Ins

Bridge Inspection Manual
Revised August 2013

2013 by Texas Department of Transportation
(512) 302-2453 all rights reserved
Manual Notice 2013-1
From: Gregg A. Freeby, P.E., Director, Bridge Division
Manual: Bridge Inspection Manual
Effective Date: August 23, 2013
Purpose
This manual provides guidance for bridge inspection personnel and helps ensure consistency in
bridge inspection, rating, and evaluation.
Contents
This manual adds in Chapter 5 information regarding the procedures for changing off-system
bridge load postings.
Contact
For more information regarding any portion of this manual, please contact the TxDOT Bridge
Division.
Archives
Past manual notices are available in a pdf archive.
Bridge Inspection Manual i TxDOT 08/2013
Table of Contents
Chapter 1 Introduction
Section 1 About this Manual . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1-2
Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1-2
Feedback . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1-2
Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1-2
Chapter 2 History of Bridge Inspection
Section 1 Initial Reasons for Bridge Inspection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2-2
Beginning of Bridge Inspection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2-2
First Texas Bridge Inspection Program. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2-2
Section 2 Primary References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2-3
Major Standards, Manuals, and Technical Advisories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2-3
Section 3 AASHTO Inspection Manuals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2-4
1970 and 1974 AASHTO Manuals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2-4
1978 AASHTO Manual . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2-5
1983 AASHTO Manual . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2-6
AASHTO Interim Specifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2-6
1994 Rewrite of AASHTO Manual . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2-8
Current Status of AASHTO Manual . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2-10
Section 4 Federal and State Inspection Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2-11
The Bridge Inspector's Reference Manual . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2-11
Texas Bridge Inspection Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2-11
Chapter 3 Qualifications and Responsibilities of Bridge Inspection Personnel
Section 1 Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3-2
General Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3-2
Federal Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3-2
AASHTO Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3-3
TxDOT Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3-3
Section 2 TxDOT Bridge Inspection Personnel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3-5
Specific Position Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3-5
Division Manager of Bridge Inspection Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3-5
District Bridge Inspection Coordinators or Bridge Engineering Specialist in a Division . .3-6
Bridge Inspection Staff Technicians . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3-7
Section 3 Bridge Inspections by Consultants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3-9
Routine Bridge Inspections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3-9
Bridge Inspection Manual ii TxDOT 08/2013
Complex Bridge Inspections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3-10
Pre-certification Procedures for Consultants. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3-11
Section 4 Use of the Consultant Pool . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3-13
Request for Consultant Inspection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3-13
Work Authorization Issuance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3-13
Managing Consultant Bridge Inspections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3-14
Evaluation of Bridge Inspection Consultant Firm and Project Manager . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3-14
Firm Evaluation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3-17
Chapter 4 Field Inspection Requirements
Section 1 Types of Bridge Inspection. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4-2
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4-2
Section 2 Initial Inspections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4-3
Overview. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4-3
Section 3 Routine Inspections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4-4
Overview. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4-4
Inspection Equipment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4-4
Section 4 Event-Driven Inspections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4-5
Section 5 In-Depth Inspections. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4-6
Reasons for In-Depth Inspections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4-6
Underwater Inspections. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4-6
Underwater Inspection Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4-6
Levels of Underwater Inspection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4-7
Underwater Structural Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4-7
Underwater Inspection Devices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4-8
Underwater Structural Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4-8
Fracture-Critical Inspections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4-8
History of Fracture Critical Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4-9
Fatigue Failures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4-9
Fracture-Critical Members . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4-10
Redundancy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4-11
Inspection Procedures for Fracture Critical Members . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4-12
Fatigue and Fatigue Fracture. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4-13
Fatigue-Prone Details . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4-13
Weld Details . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4-14
Fatigue in Secondary Members. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4-15
Proper Welding and Repair Techniques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4-15
FC Inspection Techniques. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4-16
Section 6 Special Inspections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4-17
Bridge Inspection Manual iii TxDOT 08/2013
Overview. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4-17
Chapter 5 Ratings and Load Posting
Section 1 Condition Ratings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5-2
Definition of Condition Ratings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5-2
Recording Condition Ratings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5-2
Assigning Condition Ratings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5-3
Section 2 Appraisal Ratings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5-5
Definition of Appraisal Ratings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5-5
Appraisal Ratings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5-5
Section 3 Load Ratings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5-9
Definition of Load Ratings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5-9
Determination of Load Ratings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5-9
Inventory Rating and Design Load Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5-9
THD Design Supplement No. 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5-10
Customary Rating Procedures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5-12
Rating Concrete Bridges with No Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5-13
Examples of Rating Concrete Bridges with No Plans. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5-15
Ratings for Unusual Bridges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5-16
H- and HS-Load Ratings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5-17
Section 4 Legal Loads and Load Posting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5-18
Definition of State Legal Loads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5-18
Load Posting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5-19
Procedures for Changing On-System Bridge Load Posting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5-22
Procedures for Emergency On-System Bridge Load Posting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5-25
Closure of Weak Bridges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5-25
Procedures for Closing an Off-System Bridge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5-26
Procedures for Changing Off-System Bridge Load Posting . . . . . .5-27
Chapter 6 Routing and Permits
Section 1 Role of District Permit Officers, District Bridge Inspection Coordinators, and the Texas
Department of Motor Vehicles. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6-2
Section 2 Permits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6-3
OverHeight and OverWidth Permits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6-3
Over-weight Permit Loads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6-4
Superheavy Loads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6-4
Other Differences Between Overweight Permits and Operating Rating. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6-5
Overloads on Posted or Substandard Bridges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6-6
Pre- and Post-Move Inspection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6-6
Section 3 Example Comparison of Inventory, Operating, and Permit Loads . . . . . . . . . .6-7
Bridge Inspection Manual iv TxDOT 08/2013
Typical Continuous I-Beam Bridge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6-7
Rating Analysis Steps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6-8
Results for I-Beam Bridge. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6-10
Discussion of the Analysis Comparisons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6-10
Chapter 7 Bridge Programming
Section 1 Basis for Bridge Rehabilitation or Replacement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7-2
Overview. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7-2
Structurally Deficient . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7-2
Functionally Obsolete . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7-2
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7-2
Section 2 Federal Bridge Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7-3
Funding Classifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7-3
Selection Process. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7-3
Structural Deficiency. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7-4
Functional Obsolescence. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7-5
Section 3 Sufficiency Ratings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7-6
Calculation of Sufficiency Ratings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7-6
Section 4 Bridge Management System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7-10
Overview. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7-10
Chapter 8 Bridge Records
Section 1 Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8-2
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8-2
Section 2 Inspection Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8-5
Tools and Safety Equipment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8-5
Coordination with TxDOT District . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8-5
Email and Correspondence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8-6
Quality Control Program. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8-6
Section 3 Coding Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8-7
Summary of Instructions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8-7
Multiple-Pipe Culverts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8-7
Data Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8-7
Section 4 Inspection Documentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8-9
Inspection File Contents - On System Bridges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8-9
Inspection File Contents - Off System Bridges. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8-11
Section 5 Calculations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8-14
General Calculation Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8-14
Bridge Inspection Manual v TxDOT 08/2013
Calculations for On-System Bridges. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8-14
Calculations for Off-System Bridges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8-15
Section 6 Data Submittal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8-17
General Data Submittal Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8-17
Photographs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8-17
Presentation of Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8-18
On-System Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8-18
Off-System Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8-19
Summary Packages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8-19
Scour Records and Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8-19
Section 7 The Bridge Folder. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8-20
Folder Information (for on- and off-system bridges) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8-20
Folder Assembly . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8-20
Chapter 9 Quality Control/Quality Assurance Program
Section 1 Introduction of QC/QA Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9-2
Quality Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9-2
Quality Assurance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9-3
Reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9-3
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9-3
Section 2 Quality Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9-4
Program Personnel Qualifications. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9-4
Bridge Division . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9-4
Districts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9-5
Consultants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9-6
Review Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9-7
Section 3 Quality Assurance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9-9
Quality Assurance Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9-9
Quality Assurance District Reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9-10
Quality Assurance Meetings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9-11
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9-12
Appendix A State and Federal Regulations
Bridge Inspection Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-1
Code of Federal Regulations Highlights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-1
U.S. Code for Bridge Inspection Highlights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-2
Texas Transportation Code Highlights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-2
Appendix B Links to Coding Guidelines
Elements: Field Inspection and Coding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-1
Bridge Inspection Manual vi TxDOT 08/2013
Bridge Inspection Coding Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-1
Bridge Inspection Manual 1-1 TxDOT 08/2013
Chapter 1 Introduction
Contents:
Section 1 About this Manual
Chapter 1 Introduction Section 1 About this Manual
Section 1 About this Manual
Purpose
This manual provides guidance for bridge inspection personnel, provides a reference for consul-
tants, and helps to ensure consistency in bridge inspection, rating, and evaluation.
Feedback
Direct any questions or comments on the content of the manual to the Director of the Bridge Divi-
sion, Texas Department of Transportation.
Abbreviations
Throughout this manual, the period is omitted from abbreviations that are obvious to the engineer-
ing reader, such as "ft " for feet, "Fig " for Figure, "Ref " for Reference, and "lbs " for pounds. Only
abbreviations that may be misinterpreted have the period, such as "in. " for inch or inches, and "No.
" for number.
Capitalization
Throughout the manual many names of items, subjects, and processes are capitalized such as Spe-
cial Inspection, Condition Rating, Bridge Records, etc. These are considered to be proper names
and the convention conforms to the current AASHTO Manual for Condition Evaluation of Struc-
tures
1
and with other AASHTO and bridge-related engineering publications.
Manual Revision History
Version Publication Date Summary of Changes
2001-1 December 2001 New manual.
2002-1 July 2002 Revision adding updated information on bridge load-posting
changes and updating references to electronic forms.
2006-1 April 2006 Revision adding an index.
2012-1 August 2011 Minor editorial revisions to each chapter are not highlighted.
Citations to the most current editions of reference materials have
been updated but are not highlighted.
Revisions to Chapter 2 updating the status of current relevant
publications; updating Chapter 3 regarding the titles of current job
series and consultant evaluation criteria; updating fracture critical
inspection frequency in Chapter 4; updating information on
bridge load-posting in Chapter 5; and adding Chapter 9 regarding
the Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) program.
Chapter 1 Introduction Section 1 About this Manual
1. Manual for Condition Evaluation of Structures, AASHTO, 1994
Chapter 2 History of Bridge Inspection
Contents:
Section 1 Initial Reasons for Bridge Inspection
Section 2 Primary References
Section 3 AASHTO Inspection Manuals
Section 4 Federal and State Inspection Procedures
Chapter 2 History of Bridge Inspection Section 1 Initial Reasons for Bridge Inspection
Section 1 Initial Reasons for Bridge Inspection
Beginning of Bridge Inspection
After World War II, Texas initiated an extensive road construction program. As a result, most
emphasis was on new and economical construction, and for about two decades most highway
departments gave little effort to bridge inspection or preventive maintenance.
In 1967, there was a sudden collapse of the Silver Bridge, a pin-connected link suspension bridge
over the Ohio River at Point Pleasant, West Virginia, with loss of 46 lives. As a result, a 1968 fed-
eral act
1
initiated a national bridge inspection program that recognized the need for periodic and
consistent bridge inspections. The first National Bridge Inspection Standards (NBIS) were devel-
oped in 1971.
2

Another structure failure at the Mianus River Bridge in Connecticut in 1983 caused more concern
related to fatigue and fracture-critical bridges. This failure and further research resulted in fracture-
critical inspections to be mandated. In 1987, scour caused failure of the Schoharie Creek Bridge in
New York. This failure resulted in the initiation of the underwater bridge inspection program.
The Bridge Inspectors Reference Manual
3
gives a more detailed history of bridge inspection on
pages 1.1.1 through1.1.9.
First Texas Bridge Inspection Program
The first formal bridge inspection program in Texas began in 1975. The first Administrative Circu-
lar initiating the inspections was No. 60-75 issued in 1975
4
. It stated that all on-system bridges
were to be inspected every two years and that a computerized inventory data file was to be main-
tained. The reporting of data was made to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) on
required forms. Texas was the first state to develop a punch-card reporting scheme accepted by the
FHWA and later mandated for all states.
1. Federal Highway Act of 1968.
2. National Bridge Inspection Standards (NBIS), FHWA, 1971.
3. Bridge Inspector's Reference Manual, FHWA, October, 2002, revised December, 2006.
4. Administrative Circular No. 60-75, TxDOT, 1975.
Chapter 2 History of Bridge Inspection Section 2 Primary References
Section 2 Primary References
Major Standards, Manuals, and Technical Advisories
Many standards, manuals, and technical advisories have been developed over the years related to
bridge inspection. Most of these were issued by the American Association of State Highway Offi-
cials (AASHO), whose name was changed in 1973 to the American Association of State Highway
and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), or by the FHWA. The major publications related to
bridge inspection with their issue dates are:
AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, 5th Edition (2010)
AASHTO Manual for Bridge Evaluation, Second Edition (2011)
AASHTO Guide Manual for Bridge Element Inspection, First Edition (2011)
AASHTO Guide for Commonly Recognized Structural Elements (1998)
AASHTO Manual for Condition Evaluation of Bridges (1994)
AASHTO Manual for Maintenance Inspection of Bridges (1974, 1978, 1983, and 1993)
AASHO Manual for Maintenance Inspection of Bridges (1970)
FHWA Bridge Inspector's Reference Manual (2002 and 2006)
FHWA, Bridge Inspector's Training Manual 90, 1991
FHWA Hydraulic Engineering Circular No. 18 (about 1988)
FHWA "Scour at Bridges," a technical advisory (1988)
FHWA Inspection of Fracture Critical Bridge Members (1986)
FHWA Bridge Inspector's Training Manual 70 (1979)
FHWA Culvert Inspection Manual (about 1979)
FHWA The Bridge Inspector's Manual for Movable Bridges (1977)
FHWA Recording and Coding Guide for the Structure Inventory and Appraisal of the Nation's
Bridges (1972, 1979, 1988, 1991, and 1995)
FHWA National Bridge Inspection Standards (1971, 1979, and 1988)
Code of Federal Regulations, 23 Highways Part 650, Subpart C - National Bridge Inspection
Standards.
Hereinafter, references to AASHO will be called AASHTO for consistency.
Chapter 2 History of Bridge Inspection Section 3 AASHTO Inspection Manuals
Section 3 AASHTO Inspection Manuals
1970 and 1974 AASHTO Manuals
The first AASHTO Manual issued in 1970
1
(the small grey book) and subsequently modified
slightly in 1974
2
(the small green book) described the minimum information considered necessary
for inspection, records, rating, and check of bridge load capacities. Primary subjects with their
major items were:
Inspections
Frequency of two years
Waterway, debris, and channel profile observed
Investigate evidence of scour and undercutting
Deterioration of main structural members, deck, superstructure, and bents
Fatigue details of steel girders to be considered (little guidance given)
Abnormal cracking in concrete members
Bridge railings to have only visual inspection, no strength requirements
Trusses inspected for damage, bracing, condition of paint
Timber structures to be inspected for decay, overloading
Records
Written Structural Inventory and Appraisal (SI&A) sheet (little similarity to current SI&A
sheet)
Condition Ratings given as 9 to 0 as now, but little guidance on selection of ratings
At least two photos to be taken
All normal identifications, widths, clearances, etc. to be recorded
Painting record to be kept
Stress calculations to be kept
All spans should be listed by length (this is not currently done except indirectly in the bridge
plans)
Ratings
1. Manual for Maintenance Inspection of Bridges, AASHTO, 1970.
Operating and Inventory Ratings to be H- or HS-equivalents
Calculations in accordance with current AASHTO bridge specifications
Higher safety factor allowed for heavily traveled routes
Dimensions from as-built or field measurements if necessary
Pictorial posting signs recommended (not used by Texas at that time)
Load Capacity of Bridges
Consider two lanes loaded with rating trucks if bridge is 18-ft clear or wider
Allow fewer lanes if warranted by judgment of Engineer
Train of lighter-weight trucks to be considered, spaced at 30-ft headway when at H-12 or
less
Load distribution and allowable stresses as given by AASHTO Bridge Specifications
Sample calculations given in Appendix B of AASHTO Manual
Unique nomographs for live load rating in Appendix B
Load Factor Rating introduced as an acceptable method
1978 AASHTO Manual
The third AASHTO Manual was issued in 1978
1
(the small yellow book), and it included all the
same information and requirements as the first two AASHTO Manuals, with some re-ordering of
contents. In addition, the following major additions and modifications were made as compared to
the 1974 AASHTO Manual:
Records
Recommendations modified for repair, maintenance, and posting
Load Ratings
Definition of Inventory Rating changed to omit the equivalency to the original design load
Typical load and speed posting signs omitted and reference made to the Manual for Uniform
Traffic Control Devices
2
(MUTCD)
The Secant Formula was added for steel column strength calculations (this formula is
believed to be out-of-date and should not be used by a rater)
2. Scour at Bridges, Technical Advisory, FHWA, 1988.
Allowable Inventory Rating stresses listed for A36, A572, A441, and other steel types
Increased allowable bearing stresses on rivets and bolts
1983 AASHTO Manual
The fourth AASHTO Manual was issued in 1983 in loose-leaf form
1
(the large yellow book) and
contained essentially the same requirements as the first three AASHTO Manuals. The Records and
Ratings requirements were essentially unchanged from the 1978 AASHTO Manual. The following
list summarizes the major additions and modifications since the 1978 AASHTO Manual:
Allowable Inventory Rating stresses became more detailed
Allowable bearing stresses on rivets and bolts for Operating Ratings was again increased to be
consistent with the increases made in 1974 for Inventory Rating
Allowable Inventory stresses for A7 bolts and rivets clarified
Allowable Operating Rating stresses for high-strength bolts detailed for all conditions
Comparative chart for fastener bearing stresses added
Maximum Operating Rating concrete stresses in bending clarified
AASHTO Interim Specifications
The AASHTO Interim Specifications
2
of 1984 through 1990 included some re-ordering and editing
of various sections of the 1983 AASHTO Manual. In addition, there were significant changes and
additions were made in certain sections. These changes are summarized as follows:
In 1984 the inspection frequency could be increased to more than two years for certain types of
bridges if properly documented. An example in Texas is reinforced concrete box culverts.
In 1984 the two lanes of live loading for roadways between 18 to 20 feet was clarified. For
roadways over 20 feet in width, the spacing between trucks became 4.0 feet, which is the same
as the AASHTO bridge specifications.
3
This corrected a long time disparity between the
bridge specifications and the AASHTO Manual.
In 1986 there was a major change in the qualification of inspection personnel required that the
individual in charge must be a Registered Professional Engineer. Prior to this time, the individ-
ual in charge could be qualified by experience.
In 1986 scour was specifically identified as an item requiring more intense inspection.
2. Interim Specifications for Bridges, AASHTO, 1984, 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990.
3. Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges, AASHTO, 1994.
In 1986 nonredundant structures were identified as requiring the initiation of special inspection
procedures.
In 1986 concrete bridges with no plans were allowed to be rated by simple physical inspection
and evaluation by a qualified engineer.
In 1987 underwater inspection was identified as an important inspection requirement. This was
a direct result of the failure of the Schoharie Creek Bridge in New York in April 1987, which
also resulted in a 1988 FHWA technical advisory.
1

In 1987 hangers and pins were identified as features to be properly inspected.
In 1987 new sections entitled Evaluation and Limiting Vehicle Weights were added. Higher
safety factors could be considered for structures with large volumes of traffic. In addition, the
agency responsible for maintenance of a structure could use stress levels higher than Inventory
Ratings to post a bridge if inspection levels exceeded the minimum.
In 1987 speed postings were allowed in certain cases to reduce impact loads and thus reduce
the need for lowering weight limits. This procedure is not believed to have been applied to any
structures in Texas, either on- or off-system.
In 1988 the requirement that all inspections be done by a Registered Professional Engineer was
re-interpreted to allow an inspection team leader to be qualified by experience. However, the
person in responsible charge must be an Engineer.
In 1988 emphasis was placed on underwater inspection of pilings, particularly those exposed
to salt water or salt spray, and any foundation member in contact with brackish or chemically
contaminated waters.
In 1989 the minimum weight limit for posting was clarified to be three tons at the Operating
Rating stress level. Texas minimum capacity for bridges to remain open is HS-3 instead of 3
tons.
In 1989 a new Appendix B was added that described the five basic Inspection Types:
inventory
routine
damage
in-depth
interim
The categories and description of each Inspection Type were relatively broad. However, clari-
fications were made that the first Inventory Inspection was to determine all the Structure
Inventory and Appraisal data required by the FHWA and that Routine Inspections were defined
as those done at regularly scheduled intervals.
In 1990 only minor editorial changes were made.
1. Scour at Bridges, Technical Advisory, FHWA, 1988.
1994 Rewrite of AASHTO Manual
The AASHTO Manual was in the process of a complete rewrite during the period of about 1989 to
1992 under a research contract through the National Cooperative Highway Research Program
(NCHRP). Since the rewrite was anticipated to be first presented to the AASHTO Bridge Commit-
tee in about 1991, no major changes were made to the 1983 loose-leaf version of the AASHTO
Manual in 1991 or 1992. However, the rewrite was not completed for review until 1993. In 1994,
AASHTO adopted the revised version (loose-leaf, dark blue) of the AASHTO Manual, which is
now called the AASHTO Manual for Condition Evaluation of Bridges
1
.
Major additions and changes since the 1983 AASHTO Manual are:
Records:
Total bridge width is to be recorded. Prior to this time, the total was implied by the summation
of the deck width, sidewalk or curb width, and railing type.
Critical features such as special details, scour susceptibility, fatigue-prone details, etc. are now
to be recorded.
Flood records are to be kept if known. This information is not entered in the Coding Guide but
should be kept in the Bridge Folder described in Chapter 8.
Inspections:
Qualifications of the Inspection Program Manager are changed again to allow the person to be
qualified by experience. The qualifications are listed the same as first introduced in 1983. The
changes of 1986 and 1988, which did not allow qualification by experience, were therefore
rescinded. This conforms to State and Federal Regulations, which allow qualification by
experience.
Qualifications of the Inspection Program Manager are modified to allow the person to be qual-
ified by experience. This conforms to state and federal regulations, which are summarized in
Appendix A: State and Federal Regulations and allow qualification by experience.
Qualifications for Inspection Team Leader allow training to be based on a National Institute for
Certification in Engineering Technologies (NICET) Level III or IV certification in Bridge
Safety Inspection.
The five basic Inspection Types are now called:
Initial,
Routine
Damage
In-depth
Special.
1. Manual for Condition Evaluation of Bridges, AASHTO, 1994.
The categories and description of each Inspection Type are essentially the same as described
for the 1983 AASHTO Manual as modified by the 1989 Interim.
Detailed sections are added on methods of inspection including equipment, safety, advance
planning, and preparation for inspections.
Sections are added to describe inspection procedures, including organized and systematic field
notes and procedures.
Emphasis is placed on obtaining uniformity in condition ratings by different field inspection
teams by developing an objective system of evaluation and training.
New emphasis is placed on inspection of substructures including susceptibility to earthquake
damage. There are no areas in Texas with bridges considered to be susceptible to earthquake
forces except for a small portion of the El Paso district.
More emphasis is placed on various types of substructure inspection.
Detailed inspection recommendations are given for each of the various types of bridge super-
structure including new superstructure types such as cable-stayed and prestressed concrete
segmental bridges and new component types such as prestressed deck panels.
Fracture-critical members are to be properly identified.
More detail is required on description of timber components.
Greater detail is added on inspection of trusses.
Material Testing:
Extensive new material is added on field testing of materials for concrete, steel, and timber
including reference to the various newer methods such as acoustic emission for steel and pull-
off and thermographic tests for concrete.
Sampling techniques are described in detail.
Interpretation and evaluation of field and laboratory material tests is discussed.
Non-Destructive Load Testing:
This is a new section in the AASHTO Manual. However, very little useful information on
actual load testing procedures is given.
Methods of determining equivalent standard ratings from load tests are complex and costly,
and are not used at the present time in Texas.
Ratings:
The rating section of the AASHTO Manual is much more extensive than corresponding sec-
tions in previous editions.
The description of the safety factors for the Load Factor Rating method are similar to the fac-
tors in the new AASHTO Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) Specifications.
1
The AASHTO Manual stated when a redundant bridge has details not available from plans,
then a physical inspection and evaluation may be sufficient to approximate the ratings. An
interpretation on applying this criterion to redundant bridges will be presented in Chapter 5,
Ratings and Load Posting.
Structural grade of reinforcing steel is listed separately in the Load Factor Method of rating but
is combined with all the older unknown grades for the Allowable Stress Rating Methods.
Texas allowed the use of structural grade of reinforcing until about 1962 which was described
in the TxDOT Construction Specifications of 1951 and 1962. This will be discussed in more
detail in Chapter 5, Ratings and Load Posting.
The AASHTO Manual now contains detailed examples of allowable stress, load factor, and
load and resistance factor (LRFR) ratings for a simple-span, I-beam structure and for a simple-
span, concrete structure. An example of an allowable stress rating is also given for a simple-
span timber structure.
An expanded index of subjects is now included in the AASHTO Manual.
Current Status of AASHTO Manual
The Manual for Bridge Evaluation, First Edition (MBE) was adopted by the AASHTO Highways
Subcommittee on Bridges and Structures in 2005. The MBE combines the Manual for Condition
Evaluation of Bridges, Second Edition (2000) and its 2001 and 2003 Interim Revisions with the
Guide Manual for Condition Evaluation and Load and Resistance Factor Rating (LRFR) of High-
way Bridges, First Edition and its 2005 Interim Revisions. Revisions based on approved agenda
items from annual Subcommittee meetings in 2007 and 2008 are also incorporated into the MBE.
The Manual for Bridge Evaluation, First Edition, with 2010 Interim Revisions supersedes the Man-
ual for Condition Evaluation of Bridges, Second Edition and any revisions made in previous
Interim Revisions. With the 2008 publication of the MBE, the Subcommittee conferred archive
status on the Manual for Condition Evaluation of Bridges, the Guide Manual for Condition Evalu-
ation and Load and Resistance Factor Rating (LRFR) of Highway Bridges, and all Interim
Revisions of both prior bridge evaluation titles.
1. Load and Resistance Factor Design Specifications, AASHTO, 1994.
Chapter 2 History of Bridge Inspection Section 4 Federal and State Inspection Procedures
Section 4 Federal and State Inspection Procedures
The Bridge Inspector's Reference Manual
The Bridge Inspector's Reference Manual (BIRM) is a comprehensive manual on programs,
procedures, and techniques for inspecting and evaluating a variety of in-service highway
bridges. It is intended to replace the BITM 90 which was first published in 1991 to assist in
training highway personnel for the new discipline of bridge safety inspection. BITM 90
replaced BITM 70 which had been in use for twenty years and has been the basis for several
training programs varying in length from a few days to two weeks. Comprehensive supple-
ments to BITM 70 have been developed to cover inspection of fracture critical bridge
members, and culverts are not covered in the BIRM.
The BIRM is a revision and upgrading of the previous manual. Improved Bridge Inspection
Techniques are presented, and state-of-the-art inspection equipment is included. New or
expanded coverage is provided on culverts, fracture critical members, cable-stayed bridges,
prestressed segmental bridges, and underwater inspection. Previous supplemental manuals on
moveable bridge inspection and nondestructive testing are excerpted and referenced. These
supplemental manuals are still valid supplements to BIRM.
Texas Bridge Inspection Procedures
Inspection procedures in Texas have evolved since the first inspection program was initiated in
about 1975.
Data recorded in Texas exceed that of the current SI&A information required by the FHWA.
Texas captures all the required information plus approximately 50 percent more. A detailed
description of the data recorded is presented in the Coding Guide.
The purposes of bridge inspection are:
To ensure public safety and confidence in bridge structural capacity
To protect public investment and allow efficient allocation of resources
To effectively schedule maintenance and rehabilitation operations
To provide a basis for repair, replacement, or other improvements such as retrofit railings
To ensure that federal funding will remain available for bridge rehabilitation and
replacement
Bridges are inspected every two years, but the frequency may be increased depending on the
condition of the bridge. More detail will be given in Chapter 4, Field Inspection Requirements.
There are five basic types of inspection, each of which will be described in greater detail in
Chapter 4, Field Inspection Requirements:
Initial Inspection. Performed on new bridges or when bridge is first recorded.
Chapter 2 History of Bridge Inspection Section 4 Federal and State Inspection Procedures
Routine Inspections. Those regularly scheduled, usually every two years for most normal
bridges.
Event Driven Inspections (AASHTO Damage Inspections). Those performed as a
result of collision, fire, flood, significant environmental changes, loss of support, etc.
These inspections are also called Emergency Inspections and are performed on an as-
needed basis.
In-Depth Inspections. Performed usually as a follow-up inspections to better identify
deficiencies found in any of the above three types of inspection. Detailed Underwater
Inspections are considered a type of In-Depth Inspection. Fracture-critical Inspections are
another type of In-Depth Inspection.
Special Inspections. Performed to monitor a particular deficiency or changing condition.
Unusual bridge designs or features such as external, grouted, post-tensioned tendons, may
require a Special Inspection.
Chapter 3 Qualifications and Responsibilities of Bridge
Inspection Personnel
Contents:
Section 1 Requirements
Section 2 TxDOT Bridge Inspection Personnel
Section 3 Bridge Inspections by Consultants
Section 4 Use of the Consultant Pool
Chapter 3 Qualifications and Responsibilities of
Bridge Inspection Personnel
General Requirements
Personnel involved in the various bridge inspection activities must be qualified for their specialized
jobs. In general, depending on the level of responsibility, they must be knowledgeable in the vari-
ous aspects of bridge engineering including design, load rating, construction, rehabilitation, and
maintenance.
Federal Requirements
The United States Code (23 U.S.C. 151) requires the Secretary of Transportation, in consultation
with State transportation departments, to establish national bridge inspection standards for the
proper safety inspection and evaluation of all highway bridges. These requirements are spelled out
in the Code of Federal Regulations (Part 650, Subpart C) and govern the National Bridge Inspec-
tion Standards (NBIS) through purpose, applicability, definition of terms, qualification of
personnel, inspection frequencies, inspection procedures, inventory procedures, and supporting
references.
The NBIS have specific qualification requirements for individuals working in the bridge inspection
program of a state. These are summarized as:
The individual in charge of each organizational unit (the Bridge Inspection Branch of the
Bridge Division, the project manager for each firm under contract with TxDOT to perform
bridge inspections) must:
be a Registered Professional Engineer or have a minimum of ten years experience in
bridge inspection experience; and
successfully completed an FHWA approved comprehensive bridge inspection training
course.
The individual in charge of a bridge inspection team (Team Leader) must:
have the same qualifications as above, or
have a minimum of five years experience in bridge inspection assignments and have suc-
cessfully completed an FHWA approved comprehensive bridge inspection training course,
or
be certified as a Level III or IV Bridge Safety Inspector under the National Society of Pro-
fessional Engineer's program for National Certification in Engineering Technologies
1

(NICET) and have completed an FHWA approved comprehensive bridge inspection train-
ing course; or
1. National Society of Professional Engineer's program for National Certification in Engineering Technologies, National
Institute for Certification in Engineering Technologies (NICET), current.
have all of the following:
1. a bachelor's degree in engineering from a college or university accredited by or determined as
substantially equivalent by the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology; and
2. successfully passed the National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying Funda-
mentals of Engineering examination;
3. two years of bridge inspection experience; and
4. successfully completed an FHWA approved comprehensive bridge inspection training course;
or
have all of the following:
1. an associate's degree in engineering or engineering technology
from a college or university accredited by or determined as sub-
stantially equivalent by the Accreditation Board for
Engineering and Technology; and
2. four years of bridge inspection experience; and
3. successfully completed an FHWA approved comprehensive bridge inspection training course.
The individual charged with the overall responsibility for load rating bridges must be a regis-
tered professional engineer.
An underwater bridge inspection diver must complete an FHWA approved comprehensive
bridge inspection training course or other FHWA approved underwater diver bridge inspection
training course.
AASHTO Requirements
AASHTO also has essentially the same requirements as the FHWA. These are described in the cur-
rent AASHTO Manual for Bridge Evaluation
1
.
TxDOT Requirements
At a minimum, all bridge inspection activities performed by TxDOT and by TxDOT bridge inspec-
tion consultants must comply with Federal requirements. In addition to Federal requirements for
bridge inspection personnel, some jobs may require more specific job-related knowledge and skills
such as:
The use of breathing apparatus for underwater inspection.
The various applicable requirements for inspection safety including applicable Occupational,
Safety, and Health Administration (OSHA) requirements, such as safety requirements for
working in confined spaces and at heights.
1. Manual for Bridge Evaluation, AASHTO
Advanced computer skills related to bridge analysis.
Geotechnical and hydrological knowledge.
Familiarity with TxDOT bridge construction specifications and with current and old TxDOT
bridge designs.
TxDOT also has special requirements for consultants retained to perform bridge inspection tasks.
All firms must be pre-qualified. Further information on consultant requirements is presented later
in this chapter in Section 3 titled Bridge Inspection by Consultants.
Specific Position Requirements
The following subsections briefly describe each TxDOT job position. Greater detail is given in the
Human Resources Manual describing the various positions. TxDOT bridge inspection personnel
must have the appropriate Bridge Inspection job classification, experience and training.
Division Manager of Bridge Inspection Operations
This person heads the Bridge Inspection Branch of the Bridge Division. Under the general direction
of the Director of the Bridge Division, the position has statewide responsibility for the Texas bridge
inspection operations.
All the bridge inspection activities for Texas are under the general oversight of this position and
includes such major items such as:
Oversee and maintain or assist in overseeing and maintaining the Bridge Inspection Program in
the Bridge Division and assist districts with bridge inspection-related matters.
Coordinate fracture critical, underwater or off-system bridge inspection programs.
Develop standards in conjunction with TxDOT divisions and districts and the Federal High-
way Administration and ensure compliance with National Bridge Inspection Standards.
Perform, review and monitor detailed investigations, data collection, analyses and coordina-
tion of bridge related research and recommend cost effective project level design for new,
rehabilitated and reconstructed bridges.
Prepare, evaluate, perform final reviews, and negotiate contracts with consultants for routine,
fracture critical and underwater inspections of the district bridges.
Monitor consultants' progress and work quality; check invoices and associated documents; pre-
pare supplemental agreements.
Schedule, assign and oversee bridge inspection activities.
Oversee and perform bridge structural evaluations/analyses of structures; inspect bridges that
have appraisal and condition ratings or are recommended for closure.
Rate and monitor load carrying capacities of bridges.
Maintain a critical bridge list and coordinate with the Bridge Division, area engineers and
other district staff on critical findings involving state maintained bridges to have them posted,
repaired or closed to the traveling public.
Recommend replacement, rehabilitation or repair of damaged bridges and coordinate with
local officials on critical findings involving structures not under state jurisdiction, to have them
posted, repaired or closed to the traveling public.
Perform critical inspections on large or unusual structures when requested by the Bridge Divi-
sion or in response to an emergency.
Recommend prioritization of bridge replacement, bridge rehabilitation and repair of damaged
bridges.
Review contract development and related documents for execution.
Oversee the processing and review of consultant selection documentation, contracts, and
related documents.
Interpret laws, rules, and regulations pertaining to professional services contracting to ensure
compliance with Department and governmental regulations.
Chair or serve as a member of a contract selection team.
Negotiate fees and budgets; develop and negotiate scopes of work; negotiate contract work
schedules; and negotiate other contract agreements.
Monitor contract performance; evaluate contract deliverables; review billing documentation;
monitor consultants' compliance with contract terms; and prepare and deliver a written evalua-
tion of the consultant performance.
Serve as a project manager overseeing consultants performing advanced and complex engi-
neering work.
District Bridge Inspection Coordinators or Bridge Engineering Specialist in a Division
The TxDOT personnel assigned to these positions are directly responsible for bridge inspection
operations within the division or district. Under general guidance from the Division Manager of
Bridge Inspection or from the District Engineer, they perform a variety of tasks. If the individual
filling the District Bridge Inspection Coordinator position is not an engineer, then they must meet
the minimum requirements of a Bridge Engineering Specialist.
Some of the major bridge inspection responsibilities and duties of this position may include:
Implement and monitor the bridge inspection program in a district.
Maintain and review files which indicate the condition of the bridge inventory and document
compliance with bridge inspection manuals.
Inspect and appraise bridge structures according to the bridge inspection Manual of
Procedures.
Coordinate the bridge load-posting program in the district
Performs structural analysis and calculations on structures to certify load-carrying capacity.
Perform bridge appraisals and sufficiency rating calculations according to the bridge inspec-
tion Manual of Procedures.
Conduct immediate inspection of damaged bridges, determine necessity of temporary or per-
manent repairs and notifify maintenance personnel; make recommendations to close bridges.
Implement and prepare Bridge Maintenance Program for a district.
Prepare bridge inspection follow-up worksheet for maintenance and give instructions for rec-
ommended actions.
Monitor follow-up actions taken by maintenance.
Work with county officials to post or repair bridges under the county's jurisdiction.
Work with design and construction personnel on new construction projects to determine new
structures to be added to the inventory.
Determine extent of deterioration requiring rehabilitation or replacement as the basis for plan-
ning bridge replacement and rehabilitation programs.
Prepare and analyze summaries of bridge inspection computer data.
Monitor inspection contract work authorization performance; evaluate deliverables; review
billing documentation; monitor the consultant compliance with the terms of the contract; and
evaluate the consultant performance.
Perform fracture-critical bridge member inspections.
Maintain bridge inspection and diving equipment.
Research plan sets for use in underwater, fracture-critical and on and off system bridge
inspections.
Perform underwater bridge inspection requiring diving.
Ensure compliance with Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) standards
and direct the Diving Safety Program.
Bridge Inspection Staff Technicians
These TxDOT engineering technicians perform many of the bridge inspection tasks within the divi-
sion or a district. Under direct supervision from the Bridge Division Inspection Branch Manager or,
the District Bridge Inspection Coordinator, or a Bridge Inspection Engineer, the positions are
responsible for many specific tasks.
Some of the specific bridge inspection responsibilities and duties of these positions may include:
Assist with fracture-critical bridge member inspection.
Assist with bridge inspections.
Record data and maintain and review bridge inspection files for compliance with bridge
inspection manuals.
Prepare and analyze summaries of bridge inspection computer data.
Prepare drawings and sketches to be included in bridge inspection reports.
Perform bridge appraisals and sufficiency rating calculations according to the bridge inspec-
tion Manual of Procedures.
Research plan sets for use in underwater, fracture-critical and on- and off-system bridge
inspections.
Maintain bridge inspection and diving equipment.
Assist with underwater bridge inspection.
Perform underwater bridge inspection requiring diving.
All firms contracted by TxDOT to perform routine bridge inspections must be pre-certified in
accordance with the requirements of the applicable portions of the Code of Federal Regulations
given in Appendix A. In general, inspections performed under contract to TxDOT for inspection of
both on- and off-system bridges will conform to the FHWA Bridge Inspectors Reference Manual
1
,
Service to Be Provided provisions in the TxDOT Bridge Inspection Contract, and this manual.
Routine Bridge Inspections
For routine bridge inspections, the firm must employ an individual to serve as Project Manager who
meets the following qualifications:
Is a Licensed Professional Engineer in the State of Texas; and
Has successfully completed an FHWA approved comprehensive bridge inspection training
course.
The requirement for completion of a comprehensive training course will be considered to mean
completion of the two-week course presented by the National Highway Institute (NHI) called
Safety Inspection of In-Service Bridges
2
.
TxDOT requires all Project Managers to successfully complete a mandatory refresher course every
four years, NHI Course No. 130053.
The bridge inspection Team Leaders employed by the firm must also be qualified and have:
the same qualifications as required for the Project Manager, or
a minimum of five years experience in bridge inspection assignments and successfully com-
pleted an FHWA approved comprehensive bridge inspection training course, or
certification as a Level III or Level IV Bridge Safety Inspector under the National Society of
Professional Engineer's program for National Certification in Engineering Technologies
3

(NICET) and have successfully completed an FHWA approved comprehensive bridge inspec-
tion training course, or
all of the following:
1. Bridge Inspectors Training Manual 90, FHWA, 1991.
2. Safety Inspection of In-Service Bridges, National Highway Institute, current.
3. National Society of Professional Engineers program for National Certification in Engineering Technologies, National
mentals of Engineering examination; and
4. successfully completed an FHWA approved comprehensive bridge inspection training course,
or
all of the following:
1. an associate's degree in engineering or engineering technology from a college or university
accredited by or determined as substantially equivalent by the Accreditation Board for Engi-
neering and Technology;
TxDOT requires all team leaders to successfully complete a mandatory refresher course every four
years, NHI Course No. 130053.
Complex Bridge Inspections
For complex bridge inspections, such as those requiring fracture-critical inspections, the firm must
employ an individual to serve as Project Manager who meets the following qualifications:
Is a Registered Professional Engineer in the State of Texas; and
Has seven years of bridge inspection or design experience, including one year of inspection or
design of bridges considered as complex; and
Has successfully completed an FHWA approved comprehensive bridge inspection training
course.
If complex bridge inspection assignment includes fracture critical inspections, then this indi-
vidual must have successfully completed an FHWA approved fracture critical inspection
course, NHI Course No. 130078.
TxDOT requires all Project Managers to successfully complete a mandatory refresher course every
four years, NHI Course No. 130053.
The bridge inspection Team Leaders employed by the firm must also be qualified and have:
Six years of bridge inspection or design experience, including one year of inspection or design
of bridges considered as complex; and
The same qualifications as required for the Project Manager; or
Have certification as a Level III or IV Bridge Safety Inspector under the National Society
of Professional Engineer's program for National Certification in Engineering Technolo-
gies
1
(NICET) and successfully complete an FHWA approved comprehensive bridge
inspection training course; or
Have all of the following:
mentals of Engineering examination;
4. successfully completed an FHWA approved comprehensive bridge inspection training course,
or
Have all of the following:
1. an associate's degree in engineering or engineering technology from a college or university
accredited by or determined as substantially equivalent by the Accreditation Board for Engi-
neering and Technology; and
If complex bridge inspection assignment includes fracture critical inspections, then individual
must have successfully completed an FHWA approved fracture critical inspection course, NHI
Course No. 130078.
TxDOT requires all team leaders to successfully complete a mandatory refresher course every four
years, NHI Course No. 130053.
Pre-certification Procedures for Consultants
Bridge inspection contracts are developed and monitored by both district and division personnel.
Consultants must demonstrate the required minimum amount of experience in bridge inspection,
rating, and evaluation. Consultants must have knowledge of TxDOT bridge inspection procedures,
requirements, and goals of the statewide bridge safety inspection program.
Consultant personnel must have completed the required training in bridge inspection.
Familiarity with current and past AASHTO specifications is necessary. Extensive knowledge of
TxDOT bridge construction specifications, including current and past TxDOT bridge designs is
1. National Society of Professional Engineer's program for National Certification in Engineering Technologies, National
also necessary since many off-system bridges with no documented plans were constructed using
TxDOT standard designs.
Consultant firms who are under contract with the Bridge Division to perform bridge inspections in
Texas are available for use by the districts. New inspection contracts are executed every two years
by the Bridge Inspection Branch of the Bridge Division. The necessary procedures that must be fol-
lowed by the districts to utilize these consultants is described below.
Request for Consultant Inspection
The district must initially provide the following three items to the Bridge Inspection Branch of the
Bridge Division with a lead time of at least three months:
A request in writing
The total numbers of bridges to be inspected broken out by county
An identification of the bridges as being on- and/or off-system
Work Authorization Issuance
The Bridge Inspection Branch of the Bridge Division will send to the district a blank Work Autho-
rization along with a fee schedule for the recommended consulting firm who has been contacted.
The district then proceeds with the following:
Complete the Work Authorization and fee schedule.
Include description of where the bridge inspections will take place (multiple counties may be
included in the same Work Authorization).
Complete the fee schedule with the number of bridges to be inspected by type.
Include the total dollar amount on the Work Authorization.
Contact the consultant firm and agrees to a termination date for the completion of the inspec-
tions, which is entered on the Work Authorization.
Send the Work Authorization to the inspection firm for signature.
Fill out and send to the Bridge Division a copy of the State Agency Uniform Nepotism Disclo-
sure Form - June 2005.
The Bridge Division will execute the Work Authorization and notify the district and the consulting
firm once the Work Authorization has been executed. The consultant may begin bridge inspections
upon execution of the Work Authorization.
Managing Consultant Bridge Inspections
To ensure that bridge inspections are performed in a competent and timely fashion, the district will
perform oversight of the work by following these steps:
Verify the bridge inspection firm's Project Manager and individual Team Leaders against the
list provided by the Bridge Inspection Branch of the Bridge Division.
Periodically visit the firms inspection teams in the field to verify team composition and to
observe actual inspections.
When completed inspections are submitted by the consultant, the District Bridge Inspection
Office should review at least 10 percent of the office work and perform field reviews of 7 per-
cent of the field work.
When invoices are submitted to the district by the consultant, they should be reviewed and sub-
mitted to the Finance Division as soon as possible (TxDOT has a maximum of 30 days to
process an invoice from the date it is received to avoid payment of interest). Date-stamp each
invoice, whether transmitted by mail or electronically, with the date on which the receiving
TxDOT district received the invoice.
The district should monitor the amount of completed consultant bridge inspections to ensure
that additional structures that might be added as the work progresses will have sufficient funds
in the Work Authorization.
If additional funds or time is needed to complete the Work Authorization, a request for a Sup-
plemental Agreement must be made to the Bridge Inspection Branch of the Bridge Division at
least 2 weeks before the termination of the initial Work Authorization.
Evaluation of Bridge Inspection Consultant Firm and Project Manager
When the bridge inspections covered by the Work Authorization are finished, the district should
complete an evaluation form provided by the Consultant Contract Office of the Design Division.
Refer to the Consultant Certification Information System for the evaluation form at https://
www.dot.state.tx.us/des/ccis/Sign_On.htm. Evaluations should be submitted within 30 days of the
completion of the Work Authorization. Properly evaluating the inspection firms ensures the overall
quality of the work provided by the consultant, and also aids in the consultant pool selection for the
next two-year cycle. The evaluations should be based on the following criteria:
Project Manager Evaluation
Accuracy and Completeness of Deliverables: Information and/or quantities are correct.
Technical judgment was exercised. Quality assurance measures are implemented - apparent
that deliverables are checked prior to submission. The Project Manager should be evaluated on
the number of errors in the work and if Quality Assurance methods have been implemented to
prevent errors in the files before submission.
-15 points - Numerous files were submitted with significant errors and it is apparent that
they were not checked before submission.
-12 points - A few files were submitted with significant errors and it is apparent that they
were not checked before submission.
-9 points - Numerous files were submitted with errors that were not significant but made it
questionable if the files were checked before submission.
-6 points - A few files were submitted that had errors that were not significant but made it
questionable if the files were checked before submission.
0 points - Few errors that were easily corrected.
+3 points -Very few errors that were easily corrected, it is apparent that files are checked
before submission.
+6 points - No errors, it is apparent that a Quality Assurance process is in place to produce
a quality product.
Deliverable Presentation and Format: Products are neat, organized, clear, and in confor-
mance with applicable standards and requirements. The Project Manager should be evaluated
on how well the reports were filled out and how the files and folders were put together.
-12 points - All files and/or reports are not per the contract or TxDOT standards. Folders
are not put together in an acceptable manner. Forms used are in a different format than the
TxDOT standard forms.
-9 points - A few files were not put together per the contract. Some of the submitted forms
were a different format than the TxDOT standard forms.
-6 points - Folders and reports were acceptable, but need improvement.
0 points - Folders, files and reports were satisfactory.
+6 points - Excellent presentation. Folders, files and reports exceed requirements.
Schedule Management: Generally adheres to the schedule and meets major deadlines. Also,
proactive in addressing issues potentially affecting schedule. (Missed deadlines attributed to
slow or poorly timed TxDOT responses should not count against the provider.) The Project
Manager should be evaluated on making sure bridges are inspected with 30 days of the
assigned inspection frequency and there was coordination with the District on the inspection
schedule so as not to "compress" the schedule on the next inspection cycle. All inspection
reports should be completed and returned to the District within 45 days of inspection.
-12 points - Missed deadlines and permitted bridge to be out of compliance in regards to
their inspection dates; did not consult with the District and inspection dates are com-
pressed for the next inspection cycle.
-9 points - Bridge inspections were in compliance but the 45 day requirement to return
completed reports to the District were always missed.
completed reports to the District were periodically missed without notifying the District.
completed reports to the District were periodically missed (the District received notifica-
tion of the late submittal).
0 points - Deadlines met; effective schedule management.
+6 points - Compressed schedule met.
Responsiveness to Review Comments: Comments (many or few) are appropriately addressed
within one review iteration. The Project Manager should be evaluated on making sure that
review comments are addressed quickly and correctly.
-9 points - Multiple iterations are always required.
-6 points - Multiple iterations are routinely required.
-3 points - Multiple iterations are occasionally required.
0 points - Comments are appropriately addressed within one review iteration.
Level of TxDOT Oversight: TxDOT's involvement is commensurate with project require-
ments. Additional time and attention is not required as a result of the provider's need for
management or technical support. The Project Manager should be evaluated on how much
additional time and attention was required by TxDOT to ensure that the provider would fulfill
the requirements of the Contract.
-9 points - Significantly more than expected.
-6 points - Increased review time; TxDOT interaction needed on basic technical issues.
-3 points - More than expected.
0 points - As expected; normal oversight.
+3 points - Less than expected; Project Manager's expertise and experience provided sig-
nificant benefit; saved TxDOT time.
Project Manager Responsiveness/Availability: Project Manager promptly returns calls and
e-mails. Is available for questions and meetings as needed.
-6 points - Problem with response rate and/or availability.
-3 points - Project Manager slow to respond; inconsistent availability.
0 points - Responsive and available.
Coordination and Communication: There is a clear, effective communication structure.
Issues are communicated promptly. Documentation and coordination is professional. Familiar
with and effective in required/necessary external coordination (with the public, other agencies,
etc.). The Project Manager should be evaluated on how promptly and accurately issues are
related to TxDOT and other entities (cities or counties).
-6 points - Less than satisfactory.
-3 points - Acceptable, but lacks consistency; could be better.
0 points - Good coordination and communication.
+3 points - Communication and coordination capabilities add to quality of project/
process.
Reliability/Responsibility: Takes responsibility - no excuses. Proactive in avoiding problems,
bringing solutions to TxDOT, and obtaining necessary information, as appropriate. Stays on
top of the situation.
-6 points - Unacceptable; expected TxDOT to solve issues.
-3 points - Acceptable, but needs improvement.
0 points - Satisfactory; reliable and responsible.
+3 points - Above satisfactory; made TxDOT's job easier.
Subconsultant Management: Subs were well-managed. Issues, if any, were not apparent and
were managed so not to interfere with production. Project Manager takes responsibility for all
products. Poor subconsultant performance not an issue.
-6 points - Sub issues not managed well; coordination affected.
0 points - Satisfactory subconsultant management.
Scope Management - Supplemental Work: Scope changes (additional work) identified in
advance and well supported, reasonable time and cost estimates provided. Concerns identified
in a timely manner that could affect scope or schedule. The Project Manager should be evalu-
ated on how well he manages additional work added (This additional work must be approved
by the Bridge Division and added to the contract through a Supplemental Agreement.
0 points - Satisfactory scope management.
Contract Administration: Project Manager is familiar with and abides by the terms and con-
ditions of the contract and/or work authorization. Coordinates with TxDOT as required,
provides appropriate progress reports, and remains aware of end dates. The Project Manager
should be evaluated on how well he meets the terms of the contract and work authorization.
0 points - Satisfactory; contract terms and conditions followed.
Firm Evaluation
Responsiveness: Anticipates or responds timely to needs identified by TxDOT, such as adjust-
ing resources in response to schedule demands, replacing project manager, task leaders, or
other staff, if problems exist. The Firm should be evaluated on how well they can add addi-
tional resources or replace key inspection members if problems exist.
-15 points - The firm is non-responsive and problems are not addressed.
-12 points - The majority of issues are not addressed in a timely manner.
-9 points - Numerous issues were not addressed in a timely manner.
-6 points - Most issues were addressed in a timely manner but some issues were not
addressed.
0 points - Satisfactory, firm was responsive.
+3 points - Firm goes above and beyond normal practices in response to TxDOT needs.
Resource Management: Personnel/expertise and/or equipment are appropriately allocated.
Promptly/adequately addresses staffing issues, when necessary. Minimum reallocation of staff
throughout project life except for instances beyond the provider's control (retirements, resigna-
tions, dismissals, unexpected/excessive delays imposed by TxDOT or others).
-15 points - Personnel or equipment not appropriate; multiple changes in Project Manager
or key staff.
-12 points - The majority of resource issues are not addressed in a timely manner
-9 points - Numerous resource issues were not addressed in a timely manner.
-6 points - Response to personnel or equipment issues were less than satisfactory.
0 points - Satisfactory resource management.
+3 points - Minimum reallocation of staff when significant uncontrollable delays occur.
Invoicing: Neat, accurate, consistent, includes required back-up, prepared according to pay-
ment terms, and timely (according to contract terms).
-9 points - Frequently late or consistently submitted with problems.
-6 points - Less than satisfactory; periodically late; frequent problems.
-3 points - Needs improvement.
0 points - Satisfactory; on-time; generally good form.
+3 points - on-time; exceptional form; saves TxDOT time.
Once an evaluation has been completed, print out a copy and sign. Send the signed version to the
project manager of the firm being evaluated for review and comment. Make sure that the project
manager has signed the evaluation after the review and any comments added. Have the project
manager return the evaluation to the originating bridge inspection office. Send a copy of the evalu-
ation form, with both signatures, to the Bridge Inspection Office of the Bridge Division. Enter any
comments from the project manager of the evaluated firm into the Consultant Certification Infor-
mation System through the previously used link.
Chapter 4 Field Inspection Requirements
Contents:
Section 1 Types of Bridge Inspection
Section 2 Initial Inspections
Section 3 Routine Inspections
Section 4 Event-Driven Inspections
Section 5 In-Depth Inspections
Section 6 Special Inspections
Chapter 4 Field Inspection Requirements Section 1 Types of Bridge Inspection
Section 1 Types of Bridge Inspection
There are five basic types of bridge inspections:
Initial inspections.
Routine inspections.
Event-driven inspections (AASHTO damage inspections).
In-depth inspections.
Underwater inspections and fracture-critical inspections are two types of in-depth
inspections.
Special inspections.
Inspection of post-tensioned, grouted, external tendons is an example of a special
inspection.
Chapter 4 Field Inspection Requirements Section 2 Initial Inspections
Section 2 Initial Inspections
Overview
The Code of Federal Regulations contains the National Bridge Inspection Standards (NBIS). The
NBIS require inventory information to be entered into the State's database within 90 days after the
bridge is placed in service (begins carrying traffic).
Perform initial inspections on new bridges or when existing bridges are first entered into the data-
base. This inspection provides a basis for all future inspections or modifications to a bridge.
Note initial deficiencies which might not have been present at the time of construction. Note
changes in the condition of the site, such as:
Erosion
Scour
Regrading of slopes
Notify the District Bridge Inspection Coordinator when the bridge is opened to traffic and available
for use by permit vehicles. Include this information in the final New Bridge Completion Checklist.
The opening of a new bridge, particularly an off-system bridge, is a good time to ensure that a copy
of the bridge plans are included with the Bridge Records described in Chapter 8 of this manual.
Texas law
1
requires a governmental entity that owns a bridge on a public road must submit a copy
of the final structural plans to TxDOT within 31 days after construction or rehabilitation is
completed.
Prepare the initial Bridge Folder as a result of the Initial Inspection. A detailed description of the
Bridge Folder contents is given in Chapter 8 of this manual, Bridge Records. Arrange the folder
consistently in all districts and include the recommended series of photos.
1. Submission of Bridge Design Plans to Department, Texas Transportation Code, Section 201.804.
Chapter 4 Field Inspection Requirements Section 3 Routine Inspections
Section 3 Routine Inspections
Overview
Routine inspections are those regularly scheduled, performed, and recorded in accordance with all
the procedures described in Chapter 8 of this manual, Bridge Records and the instructions Coding
Guide. Conduct these at least every twenty-four months for most bridges, and every forty-eight
months for some concrete culverts.
Inspection Equipment
The equipment needed for routine bridge inspections usually includes the following:
Cleaning tools including wire brushes, screwdrivers, brushes, scrapers.
Inspection tools including pocket knife, ice pick, hand brace, bit, and increment borer for bor-
ing timber elements, and chipping hammer.
Visual aid tools including binoculars, flashlight, magnifying glass, dye penetrant, and a mirror.
Basic measuring equipment including thermometer, center punch, and simple surveying
equipment.
Recording materials such as appropriate forms, field books and cameras.
Safety equipment including rigging, harnesses, scaffolds, ladders, Bosun;s chairs and a first-
aid kit.
Miscellaneous equipment should include C-clamps, penetrating oil, insect repellant, wasp and
hornet killer, stakes, flagging, and markers.
A more complete description of the usual inspection equipment can be found in Chapter 5 of the
Bridge Inspector's Reference Manual.
1
Some inspections may significantly interfere with normal traffic movement and could endanger
the bridge inspectors and traveling public. Coordinate these inspections with District personnel to
ensure that appropriate traffic control measures are taken.
The underside of some bridges cannot be reached for inspection by conventional ladders. Perform
these inspections using a vehicle with under-bridge platforms. TxDOT owns and operates several
of these vehicles. Small boats are also available.
Coordinate in advance with the Bridge Inspection Branch of the Bridge Division to use any Divi-
sion specialized access equipment.
1. Bridge Inspector's Reference Manual, FHWA, 2002 and 2006.
Chapter 4 Field Inspection Requirements Section 4 Event-Driven Inspections
Section 4 Event-Driven Inspections
Perform event-driven inspections as a result of collision, fire, flood, significant environmental
changes, or loss of structural support. These inspections are also called emergency inspections and
are performed on an as-needed basis. In the past AASHTO referred to these inspections as damage
inspections.
Prepare a report for each Event-Driven Inspection. Include in the report, at a minimum, the
following:
photos documenting any damage
load ratings verifying capacity after event
channel profiles (when applicable)
repair recommendations
load restriction recommendations (if applicable).
Include all documentation from Event-Driven Inspections in the permanent bridge inspection
record.
Chapter 4 Field Inspection Requirements Section 5 In-Depth Inspections
Section 5 In-Depth Inspections
Reasons for In-Depth Inspections
In-Depth Inspections are usually performed as a follow-up inspection to an Initial, Routine, or
Event-Driven Inspection to better identify any deficiencies found.
Underwater Inspections and Fracture-Critical Inspections are both types of In-Depth Inspection.
These are described in more detail below.
Load testing may also sometimes be performed as part of an In-Depth Inspection. However, load
testing for determining bridge load capacity is costly and its results open to interpretation.
Underwater Inspections
Underwater Inspections are a type of In-Depth Inspection. Perform these at least every sixty
months or more frequently if conditions warrant. Perform an Underwater Inspection on structures
where the submerged portions of the structure have a history of water depths of at least four feet
year round or where the submerged elements are in less than four feet of water, but wading would
be unsafe due to channel bottom conditions, high current or localized scour.
A majority of the bridge structures in the United States, some 86 percent in the National Bridge
Inventory, are over some type of waterway. The lower elements and foundations of many of these
bridges are permanently inundated, so there is no opportunity to view the effects of scour or dam-
age to the structure. To determine the condition of these bridge foundation elements and ensure the
safety of the traveling public, perform Underwater Inspections on a regular basis. As a result of
several bridge collapses during the 1980s, the National Bridge Inspection Standards
1
(NBIS) were
revised to require a master list of bridges requiring Underwater Inspections, and to establish an
inspection frequency not to exceed five years.
The master list of Underwater Inspections is reviewed and updated during Routine Inspections.
Once a bridge is added to the master list, it remains there until it is no longer in use. Some bridges
must be inspected at intervals more frequent than the required sixty months due to the susceptibility
to scour or other factors such as the age of the bridge, configuration of the substructure, environ-
ment, adjacent features, or existing damage. The frequency, type, and level of inspection are left up
to the owner of the structure.
Underwater Inspection Methods
There are currently three methods used to conduct Underwater Inspections. These are:
1. The National Bridge Inspection Standards, Code of Federal Regulations, Title 23, Part 650, October, 1988
Wading -- The most basic of the three methods, wading requires only a probing rod and wading
boots to be effective. This is performed during Routine Inspections.
Scuba diving -- A method that allows a more detailed examination of substructure conditions
at the mudline. The diver has freedom of movement and may carry a variety of small tools with
which to probe or measure.
Hardhat diving -- Involves the use of sophisticated diving equipment and a surface supplied air
system. This inspection method is well suited when adverse conditions will be encountered,
such as high water velocity, pollution, and unusual depth or duration requirements.
The choice of which method to employ depends largely on accessibility and the required inspection
detail.
Levels of Underwater Inspection
Standard levels of inspection originated in the U.S. Navy. Three levels have been established as the
result of the process through time.
Level I -- A simple visual or tactile (by feel) inspection, without the aid of tools or measuring
devices. It is usually employed to gain an overview of the structure and will precede or verify
the need for a more detailed Level II or III inspection.
Level II -- A detailed inspection which involves physically cleaning or removing growth from
portions of the structure. In this way, hidden damage may be detected and assessed for sever-
ity. This level is usually performed on at least a portion of a structure, supplementing a Level I.
Level III -- A highly detailed inspection of a structure which is warranted if extensive repair or
replacement is being considered. This level requires extensive cleaning, detailed measure-
ments, and testing techniques that may be destructive or non-destructive in nature.
Underwater Structural Elements
The elements of a bridge structure that may be located below the water line are abutments, bents,
piers, and protection systems. Bents are distinguished from piers in that they carry the loads
directly to the foundation rather than using a footing.
Abutments normally do not require an Underwater Inspection, but in rare instances may be contin-
uously submerged. Although usually founded on piles or drilled shafts, abutments occasionally
rest on spread footings in rock. Scour is almost always the primary consideration when an under-
water abutment inspection is being conducted. Local scour is often detectable during diving
inspections, although sediment will eventually refill a scour hole between the events that cause the
scour. More general scour, or channel degradation, will usually be undetectable to the diver and
must be determined from known channel cross sections or historical data.
Underwater Inspection Devices
Divers may use several types of sounding or sensing devices in underwater investigations. The
most common device is the black-and-white fathometer. It uses sound waves reflected from the
channel bottom and records the depths continuously. It provides an inexpensive, effective means of
recording channel depths, but does not detect a refilled scour hole. Another device is the color fath-
ometer. It uses different colors to record different densities and in this way often detects scour
refill. Other devices include ground penetrating radar, which works well for shallow water but has
limited usefulness in murky water, and fixed instrumentation, which is reliable but requires peri-
odic monitoring and resetting to be effective.
Underwater Structural Materials
Piers and bents, if located in a navigable waterway area, are often subject to material defects, colli-
sion damage and scour. Concrete is the most common type of material encountered in Underwater
Inspections, followed by timber, steel, and masonry. Common defects in concrete substructures
include cracking, spalling, laitance, and honeycombing. Minor or even moderate damage to con-
crete can be tolerated if it does not endanger the reinforcing. Corrosion of the reinforcing can lead
to serious difficulties.
Timber has frequently been used for piles, especially in fenders or protection systems. The most
common type of damage to timber members is from biological organisms, such as fungus, insects,
and marine borers. In order to control infestations, timber is usually treated to poison the wood to
block a food source for organisms. In time the treatment may leach out of the wood or the treatment
layer may be penetrated. Pay particular attention to the area of the waterline and the vicinity of con-
nectors where this type of damage may occur.
Steel substructures are very susceptible to corrosion near the waterline or between the high and low
water levels. In this area, oxygen and frequent wet/dry cycles promote deterioration at an acceler-
ated rate. Measure steel to determine the possibility of section loss.
Masonry substructures are rare and if present, are almost always on very old bridges. These ele-
ments are subject to damage similar to concrete, in addition to the loss of joint mortar and
individual pieces.
Fracture-Critical Inspections
Fracture-Critical Inspections are a type of Special Inspection. These inspections are usually limited
to non-redundant load path tensile stress areas. Perform Fracture Critical Inspections every twenty-
four months. Perform them more frequently if conditions warrant. A Fracture Critical Inspection is
a hands-on (within arms length of the component) inspection of a fracture critical member or mem-
ber components. It may include visual and other nondestructive evaluation. Methods of Non-
Destructive Evaluation (NDE) of steel members may include dye penetrant, magnetic particle, or
ultrasonic techniques.
History of Fracture Critical Considerations
Early development of modern steel design focused on stress and strain. Little was known or recog-
nized about the potential adverse effects of multiple stress cycles. Early materials such as wrought
iron were not capable of great unit strength. Early designs lacked the sophistication that would
allow a designer to closely address details. Even after the introduction of electric arc welding in the
1880s, most steel bridges were simple-span, composed of built-up and riveted members.
Design of continuous beam highway bridges began after welding technology was improved. Some
of the first welded steel beam bridges were in Texas. The use of continuity resulted in more flexi-
ble structures that were more subject to deflections and rotations. The use of welding, particularly
in Texas, resulted in simpler bridges and more consistent construction quality.
As steel production and availability improved, along with higher strength steels, design engineers
were quick to accept the obvious benefits. However, no material is perfectly homogenous, and the
fact that steel could have hidden flaws was essentially ignored by designers. After World War II,
there was a massive expansion of highway bridge construction. The popularity of personal motor
vehicles increased as a result of more highways and thus more roadways and bridges were needed.
The construction material of choice was initially steel throughout much of the country. However,
Texas designed many smaller structures with concrete, which is still serving well in many loca-
tions. Steel bridges, particularly trusses, were used for longer crossings, usually for streams and
rivers.
Fatigue Failures
A number of steel structures failed in the 1950s and 1960s due to various causes, but the failure of
the Silver Bridge at Point Pleasant in West Virginia in 1967 got national attention. This truss col-
lapsed suddenly due to the brittle fracture of an eyebar link, resulting in the loss of 46 lives and
closure of a major route. As a result of this terrible tragedy, the National Bridge Inspection Stan-
dards
1
(NBIS) were developed as part of the Federal-Aid Highway Act
2
of 1968. In addition,
significant additional research efforts were initiated in fracture mechanics. As a result, the effects of
multiple stresses at less than yield of the materials were understood more thoroughly.
Redundant and non-redundant members were first recognized in the twelfth edition of the AASHTO
Bridge Specifications
3
in 1977. The first guide specifications for fracture critical bridge members
was issued by AASHTO
4
in 1978.
1. The National Bridge Inspection Standards, Code of Federal Regulations, Title 23, Part 650, October, 1988.
2. Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1968.
Fracture-Critical Members
After design engineers began to recognize the problems associated with multiple stresses at less
than allowable values, further information was developed to assist in the design process and in
evaluation of existing structures. After notable failures, it was recognized that many existing
bridges may be nearing failure due to fatigue. Fracture-Critical (FC) members were recognized and
defined as a steel member or component whose failure in tension would result in the total or partial
collapse of a bridge. These are commonly referred to as non-redundant members. Methods were
developed to help determine which structures must be further evaluated by designers for suscepti-
bility to fatigue problems. Designers began to include Fracture Control Plans in bridge design
details.
The most common types of FC members are tension flanges and parts of webs of flexural members
such as beams and girders. Tension members of trusses, particularly eyebars, which commonly
make up the lower chords of old trusses, can also be FC. Other tension members of trusses, such as
diagonals, are also FC. Concrete members are not often used in tension. The design of flexural con-
crete members with multiple reinforcing bars precludes the possibility of abrupt failure due to their
internal redundancy.
The following circumstances determine FC members:
Define all two-girder bridges as FC. Fracture of lower flanges in positive moment areas (mid
spans) and upper flanges in negative moment areas (over supports) can be expected to lead to
collapse of the structure. However, cracks over interior supports may lead to subsequent higher
positive stresses in the spans with no catastrophic collapse. Therefore, these FC components
receive more frequent periodic In-Depth Inspections.
Define the majority of steel caps FC. The exceptions are those where support columns provide
load path redundancy.
Define a floorbeam as FC if one or more of the following conditions exist: Flexible or hinged
connection to support girders, or floorbeam spacing greater than 14 feet, or no stringers con-
nected to the floorbeams supporting the deck, and stringers not continuous over floorbeams.
Define lower chords of trusses as FC. This determination is based on the fact that most truss
bridges employ only two trusses and most are simple-span.
Do not define secondary members such as diaphragms and stiffeners as FC. They are rarely
used in a manner where failure would lead to a structure collapse. However, use caution in
evaluating certain truss members that may appear to be secondary when, in fact, their attach-
ment to main FC members can provide a starting place for the main member failure. The only
exceptions to this are diaphragms used in horizontally curved fracture critical units. These ele-
ments are almost always classified as primary members due to the forces they are carrying and
are also considered to be FC.
4. Guide Specifications for Fracture Critical Non-redundant Steel Bridge Members, AASHTO, 1986.
The tied arch is a variation of the through arch with one significant difference. In a through
arch, the horizontal thrust of the arch reactions is transferred to large rock, masonry, or con-
crete foundations. A tied arch transfers the horizontal reactions through a horizontal tie which
connects the ends of the arch together, like the string on an archer's bow. As can be imagined,
the tie is a tension member. If the string of a bow is cut, the bow will spring open. Similarly, if
the arch tie fails, the arch will lose its compression and will collapse. The tie girder is FC.
Redundancy
In order for a bridge to be classified as fracture critical, it must have an element that if failed would
cause total or partial collapse of the bridge. With this in mind, it is crucial to recognize and identify
the type redundancy present in a bridge. Redundancy allows the load that was previously carried by
the failed member to be redistributed to other members, thus avoiding failure or collapse.
There are three basic types of redundancy present in bridges:
Load path redundancy
Structural redundancy
Internal Redundancy
Load Path Redundancy
Bridges with three or more main load-carrying members or load paths are considered load path
redundant. If one member were to fail, load has a better chance of being safely redistributed to the
other members, and bridge failure may not occur. An example of load path redundancy is a multi-
girder bridge. Definitive determination of load path redundancy requires structural analysis with
members eliminated in turn to determine resulting stresses in the remaining members. In extreme
cases where girder spacing exceeds fifteen feet a three girder bridge will also be classified as frac-
ture critical.
Structural Redundancy
Bridges which provide continuity of load path from span to span are referred to as structurally
redundant. Bridges where girders are continuous across internal span two-girder bridge designs are
structurally redundant. In the event of a member failure, loading from that span can be redistributed
to the adjacent spans, and bridge failure may not occur. The degree of structural redundancy can be
determined through computer programs which model element failure. Some truss bridges have
structural redundancy, but this can only be determined through analysis.
Internal Redundancy
Internal redundancy exists when a bridge member contains three or more elements that are mechan-
ically fastened together so that multiple independent load paths are formed. Failure of one member
element would not cause total failure of the member. Internal redundancy of a member can be
decreased or eliminated by repairs that involve welding. The welds provide paths for cracks to
travel from one element to another.
Presently TxDOT only considers load path redundancy for the classification of fracture critical
members.
Inspection Procedures for Fracture Critical Members
Inspection procedures begin with proper advance planning. Important planning aspects, usually
based on an office review of the structural plans, include:
Identify possible FC members.
Note the particular members in the structure that may require special field attention, such as
built-up tension members composed of few individual pieces.
Pre-plan necessary access to the members, including special equipment needs such as a
snooper truck, ladders, bucket truck, air monitoring device, or climbing gear.
Many structures designed for urban situations with necessary complex alignment geometries
result in FC members. Proper inspection of these bridges may require closing a traffic lane and
require a night time inspection due to high ADT, during normal business hours. Coordinate
safe traffic control in advance with the local district and Area Engineer offices and their Safety
Review Team.
Use a railroad flagger coordinated with the proper railroad company if the structure crosses
and is within 25 ft. proximity of a railroad track. Every individual entering a railroad right-of-
way must is required to complete, and have certification of completion of the on-line Safety
Awareness Course. This course can be found at www.contractororientation.com.
Identify and make available any necessary special tools and equipment that may be required in
addition to the normal inspection gear. A high-pressure washer is often useful in cleaning
areas where a large accumulation of debris might obscure view of FC areas. Non-destructive
test equipment such as ultra-sonic or ultra-sound devices may be advantageous in some areas,
particularly inspection of box-type bent caps and pin-and-hanger connections.
The actual field inspection of all FC members consists of several steps. The most important step is
a visual inspection. The inspector notes any:
Visual cracks and their direction and location
Evidence of rust, which may form at a working crack
Weld terminations in a tension area
Interrupted back-up bars used for built-up-member fabrication
Arc strikes, scars from assembly cables or chains, or other physical damage
Cross-section changes which may cause a sudden increase in the stress pattern
Fatigue and Fatigue Fracture
Members subjected to continued reversal of stress, or repeated loading such that a range of change
in stress occurs, are subject to a behavior called fatigue. Members that have a relatively constant,
steady stress are not subject to fatigue. The term has been in use for almost a century and is cur-
rently defined by the American Society of Testing Materials (ASTM 1823-96e1) as "the process of
progressive localized permanent structural change occurring in a material subjected to conditions
that produce fluctuating stresses and strains at some point or points and that may culminate in
cracks or complete fracture after a sufficient number of fluctuations." Fatigue can result in:
Loss of strength
Loss of ductility
Reduced service life
Fatigue fractures are the most difficult to predict since conditions producing them are often not
clearly recognizable. Fatigue occurs at stress levels well within the elastic range, that is, less than
the yield point of the steel, and is greatly influenced by minor imperfections in the structural mate-
rial and by fabrication techniques.
Fatigue fracture occurs in three distinct stages:
Local changes in atomic structure, accompanied by sub-microscopic cracking
Crack growth
Sudden fracture
Fatigue-Prone Details
Fatigue fracture almost always begins at a visible discontinuity, which acts as a stress-raiser. Typi-
cal examples are:
Design details such as holes, notches, or section changes
Flaws in the material such as inclusions or fabrication cracks
Poor welding procedures such as arc strikes, gouges and start-stops
Weld terminations
Certain structural details have been long recognized as stress-raisers and are classified as to their
potential for damage. These details appear in the current AASHTO Bridge Specifications
1
, and
1. Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges, AASHTO, 1996
other technical publications. Ensure that these common details should be familiar to the fracture
critical bridge inspector.
Proper consideration of member detail and sizing during design will help control stress level and,
thus, control crack growth. The stress range, or algebraic difference in the maximum and minimum
stress, also is important. The most effective way to control cracking and eventual fracture is sensi-
ble detailing. Details such as out-of-plane bending in girder webs and certain weld configurations
can cause crack propagation and fracture.
Design for fatigue also includes observing a Fracture Control Plan. The Fracture Control Plan iden-
tifies the person responsible for assigning fracture-critical designations. It establishes minimum
qualification standards for welding personnel and fabrication plants. It also sets forth material
toughness and testing procedures. The specific members and affected sections are also identified in
the plan. During fabrication, these members are subject to special requirements.
A fatigue failure is classified as a brittle fracture and is always an abrupt fracture. A brittle fracture
is distinguished from a ductile fracture by absence of plastic deformation and by the direction of
failure plane, which occurs normal to the direction of applied stress. Other failure surfaces due to
high stress are usually at an angle to the direction of the stress and are often accompanied by a nar-
rowing or necking of the material. Brittle fracture failures have no narrowing or necking present to
indicate potential failure.
The three main contributing factors to brittle fracture are:
Stress level
Crack size
Material toughness, sometimes called fracture toughness
Small, even microscopic cracks can form as a result of various manufacturing and fabrication pro-
cesses. Rate of propagation, or growth, of cracks also depends on the stress level and the material
toughness. Material toughness is the ability of a material to resist when stressed or the ability to
absorb energy and plastically deform without fracturing. This resistance is primarily determined by
chemical composition and to some extent by the manufacturing processes.
Usually, higher strength steels are more susceptible to brittle fracture and have lower toughness.
Toughness can be improved by techniques such as heat treatment or by quenching and tempering or
modifying the steel composition with varying amounts of alloys.
Weld Details
Be familiar with the characteristics of good and poor structural details and identify those details in
the field. Welding creates the details most susceptible to fatigue and fracture. Therefore, it is imper-
ative to recognize features prone to FC failure.
Major FC problem areas are at weld discontinuities or changes in geometry such as:
Toes of fillet welds
Weld termination points
Welds to girder tension flanges from other connections such as stiffeners or diaphragms
Ends of welded cover plates
Welded cover plates on rolled beams were a very common detail until fatigue failures began to be
recognized by bridge engineers. Whether the weld is terminated or continued around the end of the
cover plate, the condition is at best Category E fatigue detail, which has a greater susceptibility to
crack.
Weld attachments to a girder web or flange can reduce fatigue strength as the length of the attach-
ment increases. Welds two inches or less fall in Category C and those greater than four inches in
length reduce to Category E. Such details are commonly used to attach diaphragms for lateral sta-
bility and wind bracing to main structural members, either at the flange or web. Details such as run-
off tabs and back-up bars may also provide possible stress riser discontinuities if not smoothed by
grinding after removal.
Be familiar with acceptable and unacceptable fillet weld profiles in order to recognize potential
problem areas in the field.
Fatigue in Secondary Members
Secondary members may also have fatigue problems. For instance, main girder stress reversal may
induce vibrations in lateral bracing or diaphragms. In many cases the number of stress reversals in
the secondary member is a magnification of those stresses in the main member. The attachment of
plates to a girder web may cause out-of-plane bending in the web, a situation not usually considered
by the designer.
In general, secondary members themselves are not subject to a FC inspection. However, some sec-
ondary members, even though designed only as secondary members, such as lateral wind bracing in
the lower plane of a girder system, will act as primary members. These cases generally occur in
curved or heavily skewed structures. A curved bridge will have twisting or torsional effects due to
the live loads that are partially resisted by the diagonal lateral wind bracing. These braces, particu-
larly those near supports, should be inspected for possible fatigue cracks.
Proper Welding and Repair Techniques
Proper welding of structural steel members is a tedious process under the very best of conditions,
which are usually found in the fabrication shop. Closely examine any field welding, whether it is a
welded girder splice, retrofit detail, or repair, for visible problems. Many shop splices are accom-
plished by automatic welding machines under controlled conditions and can be smoothly ground to
eliminate surface discontinuities. Field splicing operations are subject to exposure to the elements
and difficulties in stabilizing the pieces to be joined. In addition, the welding is usually done by
hand and, therefore, subject to human error. Fortunately, welded field splices for bridges con-
structed with state supervision in Texas have always been subject to careful inspection and must be
done by certified welders. The welded field splices for these bridges are usually of the same quality
as shop splices and are often further inspected by radiographic (X-ray) techniques.
Be aware of problems that may arise from the use of improper field repair processes. Often a well-
intentioned repair can actually make a member even more susceptible to a fatigue fracture.
FC Inspection Techniques
FC inspection techniques may include non-destructive testing to determine the condition of a struc-
tural member. There are several types available, including radiographic, ultrasonic, dye penetrant,
and magnetic particle inspection. All are acceptable methods, but each has limitations and may not
be suitable for a particular situation. One single technique may not be sufficient to assess damage
and a combination of more than one may be advisable. Perform these types of inspection only if
you have undergone the proper training.
The selection of the type of non-destructive testing method for a particular location is a function of
the detail. For instance, potential cracks at the ends of welded cover plates are often inspected by
the use of radiographic methods. Cracks in pins are best inspected by ultrasonic techniques. Sub-
surface defects such as inclusions may be found by magnetic field irregularities, and cracks
adjacent to fillet welds at tee-joints are usually inspected by dye penetrant. These methods are all
described in more detail in the Bridge Inspector's Reference Manual
1
.
1. Bridge Inspector's Reference Manual, FHWA, 2002 and 2006.
Chapter 4 Field Inspection Requirements Section 6 Special Inspections
Section 6 Special Inspections
Overview
Special Inspections are performed to monitor new types of structures, structure details, or materials.
A Special Inspection may also be used to help develop an information database.
An example of a Special Inspection is the inspection of the grouted ducts in externally post-ten-
sioned members of pre-cast segmental type bridges.
Chapter 5 Ratings and Load Posting
Contents:
Section 1 Condition Ratings
Section 2 Appraisal Ratings
Section 3 Load Ratings
Section 4 Legal Loads and Load Posting
Chapter 5 Ratings and Load Posting Section 1 Condition Ratings
Section 1 Condition Ratings
Definition of Condition Ratings
Condition ratings based on field inspections are snapshots in time and cannot be used to predict
future conditions or behavior of the structure. However, condition ratings based on inspections
along with written comments by a field inspector act as the major source of information on the sta-
tus of a bridge. Condition ratings also help planning for necessary repairs or modifications. In
addition, the condition ratings are used as flags when performing over-weight permit evaluations.
Condition ratings are one-digit numbers given by the field inspector to the various components of a
bridge. They are objective and not opinions.
Condition ratings reflect deterioration or damage and do measure design deficiency. For instance,
an old bridge designed to a low load capacity but with little or no deterioration may have excellent
condition ratings while a newer bridge designed to modern loads but with deterioration will have
lower condition ratings.
Channel, waterway, riprap, and other channel protection components under and directly upstream
and downstream of the bridge are often related in assignment of a condition rating for the channel.
Recording Condition Ratings
Condition ratings are entered on the Bridge Inspection Record. Six component items are covered on
the form, and each lists four to 11 elements. The Item Numbers relate to the entry of the data in the
electronic Bridge Inventory Files, the detailed instructions for which are contained in the Coding
Instructions of the Coding Guide:
Deck (Item 58)
Superstructure (Item 59)
Substructure (Item 60)
Channel (Item 61)
Culverts (Item 62)
Approaches (Item 65)
Miscellaneous (used for information, but not entered in the Bridge Inventory File. Still impor-
tant as part of the Bridge Folder).
The rating must equal or exceed the minimum values for each element of a component (shown to
the left of the element description on the form). Each element is rated based on independent con-
sideration. For instance, poor or deficient secondary members (bracing, diaphragms, etc.) in a
superstructure may cause the Superstructure (Item 59) component to have a poor rating even
though the main members show no significant deterioration. The summary Component Rating must
be the least of the element ratings comprising that component.
However, Deck (Item 58) component is independent of its associated element ratings such as joints,
railings, wearing surface, etc.
Do not base condition ratings on the known presence of chlorides in the deck, superstructure, or
substructure concrete or low compressive strengths from core samples. Determine the condition
rating solely on the observed, materials-related, physical condition of the component at the time of
the inspection.
The Bridge Inspection Form has space for fully supportive written comments for each of the above
features. These comments are required for any condition rating of 7 or less. The form includes a
brief summary of the description of each level of rating. More detail on the condition rating for
each item number is given in the instructions of the Coding Guide.
Assigning Condition Ratings
Evaluate each element separately based on general considerations for assignment of the ten levels
of condition ratings. However, other deficiencies may affect the condition if they are directly
related. For instance, instability of an approach embankment may reduce the abutment condition
rating but not reduce the Superstructure condition rating.
Consider only permanently installed repairs when assigning condition ratings. Permanent implies
that the repair has returned the damaged or deteriorated element to a condition as good as or better
than the remainder of the bridge. For instance, a steel beam damaged by an over-height load that
reduced the load capacity of the beam is considered permanently repaired when a section is
replaced or a bent section is straightened by proper techniques and no residual cracks can be found.
The strength of the repaired member is the primary concern. Modifications and repairs that simply
improve the appearance of a damaged member are not considered to improve the condition rating.
Do not consider as temporary any repair which remains in place without further project activity for
a significant period of time. Consider the repair permanent and evaluate the structure accordingly.
Four years from the repair date is a reasonable amount of time for a District to move a project for-
ward. If the District requires more time, then submit a written justification for continuing to
classify a repair as temporary.
Do not consider for condition rating any components with temporary repairs, even though function-
ing. For instance, a support or brace to a partially undermined column could be susceptible to
damage from another flood; therefore, make the condition rating on the basis that the support is not
present. Do not consider temporary repairs in determining condition ratings because they directly
affect the calculations of the sufficiency ratings described in Chapter 7.
Condition ratings are still a matter of judgment, which should be made based on experience, knowl-
edge, and consistency with other structures with the same deterioration.
Chapter 5 Ratings and Load Posting Section 2 Appraisal Ratings
Section 2 Appraisal Ratings
Definition of Appraisal Ratings
In making appraisal ratings, consider the field condition, waterway adequacy, geometric and safety
configurations, structural evaluation, and safe load capacity of the bridge. Appraisal ratings should
be consistent among appraisers given the same field information, project plans, materials, and geo-
metric and waterway data.
Evaluate seven features for their effect on the safety and serviceability of the bridge and its
approaches. The intent is to compare the bridge to a new structure built to current standards. Differ-
ent roadway standards - such as width, grade, and alignment - exist for the various roadway
systems in Texas.
Appraisal ratings are usually done in the office where access to all necessary information and spec-
ifications is available. However, an experienced bridge appraiser may make some appraisals in the
field while performing the duties of a bridge inspector.
Appraisal Ratings
The detailed instructions for entering data are contained in the Coding Guide. The seven features
are:
Traffic Safety Features (Item 36)
Structural Evaluation (Item 67)
Deck Geometry (Item 68)
Underclearances (Item 69)
Bridge Posting (Item 70)
Waterway Adequacy (Item 71)
Approach Roadway Alignment (Item 72).
Four of the seven appraisal ratings are automatically generated from other inspection and inventory
data, and include Structural Evaluation (Item 67), Deck Geometry (Item 68), Underclearances
(Item 69), and Bridge Posting (Item 70). The remaining three items, Traffic Safety Features (Item
36), Waterway Adequacy (Item 71), and Approach Roadway Alignment (Item 72) are based upon
observations and historical data collected during routine inspection events. The following para-
graphs summarize instructions for coding the above seven features.
Traffic Safety Features (Item 36). This feature applies only to bridges carrying vehicular traffic. .
It is a measure of the adequacy of traffic safety features in meeting current acceptable standards,
which reflect modern design criteria. Four digits are assigned that approximately measure the ade-
quacy the traffic safety feature. The first digit is for the bridge railings, the second digit is for the
guardrail to bridge railing transitions, the third digit is for approach guardrails, and the fourth digit
is for guardrail terminals. Each of these four parts to Item 36 is assigned a value of 1 if it meets cur-
rently acceptable standards, a value of 0 if it does not, or a value of N if not applicable. These
values do not give a true measure of the comparative strength or crash test level for the traffic
safety feature.
Collision damage or deterioration is not considered when assessing traffic safety acceptability.
Assume that damage to traffic safety features will be repaired in the near future. Note rail, transi-
tion, guardrail, or guardrail termination damage or deterioration on the Bridge Inspection Record.
Bridge class culverts do not require coding of traffic safety features if the headwall of the culvert is
30 ft or more from a traveled lane. With zero to three ft of fill over a culvert and acceptable guard
fence installed over the culvert and along the approaches, bridge railings and transitions are not
required. Culverts with less than three ft of fill may also have guard fence instead of bridge railing
if steel posts are properly attached to the culvert.
Acceptable traffic safety standards have been developed using the current AASHTO Standard
Specifications for Highway Bridges
1
and the AASHTO Guide for Selecting, Locating, and Design-
ing Traffic Barriers.
2
Current acceptable bridge railing details are shown in the Bridge Railing Manual.
Structural Evaluation (Item 67). This feature considers major structural deficiencies and is based
on the condition ratings of the Superstructure (Item 59), the Substructure (Item 60), and the Inven-
tory Rating (Item 66) as related to the Average Daily Traffic (Item 29). Items 66 and 29 are
correlated in a table included with the detailed instructions for Item 67 in the instructions for the
Coding Guide.
The Structural Evaluation Appraisal Rating should generally be no higher than the lowest of the
Superstructure or Substructure condition ratings or the Inventory Rating - ADT correlation.
Deck Geometry (Item 68). This feature applies only to bridges that carry vehicle traffic. Roadway
widths are measured perpendicular to traffic direction and between faces of railings, curbs, and
median barriers. Mountable curbs are ignored if 4 in. or less high.
The Deck Geometry appraisal rating is determined from a four-part table included with the detailed
instructions for Item 68 in the Coding Guide. This table relates the ADT (Item 29), Bridge Road-
way Width (Item 51), and Number of Lanes (Item 28).
2. Guide for Selecting, Locating, and Designing Traffic Barriers, AASHTO, 1977.
This appraisal rating is further controlled by another table in the instructions for Item 68 in the Cod-
ing Guide that relates the Minimum Vertical Clearance (Item 53) and the Functional Classification
(Item 26) of the bridge.
The Deck Geometry appraisal rating is the lowest number based on width, lanes, or vertical clear-
ance and functional classification of the highway on which the bridge is located.
Underclearances (Item 69). This feature is a measure of both vertical and lateral clearances for
any roadway or railroad passing under the bridge being rated. The vertical clearance is measured
down from the lowest part of the bridge to the lower traveled roadway surface (excluding paved
shoulders) or top of railroad rails.
The Underclearances appraisal rating is determined from two tables included with the detailed
instructions for Item 69 in the Coding Guide. These tables relate the Vertical Underclearance (Item
54) and the Functional Classification (Item 26) of the lower roadway or railroad, and the Lateral
Underclearances Right and Left (Items 55 and 56) of the lower roadway or railroad.
The Underclearances appraisal rating is the lowest number based on the vertical and lateral clear-
ances and the functional classification of the lower roadway or railroad.
Bridge Posting (Item 70). This feature compares the load capacity of the bridge to the state legal
load. At this time, the term state legal load is a load equivalent to the conventional HS-20 load pat-
tern shown in Figure 5-1. Therefore, any inventory rating less than HS-20 requires further
evaluation of the bridge. Bridges are normally not load restricted unless the capacity is less than an
HS-20 Operating Rating. See the section of this chapter titled Legal Loads and Load Posting for
more detail on the need for load restriction.
Specific criteria for coding this appraisal rating are included with the detailed instructions for Item
70 in the file titled Coding Guide, which has five posting levels. The Bridge Posting appraisal rat-
ing is 5 if the Operating Rating (Item 64) is more than HS-20. The Bridge Posting appraisal rating
has a value of 0 to 4 depending on the percentage the Operating Rating is below the state legal load,
which for this item is HS-20 loading.
Figure 5-1. Standard AASHTO Design Loads
Waterway Adequacy (Item 71). This appraisal feature applies to all bridges carrying vehicle traf-
fic over any type of waterway. It represents the capacity of the waterway opening to carry peak
water flows and is based on the criteria included with the detailed instructions for Item 71 in the
Coding Guide, which has eight values. The eight values range from 2, meaning the bridge is fre-
quently overtopped by flood waters, to 9, meaning that chance of overtopping is remote.
The estimated potential for traffic delays from flood overtopping is also considered when assigning
a value to Waterway Adequacy. The design flood is the maximum water flow that can pass under
bridge for a given recurrence frequency, usually expressed in years.
When hydraulic information is unavailable, the design flood is assumed to be equal to the fre-
quency of overtopping the bridge. Local officials and residents can often provide information on
the frequency of overtopping.
Approach Roadway Alignment (Item 72). This feature applies to adequacy of the approach road-
way to safely carry vehicle traffic considering both horizontal and vertical alignments.
Specific criteria are included with the detailed instructions for Item 72 in the instructions in the file
titled Coding Guide. Approach curvature, lane and shoulder widths, surface roughness, and sight
distances all enter into the evaluation of this appraisal rating. For bridges on crest or sag vertical
curves, consider also headlight and stopping sight distances.
When approach alignment is questionable, drive the alignment on the approaches to the bridge in
order to estimate an advisory safe speed with due consideration given to minimum sight distances.
Advisory speed on approach curves is the speed above which more than usual concentration and
effort on the part of a normal driver would be required to remain safely in the proper lane. Advisory
speed limit should be the posted advisory speed if one exists.
Chapter 5 Ratings and Load Posting Section 3 Load Ratings
Section 3 Load Ratings
Definition of Load Ratings
The Load Rating is a measure of bridge live load capacity and has two commonly used categories:
Inventory Rating, as defined by the current AASHTO Manual for Bridge Evaluation,
1
is that
load, including loads in multiple lanes that can safely utilize the bridge for an indefinite period
of time.
Operating Rating, defined by the same manual, is the maximum permissible live load that can
be placed on the bridge. This load rating also includes the same load in multiple lanes. Allow-
ing unlimited usage at the Operating Rating level will reduce the life of the bridge.
Determination of Load Ratings
Currently, all Inventory and Operating Ratings are expressed in terms of an equivalent HS-truck as
shown in the Manual for Bridge Evaluation.
2
Prior to about 1995, many ratings were for an equiv-
alent H-truck, shown in Manual for Bridge Evaluation.
3
The H-truck directly corresponds to
single-unit trucks, which used to be common on rural highways. Today, even rural Farm- or Ranch-
to-Market highways and many off-system highways are exposed to much larger semi-trucks; there-
fore, the HS-truck is more realistic.
Traditionally Inventory or Operating Ratings were determined using either Load Factor (LF) or
Allowable Stress (AS) methods. Since 2000, LF is to be used for all on-system bridges, except for
timber bridges. It is difficult to assign an ultimate strength to timber. Therefore, both on- and off-
system timber bridges are rated using only AS methods. AASHTO has included Load and Resis-
tance Factor Rating (LRFR) as an acceptable method for load rating bridges. Calculate load ratings
using LRFR methods if the bridge was designed using the Load and Resistance Factor Design
(LRFD) methodology.
Either AS or LF may be used for all off-system bridges.
Inventory Rating and Design Load Considerations
The Inventory Rating (Item 66) can be initially estimated to be at least equal to the design loading if
no damage or deterioration exists and the original design was made using an HS or HL-93 (LRFR)
load pattern. Assumed load ratings based on original design loads require plan sheets with design
the design load identified to be added to the Bridge Record. Many old plans have a design loading
1. Manual for Bridge Evaluation, AASHTO, 2011.
shown as H-20 S-16, which some raters have misinterpreted as meaning H-20. AASHTO replaced
the H-20 S-16 designation in 1965 with the HS-20 designation. Re-rating these bridges using LF
procedures will usually increase the Inventory Rating above HS-20. Rating bridges designed
between 1946 and about 1958 by current LF procedures may result in significantly different values
than the original design loading. Although the plans may say designed to H-20 S-16 and THD Sup-
plement No. 1, the bridge may rate significantly less than HS-20 loading. This difference is due to
the more liberal effects of THD Design Supplement No. 1 described below.
THD Design Supplement No. 1
In 1946, the Bridge Division of TxDOT (then called THD) issued what is commonly called THD
Supplement No. 1.
1
Texas was influential in the development of the AASHTO Bridge Design
Specifications. However, not all the Texas opinions were immediately accepted by the AASHTO
Bridge Committee, which includes all states. As a result, TxDOT used the supplement for a number
of years to amend portions of the 1944 and 1949 AASHTO Standard Specifications for Highway
Bridges
23
for use in Texas.
The first version of Supplement No. 1 was dated June 1946.
4
The second version of Supplement
No. 1 was dated September 1953
5
and included only those items of the 1946 version that had not
been incorporated into the 1949 AASHTO Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges.
6
The pri-
mary subjects of the supplement that affected bridge design can be summarized as follows:
Crown Width Bridges. The 1944 AASHTO Bridge Specifications
7
required curbs on all
bridges. Texas initiated the concept of crown-width bridges with the following: On non-
restrictive bridges the curbs may be omitted provided the guard fence or an equivalent member
is carried continuously through the structure. The 1949 AASHTO Bridge Specifications
8

allowed the condition of no curbs with certain additional width limitations. Texas continued
the crown-width, no-curb concept with the retention of the provision in the second version of
Supplement No. 1 dated September 1953.
9
Design Overload. The 1944 AASHTO Bridge Specifications
10
required an overload to be
considered for all bridges designed for less than an H-20 (40,000 lbs) or H-20 S-16 (72,000
1. THD Supplement No. 1, TxDOT, September 1953.
4. THD Supplement No. 1, TxDOT, June 1946.
lbs) loading, now called HS-20 loading. The overload was to be the design truck (usually H-
15) increased by 100 percent, but without concurrent loading of adjacent lanes, thus allowing
single-lane load distribution. The allowable stress was to also be increased to 150 percent of
the basic allowable. Texas modified this provision specifically to apply the same overload to
truss counter members for all design loadings. Truss counters are those members that, for some
positions of live load, will change from tension to compression. If a truss was designed H-15,
H-20, or H-20 S-16, the overload was applied in determining the size of counter member.
Lane Load Negative Moments. The 1944 AASHTO Bridge Specifications
1
required for H-
10, H-15, or H-20 lane loads an additional concentrated load in one other span in a continuous
unit positioned to produce maximum positive and negative moments. Texas limited the dis-
tance between the concentrated loads for the lane load to a maximum of 30 ft. This is probably
based on the fact that the AASHTO 1944 bridge specifications
2
did not require an additional
concentrated load for H-20 S-16 lane loadings. The H-20 S-16 truck loadings have a second
axle spaced from 14 to 30 ft from the first heavy axle. This is probably the rationale for the
limit of 30 feet in THD Supplement No. 1.
3
The 1949 AASHTO bridge specifications
4
made
the lane loading negative moment requirement the same for HS-trucks. However, the 1953
THD Supplement No. 1
5
continued modifying the provision for continuous spans subjected to
lane load by limiting the spacing between the additional concentrated load to 30 ft. This limit
had the effect of reducing the lane load negative moment maximums for some continuous
spans. The 30-ft limit may also have been in recognition that the second large axle for an HS-
load pattern is spaced at a maximum of 30 feet from the first large axle, or it might have been
because the lane load approximately represents a train of trucks with a headway distance of 30
feet between trucks. Placing the second concentrated load at least 30 ft from the first instead of
a maximum of 30 ft would have been more logical. Current specifications do not limit the dis-
tance between the two loads for negative moment lane loadings.
Impact Load Provision. The 1944 AASHTO Bridge Specifications
6
required that the shortest
length of adjacent spans in a continuous unit be used for the negative moment impact value. In
1949, AASHTO changed this to the current provision of using the average length of the adja-
cent spans. Both versions of THD Supplement No. 1
78
changed the impact provision for
continuous units or other structures where discontinuous lane loadings are applied to be the
loaded length as indicated by the influence line for the section of member considered. This
change had the effect of slightly increasing the impact value.
Special Axle Loads. The 1946 THD Supplement No. 1
1
added a provision that no axle load in
excess of 24,000 lbs should be considered in the design of floor slabs. It further required that
either a single 24,000-lb axle or two 16,000-lb axles spaced four ft apart must be used for the
design of H-20 and H-20 S-16 bridge floors (slabs, grids, timber) instead of the 32,000 lb axle.
The provision was dropped in the 1953 THD Supplement No. 1
2
because the 1949 AASHTO
Bridge Specifications
3
included the provision specifically for concrete bridge slabs. The AAS-
HTO Bridge Specifications further limited the 24,000-lb axle to slab spans under 18 ft and the
two 16,000 lb axles for slab spans over 18 ft. This provision had the effect of reducing the
design load for many slab spans designed during that time. It has been found that some beams
have been designed in Texas using the single 24,000-lb axle. It is believed to bean error for
beams to have been designed this way. For this reason, carefully evaluate any plans prepared
during the period between approximately 1949 and 1961 with a design load of H20 or H20 S-
16 that also had the THD Supplement No. 1
4
notation.
Customary Rating Procedures
When a bridge was originally designed, the designer often had to select the next size of reinforcing
bar, size of steel beam, or thickness of cover plate to meet the design stress criteria. Sizes that were
larger than the theoretically perfect size of member result in Inventory Ratings significantly higher
than the design loading. However, the design loading and date of original construction are impor-
tant parts of the bridge data since they often provide a basis for determining initial routing of
overload permits.
If the original design was made using an H-load, such as H-15 or H-20, then the equivalent HS
Inventory Rating will usually be significantly less numerically. For example, an H-15 design might
rate at HS-12. However, this difference means that the total inventory HS-load capacity is 43,200 lb
(two 19,200 pounds axles and one 4,800 lb axle totaling 21.6 tons) as compared to the H-15 design
of 30,000 pounds (15 tons).
Determine the original design load from a review of the bridge plans if available. If the structure
essentially matches an old TxDOT standard bridge, then the design load for that standard can be
used for the Design Load (Item 31). Enter appropriate notation about this in the Bridge Record, and
update the electronic Bridge Inventory File. However, use caution accepting the design load in
plans that used the THD Design Supplement No. 1
56
due to circumstances described above.
AS rating procedures are usually set at 55 percent of the material yield stress for steel structures and
50 percent of the material yield stress for Grade 40 reinforcing steel in concrete structures. When
AASHTO first introduced the use of Grade 60 reinforcing steel in the 1970 Interim Bridge Design
Specifications,
1
the allowable of 24 ksi for Grade 60 was assigned based approximately on the ratio
of the Grade 60 ultimate strength to that of Grade 40. Thus, the AS procedures were still compati-
ble in factor of safety for concrete members.
LF rating procedures usually assign a dead load factor of 1.3 and live load factors of 2.17 (when
computing Inventory Ratings) and 1.3 (when computing Operating Ratings). The resulting stresses
or bending moments are compared to the yield of steel members or the ultimate capacity of con-
crete members also considering appropriate phi strength reduction factors.
Note that the value of 2.17 is the dead load value of 1.3 times 1.67. The load factor of 1.3 accounts
for a 30 percent increase in all loadings, either dead or live, so as to provide a uniform safety factor.
The factor of 1.67 accounts for the variability of live load configurations other than a standard HS-
load pattern and further provides for potential overloads or loads in excess of the State Legal Loads.
Specific analysis of structures for over-weight loads, particularly superheavy permits over 254,300
pounds, is usually done with a load multiplier consistent with the restricted speed of the vehicle.
Commonly this factor is about 1.1, with total stresses compared to an allowable of 75 percent of the
yield for steel bridges or 75 percent of the ultimate capacity for concrete bridges including pre-
stressed beam bridges. This procedure is explained more fully in Chapter 6, Routing and Permits.
Do not consider temporary repairs for Inventory or Operating Ratings. However, take temporary
repairs into account when assigning the operational status code of Item 41 to the structure. Tempo-
rary repairs are to be considered for the operational status code only until a more permanent repair
is made. Do not use temporary repairs for more than four years. The Inventory Rating directly
affects the Sufficiency Rating, so therefore do not assign any weight to temporary repairs in the
Load Rating calculations.
Use all field information and conventional analysis techniques when the design loading is unknown
or deterioration exists. Even when the design loading is known, the only acceptable method for
accurate load rating is to do calculations based on the plans and known field measurements.
Rating Concrete Bridges with No Plans
A concrete bridge with unknown reinforcing details (no plans) can be rated for the State Legal
Load (HS-20) at the Operating Level, which is currently defined for load rating purposes as an HS-
20 design load, provided that the following two considerations are met:
It has been carrying unrestricted traffic for many years.
1. Interim Specifications for Highway Bridges, AASHTO, 1970.
There are no signs of significant distress.
Ratings are assumed in the permanent Bridge Record, described in Chapter 8. This procedure is
summarized in detail by Figure 5.2.
Three additional considerations for rating concrete bridges with unknown reinforcing are:
Ensure bridge exhibits proper span-to-depth ratios of the main members, which indicates that
the original design was by competent engineers. In general, this consideration means that for
simple span structures the span-to-depth ratio of main members should not exceed approxi-
mately 20. Span-to-depth ratios exceeding this ratio may indicate that the designer did not
properly consider reasonable design truck loadings.
Construction details such as slab thickness and reinforcement cover over any exposed reinforc-
ing to specifications current at the time of the estimated construction date.
Appearance of the bridge shows that construction was done by a competent builder.
A comparative original design rating can be used to estimate the amount of reinforcing in the main
members. Normally, if the design was done prior to about 1950 and the above five considerations
are met exist, then the amount of reinforcing can be estimated based on a percentage of the gross
concrete area of the main beams (if tee-beam construction), or depth of slab (if slab construction).
Two of the examples below describe this method, and a third example describes a method that can
be used for prestressed beam bridges with no plans or other documentation.
Figure 5-2. Load Ratings for Concrete Bridges without Plans
NOTE 1: *Permit Trucks with gross or axle weights that exceed the state legal load limits will not
be allowed to use these bridges.
NOTE 2: I.F. - Inspection Frequency.
NOTE 3: Refer to AASHTO Manual for Bridge Evaluation, Chapter 6, Section B.
Examples of Rating Concrete Bridges with No Plans
Example 1. A flat-slab bridge designed between about 1930 and 1960 can be assumed to have
approximately 0.7 percent tension steel based on the total slab depth. Calculations with this amount
of steel using AS procedures with stresses, materials, covers, and live load distribution appropriate
to the AASHTO Bridge Specifications for the estimated date of construction should give at or very
near an H-10, H-15, or perhaps an H-20 theoretical rating. Any other value would make the
assumptions suspect. After this analysis is made, an analysis using LF procedures, HS loading, and
current load distributions should give an acceptable rating. Flat-slab bridges constructed off-system
can also often be rated by this procedure providing the above five considerations are also met. This
method is not suitable for evaluation of FS slabs, which may be recognized as those with narrow
roadways and tall integral curbs.
Example 2. A multi-beam concrete bridge built between about 1940 and 1965 can be estimated to
have approximately 0.3 percent tension steel based on beam spacing and an estimated depth to the
center of the steel group of 0.9 D where D is the total depth of the tee-beam. As in Example 1, an
old AS rating can first be calculated for comparison. If reasonable, then a modern LF rating can be
made with HS loading and the estimated amount of reinforcing steel. The amount of steel can be
adjusted slightly so the AS design exactly matches an H-rating of H-10, H-15, or H-20.
Example 3. Some bridges built since about 1955 are composed of prestressed beams and no plans
exist. This condition is often found for off-system bridges. The ratings should be done using con-
servative assumptions and good engineering judgment. One procedure would be to assume that the
beams were designed to an H-15 loading in conformance with the estimated date of specifications.
Using this assumption, an AS calculation can be made to estimate the even number of 7/16-in. 250
K strands. An LF rating using the HS-loading can then be performed based on this number and size
of strand. In Texas, prestressed beams were probably never designed to less than H-15. Most beams
have been designed to H-20 or HS-20. Texas prestressed beam fabricators keep good records of
their products, and identification of the design loading may sometimes be tracked down.
All three of these examples should give H-ratings using AS procedures that are close to a realistic
design load. For instance, a calculated value of H-14.4 could reasonably be assumed to verify that
the original design was H-15. A calculated AS value of H-13 would be suspect and further investi-
gation will be required.
Ratings for Unusual Bridges
Unusual bridges, such as those composed of old railroad flat cars, can be rated, but ensure that the
critical rating component is considered. For instance, flat cars were originally designed for a maxi-
mum point load combined with a uniform load over the whole car. When used for traffic loadings,
even though the main two-girder members may give a good equivalent HS load rating, the trans-
verse stiffening members and floor beams often control the live load capacity.
Another unusual type of bridge in Texas is the continuous cast-in-place (CIP) flat slab. Most of
these bridges were designed in the 1940s and 1950s with an H-15 or H-20 load pattern. Unfortu-
nately, the design negative moments were from the single truck load in one span. As a result, these
bridges may be under-designed for HS-loadings and, as a consequence, may require a load restric-
tion. Design procedures using an HS-20 design load; use a lane load with two concentrated loads in
adjacent spans for the controlling negative moment case for longer continuous bridges. For shorter,
continuous bridges, an HS-20 design uses two heavy axles of the HS-20 load pattern at variable
spacing in adjacent spans. However, the current AASHTO Bridge Specifications do not differenti-
ate between single-and multiple-lane distribution factors for slab bridges. As a result, this type of
bridge has greater strength for multiple trucks positioned in the middle of the bridge span. Some
structural evaluators make live load distribution adjustments based on the number of lanes loaded
for flat slab bridges. Exercise care and properly correlate it to two- or three-dimensional methods of
analysis to use this procedure.
H- and HS-Load Ratings
Previously, all ratings were done with the equivalent H-truck, shown in Figure 5-1, or the HS-truck
shown in Figure 5-1. Currently, all ratings are only with the HS-truck. A moment equivalency con-
version from H- to HS-ratings is not recommended since this process would assume that the
structure was exactly designed for the given H-loading. In addition, continuous spans cannot be
converted by this process. Most structures have a degree of capacity past the design H-load, partic-
ularly since load distribution assumptions of the AASHTO Bridge Specifications
1
have been made
more liberal since the time many structures were commonly designed using H-loads. However, as
previously explained, some bridges were intentionally designed with AS methods to a 5 percent
overstress for some components.
It is not acceptable to ratio the design live load moments for an H-truck to the same moment for an
equivalent HS-truck. For instance, if a 48-ft simple-span bridge has a design load of H-15, the
design load for moment equivalency would be HS-10.8. However, due to the above reasons, the
actual rating based on LF methods might easily be HS-9 or HS-13. Generate an LF rating in this
case.
Chapter 5 Ratings and Load Posting Section 4 Legal Loads and Load Posting
Section 4 Legal Loads and Load Posting
Definition of State Legal Loads
State Legal Loads may safely use any of our highways and bridges. Some routes and many bridges
must be load-posted to protect them from possible damage. At this time, a load capacity of HS-20 is
considered to best represent the State Legal Load for evaluation of the need for load posting.
Truck loads in Texas are considered legal if the gross load, axle load, axle configuration, length,
and width are within the current size and weight laws or rules. The applicable laws are contained in
the current volume of the Texas Transportation Code.
1
See Section 623.0111 of the Texas Trans-
portation Code for permit fees for selected numbers of counties, and see Section 201.8035 for
requirements related to the notification of off-system municipalities and counties of deficient
bridges.
The laws also provide for additional rules and regulations regarding truck weights and configura-
tions as may be formulated by the Texas Transportation Commission.
In general, the laws require that the maximum gross load on any truck cannot exceed 80,000 lbs,
the maximum load on any pair of tandem axles cannot exceed 34,000 lbs, and the maximum load
on any single axle cannot exceed 20,000 lbs. Total length must not exceed 65 feet and total width
must not exceed 96 inches. However, in 1989 the Texas Legislature enabled truck owners to pay an
annual fee to allow their gross legal loads to be increased by 5 percent with any individual maxi-
mum axle load increased by 10 percent.
2
The bill was considered controversial because it allowed
travel on any bridge, on- or off-system, even if it is load restricted. This portion of the Transporta-
tion Code was amended during the 77th Legislative Session to restrict vehicles possessing a permit
of this type from crossing load restricted bridges unless the bridge is the only vehicular access.
There are other so-called legal loads, sometimes referred to as Bonded Trucks, such as ready-mix
trucks, utility-pole trucks, garbage trucks, mobile cranes, oil well servicing equipment, etc., that
have special rules passed by the legislature allowing special categories of loads and lengths exceed-
ing the normal limits for trucks.
Most State Legal Loads do not have a greater effect on bridges than the current HS-20 design total
gross load of 72,000 lbs even though they may have a total legal weight of 84,000 lbs.
3
This appar-
ent contradiction is due to the different axle load configurations and numbers of axles.
1. Texas Transportation Code, Title 7, Chapter 621.
2. Texas Transportation Code, Section 623.011.
Load Posting
Load posting is often required for structures that, due to their original design or condition, do not
have the structural capacity to safely carry the State Legal Loads. Posting is usually necessary for
bridges designed at a time when the design truck for the particular stretch of roadway was only H-
10 or H-15, meaning gross truck loads of 20,000 or 30,000 lbs. Structures may be posted at Operat-
ing Rating levels provided that the condition ratings exceed those defined in Figure 5-3 and Figure
5-4 and other requirements are met. Otherwise, if the Condition Ratings are less than those defined,
the Posting must be at Inventory Rating level of the corresponding element (i.e. if the Condition
Rating of the superstructure on a particular bridge is a 5, and the Condition Rating of the substruc-
ture is a 4, then the Posting is at the Inventory Rating level of the substructure, not the
superstructure).
A load posting of a given truck size actually means that two trucks of the posted capacity to safely
pass on the bridge. This concept is often misinterpreted by those doing load ratings and making
load posting recommendations. It is recognized that a bridge posted for an HS-5 (18,000 lbs gross
load) can safely carry a single truck of significantly more than 18,000 lbs. No method ensures that
only a single truck is on the bridge. Therefore, assume that two trucks of the same size could be
passing on the bridge simultaneously.
However, some bridges, particularly off-system, are load posted assuming only one rating truck
even though they may be wider than 18 feet. This condition usually occurs due to the volume of
truck traffic, structure width or approach roadway width, striping, runners, etc., making them func-
tionally one-lane bridges for trucks.
It is important to recognize that even though a bridge may have been designed to an H-15 loading,
it may not need to be load posted due to considerations discussed previously, such as reinforcement
or member size in excess of the theoretical amount, more liberal load distribution now used in anal-
ysis, and LF analysis methods which usually increase Inventory Ratings significantly more than the
original design loading.
Senate Bill 220, 77th Legislature, 2001, amended Transportation Code, Section 621.301, to provide
that a county may establish load limits for a county road or bridge only with the concurrence of the
department. If a county determines that the load limit of a county bridge should be different than
the load limit supported by a department inspection, the county must submit the proposed load limit
to the district engineer. A request for a load limit must be accompanied by supporting documenta-
tion that is sealed by an engineer and that includes at a minimum: calculations supporting the
proposed limit and a structural evaluation report documenting the condition of the bridge. The dis-
trict engineer will give a concurrence to a county's proposal in writing. If the department does not
indicate concurrence or non-concurrence in writing within 30 calendar days of receipt by the
department of a request that included all required documentation, the proposed load limit must be
deemed concurred with by the department. The department may review the load limit and withdraw
this concurrence at any time by providing written notification to the county. A county may appeal
the decision of the district engineer by submitting a written request along with the required docu-
mentation to the executive director. The executive director will review the request and determine if
department concurrence will be granted. The executive director's decision is final.
Supply the recommended load posting of all off-system bridges to the affected municipalities and
counties. TxDOT provides the necessary posting signs and placement hardware. If the local juris-
diction elects not to post the bridge, all federal funds could be jeopardized or delayed for all
transportation-related projects, on- or off-system, in that county.
Send a list of off-system bridges that are recommended for load posting by certified mail to the
owner of the bridges. A signed copy of the cover letter is returned to TxDOT from the local juris-
diction official. Subsequently, after the appropriate load zone signs have been prepared by TxDOT,
a letter is sent notifying the local jurisdiction as to where the signs and hardware may be picked up
along with installation instructions. After the signs are installed, the local jurisdiction returns a
statement of compliance to TxDOT. Use photographs to document installation of load restriction
signs, and then submit them to the inspection file for historical reference.
Typical load posting signs are shown in Figure 5-5.
1
Texas must comply with posting time limits,
which are set by the Code of Federal Regulations. The time limit for initial or revised posting after
bridge inspection is 90 days after the change in status for on-system bridges. This time limit is
extended to 180 days for off-system bridges.
2

Figure 5-3. On-System Load Posting Guidelines
1. Texas Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, 1980
2. Closing and Posting Recommendations for Off-System Structures, Memo from Robert L. Wilson, P.E., TxDOT, Oc-
tober 1997
NOTE 1: * Permit Loads will not be allowed on bridges that are load posted.
NOTE 2: " If the bridge has not been rehabilitated or replaced in 24 months then the structure shall
be closed.
NOTE 4: OR - Operating Rating (Item 64)
NOTE 5: IR - Inventory Rating (Item 66)
Figure 5-4. Off-System Load Posting Guidelines
NOTE 1: * Permit Loads will not be allowed on bridges that are load posted.
NOTE 2: If the bridge has not been rehabilitated or replaced in 24 months then the structure shall
be closed.
NOTE 4: OR - Operating Rating (Item 64)
NOTE 5: IR - Inventory Rating (Item 66)
Figure 5-5. Typical Load Posting Signs
Procedures for Changing On-System Bridge Load Posting
The following table outlines the procedure for changing the load posting of an on-system bridge.
Table 5-1: Changing Load Posting of an On-System Bridge
Step
Responsible
Party Action
1 Consultant/Dis-
trict/BRG
Inspector determines a change in posting status based on condition ratings and
load rating of the structure. A change in posting status may result from one of the
following:
a new load restriction
a revision to an existing load restriction
a removal of a load restriction
2 Consultant/Dis-
trict/BRG
Submit Form 1083R, bridge inspection record, plans and supporting calcula-
tions to TxDOT Bridge Division within 30 days of inspection date.
3 Bridge Division
Load Rating
Engineer
The date that the Bridge Division Load Rating Engineer receives 1083R starts
the 90 day time period for posting On-System bridges.
Record this date in the Bridge Load Posting database and on Form 1083R.
Review the recommendation and perform more detailed analysis, if necessary.
4a Bridge Division
Load Rating
Engineer
Disapproval of recommendation:
Notify the District that the recommendation was not approved.
Update the Bridge Load Posting database with this information and complete
Form 1083R.
Scan the form and upload it to the structure's file in PonTex with the file name
format: DD-CCC-CCCC-SS-SSS_LPR_YYYY-MM-DD (Load Posting
Request with date of disapproval).
If the Load Rating Engineer performed a separate analysis, scan the load rat-
ing and uploads it to the structure's file in PonTex with the file name format:
DD-CCC-CCCC-SS-SSS_LR_YYYY-MM-DD (Load Rating with date
signed and sealed).
4b Bridge Division
Load Rating
Engineer
Approval of recommendation or modifies recommendation:
Calculate the appropriate posting level.
Forward Form 1083R with the Load Rating Engineer's load posting recom-
mendation to the Bridge Division Director for approval.
Record the approval date in the Bridge Load Posting database and on Form
1083R.
5a Bridge Division
Director
Approval of recommendation:
Record the approval date on Form 1083R and sign form.
Return form 1083R to Bridge Division Load Rating Engineer.
5b Bridge Division
Director
Approval of recommendation:
Record the disapproval date on Form 1083R and sign form.
Return Form 1083R to Bridge Division Load Rating Engineer.
6a Bridge Division
Load Rating
Engineer
Upon Bridge Division Director Approval:
ing and upload it to the structure's file in PonTex with the file name format:
signed and sealed).
Forward Form 1083R to Bridge Division QA/QC Engineer.
Scan the load posting calculations and upload them to the structure's file in
PonTex with the file name format: DD-CCC-CCCC-SS-SSS_LPSign_YYYY-
MM-DD (Load Posting Sign with date of Administrative approval).
Record the date of Bridge Division Director approval in the Bridge Load Post-
ing database.
Step
Responsible
Party Action
6b Bridge Division
Load Rating
Engineer
Upon Bridge Division Director Disapproval:
ing and upload it to the structure's file in PonTex with the file name format:
signed and sealed).
Forward Form 1083R to Bridge Division QA/QC Engineer.
Scan the load posting calculations and upload them to the structure's file in
PonTex with the file name format: DD-CCC-CCCC-SS-SSS_LPSign_YYYY-
MM-DD (Load Posting Sign with date of Administrative disapproval).
Record the date of Bridge Division Director disapproval in the Bridge Load
Posting database.
7 Bridge Division
QA/QC Engineer
Upon receipt of the approved load posting recommendation from the Load Rating
Engineer:
Provide approval notification to the District.
Record this date in the Bridge Load Posting database and on Form 1083R.
Send follow-up emails to the District at 45 days, 60 days, and 75 days after the
date that the Load Rating Engineer was notified of a recommended status
change.
8 District Upon receipt of recommendation approval notification, take one of the following
actions:
New Load Posting or Load Posting Revision- Immediately order load posting
signs and erect the signs upon their receipt.
Load Posting Removal - Immediately remove load posting signs.
9 District After signs have been placed or removed:
Notify the QA/QC Engineer that the signs have been erected/removed at the
bridge, and include the completion date.
Document the placement or removal of signs with photos.
10 Bridge Division
QA/QC Engineer
Upon receiving district notification:
Enter the erected/removed date on Form 1083R and record the date in the
Bridge Load Posting database.
Notify the Texas Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) and the Texas Depart-
ment of Safety (DPS) of the status change for the structure. The notification
includes: District name, county name, the facility carried, the feature crossed,
latitude and longitude, the status prior to the change, and the changed status of
the bridge.
Record the DMV and DPS notification dates in the Bridge Load Posting
database.
Scan the completed 1083R form and upload it to the structure's file in PonTex
with the file name format: DD-CCC-CCCC-SS-SSS_LPR_YYYY-MM-DD
(Load Posting Request with date of Administrative approval).
Step
Responsible
Party Action
Under the following conditions, the District submits to the Bridge Division's Inspection Branch a
completed Form 1083R showing reasons for a restriction removal:
Repair or rehabilitation of a bridge that increases load capacity and eliminates a load
restriction.
Construction of a new bridge that replaces one with a load restriction.
Procedures for Emergency On-System Bridge Load Posting
The following table outlines the procedure for changing the load posting of an on-system bridge in
an emergency.
If the emergency load limit is required for a period longer than 60 days, the District should submit a
request to the Bridge Division for the emergency load restriction to remain in place for another 60
days. If the bridge is not replaced or repaired before the emergency load restriction extension
expires, the District should submit a request to the Bridge Division for a permanent load restriction
following the procedures for changing on-system bridge load postings.
Closure of Weak Bridges
Close bridges with less than an HS-3 Operating Rating capacity pursuant to the Texas Load Posting
Guidelines presented in Figure 5-3 and Figure 5-4. Follow these policies for on-system bridges and
they are strongly recommended for the municipalities and counties with jurisdiction over off-sys-
tem bridges. Bridges with Inventory Ratings less than HS-3 but with Operating Ratings greater than
HS-3 may remain open for a limited amount of time. If it is desired to leave a bridge in this cate-
Table 5-2: Changing Load Posting of an On-System Bridge in an Emergency
Step
Responsible
Party Action
1 District Notify the Bridge Divisions Inspection Branch by telephone that an emergency
load restriction is required. Identify deficiencies that justify the placement of an
emergency load limit.
2 Bridge Division Work with the District to determine the load limit, if required, and verbally autho-
rize an emergency load restriction for a period not to exceed 60 days if necessary.
3 Bridge Division Prepare a letter to the District for signature by the Director of the Bridge Division
authorizing the temporary load limits and specifying the duration of the tempo-
rary limit.
4 Bridge Division Verbally notify the District of official approval of the emergency load limit.
5 Bridge Division Notify the Texas Department of Motor Vehicles and the Texas Department of
Public Safety of any bridge load restriction.
6 District On receipt of verbal approval by the Bridge Division, immediately erect signs
indicating the emergency load limit.
gory open, then inspect it every six months and ensure the bridge is programmed for rehabilitation
or replacement within two years. Close the bridge if after 24 months it has not been rehabilitated or
replaced.
Procedures for Closing an Off-System Bridge
If inspection reveals deterioration that affects an off-system bridges ability to safely carry vehicu-
lar traffic, the department may use the following procedure to recommend that it be closed for
safety reasons:
Recommending Off-System Bridge Closures
Step
Responsible
Party Action
1 Consultant/Dis-
trict/BRG
Inspector immediately notifies the District and the Inspection Branch of the
Bridge Division if a bridge should be closed based on the results of an inspection.
2 District The district will verify as soon as possible the condition of a bridge recommended
for closure by a consultant.
3 District The District will immediately notify the local entity of a valid closure recommen-
dation, and offer to meet representatives of the local entity at the bridge location.
The District will inform the local entity that its participation in the TxDOT Partic-
ipation Waived and Equivalent Match Program depends on full compliance with
departmental closure and posting recommendations and that failure to follow clo-
sure recommendations could result in the loss of federal funds. The District will
promptly update the Bridge Inspection database to reflect the closure recommen-
dation. (See Item 41 in the Coding Guide.)"
NOTE: TxDOT will not conduct another formal inspection of the bridge until it
is repaired or replaced.
4 Local Entity Close the bridge and notify the District when the bridge is closed to traffic.
5 District Verify closure of the bridge upon receipt of notification and include a photo or
certified documentation verifying the closure in the bridge inspection file.
Promptly update the Bridge Inspection database to reflect the closure status of the
bridge. (See Item 41 in the Coding Guide.")
6 District If the bridge will remain closed for an extended period of time, the district will
verify and document with a photo that the bridge is still closed to traffic as part of
the regular inspection cycle.
Procedures for Changing Off-System Bridge Load Posting
Use the following procedure to place, modify or remove load restrictions for off-system bridges
where an inspection and subsequent load rating show that the bridge's ability to safely carry state
legal loads is compromised:
Recommending Off-System Load Posting Changes
Step
Responsible
Party Action
1 Consultant/Dis-
trict/BRG
Inspector determines a change in posting status based on condition ratings and
load rating of the structure. A change in posting status may result from one of the
following:
a new load restriction
a revision to an existing load restriction
a removal of a load restriction
replacement of missing or damaged signs
2 District Upon receipt of a recommendation for a change in load restriction, take the fol-
lowing actions:
Notify the local entity that owns the bridge of the recommended change in
load restriction.
If the recommendation involves a new load posting, a load posting revision, or
replacement of missing or damaged signs, immediately order the necessary
signs.
If the recommendation involves a removal of a load restriction, notify the
local entity that the existing signage can be removed.
The entire process for changing an off-system load restriction is not to exceed
180 days from the time the recommendation for change is made. Monitor the
timeline to ensure that this requirement is met.
3 District Take the following steps if signs are ordered for a load posting implementation:
Monitor sign making request for delivery. If signs have not been received
within 30 days contact GSD sign shop to follow-up. If sign orders continue to
be delayed then the issue should be elevated to district administration or the
Bridge Division.
Once signs have been delivered, immediately notify the local entity that signs
and hardware are ready for pick up. This process should be documented in
writing or e-mail.
Monitor sign pick up by local entity. If signs have not been picked up within
30 days then a reminder should be sent and documented. If signs have not
been picked up within 15 days after reminder then the issue should be ele-
vated to district administration or the Bridge Division.
When the local entity picks up the signs and hardware have the local entity
representative sign upon receipt.
Monitor sign installation by the local entity. If signs have not been installed
within 30 days of receipt then a reminder should be sent and documented. If
signs have not been picked up within 15 days after reminder then the issue
should be elevated to district administration or the Bridge Division.
4 District After signs have been placed or removed:
Document the placement or removal of signs with photos.
Recommending Off-System Load Posting Changes
Step
Responsible
Party Action
Chapter 6 Routing and Permits
Contents:
Section 1 Role of District Permit Officers, District Bridge Inspection Coordinators, and the
Texas Department of Motor Vehicles
Section 2 Permits
Section 3 Example Comparison of Inventory, Operating, and Permit Loads
Chapter 6 Routing and Permits Section 1 Role of District Permit Officers, District
Bridge Inspection Coordinators, and the Texas
Section 1 Role of District Permit Officers, District Bridge Inspection
Coordinators, and the Texas Department of Motor Vehicles
One of the responsibilities of the District Permit Officer is to assist the Texas Department of Motor
Vehicles (TxDMV) in the evaluation of over-height and over-width permit routes. Should there be
any question regarding the accuracy of the current electronic Bridge Inventory Files, the actual
plans should be reviewed and/or a field visit made prior to issuing a permit. The TxDMV issues the
permit only after review by the District Permit Officer, who also coordinates closely with the Dis-
trict Bridge Inspection Coordinator.
A supplementary role of the District Bridge Inspection Coordinator is to notify the District Permit
Officer of any changes to bridge load postings, particularly for bridges not previously posted. The
TxDMV maintains a master set of maps showing the various width, height, and load restrictions on
all highways. Each District Permit Officer coordinates with the TxDMV in maintaining the maps.
Copies of the maps showing all restrictions for load, width, and heights on the various routes are
distributed to each district.
All permits are issued by the TxDMV with the cooperation of the District Permit Officer. For over-
weight permits, the District Permit Officer also works closely with the District Bridge Inspection
Coordinator. Any superheavy permits must also be coordinated the Bridge Division (BRG) for
structural evaluation of the bridges on a proposed route. This process is fully explained below.
The TxDMV, in conjunction with the mover, selects a route based on known information in the
Bridge Inventory Files, day-to-day construction status, road closures, and other known route
restrictions.
Chapter 6 Routing and Permits Section 2 Permits
Section 2 Permits
OverHeight and OverWidth Permits
Many permits are for over-height or over-width loads. The routing of these loads usually depends
on data contained in the electronic Bridge Inventory File. These types of loads do not normally
require a structural evaluation of the affected bridges unless the weight and axle load distribution is
such that an over-weight permit may also be required.
The electronic Bridge Record gives the values for available clearances as Items 51 (Roadway
Width), 52 (Deck Width), 53 (Vertical Clearance over Roadway), 54.2 (Vertical Clearance Under
Bridge), 55 (Lateral Underclearance on Right), and 56 (Lateral Underclearance on Left). These
items taken together usually give sufficient information to define the limits for the passage of over-
height and over-width vehicles.
The permit investigator, District Permit Officer, or District Bridge Inspection Coordinator can
quickly access the electronic Bridge Record to determine if the proposed route is capable of han-
dling the proposed overwidth or overheight load. Truss bridges are particularly of concern for both
these types of loads since many are in the 18- to 22-foot width range, and vertical clearance to the
portals is often less than normal current design clearances.
The electronic Bridge Inventory File gives vertical clearances to the least inch of clearance over the
roadway, including shoulders rounded down to the nearest inch. The posted clearance signs are
normally 3 inches less than this value. The clearance symbols maintained on the TxDMV permit
maps are rounded down to the next 6 inches below the posted clearance. For instance, if the actual
recorded clearance is 14-ft 2-in., the clearance sign is 13-ft 11-in., and the permit maps show the
maximum available clearance as 13-ft 6-in. Occasional over-height loads can therefore be permit-
ted for heights slightly over the limits given in the TxDMV permit maps provided there is close
coordination between the district and the owner and pre-move specific measurements taken.
Normally, over-width permits are granted simply on the basis of available Roadway Width (the
clear distance between curbs or railings). If the over-width load is configured such that the load will
adequately clear bridge railings, then moves may be granted for loads significantly wider than the
Deck Width. This requires the careful cooperation of all concerned parties including escort vehi-
cles and traffic control. Damage and or removal of signs and delineators may occur for some over-
width permits. TxDOT personnel should ensure that all such temporary changes are corrected
immediately after the permit load has passed.
More information on over-height and over-width permit requirements and procedures is given in
the Motor Carrier Division's Permit Officer Reference Guide
1
and the Motor Carrier Division
Handbook
2
.
1. Permit Officer Reference Guide, TxDOT, Motor Carrier Division, May, 2010.
Over-weight Permit Loads
Misconceptions often arise about the relationship between Operating Ratings and Overweight Per-
mit Loads. The primary difference is that overweight Permit Load analysis usually assumes only
one load on the bridge, which, therefore, allows the use of single-lane load distribution. The Oper-
ating Rating is based on the standard AASHTO load distribution given in the current Standard
Specifications for Highway Bridges
1
for multi-lane distribution for bridges over 18 feet in width.
This distribution implies two or more of the Operating Rating trucks being on the bridge side-by-
side at the same time.
The other major difference is that Operating Ratings and Overweight Permit Loads use different
load multipliers, resulting in Overweight Permit Load analysis being significantly more liberal than
Operating Rating analysis. Review the current Operating and Inventory Ratings, the age and type
of structure, the span lengths, and the Condition Ratings for any structure proposed on a permit
route. For any Condition Rating of 4 or less, request more detailed information on the structure,
including the written inspection comments. Reduced strength in a portion of a bridge can often be
avoided by controlling the load path of the Overweight Permit Load across the bridge.
Superheavy Loads
Over-weight Permit Loads are classified as Routine or Superheavy. Routine Overweight Permit
Loads may be allowed in the regular traffic stream. An escort is required if the load is also over-
length or over-width. Use the standard AASHTO load distributions since there may be a legal truck
alongside the Routine Overweight Permit Load truck crossing a bridge at the same time.
The term Superheavy Permit Load designates total loads over 254,300 lbs gross. This load was
determined cooperatively by the Motor Carrier Division and the Bridge Division in 1981 to repre-
sent the lower range of a typical superheavy load. It consists of a 14,300 lb steering axle followed
by four groups of three axles, each totaling 60,000 lbs. Any configuration with multiple axles with
a gross load of over 254,300 lbs is considered a Superheavy load and requires structural evaluation
of individual bridges. Loads with individual axles or axle group weights that exceed the maximum
permit weights are also considered to be Superheavy. Any load exceeding 200,000 lbs with a total
overall length of less than 95 feet is also considered Superheavy.
More information on superheavy permit requirements and procedures is given in Permit Officer
Reference Guide
2
and the Motor Carrier Division Handbook
3
.
2. Motor Carrier Division Handbook, TxDOT, Motor Carrier Division, August 2010.
1. Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges, AASHTO, 17th Ed., 2002.
2. Permit Officer Reference Guide, TxDOT, Motor Carrier Division, May, 2010.
The Superheavy Permit often requires that the load cross all bridges straddling a lane line in the
case of four or more lanes on a two-way bridge, or straddling the center line for a two-lane bridge.
This procedure ensures that other legal trucks will not be alongside the Superheavy load and also
gives better load distribution. The AASHTO load distributions used for Superheavy loads are,
therefore, usually single-lane. This allows higher Superheavy Permit gross loads to safely cross the
bridge.
A printout of the proposed list of bridges to be crossed is reviewed by the TxDMV and the Bridge
Division. Often, based on experience of the evaluator and other guidelines, it is necessary to struc-
turally evaluate only a portion of the bridges on an extensive proposed Superheavy route. For any
bridges on the route with a Deck, Superstructure or Substructure condition Rating of 4 or less,
review the actual written Bridge Inspection Record. This bridge-by-bridge evaluation is one of the
primary reasons that the data in the electronic Bridge Records must be accurate and up-to-date.
Superheavy Permit Loads are usually speed-controlled on bridges, sometimes as slow as a walk
speed to minimize impact forces.
Many Superheavy Permit Loads also have greater than the usual 6-foot axle gage. The gages for
Superheavy Permits can commonly be as much as 20 feet with 16 tires on each axle line. Methods
of load distribution for these special carriers cannot directly use the customary AASHTO distribu-
tions, which are based on 6-foot axle gages with four tires on an axle line.
Other Differences Between Overweight Permits and Operating Rating
There are other major differences between Operating Ratings and Overweight Permit Loads.
The Operating Rating is usually based on Load Factor (LF) criteria, which use multipliers of 1.3
applied to both the dead and live loads. The live load has an additional allowance of up to 30 per-
cent for impact. Note that Inventory Rating uses a significantly higher live load multiplier of 2.17.
The result for either Operating Rating or Inventory Rating is compared to the yield or ultimate
strength capacity of the members. A phi strength reduction factor (usually from 1.0 to 0.85) is
also applied for concrete members.
Overweight Permit Load analysis usually assumes a factor of 1.0 applied to both the dead and live
loads. Ten to 30 percent is added to the live load for impact, depending on the speed control and
type of load suspension system. Stresses are compared to an allowable maximum of 75 percent of
the yield capacity of steel members or 75 percent of the ultimate capacity for concrete members.
The reciprocal of 75 percent is 1.33; thus it can be seen that Overweight Permit Load analysis with
Allowable Stress (AS) methods has essentially the same factor of safety as an analysis using LF cri-
teria. This result will be demonstrated below by a specific example comparison.
Overloads on Posted or Substandard Bridges
Occasionally a request is made for a Routine Overweight Permit or a Superheavy Overweight Per-
mit to cross a load-posted bridge. TxDMV does not allow overweight permits for posted bridges.
1

However, Section 623.0113 of the Texas Transportation Code allows TxDOT to issue weight toler-
ance permits for over-weight vehicles to cross load-posted bridges only when there is no other
route.
Certain other bridges that are not load posted may not be capable of carrying Routine Overweight
Permit Loads or Superheavy Permit Loads. Bridges that are in this category include but are not lim-
ited to continuous flat slabs with original H-15 designs. These bridges have short spans and were
designed with the single H-load pattern truck placed along the span for maximum design condi-
tions. Many of these bridges when rated with the now-required HS-load pattern, and even using LF
analysis, will rate at significantly less capacity than other types of bridges designed with H-load
patterns. These bridges, though not currently load posted, must be carefully evaluated when over-
load permits are considered. This is the primary reason that the original design loads given in the
Coding Guide should be entered correctly. Often these bridges have been widened, and the widen-
ing design load has been incorrectly entered as the original design load.
Pre- and Post-Move Inspection
Another occasional responsibility of the District Bridge Inspection Coordinator is to inspect
bridges before and after the passage of a particular overweight permit load. A representative of the
owner-mover should be present at these types of inspections. Cast-in-place short span slab bridges,
particularly those which have been widened from an original H-10 design to an H-15 or H-20
design, are susceptible to cracking by overloads.
Unusual bridges, such as arch spans, segmentally constructed post-tensioned spans, or long-span
plate girder bridges, may also need special attention before, during, and after the move of an over-
weight permit load. It has been found that simple attention to the sounds made by a bridge when
the load passes will call attention to possible broken diaphragm connections or lateral wind bracing
connections that actually act as torsional bracing for curved and/or heavily skewed structures.
Chapter 6 Routing and Permits Section 3 Example Comparison of Inventory,
Operating, and Permit Loads
Section 3 Example Comparison of Inventory, Operating, and Permit Loads
Typical Continuous I-Beam Bridge
To further demonstrate the differences between the various types of analyses, a typical standard
bridge common in Texas is chosen for comparative analysis. This bridge is a three-span continuous
I-Beam bridge originally designed in the 1950s and 1960s for use on many of the Farm- and Ranch-
to-Market highways. Bridges on these routes were commonly designed to H-15 loads (30,000 lbs)
since that load was believed to represent the maximum farm truck. Since that time, many of these
routes have been incorporated in more heavily traveled routes. Farm-to-Market (FM) roadways
crossing Interstate (IH) or other major highways often have this type of H-15 design. Tractor-trailer
trucks with a legal load of 80,000 lbs are now commonly using these bridges. The legal load of
these trucks can be 84,000 lbs with use of the Weight Tolerance (2060) Permit
1
.
Details for the bridge may be found in Standard Ic26h-230 (70-90-70) dated 1965. However, simi-
lar bridges before 1965 were also designed to the same H-15 loading. This design loading was in
use until about 1975 or 1980. The bridge has a 26-ft roadway between faces of railings and is com-
posed of four 30-inch deep wide-flange rolled beams with relatively short cover plates at the
interior supports. The beams are spaced at 7-ft 4-in., and the slab is 6.5-in. thick. An elevation and
cross-section of the bridge are shown in Figure 6-1. The design is non-composite, meaning that the
slab is assumed to slip longitudinally along the top flanges when loaded. The beams are 36W135
continuous with 10-in. X 0.625-in. X 14-ft cover plates top and bottom at supports.
Figure 6-1. Typical Continuous I-Beam Bridge Elevation and Cross Section
Rating Analysis Steps
The steps used in a typical rating analysis for the structure are described below.
Calculate Dead Load. Using the total steel weight given in the plans, subtract calculated weight of
beams including cover plates, and check that remainder is about 5 percent of beam weight. This
result represents the diaphragms, connections, and other miscellaneous steel. If this number is not
about 5 percent, determine the discrepancy. Sometimes the total weight in the plans is in error, but
this check usually gives the rater a verification for the estimated dead load. Use the total steel
weight, which includes the diaphragms, as a uniform load per linear foot (LF), distributed equally
to one of the interior beams. Use the total slab quantity given in the plans calculated as a uniform
load per LF also distributed equally to an interior beam. Verify by comparison to the dead load of
slab for a typical interior beam using the slab thickness. Add in dead load for any overlay and
railings.
Compute Dead Load Moments. Dead load moments need only be calculated at critical locations
such as the maximum positive moments for each span and the negative moments at the interior sup-
ports. The analysis should use the actual span lengths center-to-center of bearing and not the
nominal span lengths. It is preferable to use a computer program, but hand analysis from continu-
ous beam coefficients is also acceptable. The normal sizes of cover plates over supports will "draw"
up to about 6 to 12 percent more negative moment and will reduce positive moments when com-
pared to a constant cross section analysis, which is assumed when using continuous beam
coefficients or other similar tables or charts. Almost all continuous beam designs in Texas until the
advent of computer analysis in the early 1960s used influence coefficients for a constant cross
section.
Determine Controlling Live Loading Conditions. Some computer programs do this determina-
tion automatically, but there is a risk in using these programs unless the user is familiar with their
limitations and assumptions. One popular program is BMCOL51
1
, which is a continuous beam
analysis program. It allows any pattern of live load to be moved in increments along the beam,
which can have cover plates and any areas of composite section if necessary. Thus, it is particularly
suited to the analysis of Superheavy loads. It can also identify the locations where the concentrated
load(s) for lane loads must also be placed. Most continuous beams will have the following live load
maximum moments:
Max positive moment in end and center spans will usually be from an HS-20 live load with 14-
ft center-to-center of trailer axles. However, for very long plate girders, the lane loading crite-
ria may sometimes control positive moment.
Max negative moment will also usually be from the HS pattern, perhaps with more than 14 feet
between the trailer axles if total length of first plus second spans is less than about 70 feet. If
the sum of the first two spans is more than about 75 or 80 ft, then the negative moment will be
from lane loading of the two adjacent spans with the concentrated loads applied at the critical
positions in the two spans.
The Texas Bridge Load Rating Program of 1988
2
can also be used for analysis. However, the
program is limited to simple spans of uniform cross section or the estimate of the equivalent
simple span for each span of a continuous beam.
Tabulate the Maximums. Identify the locations for which stresses and ratings are to be calculated.
Often the maximum positive moment sum of dead plus live effects will not be at the point of maxi-
mum dead load or live load moment. This condition is another reason to use a computer analysis
such as BMCOL51
3
. This program allows the combination of dead and live loads to be investigated
at all points along the continuous member with proper consideration of the effects of cover plates
and composite regions, if any. The maximum moments in the end spans may not be the same even
though they have the same span length, due to the unsymmetrical live load pattern. For the results
discussed in the remainder of this section, Program BMCOL51 was used with 69-90-69 ft spans.
1. A Computer Program to Analyze Beam-Columns under Movable Loads, Hudson Matlock and Taylor, T.P., Research
Report 56-4, Center for Highway Research, University of Texas at Austin, 1968.
2. Texas Bridge Load Rating Program, TxDOT, 1988.
3. A Computer Program to Analyze Beam-Columns under Movable Loads, Hudson Matlock and Taylor, T.P., Research
Report 56-4, Center for Highway Research, The University of Texas at Austin, 1968.
Calculate the Moments and Load Ratings. Apply the appropriate load factors for the various rat-
ings to both the dead and live load moments at each member location being investigated. Subtract
the dead load effect from the member capacity at yield (if load factor analysis) or from the member
capacity at allowable stress (if allowable stress analysis). The remainder is the live load capacity.
Ratio the remainder to the calculated live load value at the location, and multiply by the live load
ton designation. The result is the member rating at that location. It is best to understand this basic
process rather than use a set formula for calculating the load rating.
Results for I-Beam Bridge
An H-pattern was used for comparison (normally not necessary) with no railing and no overlay as
an additional check on the original design using allowable stresses. This design pre-dated the 1965
design shown on the standard plans and obviously was done using an allowable stress of 18 ksi. In
1965 many standard details were changed to specify H.Y.C. structural steel
1
, which is equivalent
to ASTM A-36.
2
However, the design load was kept the same, and no change was made in the size
of the cover plates. An HS loading, using the allowable stress or load factor methods, and Inventory
Rating or Operating Rating methods was also made for comparison. The various analyses are sum-
marized in the following table.
Discussion of the Analysis Comparisons
The various analyses summarized in Table 6.1 are discussed in the sequence of the loading number.
Current bridge rating analysis usually requires only loadings HS (5) and HS (6). However, if the
1. Texas Standard Specifications, TxDOT, 1962.
2. Specification for Carbon Structural Steel A36/A36M -97, Vol 01.04, ASTM, 1997.
Table 6.1 Comparison of Analyses for Example Bridge
Loading Analysis Method
First or
Third Span Support Middle Span
H (1)N AS IR H 20.08 H 14.24 * H 18.94
H (2)N AS IR H 23.46 H 17.59 * H 22.28
HS (3)N AS IR HS 15.78 HS 17.60 HS 14.84 *
HS (4)Y AS IR HS 12.65 HS 10.40 * HS 11.48
HS (5)Y LF IR HS 15.84 HS 17.80 HS 14.97 *
HS (6)Y LF OR HS 26.40 HS 29.67 HS 24.96 *
N = Light railing and no overlay
AS = Allowable stress
OR = Operating rating
Y = T501R railing and 2-in overlay
LF = Load factor
IR = Inventory rating
* = Controlling rating
resulting rating is significantly different than the design load, then solutions similar to loadings H
(1) or H (2) may be necessary to determine the reasons for the difference.
H (1). Used to verify analysis with an assumed allowable stress of 18 ksi which is appropriate
for A7 steel. Also assumed to have no overlay and light railings. Note that the controlling rat-
ing of H14.24 is close to H-15. There would be an overstress of 2.5 percent if exactly H-15
loading was used. Designing up to a 5-percent overstress was very common for these
structures.
H (2). This comparison analysis was made with an allowable stress of 20 ksi, which is appro-
priate for A36 steel. The remainder of the following comparisons are also with A36 steel.
HS (3). This comparison is with an HS truck. Note that the controlling HS14.84 rating implies
a total individual rating truck load of 26.7 tons, which compares with the H17.6 rating truck of
17.6 tons.
HS (4). This analysis demonstrates the effect of using the actual current in-place modern rail-
ing, a T501R retrofit railing in this case, and a 2-in. overlay. This amount of overlay is very
common for structures of this age. Note that the controlling rating shifts from the end span to
the support due to the added influence of the greater uniform dead load. The reduction in the
rating is 30 percent simply due to the added dead load.
HS (5). This analysis demonstrates the current IR for the bridge using LF analysis methods.
The HS14.97 rating implies a single inventory rating truck load totaling 26.9 tons or two trucks
side-by-side totaling 53.9 tons.
HS (6). This analysis demonstrates the current OR for the bridge using LF analysis methods.
The HS24.96 rating implies a single operating rating truck load totaling 44.9 tons or two trucks
side-by-side totaling 89.9 tons. Note that the OR of solution HS (6) is equal to 5/3 x the IR of
solution HS (5), which directly reflects the difference in the live load rating factors.
Chapter 7 Bridge Programming
Contents:
Section 1 Basis for Bridge Rehabilitation or Replacement
Section 2 Federal Bridge Program
Section 3 Sufficiency Ratings
Section 4 Bridge Management System
Chapter 7 Bridge Programming Section 1 Basis for Bridge Rehabilitation or
Replacement
Section 1 Basis for Bridge Rehabilitation or Replacement
Overview
Some bridges on public highways in Texas are considered structurally deficient or functionally
obsolete. The terms functionally obsolete (FO) and structurally deficient (SD) are general terms
used by the FHWA to classify bridges for eligibility to receive federal funding from the Highway
Bridge Program.
Structurally Deficient
The term "structurally deficient" is used by the Federal Highway Administration to designate
bridges eligible for federal funding. A structurally deficient bridge is one with routine maintenance
concerns that do not pose a safety risk or one that is frequently flooded. To remain open to traffic,
structurally deficient bridges are often posted with reduced weight limits that restrict the gross
weight of vehicles using the bridges. A structurally deficient bridge should not be confused with an
unsafe bridge. Through regular inspection, TxDOT identifies unsafe conditions and closes unsafe
bridges. A structurally deficient bridge, when open to traffic, typically requires significant mainte-
nance and repair to remain in service and eventual rehabilitation or replacement to address
deficiencies. To remain in service, structurally deficient bridges are often posted with weight limits
to restrict the gross weight of vehicles to less than the maximum weight allowed by Texas law
(80,000 pounds).
Functionally Obsolete
The term "functionally obsolete" is another FHWA term for classifying bridge eligibility for federal
funding. A bridge is classified by the FHWA as functionally obsolete if it fails to meet its design
criteria either by its deck geometry, its load-carrying capacity, its vertical or horizontal clearances,
or the approach roadway alignment to the bridge.
Summary
Methods have been developed to allocate funds and prioritize the rehabilitation or replacement of
structurally deficient or functionally obsolete bridges. These methods are described below. Further
information on the subject can be found in the Bridge Project Development Manual.
Chapter 7 Bridge Programming Section 2 Federal Bridge Program
Section 2 Federal Bridge Program
Funding Classifications
The Federal Highway Administration designates two classifications of deficient bridges that are
eligible for funding under the Federal Highway Bridge Program (HBP). A bridge must be classi-
fied as Structurally Deficient or Functionally Obsolete in order to be eligible for funding by the
Federal Bridge Program.
The funding for this program is limited and is divided between bridges located on the state highway
system (on-system) and those bridges located on city streets or county roads (off-system). As of
September 1, 2010, there is about $230 million available for the HBP each year. About $170 mil-
lion is for on-system bridges and about $60 million is for off-system bridges.
Selection Process
All publically owned, vehicular bridges in Texas are inspected every two years and a sufficiency
rating for each bridge is generated using information from the inspection and other factors in the
Bridge Record. Approximately 34,000 bridges are on the state system and about 18,000 bridges are
off the state system. Safety is TxDOT's main focus in prioritizing bridges for replacement or reha-
bilitation in the HBP. Accordingly, structurally deficient (SD) bridges are given the highest priority
for the program. SD bridges are programmed in order of lowest sufficiency rating first. The suffi-
ciency rating is a numerical evaluation of a bridge's structural adequacy and safety, serviceability
and functional obsolescence, and essentiality for traffic service.
The Bridge Division is responsible for selection of bridges for the HBP and develops a list of all
bridges eligible for HBP funding. The Bridge Division then works with the Districts to establish a
list of bridges that the Districts submit for consideration of funding through the HBP. The Bridge
Division sorts the bridges that are submitted from the Districts and orders them by SD and lowest
sufficiency rating for the year the district has requested funding.
Five year bridge programming plans are developed. The bridges selected for the first year of the
program are authorized for construction letting. The other four years are for planning purposes and
letting dates are subject to change based on changing conditions.
Each year the Bridge Division evaluates all eligible HBP bridges for the next five years. Bridges
programmed for the second year of the five-year program are automatically programmed for the
first year of the next five-year program subject to available funding.
Bridges are selected in this order until funding is exhausted for the first year of the program.
Bridges that are not programmed in the first year are added to the second year and are prioritized
until funding is exhausted. This process is repeated for each year of the HBP. If all of the SD
bridges being considered for a particular year are funded, then Functionally Obsolete bridges are
considered for that year giving highest priority by lowest sufficiency rating.
After this five-year list has been established, the Districts are given the opportunity to request spe-
cial consideration of projects that were not selected in the first year. The Bridge Division and
Administration review these requests and determine if they will be programmed. However, if a
special consideration project is approved, another project(s) on the approved list must be moved to
the following year because the program is fiscally constrained. This in turn requires projects in the
second year to be moved to the third year and so on until the program is adjusted for all five years.
The bar is very high for special consideration projects to be approved since a project that made the
list based on a worse condition than the special consideration project has to be moved to the next
year.
Our goal is to use all of the available funding each year so that as many deficient bridges are
replaced as soon as possible. However, funding not used in the current fiscal year is rolled over to
the next year. To best utilize all of the available funding each year, bridge projects that are selected
in the second year of the program are to be developed and ready to go to letting in the first year of
the program. This allows second year projects to be moved easily into the current fiscal year upon
the delay of another project.
Each month the Bridge Division monitors the status of projects that go to letting and the available
funds remaining in the current fiscal year. Around March of each year the Bridge Division evalu-
ates projects that have been delayed and moves projects from the next year to the current fiscal year
to use the balance of funds in the HBP.
Structural Deficiency
A bridge is considered Structurally Deficient if there is a Condition Rating of 4 or less for:
Item 58 (Roadway) or
Item 59 (Superstructure) or
Item 60 (Substructure)
Item 62 (Culvert)
or if it has an Appraisal Rating of 2 or less for:
Item 67 (Structural Condition) or
Item 71 (Waterway Adequacy)
Item 71 is considered only if the last digit of Item 42 (Type of Service Under the Bridge) is 0,
5, 6, 7, 8, or 9
Functional Obsolescence
Three methods establish if a bridge is considered Functionally Obsolete:
An Appraisal Rating of 3 or less for Item 68 (Roadway Geometry), and Item 51 (Bridge Road-
way Width) is less than the following:
An Appraisal Rating of 3 or less for either of:
Item 69 (Underclearances) or
Item 72 (Approach Roadway Alignment)
Item 69 is considered only if the last digit of Item 42 (Type of Service under the Bridge) is
0, 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, or 8
An Appraisal Rating of 3 or less for either of:
Item 67 (Structural Condition) or
Item 71 (Waterway Adequacy)
If Item 29 (ADT) equal or
less than...
Item 51 (Roadway Width) Curb
to Curb (feet) <...
250 20
750 22
2,700 24
5,000 30
9,000 44
35,000 56
ADT greater than 35,000 requires review by the FHWA
Chapter 7 Bridge Programming Section 3 Sufficiency Ratings
Section 3 Sufficiency Ratings
Calculation of Sufficiency Ratings
Sufficiency ratings are used by the Federal Highway Administration to select candidate bridges for
the Highway Bridge Program. Sufficiency ratings are determined during the biennial bridge inspec-
tion and are intended to indicate a measure of the ability of a bridge to remain in service.
Calculations for Sufficiency Ratings utilize a formula that includes various factors determined dur-
ing the bridge field inspection and evaluation. The items considered below are those described in
the instructions for the Coding Guide. Ratings are on a scale of 1 to 100, with 100 considered as an
entirely sufficient bridge, usually new; an entirely deficient bridge would receive a rating of 0.
Only bridges that carry vehicular traffic receive a Sufficiency Rating.
A TxDOT interactive program is available to calculate Sufficiency Ratings and determine Struc-
tural Deficiency and Functional Obsolescence. The program is called BRISUF and it calculates the
Sufficiency Rating based on data entered through an interactive prompt process. The Bridge
Inspection Branch of the Bridge Division (BRG) should be contacted for assistance.
Whether using the prompted program BRISUF or hand calculations, the Sufficiency Rating (SR) is
calculated by the equation:
1. S
1
is the Structural Adequacy and Safety (55 maximum, 0 minimum) calculated by the equa-
tion:
a. A is the Reduction for Deterioration (not to exceed 55 or be less than 0) based on the
lowest value of Item 59 (Superstructure Rating) or lowest value of Item 60 (Substructure
Rating):
if < 2, then A = 55
if = 3, then A = 40
if = 4, then A = 25
if = 5, then A = 10
if > 6, then A = 0
if = N, then A = 0
b. I is the Reduction for Load Capacity (not to exceed 55 or be less than 0) calculated by
the equation and table:
S S
1
S
2
S
3
S + +
4
+ =
S
1
55 A I + ( ) =
I 0.2778 36 AIT ( ) =
1.5
AIT is the Adjusted Inventory Tonnage, calculated by the following table of multipliers
based on Item 66 (Inventory Rating):
2. S
2
= the Serviceability and Functional Obsolescence (30 maximum, 0 minimum) calculated
by the equation:
a. J is a Rating Reduction (not to exceed 15) calculated by the following equation and
tables: J = A + B + C + D + E + F
b. (G + H ) is a Width of Roadway Insufficiency (not to exceed 15) calculated by the fol-
lowing relationships where the values for X and Y are first found by the following
equations:
Y = Item 51 (Roadway Width) First two digits of Item 28 (Lanes On)
If Item 5.6 = 1, 2 or 8, then;
X = Item 29 (Inventory Route ADT) First two digits of Item 28 (Lanes On)
1st digit of Item 66 is...
AIT = 2nd and 3rd digits of Item 66
multiplied by
1 1.56
2 1.00
3 1.56
4 1.00
5 1.21
6 1.21
9 1.00
If Item 58
(Deck
Condition) is...
If Item 67
(Structural
Evaluation) is...
If Item 68
(Deck
Geometry)
is...
If Item 69
(Underclearances)
is...
If Item 71
(Waterway
Adequacy) is...
If Item 72
(Approach
Roadway
Alignment) is...
3, then A = 5 3, then B = 4 3, then C = 4 3, then D = 4 3, then E = 4 3, then F = 4
= 4, then A = 3 = 4, then B = 2 = 4, then C = 2 = 4, then D = 2 = 4, then E = 2 = 4, then F = 2
= 5, then A = 1 = 5, then B = 1 = 5, then C = 1 = 5, then D = 1 = 5, then E = 1 = 5, then F = 1
6, then A = 0 6, then B = 0 6, then C = 0 6, then D = 0 6, then E = 0 6, then F = 0
= N, then A = 0 = N, then B = 0 = N, then C = 0 = N, then D = 0 = N, then E = 0 = N, then F = 0
S
2
30 J G H + ( ) I + + [ ] =
Then use the following conditions of (1), (2), or (3) to obtain the values for G and H:
(1) For all bridges except culverts:
(2) For one-lane bridges (including
one-lane culverts:
(3) For bridges with two or more
lanes (including culverts):
If Item 43.4 (Culvert Type) is
blank or 0 and;
If Item 51 (Roadway Width) + 2 ft
< Item 32 (Approach Roadway
Width), then G = 5.
If Item 51 (Roadway Width) + 2 ft
Item 32 (Approach Roadway
Width), then G = 0.
If the first two digits of Item 28
(Lanes On) = 01 and;
If Y < 14, then H = 15
If 14 < Y but < 18, then H = 3.75
(18 - Y).
If Y 18, then H = 0.
(Lanes On) = 02 and Y 16, then
H = 0.
H = 0.
H = 0.
H = 0.
If any one of the preceding conditions
is met, do not continue trying to
determine H because no lane width
reductions are necessary. Otherwise,
determine H based on the following
values for X and Y:
If X 50 and Y < 9, then H = 7.5
If X 50 and Y 9, then H = 0.
If 50 < X 125 and Y < 10, then
H = 15.
If 50 < X 125 and 10 Y < 13,
then H = 5 (13 - Y)
If 50 < X 125 and Y 13, then
H = 0
If 125 < X 375 and Y < 11, then
H = 15
If 125 < X 375 and 11 Y < 14,
then H = 5 (14 - Y)
If 125 < X 375 and Y 14, then
H = 0
If 375 < X 1350 and Y < 12,
then H = 15
If 375 < X 1350 and 12 Y <
16, then H = 3.75 (16 - Y)
If 375 < X 1350 and Y 16,
then H = 0
If X > 1350 and Y < 15, then H =
15
If X > 1350 and 15 Y < 16, then
H = 15 (16 - Y)
If X > 1350 and Y 16, then H =
0
c. I is a Vertical Clearance Insufficiency (not to exceed 2) set by the following:
If Item 100 (STRAHNET) > 0 and;
Item 53 (Min Vert Clearance Over Bridge Deck) > 1600 then I = 0
Item 53 (Min Vert Clearance Over Bridge Deck) < 1600 then I = 2
If Item 100 (STRAHNET) = 0 and;
Item 53 (Min Vert Clearance Over Bridge Deck) > 1400 then I = 0
Item 53 (Min Vert Clearance Over Bridge Deck) < 1400 then I = 2
3. S
3
is the Essentiality for Public Use (not to exceed 15 or be less than 0) calculated by the
equation:
a. P is the portion for Public Use.
First calculate K, which is a value based on the previously calculated S
1
and S
2
:
K = (S
1
+ S
2
) 85
P = (Item 29* (ADT) x Item 19* (Detour Length) x 15) (200,000 x K)
*If Item 5.1 = 1 use Item 29 (ADT) and Item 19 (Detour Length)
*If Item 5.1 = 2 use Item 29A (Intersecting Route ADT) and Item 19A (Intersecting Route
Detour Length)
b. M is the portion for Military Use.
If Item 100 (STRAHNET) > 0, then M = 2
If Item 100 (STRAHNET) = 0, then M = 0
4. S
4
is a Special Reduction used only when S1 + S2 + S3 50. Calculate S
4
using the equation:
a. R is a Detour Length Reduction (not to exceed 5) calculated by the equation:
R = [Item 19* (Detour Length)]
4
x (5.205 x 10
-8
)
*If Item 5.1 = 1 use Item 19 (Detour Length)
*If Item 5.1 = 2 use Item 19A (Intersecting Route Detour Length)
b. S is a Structure Type Reduction set by the following:
If the first digit of Item 43.1 (Main Span Type) is 7 or 8 or if the 2nd digit of Item 43.1
(Main Span Type) is 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, or 7, then S = 5.
Otherwise, S = 0
c. T is a Traffic Safety Feature reduction set by the following:
If 2 digits of Item 36 (Traffic Safety Features) = 0, then T = 1
S
3
15 P M + ( ) =
S
4
R S T + + =
Chapter 7 Bridge Programming Section 4 Bridge Management System
Section 4 Bridge Management System
Overview
PonTex is a bridge inspection data management system which was developed in-house by TxDOT.
It features a web-enabled, role-based relational database structure, and was designed to replace the
BRINSAP legacy mainframe system which has been in service for decades. Major improvements
over BRINSAP include the ability to directly populate the database with elemental inspection data,
up-front data validations before an inspection can be submitted for approval, electronic storage of
all inspection documentation, and complete audit records for all data entries. Another advantage of
PonTex is that it makes all bridge inspection and inventory data readily available to all end users of
the data through the applications itself, or through a link to the relational database used to store the
data.
TxDOT first began implementing PonTex in the Odessa District in February of 2009. Additional
Districts were brought online with PonTex according to routine inspection cycles across the state.
All Districts are now utilizing this system to record inspection and inventory information. PonTex
will assist in the performance of complex bridge management tasks by providing all inventory and
inspection data in a single relational database, to be used as the front-end for modeling and perfor-
mance prediction scenarios within software systems such as PONTIS, the bridge management
system which is being developed under the guidance of AASHTO.
Chapter 8 Bridge Records
Contents:
Section 1 Definition of Terms
Section 2 Inspection Requirements
Section 3 Coding Guidelines
Section 4 Inspection Documentation
Section 5 Calculations
Section 6 Data Submittal
Section 7 The Bridge Folder
Chapter 8 Bridge Records Section 1 Definition of Terms
Section 1 Definition of Terms
Bridge Record Terms
A partial list of definitions related to bridge inspection is given in the AASHTO Manual for Bridge
Evaluation.
1
The same AASHTO definitions and specific additional terms are also used in various
other chapters of this manual. The following discussion of Bridge Records includes some of the
additional specific terms.
BridgeA structure, including supports, erected over a depression or an obstruction, such as water,
a highway, or a railway; having a roadway or track for carrying traffic or other moving loads; and
having an opening measured along the center of the roadway of more than 20 feet between faces of
abutments, spring lines of arches, or extreme ends of the openings for multiple box culverts or mul-
tiple pipes that are 60 inches or more in diameter and that have a clear distance between openings of
less than half of the smallest pipe diameter.
Bridge FolderUntil recently the file for each bridge maintained by the District Bridge Inspection
Office was a hard copy record of all inventory and inspection documentation for a bridge. With data
now being submitted directly to PonTex, all data is recorded and held in electronic format and the
bridge folder is now an archive of historical bridge information.
National Bridge Inventory Number The unique 15-digit number assigned to any structure
meeting the definition of a bridge. The number includes the 2-digit District Number, 3-digit County
Number, a 1 digit fixed zero, the 4-digit Control Number, the 2-digit Section Number, and the 3-
digit Permanent Structure Number. The Transportation Planning and Programming Division (TPP)
assigns the county road and city street index numbers, which begin with a letter instead of number.
This off-system index number uses the same 6 digits assigned to Control and Section for on-system
highways. The Permanent Structure Number for off-system bridges is assigned by the district.
Bridge Inventory FileThe electronic data in TxDOT's bridge inventory, inspection, and apprais-
al ratings for each bridge on a public roadway in Texas. The data formerly were entered from a com-
pleted coding form. Data now is entered through PonTex either using the TxDOT network or the
internet. The instructions for the Coding Guide describe the step-by-step data entry requirements.
Bridge RecordThe over-all collection of data including the Bridge Folder with completed forms,
printout of coded electronic data, sketches, cross sections, photos, etc. It also includes the Bridge In-
ventory File stored on electronic media. The Bridge Record also includes the bridge plans, if avail-
able, copies of which may be in the Bridge Folder or in TxDOT's accessible file systems. Some of
the bridge plans may also be available on electronic media in the form of computer-aided drafting
(CAD) drawings. Historically this information was stored in hard copy format, but now the Bridge
1. AASHTO Manual for Bridge Evaluation, Second Edition, 2011.
Record is being stored in the PonTex bridge inventory and management system.
Control-Section-Job (CSJ) NumbersThese are numbers assigned to all on-system public high-
ways in Texas. The Control Number is assigned to a stretch of highway that often breaks at a county
line or a major highway intersection, river or stream, but can also break at any convenient location.
The Section Number is a number within a specific Control and is usually assigned sequentially from
the beginning of the Control. An average length for most Sections is about 4 to 5 miles but can be
less than a mile or 15 to 20 miles. The Job Number is the sequential number for any type of construc-
tion project (bridge, paving, etc) that may have ever occurred on that Section of highway. Job num-
bers within a Section can be well over 100. All off-system highways are assigned similar sequential
numbers by the district within each county. Refer to Items 8.4 and 8.5 of the "Instructions for Coding
Guide" for more information.
CulvertsMultiple-barrel box culverts or multiple-pipe culverts are sometimes classed as bridges
and a complete Bridge Record is made. The 1994 AASHTO Manual
1
defines a bridge as any struc-
ture carrying traffic (highway or railroad) having an opening measured along the centerline of the
roadway of more than 20 feet between the limits of the extreme openings of abutments, arches, or
multiple boxes. This definition has created the anomaly in some cases where, for instance, three 6-
ft multiple box culverts installed at more than about a 15-degree skew to the roadway must have a
Bridge Record. If the same three box culverts are installed perpendicular to the roadway, they have
no Bridge Record. The AASHTO definition continues for multiple-pipe culverts by stating that they
may be classed as bridges provided the distance between individual pipes (the fill) is less than half
the adjacent pipe diameter. In addition to this provision, TxDOT also requires pipe culverts to be at
least 60" in diameter to be considered as a multiple-pipe bridge class installation.
Elemental DataIdentifies the various parts of the bridge (Elements), the material type and mea-
sures or estimates the condition of that element through specific predefined condition states. Addi-
tional information is available in "Elements" Field Inspection and Coding Manual.
Collecting data in this manner helps to better quantify the condition of a bridge or a system of bridg-
es. By characterizing part of a bridge by the type of member and its material the following types of
analysis can more easily be performed: 1) prediction of deterioration, 2) prediction of costs for re-
pair, rehabilitation or replacement, 3) identification of alternative programs based on level of service
or other criteria, 4) optimization of expenditure based on user and agency costs, 5) budget forecasts,
and 6) development of programs for improvements.
EngineerThe qualified, Texas-licensed, Professional Engineer having responsibility for ensuring
the accuracy of the information contained in the Bridge Record. A pre-qualified consulting firm en-
gaged by TxDOT to perform routine bridge inspections is also considered in the following discus-
sions to be covered by the term Engineer. Inspections done by TxDOT staff must also have a
qualified, Texas-licensed, Professional Engineer responsible for the Bridge Records. The same basic
procedures are used by TxDOT personnel as are required for consulting firms.
FormsSpecific forms such as the Bridge Inspection Record, or the Bridge Inventory Record, or
the Follow-up Action Worksheet forms may be developed as needed for specific types of data or
classes of structures.
1. Manual for Condition Evaluation of Bridges, AASHTO, 1994
NBI SheetA printed copy with abbreviated names of the numerical data in the electronic Bridge
Inspection File. NBI stands for National Bridge Inventory, which must include all the information
required by the FHWA. Texas captures additional information exceeding that required by the NBI.
However, in Texas the sheet is still commonly called the "NBI Sheet." The FHWA data require-
ments are described in a report titled Recording and Coding Guide for the Structure Inventory and
Appraisal of the Nation's Bridges
1
.
Permanent Structure Number (PSN)A unique three-digit number assigned to any structure
meeting the definition of a bridge. It is part of the 15-digit National Bridge Inventory Number. PSNs
are assigned by Control-Section Segments in ascending order as the bridges are built and are not nec-
essarily in sequence along the Control-Section Segment. An on-system bridge replaced by a new
bridge at the same location will have a new number assigned. A widened or reconstructed bridge will
retain the same number. Districts assign similar unique numbers to off-system bridges. An off-sys-
tem bridge replaced by a new bridge will retain the same PSN. A bridge with a longitudinal open
joint in the middle will have two PSNs, even if the superstructures share a common substructure el-
ement
2
.
Bridge Division.
Route Over or UnderA bridge at intersecting highways is defined as an underpass or overpass
based on the inventory hierarchy of the two routes. This description is used where required on all
forms, plans, etc. The hierarchy of Texas highways is: Interstate, US, SH, State Loops or Spurs, FM/
RM, County Roads (CR), and Business Routes (BR). The lower route number takes precedence if
the highways are of equal hierarchy. Examples are:
IH 30 over IH 35 - IH 30 Overpass at IH 35
IH 35 over IH 30 - IH 30 Underpass at IH 35
FM 1234 over US 290 - US 290 Underpass at FM 1234
CR 18 under US 183 - US 183 Overpass at County Road 18
IH 20 Business under RM 456 - RM 456 Overpass at IH 20 Business
Signing and SealingThe Engineer must affix a seal containing the Engineer's license number,
sign, and date many of the documents prepared for a bridge inspection. The Signing and Sealing re-
quirements are in conformance with the Texas Engineering Practice Act and TxDOT policy.
34
Date
the seal on the day it was affixed to the document.
Work AuthorizationAuthorization issued by TxDOT to a consultant (Engineer) to perform in-
spections of bridge structures in various counties and districts in Texas. The Work Authorization is
normally issued for a specific period of time with a commencement and ending date specified. Con-
sultants under contract to TxDOT must pre-qualify by demonstrating that they are competent to in-
spect Texas bridges.
1. Recording and Coding Guide for the Structure Inventory and Appraisal of the Nations Bridges, FHWA, 1995.
2. Permanent Structure Numbers, Administrative Circular 20-74, TxDOT, February 1974.
3. Occupations Code, Section 1001.401. Texas Administrative Code, Title 22, Section 131.166.
4. Procedures for Sealing Engineering Documents, Stand-alone Manual Notice 97-2, TxDOT, March 1997
Chapter 8 Bridge Records Section 2 Inspection Requirements
Section 2 Inspection Requirements
Inspect each bridge in the inventory in accordance with the current version of the State's Bridge
Inspection Manual available at http://onlinemanuals.txdot.gov/txdotmanuals/ins/index.htm, and
record the findings electronically in the PonTex application. Uphold a reasonable standard of care
for routine safety inspections, which is understood to imply an attentive visual and auditory inspec-
tion aided by routine inspection tools as afforded by routine means of access.
Tools and Safety Equipment
Routine inspection tools are listed in the FHWA Bridge Inspectors Reference Manual, 2002, in
Section 3.4.2 entitled "Standard Tools."
1
Use hard hats, safety vests, traffic cones, vehicle safety
lights, and "BRIDGE INSPECTION AHEAD" or "SURVEY CREW AHEAD" signs for all bridges
being inspected. Conduct the inspections with minimal disruption to traffic flow. Notify the Dis-
trict at least ten (10) working days in advance of any work in which any person or equipment will
be within twenty-five (25) feet of any railroad track. The District will coordinate with the appropri-
ate Railroad Representative to determine if a flagman needs to be present and whether the Engineer
needs to implement any special protective safety measures. Complete, and have certification of
completion of the on-line Safety Awareness Course.
Coordination with TxDOT District
Inspect the bridges within the assigned inspection area only and verify the bridge locations. Notify
the District Bridge Inspection Office a minimum of 48 hours in advance with the locations and
dates when inspections will be performed. Verify the bridge location on the map(s) furnished by the
State. If an error or omission is discovered, correct it by marking up a hardcopy of the map pro-
vided by the State and return it by the end of the work authorization. Verify that the coordinates in
the database are accurate, meaning located on the bridge. If the coordinates are missing, or not
accurate, then collect new coordinates. Collect the coordinates by a hand-held GPS unit and pro-
vide the results in a decimal format. Sub-meter, differentially corrected data is not required. An
Inspection Team Leader that has been approved by the Bridge Division must be present at each
bridge site during the bridge inspection.
New bridges located by the Engineer require approval from the District Bridge Inspection Office
before an identification number is assigned, the bridge is inspected, or the bridge is added to the
inventory. Create a new file folder labeled in the format established by the district, complete all
forms, and input all data required by the NBI to insure a complete and accurate record. Inventory or
inspect a bridge that is under construction only with the approval of the District Bridge Coordina-
1. FHWA Bridge Inspectors Reference Manual, 2002.
Chapter 8 Bridge Records Section 2 Inspection Requirements
tor. Do not delete any bridge record from the inventory without prior approval of the District
Bridge Inspection Office.
When the inspections are finished, return completed reports to the State within 45 days from the
date of inspection. Enter condition ratings and other coding changes, along with reports and sheets
as detailed below using PonTex. However, bring to the attention of the District Bridge Inspection
Office immediately, both verbally and in writing, the bridges needing special consideration (which
includes ANY bridge in which the engineer lowers the condition rating to a 4 or lower, or recom-
mends closure). Notify the Bridge Division Inspection Branch in writing only. If the inspection
indicates significant deterioration of any structural element, include documentation such as notes,
measurements, sketches and photographs. If there is a recommendation to change the status of an
on-system bridge structure (load restriction, revision of an existing load restriction or the removal
of a load restriction), submit the recommendation to the Bridge Division as soon as the calculations
are complete, but not more than 30 days after the date of the inspection. Include in the recommen-
dation to change the load posting the recommended posting level, the most recent Bridge
Inspection Record, load rating calculations, pictures and the as-built plans (if available) used in the
calculation of the load posting recommendation. Send the recommendation, along with the sup-
porting documentation, to TxDOT's "Dropbox Service" at https://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/dropbox/.
When using the "Dropbox", use [email protected] as the notification email address.
Notify the District Bridge Inspection Office by email that a load posting recommendation has been
sent to the Bridge Division.
Email and Correspondence
Maintain an Internet email address and notify the Inspection Branch of the Bridge Division of any
address changes. The Bridge Division will use email for notification of all bulletins, policy
changes, and updates sent out to the members of the Statewide Consultant Pool for Bridge Inspec-
tions. The State routinely will send emails to the Engineer in an effort to keep the Bridge Inspection
operations uniform throughout the state.
Quality Control Program
Have a Quality Control program in place to ensure the work of the Engineer and that of the sub-
providers is of high quality. Submit a plan detailing the program to the Inspection Branch of the
Bridge Division for review and approval prior to beginning of any contracted work. This program
may be reviewed and audited by the Bridge Division on a random basis.
Chapter 8 Bridge Records Section 3 Coding Guidelines
Section 3 Coding Guidelines
Summary of Instructions
Adhere to the step-by-step instructions for entering the data in the electronic Bridge Inventory File
as presented in the detailed instructions for the Code Guide. Follow coding and documentation
requirements outlined in this chapter regardless of whether inspections are carried out in-house or
by consultants. This requirement ensures statewide consistency in documenting and reporting
inspection findings. The Coding Guide also includes interpretations, examples, and other data input
guidance. The electronic Bridge Inventory Files contain a record for each Bridge Class Structure on
public roadways in Texas. The definition of a Bridge Class Structure is described in Item 112 in the
"Instructions for Coding Guide." The data are also used to update the National Bridge Inventory
File for the FHWA. Once a year the complete Bridge Inventory files for off- and on-system bridges
are converted to the actual NBI format and submitted to the FHWA.
Multiple-Pipe Culverts
To achieve future consistency in recording information, the following clarifications are to be used
for creating or maintaining Bridge Records for multiple-pipe culverts:
Do not remove any existing multiple-pipe culverts from the Bridge Inventory File. The instal-
lation may already be in the prioritization process for repair or replacement, and the process
should not be disrupted.
Do not create Bridge Records for any new multiple-pipe culverts that are individually less than
60-inches in diameter even if the total installation, including fill between pipes, is more than 20
feet along the roadway. Inspections of smaller diameters would be difficult to make and the
results would probably be of dubious quality. It is also very inconsistent engineering logic to
require inspection of, for instance, an installation of five 48-inch pipe culverts and no inspec-
tion of an installation of four or fewer pipes of the same diameter.
Make and maintain Bridge Records for multiple-pipe culverts that are individually 60-inches
or greater in diameter, providing the total installation meets the 20-ft length criterion and the
distance between individual pipes does not exceed one-half the diameter of the smallest pipe.
Data Quality
Data quality for all information kept for each bridge, and in particular the electronic Bridge Inven-
tory Files, cannot be overemphasized. Keep the data in the files as up-to-date as possible. Texas
must comply with data update time limits which are set by the Code of Federal Regulations. The
Federal Code requires data updates reflecting changes to an existing on-system structure to be
made within 90 days of the evaluation or inspection that denotes the change in status. Report new,
Chapter 8 Bridge Records Section 3 Coding Guidelines
rebuilt, or rehabilitated structures within 90 days of job completion. The data update time limit is
180 days for off-system structures.
Chapter 8 Bridge Records Section 4 Inspection Documentation
Section 4 Inspection Documentation
Inspection File Contents - On System Bridges
The following documentation is to be completed for each on-system bridge.
Bridge Inspection Record Delineates the basic components of the bridge to be inspected.
Enter a rating for each element of each component following guidelines from the National
Highway Institute (NHI) Safety Inspection of In-Service Bridges two-week training course and
in accordance with the current TxDOT Bridge Inspection Manual Coding Guide. For any rat-
ing of seven (7) or below, include comments explaining the rating in the report. This form also
includes the appraisal of the traffic safety features, waterway adequacy and approach align-
ment. Include the typed name and signature of the Inspection Team Leader on each form. The
Engineer must sign, seal, and date the form. Include on the form the Engineer's firm number.
Scan a signed and sealed copy and import it into PonTex.
Bridge Inspection Follow-Up Action Worksheet Summarizes the areas of deterioration of
the bridge and recommends how the bridge should be repaired. Reflect the TxDOT mainte-
nance section number clearly on this form. The Engineer must sign, seal, and date the form.
Include on the form the Engineer's firm number. Scan a signed and sealed copy and import it
into PonTex.
NOTE: One extra copy of this form is required for each on-system bridge, grouped by Mainte-
nance Section to include all bridges within that Maintenance Section. Submit these copies
to the District Bridge Inspection Office at the end of the work authorization, and they will
be transmitted to TxDOT maintenance personnel by the District Bridge Inspection Office.
Bridge Inspection Follow-Up Action Worksheet Summary Summarizes the information
from the Bridge Inspection Follow-Up Action Worksheets of all the bridges assigned in the
work authorization. Submit the electronic worksheet, in Microsoft Excel format, to the Dis-
trict Bridge Inspection Office at the end of the work authorization. (Do not sign and seal.)
Elemental Data Inspection Record Collect elemental data for use in the State's Bridge
Management Information System (BMIS) for all on-system structures. Collect information
per span, with the exception of culverts which are to be collected by the structure. The Engi-
neer will determine the Elemental Data and quantities in each condition state for each on-
system bridge. Do this in accordance with the State's "Elements" Field Inspection and Coding
Manual. Special training is required if such training has not already been completed. Enter the
information from these records into PonTex. Print the "Element Inspection Detail Listing"
report from PonTex and include it in the Bridge Inspection Record. Field forms and other
summary list will not be required. (Do not sign and seal.)
Bridge Inventory Record Provide a description of the bridge with a detailed sketch on the
reverse side. If there have been no changes to the structure and the existing description and
sketch properly represent the condition in the field, a new form is not necessary; maintain the
existing form in the file with no modification by the Engineer. Sketches are not required if
plans are in the file. Scan and import the form into PonTex. If there is no form in the file, a new
form is to be completed by the Engineer. If plans are unavailable, complete both sides of the
form. If plans are available, complete only the front side. Show the maintenance section num-
ber on the form. The Engineer must sign, seal, and date the form. Scan a signed and sealed
copy and import it into PonTex. If major (structural) changes have been made to the structure,
complete a new "Bridge Inventory Record" form that is signed and sealed by the Engineer.
Scan and import the document into PonTex.
Bridge Inventory Record Revisions Use this form only for minor (non-structural) changes
to the Bridge Inventory Record. (Do not sign and seal.) Scan and import the document into
PonTex.
Channel Cross-Section Measurements Record Complete this form for each span bridge
over a waterway (whether the waterway is wet or dry). This form is not required for culverts.
The Engineer will take measurements on the upstream side of the bridge starting at the abut-
ment. Take the measurements from a fixed bridge reference down to the channel bed. Take
these measurements at each bent, at each significant change in the channel bed, and at the mid-
point of the channel. Record the horizontal distance between each vertical measurement, as
well as the cumulative horizontal distance from the beginning of the bridge abutment. Record
several reference dimensions, including top of water level (see the form). The Engineer must
add comments on the back of the form. Scan and import the document into PonTex. (Do not
sign and seal.)
Upstream Channel Cross-Section Sketch Required for span-type bridges only. (Culverts
do not require an upstream channel sketch or any update to any such sketch that may be
already in the file. Calculations of sediment material quantities are not required.) If there is an
existing channel cross section plotted to scale in the inspection record, bring it forward into the
current report and plot the new data on it in a different color ink. The Engineer is to initial and
date the new plot. If the channel profile has not changed from the previous inspection, the
Engineer is to initial and date a note stating that no significant change has occurred. For all
bridges that have plans available, plot the channel section on a copy of the bridge layout
sheet(s) from the plans. Insert two (2) copies of the layout into the file: one copy will act as a
"work copy," for plotting and maintain the other copy as a clean, master copy. If plans are not
available, draw a sketch using appropriate scale. It is acceptable for the horizontal and vertical
scales to differ. Scan the sketch and import it into PonTex. (Do not sign and seal.)
Underclearance Record Record horizontal clearance information for on-system under-
passes only. Draw a brief sketch indicating dimensions and reference points for collected
horizontal clearance data. Provide all dimensions from a fixed reference point. Ultrasonic
measuring is not acceptable. Scan the record and import it into PonTex. (Do not sign and seal.)
Inspection File Contents - Off System Bridges
The following documentation is to be completed for each off-system bridge.
Bridge Inspection Record Delineates the basic components of the bridge to be inspected.
Enter a rating for each element of each component following guidelines from the National
Highway Institute (NHI) Safety Inspection of In-Service Bridges two-week training course and
in accordance with the current TxDOT Bridge Inspection Manual Coding Guide. For any rat-
ing of seven (7) or below, include comments explaining the rating in the report. This form also
includes the appraisal of the traffic safety features, waterway adequacy and approach align-
ment. Include the typed name and signature of the Inspection Team Leader on each form. The
Engineer must sign, seal, and date the form. Include on the form the Engineer's firm number.
Scan and import the document into PonTex.
Elemental Data Inspection Record Collect elemental data for use in the State's Bridge
Management Information System (BMIS) for all off-system structures for specific bridge own-
ers as detailed in the work authorization. Collect information per span, with the exception of
culverts which are to be collected by the structure. The Engineer will determine the Elemental
Data and quantities in each condition state for each off-system bridge. Do this in accordance
with the State's manual entitled, Elements: Field Inspection and Coding. Special training is
required if such training has not already been completed. Enter the information from these
records into PonTex. Print the "Element Inspection Detail Listing" report from PonTex and
include it in the Bridge Inspection Record. Field forms and other summary lists will not be
required. (Do not sign and seal.)
Bridge Inventory Record Provides a description of the bridge with a detailed sketch on the
reverse side. If there have been no changes to the structure and the existing description and
sketch properly represent the condition in the field, a new form is not necessary; maintain the
existing form in the file with no modification by the Engineer. Sketches are not required if
plans are in the file. Scan and import the form into PonTex. If there is no form in the file, a
new form is to be completed by the Engineer. If plans are unavailable, complete both sides of
the form. If plans are available, complete only the front side. The Engineer must sign, seal,
and date the form. Scan a signed and sealed copy and import it into PonTex. If major (struc-
tural) changes have been made to the structure, complete a new Bridge Inventory Record form
that is signed and sealed by the Engineer. Scan and import the document into PonTex.
NOTE: For off-system bridges, these forms and sketches serve as as-built plans in many cases
because original plans are not available. When plans are available and copies are included
in the file, a detailed sketch is not required; however, the Engineer must complete the front
side of the Bridge Inventory Record.
Bridge Inventory Record Revisions Use this form only for minor (non-structural) changes
to the Bridge Inventory Record. (Do not sign and seal.) Scan and import the document into
PonTex.
Channel Cross-Section Measurements Record Complete for each span bridge over a
waterway (whether the waterway is wet or dry). This form is not required for culverts. The
Engineer will take measurements on the upstream side of the bridge starting at the abutment.
Take the measurements from a fixed bridge reference down to the channel bed. Take these
measurements at each bent, at each significant change in the channel bed, and at the mid-point
of the channel. Record the horizontal distance between each vertical measurement, as well as
the cumulative horizontal distance from the beginning of the bridge abutment. Record several
reference dimensions, including top of water level (see the form). The Engineer must add com-
ments on the back of the form. Scan a copy and import it into PonTex. (Do not sign and seal.)
Upstream Channel Cross-Section Sketch Required for span-type bridges only. (Culverts
do not require an upstream channel sketch or any update to any such sketch that may be
already in the file. Calculations of sediment material quantities are not required.) If there is an
existing channel cross section plotted to scale in the bridge inspection record, bring it forward
into the current report and plot the new data on it in a different color ink. The Engineer is to
initial and date the new plot. If the channel profile has not changed from the previous inspec-
tion, the Engineer is to initial and date a note stating that no significant change has occurred.
For all bridges that have plans available, plot the channel section on a copy of the bridge layout
sheet(s) from the plans. Insert two (2) copies of the layout into the file: one copy will act as a
"work copy," for plotting and maintain the other copy as a clean, master copy. If plans are not
available, draw a sketch using appropriate scale. It is acceptable for the horizontal and vertical
scales to differ. Scan the sketch and import it into PonTex. (Do not sign and seal.)
Underclearance Record Complete this form for all grade separations, including pedestrian,
utility, and railroad underpasses. Draw a brief sketch indicating dimensions and reference
points for collected vertical and horizontal clearance data. Reference in Item 54.2 the exact
minimum vertical clearance under the structure. The vertical clearance sign must read at least 3
in. lower than the minimum measured vertical clearance of the roadway. Ultrasonic measuring
is not acceptable. Scan the sketch and import it into PonTex. (Do not sign and seal.)
Bridge Summary Sheet Complete this form for all off-system bridges. Summarize each
component rating, areas of deterioration of the bridge, and recommend how to repair the
bridge. Indicate previous, observed and recommended load posting, record current status of all
signs, and denote materials needed to properly post the bridge. The Engineer must document
the condition, location, and number of all signs in place on the date of inspection for all load
posted bridges. Also record the load limit shown on existing load posting signs. Document
these signs with legible photographs. The Engineer must sign, seal, and date the form. Scan a
copy and import it into PonTex.
Summary of Needed Load Posting Materials Use this summary to order signs/hardware
needed for load posting on off-system bridges. Prepare a summary for each county, precinct
and/or city, as agreed upon with the District Bridge Inspection Office, to insure each local
jurisdiction has the materials necessary to properly post all of their bridges. Submit the sum-
mary to the District Bridge Inspection Office, never directly to a local jurisdiction. Complete
the summary using the form supplied by the State. Scan a copy and import it into PonTex. (Do
not sign and seal.)
Chapter 8 Bridge Records Section 5 Calculations
Section 5 Calculations
General Calculation Requirements
Provide bridge load rating calculations in accordance with currently accepted TxDOT bridge
inspection procedures as described in this manual and in other associated documents such as the
Bridge Inspector's Reference Manual,
1
the Manual for Bridge Evaluation,
2
and the Standard Spec-
ifications for Highway Bridges.
3
Note that the methods of calculation are different for on- and off-
system bridges.
Date, sign and seal documents in accordance with the requirements given in this chapter and with
the Texas Engineering Practice Act.
4
Calculations for On-System Bridges
Perform bridge load rating analyses (calculations) and submit them in the findings. If no deficien-
cies are noted, limit the analysis to the superstructure of the bridge. However, provide load rating
analysis for any element that has any condition rating of 4 or less. All on-system bridge records
must have documentation in the files to support any recommended changes in load ratings. If the
Engineer agrees with the previous calculations, it is acceptable to provide a statement concurring
with those calculations. Sign, seal and date any concurrence statement.
A qualified licensed Professional Engineer must sign, seal and date all calculations and/or docu-
mentation referring to load rating capacity. Perform all load rating calculations for on-system
bridges not designed using Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) using the "Load Factor"
method as illustrated in AASHTOs Manual for Bridge Evaluation
5
with no exceptions. Load rate
on-system bridges designed by LRFD using the Load and Resistance Factor Rating (LRFR)
method as illustrated in AASHTO's Manual for Bridge Evaluation. When on-system ratings are cal-
culated, present them to the State in HS loading. Some analyses may involve bridges that have
section loss or damage to structural members. In these cases, verify and document the conditions
of members and incorporate those findings into the analysis. The Inventory Rating (Item 66) can be
assumed to be at least equal to the design loading if no damage or deterioration exists and the orig-
inal design load was HS-20 or HL-93.If assumed load ratings of HS-20 or HL-93 based on the
original design loads are to be used, then add plans sheets, preferably including the superstructure,
1. Bridge Inspectors Training Manual 90, FHWA, 1991.
4. Occupations Code, Section 1001.401. Texas Administrative Code, Title 22, Section 131.166.
5. Manual for Bridge Evaluation, AASHTO, 2008, with current revisions.
with the design load called out to the Bridge Record by scanning the applicable plan sheets and
importing them into PonTex.
Import all calculations, along with pertinent plan sheets, into PonTex. If you concur with existing
calculations, scan and import the original calculations and concurrence statement into PonTex.
Special attention is called to the coding of Items 41, 41.1, and 41.2 (operational status and posting
limits). Verify these items and revise them, if needed, for all bridges to ensure that all posting, post-
ing recommendations, closures and closure recommendations are properly reflected in the Bridge
Record. Notify the District Bridge Inspection Office immediately of any bridges recommended for
closure, and include details and calculations.
Calculations for Off-System Bridges
Provide bridge load rating calculations in accordance with the State's bridge inspection policy.
Either Working-Stress or Load Factor analysis is acceptable. The Texas Bridge Load Rating Pro-
gram (TBLR) which calculates load ratings using a Working-Stress analysis is acceptable. For all
timber, steel, and truss bridge files, document calculations for load ratings of all structural elements
that apply, including the deck, stringers or beams, truss members, bent caps, and piling or columns.
The TBLR program will give an Inventory (INV) and Operating (OPR) rating both for H and HS
truck loading. Continue to use Plate III in the Bridge Inspection Manual, applying the H-loading to
the table, to select the proper load posting sign type and weight limits. Load rating documentation,
including assumptions, is required in the files for all bridge class structures (including culverts).
Bring into conformance to current TxDOT policy concerning assumed ratings, etc. any assumed
load ratings for concrete structures. For all off-system bridge files, for all bridge types, include
documentation in the files to support changes in load ratings. When off-system ratings are calcu-
lated, present them to the State in HS loading only.
Sign, seal and date all calculations and/or documentation referring to load rating capacity. (It is
acceptable to only initial and date the calculations and seal only the Bridge Summary Sheet, which
summarizes the results of the calculations, rather than sign, and seal each page of the calculations
themselves.) It is also acceptable, if you are in agreement with the previous calculations, to provide
a statement concurring with the existing calculations. Import all calculations, along with pertinent
plan sheets, into PonTex. If you concur with existing calculations, scan and import the original cal-
culations and concurrence statement into PonTex. Sign, seal and date any concurrence statement.
Special attention is called to the coding of Items 41, 41.1, and 41.2 (operational status and posting
limits). Verify these items and revise them, if needed, for all bridges to ensure that all posting, post-
ing recommendations, closures and closure recommendations are properly reflected in the Bridge
Record. Notify the District Bridge Inspection Office immediately of any bridges recommended for
closure, and include details and calculations. The State will set a time to meet with the Engineer to
review the findings, and the State will notify the bridge owner.
Figure 8-1. Simplified Load Posting Procedure
Chapter 8 Bridge Records Section 6 Data Submittal
Section 6 Data Submittal
General Data Submittal Requirements
Provide monthly submissions of files unless otherwise directed by the District Bridge Inspection
Office. Bridge folders (hardcopy documentation) may be submitted to the District Bridge Inspec-
tion Office by mail or delivered in person.
Bridge Folders prepared by TxDOT personnel must be documented, signed, sealed, and dated in
the same format as herein described.
All data included in the Bridge Folder are prepared to meet the requirements given in the various
controlling regulations given in Appendix A. An important portion of Section 650.315 (b), (c), and
(d) of the Code of Federal Regulations requires that updates to the electronic Bridge Inventory File
be made within 90 days for on-system bridges and 180 days for off-system bridges. This includes
updating inspection findings, adding new bridges to the inventory, documenting modifications to
existing bridges, and making changes to the status of bridges (load posting changes and closures).
Photographs
Provide photo documentation using digital photographs having a resolution of 1200 x 1800 (2.1
megapixels). The photos must be true aspect prints with a minimum dimension of 4" on the short
side. Present the photos on 8 in. x 11 in. paper, with 2 photos per page. Include a caption noting
the direction, location, and description of each photo. Import the photo documentation into PonTex.
Include the following photographs in each bridge file (minimum):
Roadway View. Photograph along the centerline of roadway showing a view of the bridge as
seen from the roadway. If the bridge is load restricted, take a photograph from each approach
along centerline of roadway showing a view of the bridge as seen from the roadway. The pho-
tograph must be taken from a point of reference that includes the weight limit signs that are
present, damaged, or missing. Weight limit signs must be legible in any photos that are taken.
Elevation View. Photograph the bridge showing the overall length. (It may be impossible to
show the entire structure length on long structures. In these cases, use an oblique angle at a
further distance to attempt to capture an overall picture. Do not submit multiple pages of pho-
tographs attempting to show every part of a long structure.)
Underside View. Photograph the bridge showing the type of superstructure and typical condi-
tion. (Bridges with several types of superstructures will require additional photographs.) The
underside photo of the superstructure is not required for box culvert structures.
Stream or Roadway below the Bridge. Photograph the bridge from below showing the
stream or roadway as it passes under the bridge. The photos of the stream should show evi-
dence of scour if applicable.
Upstream and Downstream Channel View. Photograph the condition of the channel
upstream and downstream of the bridge. Take these photos from the bridge.
Detail Photographs for Component Ratings of 4 or less. Photograph in detail all compo-
nents rated 4 or less on the Bridge Inspection Record. Note details of the component rating on
the photograph caption.
Photographs of Recommended Immediate Maintenance Needs. Photograph previously un-
photographed recommended maintenance needs that should be performed immediately.
Presentation of Documents
Ensure that all inspection results submitted to the District Bridge Inspection Coordinator are typed,
using the current versions of the electronic forms where applicable, and are of such quality that leg-
ible reproductions can be made on a typical office copy machine. Provide the State with the
following information, in list format, at the end of the Work Authorization. Include in the list for-
mat the facility carried, as well as the NBI number.
A list of bridges recommended for special inspections. Include only bridges to be added to
the District's current fracture critical or underwater list. All current fracture critical and under-
water (requiring scuba diver) bridges should be previously coded. Send a copy of this list to
the Bridge Division Inspection Branch.
A list of all bridges that the condition rating has lowered to a 4 or less. Include any bridge
with a rating of 4 or less, which is not currently rated a 4 or less, or less on any component on
the Bridge Inspection Record.
A list of all bridges requiring changes in operational status. Include the bridges that do not
meet State Load Posting Policy and require load restrictions. Sort and group these bridges by
local jurisdiction if not on-system bridges.
A list of all recommended changes in vertical clearance signs. (off-system only)
A list of bridges with missing or inaccurate coordinates. Include new coordinates collected
by a hand held GPS unit and provide them in a decimal format. Sub-meter, differentially cor-
rected data is not required. Send a copy of this list to the Bridge Division Inspection Branch.
On-System Data
Submit one original file for each on-system bridge, using a six-sided folder. Incorporate the order
of the various forms within the file uniformly in all Districts, as shown below, with no exceptions.
Include the originals of all documents and photographs. Duplicate folders are no longer required
and should not be submitted.
Off-System Data
Submit one (1) set of original files and (1) set of summary packages for each off-system bridge.
Relate the items to be included in the summary package to each local jurisdiction as detailed below.
Summarize the bridge conditions, load posting requirements, and needed maintenance repairs of all
bridges within that jurisdiction. Duplicate folders are no longer required and should not be
submitted.
Summary Packages
Prepare a standard Off-system Summary Package (one copy) for each jurisdiction (e.g. each city,
county, precinct, contact point, etc., as agreed upon with the District Bridge Inspection Office). The
packages are intended to be summary reports for bridge inspection findings, maintenance items
needed, and load posting requirements. Assemble the package in either a six-sided folder or a three-
ring binder and transmit it to the District Bridge Inspection Office.
The format will be designated by the District Bridge Inspection Office and forwarded to the owning
jurisdiction by the State. Include the following for each bridge in this summary package "book":
Color copies of photos
Bridge Inspection Record
Bridge Summary Sheet
Summary of Needed Load Posting Materials
Scour Records and Reports
Many bridges are susceptible to scour of the foundations and abutments from flowing water. These
bridges are screened and classified for their potential for scour. Various scour reports, calculations,
and photos are necessary to document the scour potential. Include the scour information directly in
the Bridge Record, or cross-reference the location of external scour files in the Bridge Record if the
scour data is extensive. If there is extensive scour data, cross-reference the location of external
scour files in the Bridge Folder. The District Bridge Inspection Coordinator will determine the
amount of scour documents to be included with each Bridge Folder. Add any pertinent scour docu-
mentation to PonTex.
Chapter 8 Bridge Records Section 7 The Bridge Folder
Section 7 The Bridge Folder
Folder Information (for on- and off-system bridges)
Keep the original records, sketches, plans if available, and latest information on each bridge on the
Texas highway system are kept in a consistent and regular manner. Historically this information
was kept in hardcopy format. With the introduction of the bridge data management system PonTex,
this information is now stored in electronic format as well. Make every effort to include all bridge
related data in the PonTex system so that eventually hardcopy versions of bridge inventory and
inspection data can be eliminated. Until eliminated, organize hardcopy folders as indicated below.
Folder Assembly
Use a folder with three (3) dividers and six (6) sides to which documents can be fastened, begin-
ning with the inside surface of the front cover (side 1) and ending with the inside surface of the
back cover (side 6). Reflect the most current bridge designation information on the file label in the
format established by the district. Items are listed in a top to bottom order. Make the order identi-
cal in all districts.
Side 1
Top 1.) Location Map with bridge
highlighted
2.) All current inspection photos
(including deterioration photos)
3.) All other photos from previous
inspections in chronological order
Side 2
Top 4.) Bridge Summary Sheet (off-
system)
5.) Bridge Inspection Follow-Up
Action Worksheet (on-system)
6.) Bridge Inspection Record
7.) Current Load Rating Calculations
(or copies of design plans and/or
indexing information)
8.) Bridge Inventory Record (must
include detailed sketch if plans are
not in file), and Revision to Bridge
Inventory Record form(if applicable)
Side 3
Chapter 8 Bridge Records Section 7 The Bridge Folder
Top 9.) Underclearance Sketch (if
applicable)
10.) Channel Cross-Section Measure-
ments (if applicable)
11.) Channel Cross-Section Sketch (if
applicable)
Side 4
Top 12.) NBI Sheet
13.) Secondary Scour Screening
Form (if applicable)
14.) Form 113.1 (previously com-
pleted if applicable)
15.) Any scour-related reports/docu-
ments (or indexing information, if
applicable)
16.) All scour photos
Side 5
Top 17.) Elemental Data Detail Listing
Report(field forms are not required)
18.) Special Inspection Records and
Reports (Underwater Inspection,
Fracture Critical Inspection, etc)
Side 6
Top 19.) Bridge Structural Condition His-
tory Sheet
20.) Previous inspections and all
attachments in chronological order
21.) Plans
Chapter 9 Quality Control/Quality Assurance Program
Contents:
Section 1 Introduction of QC/QA Program
Section 2 Quality Control
Section 3 Quality Assurance
Chapter 9 Quality Control/Quality Assurance
Program
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has developed the National Bridge Inspection Stan-
dards (NBIS) that require the Texas Department of Transportation to develop and implement a
Quality Control/Quality Assurance (QC/QA) program for all bridge inspection activities. The
bridge inspection process is the source of data used for the management of the state bridge inven-
tory. The data produced from this inspection process is used to make decisions concerning public
safety, improving new bridge design, and in the allocation of funds for the maintenance, repair, and
replacement of bridges. The quality of those decisions is only as good as the quality of the data col-
lected and recorded. Consistently maintaining reliable and accurate inspection data is critical to the
long-term health of the bridge inventory and to the daily protection of the public safety. Inconsis-
tencies in the inspection results can have many sources, including variations between inspectors;
subjectivity of condition rating scales; differences in training, education and experience; incom-
plete or ambiguous procedures and practices; or unclear program requirements. Any of these
variables can affect the quality of the data.
The focus of the QC/QA program is to provide independent inspections, reviews, and evaluations
of the state bridge inspection procedures, practices, and results in an effort to minimize the incon-
sistencies and variations in the data collected. The information gathered from this program will be
used to improve the final quality of the data and reports available to manage the state bridge
inventory.
The QC/QA program seeks to establish and define quality in terms of measureable variations from
established procedures, practices, and requirements. As per the Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR), included in the program will be "periodic field reviews of inspection teams, periodic bridge
inspection refresher training for program managers and team leaders, and independent review of
inspection reports and computations". The objectives of the program are:
Generate a greater consistency of the data collected
Standardize the interpretation and prioritization of inspection findings
Establish and monitor the qualifications of the personnel involved
Identify unclear or misleading information in the guides and manuals
Increase communication between all Consultants, Districts and Divisions
Quality Control
Quality Control (QC) is the implementation of procedures intended to maintain the quality of the
statewide bridge inspection program at or above a specified level. Effective Quality Control proce-
dures will increase the statewide uniformity of inspection and recording methods, and will ensure
quality reports. This is a daily operational function performed by any entity carrying out inspection
operations, whether it is consultant forces, Districts or the Bridge Division. Quality Control proce-
Program
dures help to assure that the public safety is maintained at each bridge, that inspections are
performed in accordance with NBIS standards, that bridge files are complete and accurate, and that
the documentation of these daily activities is maintained.
Quality Assurance
Activities for assuring the adequacy and effectiveness of the Quality Control procedures are
defined as Quality Assurance (QA). The objective of Quality Assurance activities is not to identify
and correct deficiencies within a specific inspection report or bridge folder, but rather to monitor
and modify as necessary the statewide bridge inspection program requirements to ensure the over-
all quality levels are maintained. To be a constructive process, it is important for Quality
Assurance procedures to be independent, well documented, and clearly understood by all personnel
involved.
Reviews
Quality Control reviews need to be conducted by Consultants, Districts and the Bridge Division on
inspections that each perform. Consultants should review their work, and the work of their sub-
consultants, as described in the firm's QC/QA program that is submitted and approved by the
Bridge Division. Districts need to review the consultant's work as part of the district's Quality
Assurance review plan for the purpose of finding and correcting errors, inconsistencies, or omis-
sions from a specific bridge inspection or consultant submission. The Bridge Division should
perform Quality Control reviews on inspections performed by the Bridge Division, as well as per-
form Quality Assurance reviews on procedures used by the Districts and consultants working
directly for the Bridge Division. These Quality Assurance reviews should focus on determining the
quality of the procedures used by Districts and Consultants to assure the quality of inspections and
data, and identify whether there is a need to correct any inaccuracies in a specific inspection report.
Summary
This QC/QA program is meant to establish procedures and practices that are practical, pertinent to
the statewide bridge management program, and a part of the effort to improve the quality of the
TxDOT bridge inspection program. Because these objectives focus on improvement, this program
will be updated and changed over time.
Program
Program Personnel Qualifications
An effective program begins with adequately qualified personnel. The National Bridge Inspection
Standards (NBIS) are very specific about the qualifications of the personnel involved in a bridge
inspection program. The Code of Federal Regulations, Title 23, part 650, Subpart C, section
650.309, (23 CFR 650.309) lists the qualifications of personnel. Personnel in the Bridge Division,
District and working for the Consultants will have different qualifications based on the job duties
they perform.
Bridge Division
The Bridge Division is not only responsible for managing the bridge inspection program, but also
performs underwater and fractures critical inspections, as well as routine inspections at the Dis-
tricts' request. The division also performs special and in-depth inspections as well as performs load
ratings. The roles for these actions are different depending on what is needed, but each must meet
the qualifications as described in the Federal Code. TxDOT requires all program managers and
team leaders to attend a mandatory refresher course every four years, NHI Course No. 130053. This
course is designed to: refresh the skills of practicing bridge inspectors in fundamental visual
inspection techniques; review the engineering background detailing how bridge structures function;
review proper condition and appraisal rating practices; communicate issues of national significance
relative to the nation's bridge infrastructures; and review the professional obligations of the bridge
inspectors. It is recommended for succession planning and program continuity, that all personnel
associated with the bridge inspection office attend an FHWA approved comprehensive bridge
inspection training course, as well as take the refresher course every four years.
Program Manager Pursuant to the Federal Code, each state transportation department must des-
ignate an individual who meets the qualifications of Program Manager as described in the Federal
Code of Regulations to oversee the Bridge Inspection Program for the State. This individual is
responsible for the statewide bridge inspection policies and procedures, quality assurance and qual-
ity control, preparation and maintenance of a bridge inventory, bridge inspections, reports, load
ratings and other requirements found in the Federal Code. The Bridge Division must ensure that the
individual overseeing the Bridge Inspection Program for the State meets the qualifications of Pro-
gram Manager as described in the Federal Code.
Underwater Inspections Pursuant to the Federal Code, at least one Team Leader, who meets the
qualifications of Team Leader as described in the Federal Code, must be present at each underwater
inspection. In addition to the Team Leader requirements, the Federal Code requires that individuals
performing underwater inspections meet certain requirements. The Bridge Division ensures that the
individuals performing underwater inspections meet these requirements.
Program
Fracture Critical Inspections Pursuant to the Federal Code, at least one Team Leader, who
meets the qualifications of Team Leader as described in the Federal Code, must be present at each
fracture critical inspection. The Bridge Division requires that the Program Manager and Team
Leaders take a fracture critical inspection course, NHI Course No. 130078, in addition to the other
federal requirements for these positions. The Bridge Division ensures that the individual per-
forminig fracture critical inspections for the Division meets the requirements of the Federal Code.
Other Inspections Pursuant to the Federal Code, at least one Team Leader, who meets the quali-
fications of Team Leader as described in the Federal Code, must be present at each initial, routine
and in-depth inspection. The Bridge Division ensures that the individual performing other inspec-
tions meets the requirements of the Federal Code.
Load Rating Engineer Pursuant to the Federal Code, the individual charged with the overall
responsibility for load rating bridges must be a registered professional engineer. The Bridge Divi-
sion ensures that the individual who performs load ratings for the Division meets the requirements
of the Federal Code.
Districts
District Personnel The personnel in the districts manage the inspection work of the consultant by
assigning work, reviewing the work performed and ensuring that the work is updated to the data
base. In addition, district personnel may perform initial, routine and special inspections. The indi-
vidual reviewing the work of the consultants and/or the individual performing an initial, routine or
other bridge inspections should meet the requirements of Team Leader as described in the Federal
Code. All team leaders are required to attend a mandatory refresher course every four years, NHI
Course No. 130053 mentioned above.
Consultant Oversight The individual responsible for the assignment and review of the work of
the consultants should meet the qualifications of Team Leader as described in the Federal Code.
This individual is responsible for ensuring that inspections are performed correctly and that the
information supplied by the consultant accurately reflects the condition of the structures being
inspected. Oversight involves reviewing inspection documentation submitted by consulting firms,
reviewing qualifications of inspection personnel operating in the district, and field reviews of
bridges that were inspected.
Performing Inspections The districts can be responsible for performing bridge inspections such
as initial inspections, inspections after extreme events and inspections to bridges after repairs have
been made. The individual performing these inspections must meet the requirements of Team
Leader as described in the Federal Code. When district personnel perform routine inspections, doc-
umentation should be consistent with the Services to Be Provided in the most recent active
statewide bridge inspection contracts.
Program
Consultants
The Consultants are responsible for performing bridge inspections and providing documentation to
the State. There are two main roles for the consultant work force. Depending on the size of the
firm, these roles may be held by the same individual performing the different roles as the circum-
stances dictate. A larger firm may have individuals dedicated to the separate roles. The individuals
performing these roles must meet the qualifications as described in the Federal Code. All program
managers and team leaders are required to attend a mandatory refresher course every four years,
NHI Course No. 130053 mentioned above.
Project Manager Each firm must have an individual designated as Project Manager. The Project
Manager manages the work of their firm and the sub-consultants who work for them. The Project
Manager coordinates with the State to perform bridge inspections as described in the "Services to
Be Provided" in the contract. The Project Manager ensures the quality of the data and that the data
is submitted in a timely manner. The Project Manger oversees the work of the Team Leaders and
inspectors working directly for their firm, as well as oversees the work of the sub-consultants who
perform work for the Project Manager's firm. The firm's Project Manager must meet the qualifica-
tions of Program Manager as described in the Federal Code.
Team Leader Pursuant to the Federal Code, at least one individual who meets the qualifications
of Team Leader must be present at each bridge inspection. The consulting firm must ensure that a
Team Leader who works for their firm or for a sub-consultant is present at each bridge inspection.
Fracture Critical Inspections Pursuant to the Federal Code, at least one Team Leader, who
meets the qualifications of Team Leader as described in the Federal Code, must be present at each
fracture critical inspection. The Bridge Division requires the Program Manager and Team Leaders
for each firm under contract to perform fracture critical inspections to take a fracture critical
inspection course, NHI Course No. 130078, in addition to the other federal requirements for these
positions.
Underwater Inspections Pursuant to the Federal Code, at least one Team Leader, who meets the
qualifications of Team Leader as described in the Federal Code, must be present at each underwater
inspection. In addition to the Team Leader requirements, the Federal Code requires that individuals
performing underwater inspections meet certain requirements. The Bridge Division ensures that the
individuals performing underwater inspections meet these requirements.
Load Rating Engineer Pursuant to the Federal Code, each inspection contract requires the indi-
vidual charged with the overall responsibility for load rating bridges to be a registered professional
engineer.
Record of Personnel Qualifications The Bridge Division will keep a list of approved Project
Managers and Team Leaders for firms under contract as part of providing statewide bridge inspec-
tion services. The Bridge Division will also maintain records documenting qualifications and
training of individuals approved as Project Managers and Team Leaders. It is the responsibility of
Program
the Engineer in charge of the bridge inspection unit, whether district or consultant forces, to pro-
vide information updates to the Inspection Office of the Bridge Division whenever there is a
change in personnel or other items affecting personnel qualifications. The file will include each
person's job description, education, professional registration or certifications, years and type of
bridge inspection experience, bridge inspection training completed, and any special technical
courses. Attachment 1 is an example of the form that can be used to document personnel
qualifications.
Review Procedures
In addition to these programmatic requirements, the Quality Control program defines specific pro-
cedures for the review and validation of inspection reports and data. The TxDOT Bridge Inspection
Manual requires Districts to review consultant submissions of office work and field work.
Documentation is one of the most important elements of an effective quality control program.
Thoroughly document all review activities. Keep together one copy (either electronic or paper) of
the documentation of all office and field reviews together, clearly marked as the review of a spe-
cific submission for later access or review by a Quality Assurance team, auditor, or FHWA
reviewer.
Office Review - Review a minimum of 10% of the submitted folders and reports for legibility,
accuracy, completeness and uniformity. Specific information is required for the bridge folders. A
detailed list can be found in Chapter 8 of this manual. Randomly select the sample review folders,
as it is the inspector and his process that are being reviewed, not the bridges. Random selection
ensures that folders for smaller culverts are reviewed as well as folders for larger structures, struc-
tures of different superstructure types, and structures of differing materials. Include thorough
documentation of this review process, a list of the folders reviewed and a checklist for each folder
reviewed. Attachment 2 is an example of a folder review log and checklist form that can be used.
This is a very detailed checklist. Make every effort to do a substantive review of the folder, instead
of a simple visual check of the folder contents
Field Review - The field review consists of two activities that comprise a total of at least 7% of the
consultant submission. First, co-inspect a minimum of 2% of the submission with the consultant
inspection team to verify and document the inspection team members, their qualifications, and
review their inspection processes. Scheduling the sampling of this activity is dependent on the con-
sultant availability. It is not a review of the bridge, but of the consultant inspection team.
Attachment 3 is an example of the documentation required for these co-inspections.
Second, perform an independent, on site re-inspection of at least 5% of the consultant submission.
Take copies of submitted inspections to the bridge site. Independently complete all condition and
appraisal ratings, and reviews other items for correctness. Prepare specific notes of changed condi-
tions or significant differences from the last inspection. Prepare documentation of the bridges
inspected and findings on forms similar to those in Attachment 4.
Program
Choose the bridges to be independently re-inspected with care. This is an opportunity to make in-
depth site visits to a sample of bridges in the District. Some of the criteria for bridge selection for
review include but are not limited to:
New bridges
Bridges already on a reduced inspection frequency
Bridges recommended for load posting
Bridges with a significant change in the condition ratings
Bridges with critical findings or recommended significant maintenance
Different types of bridges and culverts
Bridges not on the last QC review list
The procedures above also apply to review procedures utilized by districts reviewing inspections
conducted by in-house forces.
Program
Quality Assurance Overview
Effective Quality Assurance procedures are based on objective, quantitative data. Qualitative infor-
mation is anything not represented numerically, and can include general observations, personal
comments, and subjectivity or bias. Quantitative data is represented numerically; it can be summa-
rized and used for independent analysis and comparison. Examples of quantitative data are the
specific number of errors per bridge inspection, or the difference in a condition state rating between
the most recent routine inspection and an independent Quality Assurance review of the bridge
inspection.
Characteristics of comprehensive Quality Assurance programs also include provisions for correc-
tive actions and mechanisms for continual improvement. Corrective actions directed at the source
of the variability, inconsistency, or misunderstanding will raise the level of quality throughout the
bridge inspection program. Corrective actions may be very specific, such as changing the descrip-
tion or definition of an inspection term to provide clarity, or more general such as changes in
personnel descriptions and qualifications. Corrective actions may be systemic such as making
adjustments to the numbers of bridges included in the review process. Annual review and discus-
sion of the QC/QA program to determine if corrective actions recommended in the statewide
activities have actually been implemented is an essential part of the program, and an example of a
mechanism for continual improvement.
Quality Assurance activities include the complete inspection program. Quality Assurance activities
monitor the process and results of the visual inspections of all bridges by continually reviewing an
office and a field component of the consultant submissions, and the District Quality Control
reviews of these submissions. The Quality Assurance reviews and discussions focus on the basic
understanding of the statewide inspection procedures and practices as outlined by the NBIS, BIRM
and this manual. The program contains continuing education requirements, including attendance at
periodic district reviews and training session for all inspection personnel. Documentation of per-
sonnel and their qualifications can be used to make sure no one is lacking the training and
education required. The Quality Assurance program helps with the practical comprehension of the
program requirements through open discussions at meetings, through group review of the bridge
inspections that are a collaborative event, and through district specific reviews with opportunities
for questions and answers.
An important part of this process is the independent review of all documented activities by inspec-
tion teams, District Team Leaders, supervisors, and District Engineers to make certain that all
levels of the organization are aware of any problems or inconsistencies throughout the bridge
inspection program. Quality Assurance procedures validate Quality Control activities and docu-
mentation through independent review of a sampling of the Quality Control documentation reports.
The Quality Assurance review activities focus on determining if the Quality Control efforts are
Program
equally effective across different work groups; all work groups should undergo the same level of
review and participate in discussion and re-review with other levels. Documentation of review
results at each level should be shared, reviewed and discussed, and any comments should be incor-
porated. This ensures that needed corrective actions can be identified during the review process and
that mistakes in the process are not repeated for lack of awareness. This structure provides redun-
dancy in the process and increases the effectiveness of the QC/QA process at all levels.
Quality Assurance District Reviews
At least once every inspection cycle (24 months), a Quality Assurance Review will be conducted at
each district. Typically, this will be a three day event - one day for an office review, one day for
independent on-site field inspections, and one day to discuss the review and findings.
A Quality Assurance Engineer from the Bridge Division will conduct a comprehensive office
review of the District Quality Control process and documentation. The TxDOT District Quality
Control process is well defined. The Quality Assurance office review will focus on the overall com-
pleteness, legibility, and accuracy of the Quality Control review documentation. The Engineer will
also review several bridge folders that were part of the District Quality Control to focus on the spe-
cific quality of the folder review. Checklists will be reviewed to ensure the folder review is a
thorough, thoughtful review rather than a simple visual check of the folder contents. Any questions
or discrepancies in the consultant submission discovered by the District can be reviewed and dis-
cussed at this time. The QA office review will also determine if the folders include documentation
for appropriate action taken according to the follow-up action reports.
The Quality Assurance Engineer also will conduct a new, independent re-inspection of a sample of
bridges as determined in advance. The review will use new forms and identify all the elements in
the bridge, the appropriate condition states, and the NBI data. This inspection will be a collabora-
tion between the Bridge Division and District personnel, with on-site discussions of elements,
condition states, ratings, and any follow-up action recommendations.
The sample of bridges should be from the sample used in the District Quality Control re-inspection.
There should be a representation of the different types of bridges commonly found in the District,
including a variety of bridge types, complexity, span numbers, and span lengths. Also, consider
bridges with critical findings or recommended load ratings and postings, any bridges needing reha-
bilitation or follow-up actions, and new structures (to check initial routine inspections).
Once the independent field reviews are complete, the Quality Assurance Engineer will schedule a
close out meeting with District Bridge Inspection personnel to cover the findings and any recom-
mendations for improvement. The District Bridge Engineer and District Engineer are encouraged to
join the meeting. Issues to be covered include how District Quality Control inspection results com-
pare with QA findings and the most recent routine consultant inspections. The comparison will
focus on appropriate assignment of elements, reasonable consistency with element conditions,
states, and the NBIS condition ratings. Specific limits for the expected consistency between the two
Program
inspections should be discussed. Every effort will be made to define the results quantitatively. For
example, document the number of errors per bridge inspection when compared to the Quality
Assurance review; document the number of coding errors per submission; document the number of
errors or omissions per review by the Quality Control review process; document the number of
folders missing data for load rating or load posting calculations. The current threshold for "ade-
quate consistency" is two errors per bridge. The original inspection team condition ratings are also
considered out-of-tolerance if they vary more than +/- 1 from the condition ratings compiled by the
Quality Assurance Engineer. An important item for discussion is to identify the sources of discrep-
ancies and solutions. Another item for discussion is whether the recommended follow-up actions
have been addressed - which repairs can be done by in-house maintenance crews, which will need
a maintenance contract for greater rehabilitation, and which will require bridge replacement.
A Quality Assurance Report will be written following the review. This report will be forwarded to
all participants and the original consultant program managers for review and comment. This report
will include the dates of the Quality Assurance review; the names, Districts, and qualifications of
the review team members; a summary of the review procedures; a list of the structures re-inspected;
office review findings; field review findings; a summary of the quantitative results for the District
Quality Control Review and the consultants routine inspections compared to the Quality Assurance
Review; and any recommendations for increasing quality of future inspections. Documentation will
include a field review checklist sheet and an office review checklists for every bridge inspected.
After this report has been reviewed and comments have been incorporated, it will be signed and
sealed by the Bridge Division Inspection Branch Manager and sent to the District Engineer and the
Administration.
Quality Assurance Meetings
In addition to Quality Assurance reviews of every District, the Bridge Division will hold periodic
bridge inspector's meetings, either in person or via webinar. These meetings will serve as continu-
ing education for TxDOT bridge inspection personnel to increase consistent statewide
understanding of the bridge inspection program. Each District Bridge Inspection Coordinator will
be required to attend, and all other bridge inspection personnel are encouraged to attend. Consult-
ing firms will be encouraged to attend portions of the meeting to promote more dialogue between
consultants, districts, and the Bridge Division.
These meetings will focus on changes to procedures and policies that result from the Quality Assur-
ance process, such as modifications to the bridge inspection manual, consultant contract
requirements, etc. The meeting format will allow for interchange between participants regarding
the appropriateness and effectiveness of the recommended changes. If the participants agree to
these changes, then the changes are implemented for the next cycle of inspections.
Another focus of these meetings will be to discuss various topics such as: inspection practices and
ways to reduce variations in results from different teams, consistent implementation of program
requirements between districts, the differences between real world inspection practices and the
Program
published works on inspection procedures, completeness and clarity of the Bridge Division manu-
als and inspection publications, and any problems not addressed in the other Quality Assurance
activities.
Summary
The safety of highway bridges in Texas depends on the effective management of our 50,000-plus
bridges in the National Bridge Inventory (NBI). Critical to our ability to maintain public safety is to
accurately and consistently inspect the condition of in-service bridges, evaluate and document dete-
rioration, and create recommendations for maintenance, rehabilitation, or replacement so our
bridges meet service requirements. TxDOT cannot successfully manage our state bridge inventory
in terms of safety and resource allocation without quality bridge inspections. The quality level can
be measured, documented, and improved by specific procedures within the QC/QA program. Thus
the main focus of the QC/QA program is to identify and correct any deficiencies in the process,
while building on the program strengths.
Bridge Inspection Manual A-1 TxDOT 08/2013
Bridge Inspection Guidelines
Three regulations and codes have particular bearing on bridge inspection.
Code of Federal Regulations Highlights
Section 650.301, Application of standards. This section states that all sections in this part (Sub-
part C) apply to all structures defined as bridges. It also restates the current AASHTO definition of
a bridge. This section was first added to the Federal Register in 1979, and it was amended in 1986.
Section 650.303, Inspection procedures. This section requires each state transportation depart-
ment to have an organization that is capable of performing bridge inspections and preparing reports
and ratings in accordance with the AASHTO Manual for Maintenance Inspection of Bridges. It fur-
ther requires that each structure be rated to determine safe load capacity, and it gives the criteria at
which the structure must be load-restricted. This section makes TxDOT responsible for determin-
ing the safe load capacity of each bridge in the inventory. This section was first added to the Federal
Register in 1971 and amended in 1979 and 1988.
Section 650.305, Frequency of inspections. This section defines the maximum interval between
bridge inspections. This section was first added to the Federal Register in 1971 and amended in
1974, 1988, and 1992.
Section 650.307, Qualifications of personnel. This section gives the minimum qualifications for
individuals conducting bridge inspections and administering a bridge inspection program. This sec-
tion was first added to the Federal Register in 1971 and amended in 1979 and 1988.
Section 650.309, Inspection report. This section requires standard forms to be used for reporting
bridge inspections. This section was first added to the Federal Register in 1974.
Section 650.311, Inventory. This section requires each state to maintain an inventory of all the
bridges in the state. It also stipulates that the maximum allowable time states have to update the
Regulations Affecting Bridge Inspection
Regulation WWW Link
Code of Federal Regulations http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/legsregs/ directives/fapg/
cfr0650c.htm
U.S. Code for Bridge Inspection http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/legsregs/ title23.pdf
Texas Transportation Code http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/TN/htm/
TN.545.htm
inventory is 90 days after any change in the status of a structure. This section was first added to the
Federal Register in 1979 and amended in 1988.
U.S. Code for Bridge Inspection Highlights
Section 116, Maintenance. This section states that if any project, including bridges, constructed
under the provisions of this chapter is found not being properly maintained, including inspections
and load posting of bridges, then the state has 90 days after the problem is called to its attention to
correct the problem. If nothing is done, then approval of further projects can be withheld. This sec-
tion is used to justify withholding federal funds to local entities that do not comply with the
National Bridge Inspection Standards.
Section 144, Highway Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation Program. This section states
that it is of vital interest to the nation to establish a bridge rehabilitation and replacement program
to address those structures that are unsafe due to structural deficiencies, physical deterioration, or
functional obsolescence. As part of this program, the state must inventory all on- and off-system
bridges and classify them for serviceability, safety, and essentiality for public use. This section was
used to require each state to establish a bridge inspection program. It requires that the rehabilitation
and replacement program be based on the number of unsafe bridges in each state. It also requires
the inventory, retention, rehabilitation, adaptive reuse, and future study of historic bridges. A his-
toric bridge is any bridge that is listed on or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic
Places.
Section 151, National Bridge Inspection Program. This section requires the state transportation
departments to establish standards for the procedures used to make bridge inspections. These stan-
dards must establish methods, frequencies, qualifications for inspectors, reporting procedures, and
a procedure for national certification and training of bridge inspectors.
Texas Transportation Code Highlights
Section 201.803, Information for Road Construction and Maintenance. Subsection (e) allows
TxDOT to request from county and municipal officials any information necessary for performance
of the departments duties under this section. Therefore, if the department first requests the infor-
mation, it should have no problem obtaining as-built plans. However, in almost all cases, the
department does not have prior knowledge of the construction of an off-system bridge. Often, by
the time the structure is first located by the department, the plans have disappeared.
Section 201.8035, Inspection of County and Municipal Bridges. This section deals with the
inspection of off-system bridges. Subsection (a) requires TxDOT to notify local jurisdictions when
a bridge qualifies for a lower load rating. Subsection (b) requires that local entities post notices on
the roadway approaching the bridge. This section gives TxDOT the authority and responsibility to
require posting of off-system bridges by counties and municipalities. This section holds TxDOT
accountable for ensuring that off-system bridges are capable of safely carrying loads. Local entities
should provide the information necessary for TxDOT to carry out this duty.
Section 621.301, Countys Authority to Set Maximum Weights. This section allows a county to
establish load limits for a county road or bridge only with the concurrence of the department. If a
county determines that the load limit of a county bridge should be different from the load limit sup-
ported by a department inspection, the county must submit the proposed load limit to the district
engineer. A request for a load limit must be accompanied by supporting documentation that is
sealed by an engineer and that includes at a minimum calculations supporting the proposed limit
and a structural evaluation report documenting the condition of the bridge. The district engineer
concurs with a county's proposal in writing. If the department does not indicate concurrence or non-
concurrence in writing within 30 calendar days of receipt by the department of a request that
includes all required documentation, the proposed load limit is deemed concurred with by the
department. The department may review the load limit and withdraw this concurrence at any time
by providing written notification to the county. A county may appeal the decision of the district
engineer by submitting a written request, along with the required documentation, to the executive
director. The executive director will review the request and determine if department concurrence
will be granted. The executive director's decision is final.
Bridge Inspection Manual B-1 TxDOT 08/2013
Elements: Field Inspection and Coding
Refer to the Elements: Field Inspection and Coding Manual for guidelines for coding element-spe-
cific data on bridges.
Bridge Inspection Coding Guidelines
Refer to the Coding Guide for guidelines for maintaining data in the computerized Bridge Inven-
tory, Inspection, and Appraisal files.
Bridge Inspection Manual index-1 TxDOT 08/2013
Index
Index
A
AASHTO manual
1970 2-4
1974 2-4
1978 2-5
1983 2-6
interim specifications 2-6
appraisal ratings
definition 5-5
recording 5-5
Approach Roadway Alignment (Item 72) 5-8
B
basis for bridge rehabilitation 7-2
basis for bridge replacement 7-2
bridge folder 8-24
bridge inspection history 2-13
bridge inspection program 2-2
Bridge Management System (BMS) 7-10
Bridge Posting (Item 70) 5-7
bridge rehabilitation
basis 7-2
bridge replacement
basis 7-2
C
calculations
general requirements 8-16
off-system bridges 8-17
on-system bridges 8-16
closure
off-system bridge 5-26
coding
element data 8-10
guidelines C-1
multiple-pipe culverts 8-9
summary 8-9
complex bridge inspections 3-9
condition ratings
assigning 5-4
definition 5-3
consultants
coordination with TxDOT 8-7
email 8-7
inspection equipment 8-7
pre-certification 3-9
request for 3-11
requirements 8-7
work authorization management 3-12
D
data submittal
duplicate records 8-22
original records 8-22
presentation of documents 8-21
requirements 8-19
scour records 8-23
summary reports 8-22
data submittals
photographs 8-19
Deck Geometry (Item 68) 5-6
details
fatigue-prone 4-14
weld 4-15
district bridge inspection coordinator 3-5
duplicate records, submittal 8-22
E
equipment
consultants 8-7
routine bridge inspections 4-4
examples
rating concrete bridges with no plans 5-16
typical continuous I-beam bridge 6-8
F
fatigue
secondary members 4-15
fatigue failure 4-10
fatigue-prone details 4-14
FHWA manual 2-13
form 8-14
forms
Bridge Appraisal Worksheet 8-11
Bridge Inspection Follow-Up Action Work-
sheet 8-12
Index
Bridge Inventory Record 8-12
Bridge Inventory Record Revision 8-13
Bridge Structural Condition History 8-12
Bridge Summary Sheet 8-14
Channel Cross-Section Measurements Re-
cord 8-13
Recommended Change in Bridge Load Zon-
ing 8-15
Underclearance Sketch 8-14
fracture-critical inspections
fatigue failure 4-10
history 4-10
H
history, bridge inspection program 2-2
HS-truck ratings 5-18
H-truck ratings 5-18
I
initial inspections 4-3
inspection
post-move 6-7
pre-move 6-7
inspection program history 2-2
inspections
complex bridge 3-9
initial 4-3
interim 4-5
routine 3-8, 4-4
types 4-2
interim inspections 4-5
Inventory Rating (Item 66) 5-10
Item
36 (Traffic Safety Features) 5-5
66 (Inventory Rating) 5-10
67 (Structural Evaluation) 5-6
68 (Deck Geometry) 5-6
69 (Underclearances) 5-7
70 (Bridge Posting) 5-7
71 (Waterway Adequacy) 5-8
72 (Approach Roadway Alignment) 5-8
L
load
over-height 6-4
over-weight 6-5
state legal 5-19
superheavy 6-5
load posting 5-20
changing on-system bridge 5-24
emergency on-system bridge 5-25
load ratings
definition 5-10
determination 5-10
M
manual
feedback 1-2
purpose 1-2
revision history 1-2
O
off-system bridges
calculations 8-17
closure 5-26
summary reports 8-22
on-system bridges
calculations 8-16
changing load posting 5-24
emergency load posting 5-25
original records, submittal 8-22
over-height permits 6-4
overloads on substandard bridges 6-7
over-width permits 6-4
P
permits
over-height 6-4
overloads on substandard bridges 6-7
over-width 6-4
personnel requirements
AASHTO 3-3
district bridge inspection coordinator 3-5
division bridge inspection branch manager
3-5
division bridge inspection engineers 3-6
division bridge inspection specialists 3-6, 3-7
division bridge inspection supervisor 3-5
division bridge inspection technicians 3-7
FHWA 3-2
Index
general 3-2
positions 3-4
TxDOT 3-3
photos, data submittal 8-19
posted bridges
overloads 6-7
post-move inspections 6-7
pre-certification of consultants 3-9
pre-move inspections 6-7
procedures, bridge inspection 2-13
R
rating
concrete bridge with no plans 5-15
procedures 5-13
ratings, see type of rating
references 2-3
regulations
federal A-1
state A-1
rehabilitation
basis 7-2
replacement
basis 7-2
request for consultant 3-11
requirements for personnel
AASHTO 3-3
FHWA 3-2
general 3-2
positions 3-4
TxDOT 3-3
routine bridge inspections 3-8
routine inspections 4-4
S
scour records, submittal 8-23
secondary members, fatigue 4-15
state legal loads 5-19
structural deficiency 7-4
Structural Evaluation (Item 67) 5-6
Sufficiency Rating 7-6
summary reports, submittal 8-22
superheavy loads 6-5
T
THD Design Supplement No. 1 5-11
Traffic Safety Features (Item 36) 5-5
U
Underclearances (Item 69) 5-7
underwater inspections
levels 4-8
methods 4-7
structural elements 4-8
update transactions B-2
W
Waterway Adequacy (Item 71) 5-8
weld details 4-15
work authorization
management 3-12

Ins

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ins

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ins

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bridge Inspection Manual

Revised August 2013

You might also like