting, existing foundations and better method-
the taskforce met and brainstormed on ologies for condition assessment.
steps needed to move forward with a
2. Research is needed for instrumenting
multiyear strategic research plan for
new foundations (“smart piles”) or
unknown foundations. The consensus of
existing foundations for on-demand
the taskforce and FHWA management
assessment of condition.
was to broaden the scope of the research
program from “unknown foundations” 3. A synthesis of common practices on
to “foundation characterization” and foundation reuse should be developed
incorporate several related issues such as as soon as possible.
multihazard concerns, changes in service
loads, and foundation reuse. 4. Guidelines for field evaluation of un-
known and known foundations should
A workshop was held in Arlington, VA,
be developed to include site inves-
from April 30 to May 1, 2013, to solicit key
tigation, destructive and nondestructive
stakeholders’ input and was summarized in
testing or monitoring, numerical model-
the Characterization of Bridge Foundations
ing, and load testing.
Workshop Report (FHWA-HRT-13-101).(2) The
following summary and recommendations 5. Guidance for the reuse of foundations
are a result of that workshop: is needed and should include consid-
eration of structural, hydraulic, and
1. A key issue with unknown foundations
geotechnical issues in a holistic manner.
is their characterization.
In support of the workshop recommenda-
2. Much good work is being done in the
tions, an open workshop (workshop 160)
States with the reuse of foundations.
and a separate session (session 395) on the
States have their own individual pro-
reuse of bridge foundations were held at
cedures; there is no ready means of
the 2014 TRB 93rd annual meeting. Table 1
assessing the present practice.
lists the presentation topic and speakers
3. The main issues for foundation reuse for the TRB workshop, and table 2 lists the
are their condition assessment, their speakers for the separate session.
load-carrying capacity, their remaining
service life, and how the reuse of foun-
dations interacts with new codes.

2
The presentations are available on the at https://sites.google.com/site/
TRB Committee on Soil and Rock Proper- t r b c o m m i tt e e a f p 3 0 / ch a r a c t e r i z a t i o n -
ties (AFP30) Web site. (3) It is accessible of-bridge-foundations. 1

Table 1. Topics and speakers for workshop 160, “Characterization of Foundations of Bridges and Other Structures
for Reuse.”

Paper Number Presentation Title Author/Speaker

FHWA Characterization of Bridge

W160-01 Frank Jalinoos, FHWA
Foundation Workshop
Research on Foundation Reuse at
Ernst Niederleithinger, Federal Institute
W160-02 BAM (presented by Dr. Herbert
for Materials Research and Testing (BAM)
Wiggenhauser)
Issue and Challenges with Mohammed A. Mulla,
W160-03 Foundation Reuse at North Carolina North Carolina Department of
DOT Transportation
Experience with Evaluation and
Peter Connors,
W160-04 Reuse of Bridge Foundations at
Massachusetts DOT
Massachusetts DOT
Virginia DOT I-95 Bridge Joe Hardee,
W160-05
Rehabilitation: Substructure Repairs URS Corporation
Henley Bridge Rehabilitation Project
Saieb Haddad,
W160-06 with Emphasis on Original Historic
Tennessee DOT
Design
Reuse of Foundation at Arthur Mills
Jon E. Bischoff,
W160-07 Crossing Railroad Bridge, Salt Lake
Utah DOT
Valley, Utah
Ohio DOT Experience with Jawdat Siddiqi,
W160-08
Foundation Reuse Ohio DOT

None Workshop Roundup Jerry A. DiMaggio, TRB

1
FHWA DISCLAIMER: Please note you are accessing a non-government link outside of FHWA, U.S. Department of
Transportation (DOT). Our standard FHWA Web sites have many links to other organizations, including educational
institutions and non-profit associations. Please note: While links to Web sites outside of DOT are offered for your
convenience in accessing transportation-related information, please be aware that when you access non-DOT Web sites,
the privacy policy—including tracking technology, computer security, and intellectual property protection—and Section
508 of the Rehabilitation Act (accessibility requirements) no longer apply. In addition, DOT cannot attest to the accuracy,
relevancy, timeliness, or completeness of information provided by linked sites. Linking to a Web site does not constitute an
endorsement by DOT or any of its employees of the sponsors of the site or the products presented on the site. For more
information, please view DOT’s Web site linking policy.

TRB COMMITTEES AFP30 DISCLAIMER—The information contained in this Web site is maintained by members of the
TRB committee AFP30. Information included here does not imply an endorsement by the TRB, the National Academy of
Sciences, or the National Research Council.

3
 Table 2. Topics and speakers for session 395, “Reuse of Bridge and Other Structural Foundations.”

Paper Number Presentation Title Author/Speaker

Evaluating Foundations for Reuse: Benjamin Rivers,

S395-01
Looking Ahead FHWA

Issues of Risk and Liabilities Relating Dan Brown,

S395-02
to Reuse of Existing Foundations Dan Brown and Associates
Reuse of Structural Foundations:
Jerry A. DiMaggio,
S395-03 Engineering and Program
TRB
Management Considerations
Testing and Modeling of Pile and Michael C. McVay,
S395-04
Shaft Foundations for Reuse University of Florida
Potential of Structural Identification
A. Emin Aktan,
S395-05 Method for Reusing Existing Bridge
Drexel University
Foundations
Henley Bridge Rehabilitation Project
Pamela Moore,
S395-06 with Emphasis on Original Historic
GCI Incorporated
Design

This TechBrief summarizes the key issues, • Efficiency. Reusing bridge foundations
findings, and recommendations that were a is a viable option for replacing struc-
result of the TRB workshop 160 and session turally deficient superstructures.2
395. • Past performance. The foundation has
performed adequately in the past; in
Drivers for Bridge Foundation Reuse
essence, it has been load tested.
U.S. Transportation Sector Perspective • Environmental benefits. The use of
In both the workshop and panel discussion existing foundations would have a more
session, numerous speakers identified the limited impact on the environment.
following drivers and reasons for reuse of • Sustainability issues. Reusing bridge
bridge foundations: foundations would save resources.

• Asset management. Existing foundations • Historic preservation considerations.

are assets with a functional value. Existing foundations would be better
suited for structures with historical
• Technical drivers. Replacing piles may value.
be difficult.
European Perspective
• Time savings. Using existing foun-
The Reuse of Foundations for Urban Sites
dations would minimize impacts on
(RuFUS) was a European Union-funded
mobility.
research project centered on setting
• Economic drivers. Reusing bridge guidelines to allow foundations (predomi-
foundations would lead to direct and nately building foundations) to be reused
indirect cost savings. more often; the project was completed

Given that close to one-quarter of bridges in the NBI are identified as deficient (either structurally deficient or
2

functionally obsolete), the potential savings for the bridge owners in reusing existing bridge foundations is significant.

4
in 2006.(4,5) The project partners were BRE railroad bridge foundation for a pedes-
(coordinator), Arup and Cementation trian/bike path), and reuse with enhanced/
Foundations Skanska from the United strengthened foundation and accelerated
Kingdom, Soletanche-Bachy from France, bridge construction (ABC)/prefabricated
the Technical University of Darmstadt bridge elements and systems (PBES).
and BAM from Germany, Stamatapoulos
However, there are many challenges to
Associates from Greece, and the Swedish
the reuse of existing foundations. The
Geotechnical Institute.
evaluation of the suitability of an existing
A major part of the RuFUS initiative was
bridge foundation for reuse is a multi-
to demonstrate to construction teams that
disciplined task that needs to involve
foundation reuse is a viable, reliable alter-
structural, hydraulic, geotechnical, and
native that is not completely novel (i.e., a
construction expertise. The following list
research project). The end result of RuFUS
is composed of the challenges for reuse
was a set of guidelines for the reuse of
as presented by the speakers at both the
existing foundations.(4,5)
workshop and the panel discussion:
Dr. Niederleithinger presented the results
• Normally, the current design speci-
of the RuFUS research at the workshop.
fications and geometric standards
From the European perspective, he
require a larger structure and therefore
identified the following reasons for reuse of
an increase in foundation loads.
existing foundations:
• Foundations may lack critical
• Ground congestion (utilities, tunnels,
documentation.
neighboring foundations).
• There is a lack of confidence in as-built
• Archaeology (e.g., long-term delays
plans.
after Roman structure discovery).

• Construction technical drivers (diffi- • Construction and monitoring stan-

culty in replacing piles). dards at the time of the original
construction were different.
• Economic drivers (cost savings).
• Foundations set on soft, compressible
• Environmental / sustainability issues soils may not be suitable for reuse.
(limited use of resources).
• States lack means to reduce and
Reuse Applications and Challenges account for uncertainty.
Reuse applications for bridge founda-
• Existing foundations may have expe-
tions identified by the participants of the
rienced critical levels of deterioration.
workshop and panel discussion included
replacement of the superstructure of • There is a lack of reliability of existing
an existing bridge because of structural and new field methods to characterize
deterioration, widening of an existing current conditions and remaining
bridge, repurposing (i.e., using an existing service life.

5
 • Cultural change and its impact may Selective State Practice and Policies
affect the use of existing foundations.
Prior to the workshop, several State
• States must determine the standard of transportation department workshop
care for designers in evaluating reuse. participants briefly collected information
from a few nearby States on the extent
• States must determine how and/or
of foundation reuse. The North Carolina
if to incorporate load and resistance
Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
factor design (LRFD) into reuse of
created a simple spreadsheet with specific
foundations.
questions regarding reusing existing foun-
• Risk and liability issues may be dation for rehabilitation, replacement, or im-
associated with the reuse of existing provement. Table 3 summarizes the results.
foundations, not only for the State but From this limited dataset, it is clear that
also the design consultant (if outside the majority of State transportation depart-
services are used) and the contractor. ments have reused existing foundations in
• There is a lack of existing State and/or one form or another. However, as discussed
Federal guidelines. below, very few State transportation depart-
ments have established specific policies or
guidelines.

Table 3. Summary of foundation reuse by NCDOT and other State transportation departments.

Has your State improved

or fixed existing bridge
State Has your State reused foundations to mitigate Are policies and guidelines
transportation existing foundations for for additional load, scour, available to evaluate existing
department bridge replacement? seismic activity, etc.? foundations?

ALDOT No Yes No

CDOT Yes No No

Caltrans No Yes No

INDOT No Yes No

KYTC Yes Yes No

MnDOT Yes Yes No

NYSDOT Yes Yes No

NCDOT Yes Yes No

TDOT Yes Yes No

UDOT Yes No No

ALDOT = Alabama Department of Transportation. NYSDOT = New York State Department of

CDOT = Colorado Department of Transportation. Transportation.
Caltrans = California Department of Transportation. NCDOT = North Carolina Department of Transportation.
INDOT = Indiana Department of Transportation. TDOT = Tennessee Department of Transportation.
KYTC = Kentucky Transportation Cabinet. UDOT = Utah Department of Transportation.
MnDOT = Minnesota Department of Transportation.

6
Massachusetts AASHTO specifications. These exemptions
Foundation reuse is written into the Mass- require prior written approval from
achusetts bridge manual.(6) Massachusetts MassDOT.
Department of Transportation (MassDOT) North Carolina
policy on reuse of existing foundations is
represented in bridge replacement, bridge NCDOT has no specific guidelines or policy
rehabilitation, or superstructure replace- for reuse of existing foundations. Current
ment projects. Reuse of bridge foundations state of practice for NCDOT for low-impact
is allowed if the existing foundations have bridges (i.e., bridge maintenance bridges)
no scour issues or structural deficiencies, or founded on timber piles is to reuse the
if they can be rehabilitated to meet current foundation from the pile cap or column
American Association of State Highway down, and repair damage to the cap or
and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) column if necessary. However, the majority
LRFD specifications and have their service of bridges in North Carolina are replaced
life extended for at least another 75 years. with new foundations.
The reuse strategy is evaluated during
Ohio
preliminary engineering, when as many
of the project parameters as possible are Based on the 2006 FHWA LRFD guidance
optimized without violating the project that states, “For modification to existing
constraints. This evaluation includes structures, States would have the option
investigation, testing, and analysis. The of using LRFD specifications or the
merits and cost of rehabilitating the existing specifications which were used for the
foundation are presented in a preliminary original design,” the Ohio Department of
structures report. If the existing foundation Transportation has elected to use the
is not deemed to be serviceable for reuse specification for driven piles that was
in the new bridge structure, then the merits in place at the time of the design of the
of reusing the existing abutments and original structure. However, for drilled
wingwalls as an earth-retaining structure shafts and spread footings, Ohio uses the
or scour protection independent of the following LRFD specifications:
new bridge structure are considered. In
• Driven piles. For driven piles to bedrock,
addition, if the bridge to be replaced is
reuse is based on the structural
historic, found in a historic area, or is in
capacity of the pile. For friction piles,
sensitive wetlands, then the abutments
if they were originally designed based
may be retained without being incorpor-
on the pile driving formula, then the
ated into the new structure to minimize
geotechnical limit/capacity is verified
the impacts on those resources. For
by dynamic testing.
superstructure replacement projects or
bridge rehabilitation projects involving • Drilled shafts. For drilled shafts sock-
a historic structure, the requirements to eted into bedrock, the State controls
design these projects in accordance with structural limits. For friction drilled
the current AASHTO LRFD specifications shafts, the State controls geotechnical
are modified to meet the anticipated truck limits, and reuse is generally not
traffic loadings or past editions of the permitted.

7
 • Spread footings. For spread footings on • Load rating of foundations based on
rock, the State controls structural limits. finite element method analysis and
For spread footing on soil, the State settlement criteria (example presented
controls geotechnical limits and both by Pamela Moore).
structural and geotechnical analysis. • Structural identification for bridge load
Illinois testing (as presented by Ahmet Emin
Aktan).
As described in the previous FHWA work-
• Foundation static load test.
shop report, Illinois has a formal and
elaborate methodology for evaluating • Foundation dynamic load test.
foundation reuse.(2) The new policy, issued
in 2008, allows an abbreviated analysis Foundation Options for New and
when the substructure is in good or repair- Existing Bridges
able condition and the dead load increase
Four options for new developments on
is less than 15 percent.
bridge sites with existing deep foundations
Utah are presented here and illustrated in
figure 1 through figure 4.
Utah does not have a specific policy on the
reuse of existing foundations and has only Option 1 features a new foundation built
completed two projects to date in which adjacent to an existing foundation. This
existing foundations were reused. option is perhaps the simplest from an
engineering and implementation perspec-
Field Testing tive. However, in river crossings, analysis
The workshop and panel discussion did is required to account for scour vulner-
not focus directly on methods to verify ability due to the pier interference. Vortices
foundation conditions. However, the pre- shedding of adjacent piers can cause
senters briefly discussed the following scour holes to overlap that are deeper than
options: from a single pier. Accordingly, the old piers
are typically removed to an elevation of
• Pile integrity testing.
2 ft (0.6 m) below the mud line.
• Parallel seismic.
Option 2 features a new in-place founda-
• Ultrasonic echo.
tion. The existing foundation is demolished
• Half-cell potential. and replaced with a new one. When the
• Ground-probing radar. location of the new structure is required
to be in the same place as the existing
• Surface resistivity testing.
structure, removal and replacement of the
• Material testing. existing foundation is an option, albeit a
• Unload monitoring (example presented costly one.
by Michael C. McVay3).

3
Please refer to the AFP30 Committee Web site for workshop presentations: https://sites.google.com/site/
trbcommitteeafp30/characterization-of-bridge-foundations.

8
Option 3 features the complete reuse of the approximately mile marker 35. It carries
existing foundation. This option requires Missouri Highway 5 between Versailles and
characterization of the existing foundation. Camdenton. The bridge was built in 1936,
5 years after the new Lake of the Ozarks
Option 4 features the reuse of existing
was filled; prior to that time, traffic crossed
foundation while at the same time strength-
by ferry. Because of deterioration of the
ening and enhancing the capacity of the
bridge and increased traffic volume, a
foundation by extending the pile cap, includ-
replacement/widening project was initi-
ing drilled shafts; using micropiles; imple-
ated by the Missouri Department of Trans-
menting soil improvement measures such
portation in 2005. After extensive study
as compaction grouting and permeation
of the existing foundation, the project was
grouting; and so forth. The enhancement of
bid with the option to reuse the existing
the existing foundation is an obvious way
foundation or use a new foundation. The
to reduce the risk associated with option 3.
low bid contractor chose to use a new foun-
Innovative ABC/PBES techniques can dation. The photo in figure 6 was taken
be implemented with option 4, as seen during demolition, indicating pier position
in the Milton-Madison Bridge.4 Figure 5 of the replacement bridge in relation to an
shows a preassembled steel truss super- old pier.
structure (placed on temporary piers)
that was moved laterally 55 ft (16.7 m) on Bridge B-23-005-M-18-002, Massachusetts
refurbished piers.(7) Four of the five main (Option 2)
piers were reused, but the pier stem had MassDOT replaced a two-span bridge
to be widened. Soil structure interaction between the towns of Bridgewater and
was evaluated for the existing foundations, Middleborough in Massachusetts. Bridge
which were ultimately strengthened by cor- B-23-005-M-18-002, which carries Summer
ing and adding supplemental reinforcing to Street over the Taunton River, was replaced
the existing pneumatic caisson foundation. with a single-span, integral abutment bridge.
Table 4 lists case histories from the work- The new pile-supported integral abutments
shop presented in the next section and the eliminated bridge joints and were placed
foundation reuse option that was used in behind the existing abutments and wing
each case. walls (figure 7). Placing them behind these
existing structures minimized work in water,
Case Histories from the Workshop provided temporary earth support to build
Hurricane Deck Bridge, Missouri (Option 1) the new bridge, and provided additional
scour protection. The existing structures
An example for option 1 is the Hurricane were modified by cutting them down to an
Deck Bridge at Lake of the Ozarks, MO. elevation that would allow future inspection
Hurricane Deck Bridge crosses the main of the new bridge.
channel of the Lake of the Ozarks at

4
One of the reasons to reuse foundations is ABC/PBES. For a complete bridge replacement, a full environmental impact
statement may be required, which can delay the project significantly. This requirement is avoided by replacing only the
superstructure.

9
 Figure 1. Bridge foundation, option 1.

Option-1

Figure 2. Bridge foundation, option 2.

Option-2

10
Figure 3. Bridge foundation, option 3.

Option-3

Figure 4. Bridge foundation, option 4.

Option-4

11
 Table 4. Case history examples of foundation reuse.

Case History State Transportation Department Foundation Option No.

Hurricane Deck Bridge Missouri Department of Transportation 1

Bridge B-23-005-M-18-002 Massachusetts Department of Transportation 2

Arthur Mills Bridge Utah Department of Transportation 3

Clipper City Rail Trail Massachusetts Department of Transportation 3

Virginia I95 Corridor Virginia Department of Transportation 3

Yadkin River Bridge 91 North Carolina Department of Transportation 4

Henley Street Bridge Tennessee Department of Transportation 4

Figure 5. The Milton-Madison Bridge after the new steel truss superstructure was laterally moved from temporary piers to
permanent refurbished piers.(7)

©Michael Baker Jr., Inc./www.miltonmadisonbridge.com

12
 Figure 6. Hurricane Deck Bridge, Lake of the Ozarks, MO.(8)

©JB Simpson/www.lakeexpo.com.
Figure 7. Bridge B-23-005-M-18-002, Bridgewater, MA.

Source: MassDOT.
13
 Arthur Mills Bridge, Utah (Option 3) may be used for existing bridge footings,
assuming a resistance factor of 0.45 is used.
The Arthur Mills Bridge in Salt Lake Valley,
Settlement was estimated to be between
UT, was constructed in the 1960s to allow
½ and ¾ inch (1.3 and 1.9 cm) owing to
vehicular traffic on State Route 201 to pass
the MSE fill.
over an existing railroad line. The original
bridge was a three-span, reinforced- Justification for using the existing founda-
concrete bridge; the center bents and tion for the reconfiguration was based on
abutments were supported by spread the following factors:
footings designed for an allowable bearing • New footings would require excavation
capacity of 4,000 psf (192 kPa). The bridge and shoring at tight locations
was reconfigured in 2013 to eliminate the supporting the railroad.
existing abutments and shorten the bridge
• A larger span to avoid the railroad
from three spans to one span. The existing
would be costly.
bents were to be converted into abutments
with the addition of mechanically stabilized • A new structure would impose less
earth (MSE) walls (figure 8). Four new load than the old structure.
borings were performed as part of the geo- • Builders had confidence in as-built
technical evaluation for the reconfiguration. plans of existing structure.
The geotechnical report concluded that the
• The performance of existing footings
existing bridge foundations were not
was excellent.
anticipated to be adversely affected by
the MSE wall backfill, and a strength limit • The existing foundation was on
bearing resistance of 14,000 psf (670 kPa) excellent soil.

Figure 8. Reconfiguration of the Arthur Mills Bridge.(9)

Source: Utah Department of Transportation.

14
Clipper City Rail Trail, Massachusetts (Option 3) and past performance of the existing gran-
ite block abutments (figure 9), they were
MassDOT repurposed the existing railroad
reused. The anchor bolts that secured the
bridge to carry the Clipper City Rail Trail rehabilitated superstructure were replaced,
over Merrimac Street in Newburyport, MA. railroad tracks and ballast were removed,
The granite block abutments were originally and hardwood decking was installed as a
built in 1850. Because of the good condition riding surface (figure 10).

Figure 9. Clipper City Rail Trail Bridge.

Source: MassDOT.

Figure 10. Clipper City Rail Trail bridge deck replacement.

Source: MassDOT.

15
 Virginia I95 Corridor (Option 3) costs were computed and compared
The Virginia Department of Transportation against replacement cost. The most cost-
(VDOT) made the decision to reuse the effective solution was to repair and provide
existing foundations with ABC/PBES the corrosion protection for the existing
(figure 11) on 10 bridges along the I95 cor- foundations. Finally, VDOT did not want to
ridor for several reasons. First, the dead disrupt traffic for the length of time that
load was reduced by about 7 percent with would have been required to rebuild the
the use of lightweight concrete decks in existing foundations. Because the existing
the replacement superstructures. The foundations were found to be adequate
original foundations were analyzed with for the proposed loads, the decision was
this reduction in dead load and the made to repair and provide corrosion pro-
proposed loading. The analysis indicated tection for the existing foundations and
that the existing foundations were reuse them. The corrosion protection for
adequate to support the new super- the prestressed concrete and steel H-pile
structure and the imposed loads. The foundations included electrochemical
second item considered was cost. Sub- chloride extraction and sacrificial corrosion
structure repair and corrosion-protection protection systems.

Figure 11. ABC/PBES on I95 in Virginia.

Source: URS Corporation.

16
Yadkin River Bridge 91, North Carolina (Option 4) Figure 12. Yadkin River Bridge superstructure distress.

The Yadkin River Bridge 91 is located in

Forsyth County, NC. In 2005, distress in the
superstructure was observed (figure 12).
It was determined that bent #7 had set-
tled and rotated, causing the distress in
the superstructure (figure 13). A team of
structural, geotechnical, and hydraulic
engineers was tasked with evaluating the
problem. Divers inspected the foundation
of the pier and assessed the bearing
materials and scour. Divers were
instructed to use an airlift to try to remove
any loose material below the foundation,
down to the bedrock. Using the airlift,
the divers were able to reach below the
footing. However, 4 ft (1.2 m) below the
bottom of the footing, no bedrock was
found. Material under the footing consisted
of cobble, sand, and silt. The original
design was to have the footing for the piers
embedded 6 inches (15.2 cm) into rock.
However, at pier #7, the footing was
founded on residual soil, and scour over
the years had removed support, resulting
in the pier tilting (figure 14). The remedial
solution for this bent was to enhance the
foundation with micropiles to provide the
additional support lost due to the scour
(figure 15 and figure 16). No discussion
was presented on how the design load for
the micropiles was determined or what the
capacity of the existing pier foundation 1 inch = 2.54 cm
was. This case history presents the Source: NCDOT.
remediation of an existing foundation
because of the effects of scour and
raises the question or perhaps points out
the need for a definition of foundation
reuse, because many engineers would
suggest this action is remediation and not
reuse.

17
 Figure 13. Yadkin River Bridge Bent #7 settlement and rotation.

Source: NCDOT.

Figure 14. Scour at the upstream edge of the pier.

Source: NCDOT.
18
 Figure 15. Yadkin River Bridge micropiles remediation.

Source: NCDOT.

Figure 16. An existing foundation strengthened with micropiles.

Source: NCDOT.
19
 Henley Street Bridge, Tennessee (Option 4) into the foundation system (figure 19).
Underwater inspection of the existing piers
The Henley Street Bridge, constructed in
was performed and given a structural and
1931, is a six-span, reinforced concrete
scour rating of 7 out of 10. Based on this
bridge across the Tennessee River. The
inspection and engineering judgment, the
bridge required significant structural repair
existing foundation was considered to be
and seismic upgrade. In addition, the width
adequate for reuse. The load-carrying
of the bridge was expanded. Figure 17
capacity of the existing foundation was
shows the bridge before rehabilitation, assumed to be 20 percent of the total foun-
and figure 18 shows some of the structural dation load. Therefore, the drilled shafts
deterioration. This rehabilitation project were designed to carry the remainder of
was in reality a complete superstructure the load. How the load capacity of the exist-
replacement. The original bridge founda- ing foundation was determined was not
tion consisted of driven piles. To support included in the presentation of this case
the added load from the bridge widening, history. Figure 20 shows the bridge after
additional drilled shafts were incorporated rehabilitation.

Figure 17. Superstructure repair, Henley Street Bridge rehabilitation project.

Source: Tennessee Department of Transportation.

20
 Figure 18. Structural deterioration of Henley Street Bridge superstructure.

Source: Tennessee Department of Transportation.

Figure 19. Combined foundation system for Henley Street Bridge rehabilitation.

Source: Tennessee Department of Transportation.

21
 Figure 20. Henley Street Bridge after completion of the rehabilitation.

Source: Tennessee Department of Transportation.

Discussions program that focuses on foundation

characterization to provide answers to
It is a common practice in the United States
meet this challenge.
to undertake significant improvements on
existing bridges (new decks, major reha- At first examination, the question of
bilitation, widening, and load capacity whether to reuse existing foundations
improvements) without consideration appears simple and, in fact, is often seen
and study of the current condition and as a non-issue. If the existing structure is
remaining service life of the substructure, visually sound and not experiencing lateral,
including the foundations. As the spe- vertical, total, or differential deformation,
cialty topic of bridge preservation becomes then one may logically assume that sub-
more mature, a growing number of bridge structure is sound and may serve in a
owners are questioning the soundness of satisfactory manner for long extended
this practice and are in need of guidance service life. However, in some cases, this
at both a bridge-program level and a assumption needs to be corroborated
project-specific level to develop and
through field testing.
implement consistent practices. This topic
was addressed at recent workshops and The workshop presentations and panel
sessions at the 2014 TRB meeting. The discussions highlighted different aspects
workshop and sessions were very well of the reuse of bridge foundations. The
attended, validating the importance frequency with which this topic is raised
of the topic and the need for further in practice (although under a variety of
research and development work in this different titles and terms) is increasing.
area. FHWA is just beginning a research Workshop presenters addressed their

22
personal and organization experiences to but rather as a sustainable construction
date. Collectively, this workshop demon- project. The guidelines should clearly define
strated that the apparently simple question reuse because different State transporta-
of whether to reuse existing foundations tion departments have different definitions
has broad and far-reaching implications of reuse. The guidance should also include
for owner agencies, designers, and con- well-defined approaches to evaluating the
struction staff. For the most part, the topic existing condition of a foundation. How
has been considered from a “bottom-up” much and what type of testing is adequate/
approach, centering on a question raised appropriate to define the unknown? What
in conjunction with a specific project rather disciplines should be involved in the
than a “top-down” programmatic directive. foundation assessment?
Although the individual presenters did not Additional research into methods of assess-
intentionally compare notes or collaborate ing the integrity and capacity of exist-
in advance, they suggested that technical ing foundations should also be pursued.
and management needs in this area are However, specifics of this research were not
many and include the following topics: provided by the presenters at the workshop
terminology, historical and new data col- or panel discussion.
lection and analysis, investigative tools to
assist in evaluation of structural and geo- Acknowledgements
technical limit state performance, the in situ We would like to acknowledge the following
condition of the foundation material (time TRB committees for sponsoring the work-
deterioration and construction placement shop: Soil and Rock Properties (AFP30);
damage), and policies and design protocols. Foundations of Bridges and Other Structures
Research Needs (AFS30), Soil and Rock Instrumentation
(AFS20), Exploration and Classification of
From a programmatic level, bridge own-
Earth Materials (AFP20), Subsurface Soil-
ers require policy, process, and technical
Structure Interaction (AFS40), and, Low-
guidance and tools to adopt a consistent
Volume Roads Committee (AFB 30). We
approach that ensures public safety, mini-
would also like to acknowledge Dr. Jerry
mizes future risk, and optimizes study scope
Shen of Genex Systems for his assistance.
of their bridge inventory. As an example,
reuse of an existing substructure for a References
bridge deck replacement may not require
1. FHWA (2012), Bridge—Tables of
any indepth study as would bridge widen-
Frequently Requested NBI Information,
ing and a completely new superstructure.
Washington, DC, accessed on August 27,
It is clear that the majority of the present- 2013, http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/
ers believe that the most important need britab.cfm.
to advance the reuse of bridge foundations 2. Schaefer, V.R. and Jalinoos, F. (2013),
is the development of FHWA guidelines on Characterization of Bridge Foundations
what is the required standard of practice to Workshop Report, FHWA-HRT-13-101,
evaluate an existing foundation and miti- FHWA, https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/
gate the risks involved. Each project should publications/research/infrastructure/
not be approached as a research project structures/bridge/13101/index.cfm.

23
 3. Soil and Rock Properties (AFP30) state.ma.us/Portals/8/docs/bridge
Committee (2014), Characterization Manual/2013LRFD/Part%20I/CHAPTER
of Bridge Foundations—January 2014 %203_LRFD_MassDOT.pdf.
Workshop (TRB) and Session (TRB) 7. Indiana Department of Transportation
Presentations, TRB, Washington, DC, and Kentucky Transportation Cabinet
accessed on March 24, 2014, https://sites. (2014), Milton-Madison Bridge Project,
google.com/site/trbcommitteeafp30/ accessed on April 15, 2014, http://www.
characterization-of-bridge-foundations. miltonmadisonbridge.com/
4. Butcher, A.P., Powell, J.J.M., and Skinner, 8. Simpson, J.B. (2013), Hurricane Deck
H.D. (2006), Reuse of Foundations for Bridge Demolition, Phase 1, Gallery I,
Urban Sites—a Best Practice Handbook, LakeExpo.com, Osage Beach, MO,
IHS BRE Press, Bracknell. accessed on March 26, 2014, http://
5. Chapman, T.J.P., Anderson, S., and lakeexpo.com/lake_events/collection_
Windle, J. (2007), “Reuse of Foundation,” ae884ce0-6047-11e3-8fd9-001a4bcf887a.
Construction Industry Research and html?mode=nogs.
Information Association (CIRIA). 9. Structures Design and Bridge
Publication C653. Management—Geotechnical Section
6. Highway Division (2013), LRFD Bridge (2012), Geotechnical Report, SR-201
Manual—Part I, Chapter 3, LRFD Arthur Mills, Utah Department of
Bridge Design Guidelines, MassDOT, Transportation, Salt Lake City, UT.
Boston, MA, 2013, http://www.massdot.

Researchers—This report was written by James G. Collin of the Collin Group, Ltd. and Frank Jalinoos
of FHWA R&D. Dr. Collin was a subcontractor to the Genex Systems, LLC through the Turner-Fairbank
Highway Research Center laboratory support contract DTFH61-11-D-00010.

For additional information, contact Frank Jalinoos at (202) 493-3082 or in the FHWA office of
Infrastructure Research and Development, located at 6300 Georgetown Pike, McLean, VA 22101-2296.

Distribution—This TechBrief is being distributed according to a standard distribution. Direct distribu-

tion is being made to the Divisions and Resource Center.

Availability—This TechBrief may be obtained from the FHWA Product Distribution Center by email to
report.center@dot.gov, fax to (814) 239-2156, phone to (814) 239-1160, or online at http://www.fhwa.dot.
gov/research.

Key Words—Foundation reuse, prefabricated bridge elements and systems, accelerated bridge
construction, foundation integrity, bridge substructure, geotech.

Notice—This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S. Department of

Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The U.S. Government assumes no liability for
the use of the information contained in this document. The U.S. Government does not endorse prod-
ucts or manufacturers. Trademarks or manufacturers’ names appear in this report only because they
are considered essential to the objective of the document.

Quality Assurance Statement—The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) provides high-quality

information to serve the Government, industry, and public in a manner that promotes public under-
standing. Standards and policies are used to ensure and maximize the quality, objectivity, utility, and
integrity of its information. FHWA periodically reviews quality issues and adjusts its programs and
processes to ensure continuous quality improvement.

AUGUST 2014 FHWA-HRT-14-072

HRDI-50/08-14(250)E

24