13 Bridge Inspection

13.1 Introduction

This provides guidance for bridge inspection personnel, provides a reference for consultants, and
helps to ensure consistency in bridge inspection, rating, and evaluation. This section contains:
Introduction; Qualifications, Responsibilities, and Duties of Bridge Inspection Personnel; Field
Inspection Requirements; Ratings and Load Posting; Routing and Permits; Bridge Programming;
Bridge Records and an Appendix.
13.1.1 References
The publications related to bridge inspection with their issue dates are:
1. AASHTO Movable Bridge Inspection, Evaluation, and Maintenance Manual, 1st
Edition, 1998
2. AASHTO Manual for Bridge Evaluation, 1st Edition, 2008
st
3. FHWA Bridge Inspector's Reference Manual, 1 Edition (December 2006)
4. NCHRP Maintenance and Inspection of Fracture Critical Bridges, 2005
5. AASHTO Manual for Maintenance Inspection of Bridges (1993)
6. AASHTO Manual for Condition Evaluation of Bridges (1994)
7. AASHTO Guide Specifications for Fracture Critical Non-redundant Steel Bridge
Members, 1986
8. AASHTO Interim Specifications for Bridges, 1990
9. AASHTO Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges, 17th Edition 2002
10. AASHTO Guide for Selecting, Locating, and Designing Traffic Barriers, 1977
11. AASHTO Load and Resistance Factor Design Specifications, 2004
12. ASTM Standard Terminology Relating to Fatigue and Fracture Testing, ASTM 1823-
96e1
13. ASTM Specification for Carbon Structural Steel A36/A36M -97 Volume 01.04, 1997
14. FHWA National Bridge Inspection Standards (1988)
15. FHWA Recording and Coding Guide for the Structure Inventory and Appraisal of the
Nation’s Bridges (1972, 1979, 1988, 1991, and 1995)
16. FHWA The Bridge Inspector’s Manual for Movable Bridges (1977)
17. FHWA Culvert Inspection Manual (about 1979)
18. FHWA Inspection of Fracture Critical Bridge Members (1986)
19. FHWA Scour at Bridges, a technical advisory (1988)
20. FHWA Hydraulic Engineering Circular No. 18 (about 1988)
21. FHWA Bridge Inspector’s Training Manual 90 (1991)
22. FHWA Scour at Bridges, Technical Advisory, 1988
23. TxDOT Administrative Circular No. 60-75,1975TxDOT Construction Specifications,
1962
24. TxDOT Memo from [Link],P.E. Closing of Weak Bridges, February 1999
25. TxDOT Memo from Robert L. Wilson, P.E Texas Transportation Code, Title 7, Chapter
621 Closing and Posting Recommendations for Off-System Structures, October 1997

AUGUST 2010 REVISION NO. 03 BRIDGE INSPECTION 13-1

 26. NHI (National Highway Institute) Safety Inspection of In-Service Bridges
27. Texas Bridge Load Rating Program of 1988
28. National Society of Professional Engineer’s program for National Certification in
Engineering Technologies, National Institute for Certification in Engineering
Technologies (NICET)
29. Traffic Management Section, HIB Design Criteria
13.1.2 AASHTO Inspection Manuals
[Link] 1974 AASHTO Manual
(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 to be 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
Records
Written Structural Inventory and Appraisal (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.
Ratings
Calculations in accordance with current AASHTO bridge specifications
Operating and Inventory Ratings to be H- or HS-equivalents
Higher safety factor allowed for heavily traveled routes
Dimensions from as-built or field measurements if necessary
Pictorial posting signs recommended.
Load Capacity of Bridges
Consider two lanes loaded with rating trucks if bridge is 5.50 M clear or wider
Allow fewer lanes if warranted by judgment of Engineer
“Train” of lighter-weight trucks to be considered, spaced at 9.10 M headway when at H12
or less
Load distribution and allowable stresses as given by AASHTO Bridge Specifications
Sample calculations given in Appendix B of AASHTO Manual
Load Factor Rating introduced as an acceptable method
[Link] 1978 AASHTO Manual
The third AASHTO Manual was issued in 1978 (the small “yellow book”) and included all the same
information and requirements as the first two AASHTO Manuals, with some reordering of contents. In
addition, the following major additions and modifications were made as compared to the 1974
AASHTO Manual:

AUGUST 2010 REVISION NO. 03 BRIDGE INSPECTION 13-2

Records
Recommendations modified for repair, maintenance, and posting
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 Traffic Management
Section, HIB Design Criteria.
Load Capacity of Bridges
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)
Allowable Inventory Rating stresses listed for A36, A572, A441, and other steel types
Increased allowable bearing stresses on rivets and bolts
[Link] 1983 AASHTO Manual
th
The 4 AASHTO Manual was issued in 1983 in loose-leaf form (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:
Load Capacity of Bridges
Allowable Inventory of 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
[Link] AASHTO Interim Specifications
The AASHTO Interim Specifications 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 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 is reinforced concrete box culverts.
In 1984 the two lanes of live loading for roadways between 5.5 M to 6.0 M was clarified.
For roadways over 6.0 M in width, the spacing between trucks became 1.20 M, which is
the same as the AASHTO bridge specifications. 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 which
required that the individual in charge must be a Registered Professional Engineer. Prior
to this time, the individual in charge could be qualified by experience.
In 1986 scour was specifically identified as an item requiring more intense inspection.
In 1986 non-redundant 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.
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.

AUGUST 2010 REVISION NO. 03 BRIDGE INSPECTION 13-3

 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.
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,
clarifications were made that the first Inventory Inspection was to determine all the
Structure Inventory and Appraisal data required by FHWA and that Routine Inspections
were defined as those done at regularly scheduled intervals.
In 1990 only minor editorial changes were made.
[Link] AASHTO Manual, 2000
AASHTO adopted the 2nd Edition (148 pages, loose-leaf) Manual for Condition Evaluation of Bridges
and is considered current at this time June 2009.
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 Subsection 13.7.
Inspections
Qualifications of the Inspection Program Manager are changed again to allow the person
to be qualified by experience. Qualifications for Inspection Team Leader are modified to
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
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.

AUGUST 2010 REVISION NO. 03 BRIDGE INSPECTION 13-4

 More emphasis is placed on various types of substructure inspection.
Detailed inspection recommendations are given for each of the various types of bridge
superstructure including new superstructure types such as cable-stayed and pre-stressed
concrete segmental bridges and new component types such as pre-stressed 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 seldom used.
Ratings
The rating section of the AASHTO Manual is much more extensive than corresponding
sections in previous editions.
The description of the safety factors for the Load Factor Rating method is similar to the
factors in the new AASHTO Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) Specification.
The AASHTO Manual now states 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.
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.
13.1.3 Inspection Procedures
The FHWA Bridge Inspector’s Training Manual 90 was published in July 1991 and is the basic current
reference for all field inspectors. Hereinafter it will be referred to as Manual 90.
Manual 90 presents the basic information needed by all bridge inspectors and rating personnel. It
includes an excellent history of the National Bridge Inspection Program. It also includes a description
of all the common types of bridges, materials, and details used in bridge construction. Recommended
procedures are presented in detail along with many diagrams and photos. Manual 90 also presents a
fair description of basic structural mechanics for bridge members.
The purposes of bridge inspection are:
Primarily for preventive maintenance
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
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:

AUGUST 2010 REVISION NO. 03 BRIDGE INSPECTION 13-5

 Initial Inspection. Performed on new bridges or when bridge is first recorded.
Routine Inspections. Those regularly scheduled, usually every two years for most normal
bridges
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 inspection 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.

13.2 Bridge Inspection Personnel

13.2.1 Requirements
[Link] 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 various
aspects of bridge engineering including design, load rating, construction, rehabilitation, and
maintenance.
HIB Requirements
These are summarized as:
The individual in charge of the Bridge Inspection of the RBD, or the contract consultant
firm) must:
be a Licensed Professional Engineer, or
be qualified for licensing, or
have a minimum of ten years experience in bridge inspection assignments and have
completed a comprehensive training course based on the Bridge Inspector’s Training
Manual 90.
The individual in charge of a bridge inspection team must have the same qualifications as
above, or
have a minimum of five years experience in bridge inspection assignments and have
completed a comprehensive training course based on the Bridge Inspector’s Training
Manual 90.
[Link] AASHTO Requirements
These are described in the current AASHTO Manual for Condition Evaluation of Bridges.
HIB Requirements
At a minimum, all bridge inspection activities performed by Contractors must comply with HIB
requirements. HIB requirements for bridge inspection personnel are also the same as those in
AASHTO requirements, and in addition, 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
Advanced computer skills related to bridge analysis
Geotechnical and hydrological knowledge
Familiarity with HIB bridge construction specifications and with current and old HIB bridge
designs

AUGUST 2010 REVISION NO. 03 BRIDGE INSPECTION 13-6

HIB also has special requirements for Contractors retained to perform bridge inspection tasks. All
firms must be pre-qualified. Further information on Contractor requirements is presented later in this
chapter in the section titled “Bridge Inspection by Contractor”.
13.2.2 Bridge Inspection Personnel
[Link] General Position Requirements
Certain knowledge, skills, or abilities are general in nature to most bridge inspection engineering-
related positions. The level of knowledge, skill, or ability in these general areas increases in
relationship to the level of the position and will not be specifically described for each of the positions.
Some of the particular areas of necessary skill and knowledge for bridge inspection personnel are:
Ability to perform engineering calculations
Knowledge of bridge engineering fundamentals and application of engineering theory
Ability to analyze, interpret, and review technical data
Ability to use a personal computer along with applicable software
Knowledge of all types of bridge construction methods in North Africa and the Gulf
Region
Knowledge of AASHTO specifications, HIB design procedures, bridge standards, and
details
Ability to exercise initiative and independent engineering judgment
Ability to schedule and lead the work of others when appropriate to the position
Ability to communicate effectively and maintain proper working relationships
Various special skills and knowledge are also necessary for some of the positions, some of which are
unique to the bridge inspection operations such as:
Knowledge of applicable local laws and regulations
Knowledge of bridge inspection methods and procedures
Familiarity with associated inspection safety requirements
Skill in use of scuba or other underwater inspection equipment
Ability to make bridge inspection-related technical and training presentations and to
represent the department in public meetings and conferences
13.2.3 Bridge Inspections by Contractors
[Link] General Requirements
All firms contracted by HIB to perform routine bridge inspections must be pre-certified in accordance
with the requirements of all applicable codes. All bridge inspections shall also be performed in
accordance with 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, or
Has a minimum of ten years experience in bridge inspection assignments in a responsible
capacity.
The bridge inspection Team Leaders employed by the firm must also be qualified and have:
The same qualifications as above for the Project Manager, or
Has a minimum of five years experience in bridge inspection assignments
Complex Bridge Inspections
For complex bridge inspections, such as those requiring fracture-critical inspections, the firm must
employ a minimum of one Licensed Professional Engineer, to serve as Project Manager, who has
seven (7) years of bridge inspection or design experience, including one year of inspection or design
of bridges considered as complex.

AUGUST 2010 REVISION NO. 03 BRIDGE INSPECTION 13-7

The firm must also employ as a complex bridge inspection Team Leader, an individual who has a
minimum of six years of bridge inspection or design experience, including one year of inspection or
design of bridges considered as complex.
Pre-certification Procedures for Contractors
Bridge inspection contracts are developed and monitored by RBD personnel. Contractors must be
able to demonstrate the required minimum amount of experience in bridge inspection, rating, and
evaluation.
Consultant personnel must have completed the required training in bridge inspection.
Familiarity with HIB Master Specifications is necessary. Strong knowledge of HIB Bridge Construction
Specifications and Bridge Design is also necessary.
13.2.4 Use of the Contractor Pool
Contractor firms who are pre-certified to perform bridge inspections are to be made available to HIB.
The list of certified firms is updated by the RBD every two years. The necessary procedures that
must be followed to utilize these Contractors is described below.
[Link] Request for Contractor Inspection
The RBD with a lead time of at least two to three months shall initiate the following:
A request in writing
An estimate of the total numbers of bridges to be inspected
An identification of the bridges as being on- and/ or off-system and shall forward to RBD
Head for approval citing reasons why Contractors are to be engaged
Work Authorization Issuance
The RBD will send the Contractor a Work Authorization along with a fee schedule.
The work authorization shall include the following
Description of where the bridge inspections will take place
Number of bridges to be inspected by type
Total Libyan Dinar amount on the Work Authorization
Termination date for the completion of the inspections
Once the work authorization has been accepted by the Contractor, they may begin bridge inspections.
[Link] Managing the Contractor Bridge Inspection
To ensure that bridge inspections are being performed in a competent and timely fashion, the RBD
will perform continuing oversight of the work by following these steps:
Verify the Contractor’s bridge inspection Project Engineer and the individual Team
Leaders against the list provided by the RBD.
Periodically visit the Contractor’s inspection teams in the field to verify team composition
and to observe actual inspections.
When completed inspections are submitted by the Contractor, the RBD should review at
least 10 percent of the office work and 7 percent of the field work.
RBD should monitor the amount of completed Contractor bridge inspections to ensure
that additional structures that might be added as the work progresses will be noted and
adjusted in the Work Authorization.
If additional funds or time is needed to complete the Work Authorization, a request for a
Supplemental Agreement must be made to the RBD.
A Supplemental Agreement request should be made to the RBD at least 2 weeks before
the termination of the initial Work Authorization.
[Link] Completion of Work Authorization
When the bridge inspections covered by the Work Authorization are finished, The RBD should
complete an HIB evaluation form. This aids in ensuring the overall quality of the work provided by the
Contractor, and also aids in the Contractor pool selection for the next two-year cycle.

AUGUST 2010 REVISION NO. 03 BRIDGE INSPECTION 13-8

13.3 Field Inspection Requirements

13.3.1 Types of Bridge Inspection

There are five basic types of bridge inspection:
Initial Inspections
Routine Inspections
Damage Inspections
In-Depth Inspections
Underwater Inspections and Fracture-Critical Inspections are two types of In-Depth
Inspection
Special Inspections
Inspection of post-tensioned, grouted, external tendons is an example of a Special
Inspection.
13.3.2 Initial Inspections
Initial Inspections are performed on new bridges or when existing bridges are first entered into the
database. This inspection provides a basis for all future inspections or modifications to the bridge.
Initial deficiencies are noted which might not have been present at the time of construction. Changes
in the condition of the site should also be noted such as:
Erosion
Scour
Re-grading of slopes
The final new bridge completion checklist should include the notification of HIB R&B Department
Engineer when the bridge is opened to traffic and available for use by permit vehicles.
The opening of a new bridge, particularly an off-system bridge, is a good time to ensure that a set of
copies of the bridge plans are included with the Bridge Records. RBD require all Contractors to
submit a copy of the final structural plans to RBD within 31 days after construction or rehabilitation is
completed.
The initial Bridge Folder is prepared as a result of the Initial Inspection. A detailed description of the
Bridge Folder contents is given in Chapter 7, Bridge Records. The arrangement of the folder shall be
maintained and must include the recommended series of photos.
13.3.3 Routine Inspections
Routine inspections are those regularly scheduled, performed, and recorded in accordance with all
the procedures described in subsection 13.7, Bridge Records, and the instructions for the coding
guide. These are usually done every two years for most bridges and every four years for culverts.
[Link] Inspection Equipment
The equipment needed for routine bridge inspections usually includes the following:
Cleaning tools including wire brushes, screwdrivers, brushes, scrapers, etc.
Inspection tools including pocket knife, ice pick, hand brace, bit, chipping hammer, etc.
Visual aid tools including binoculars, flashlight, magnifying glass, dye penetrant, mirror,
etc.
Basic measuring equipment including thermometer, center punch, simple surveying
equipment, etc.
Recording materials such as appropriate forms, field books, cameras, etc.
Safety equipment including rigging, harnesses, scaffolds, ladders, bosun chairs, first-aid
kit, etc.
Miscellaneous equipment should include C-clamps, penetrating oil, insect repellant, wasp
and hornet killer, stakes, flagging, markers, etc.
Specialized measuring tools such as paint film gage, calipers, optical crack gage,
tiltmeter, SHIFLO, etc. The SHIFLO is a device used to measure the depth of scour
during flood flows with a depth finder. It is not used during Routine Inspections.

AUGUST 2010 REVISION NO. 03 BRIDGE INSPECTION 13-9

 Underwater Inspections may require the use of Scuba gear.
Inspections which may significantly interfere with normal traffic movement and which might affect the
safety of the inspectors must be coordinated with Traffic Authorities in order that appropriate traffic
control measures may be undertaken. Inspections of the underside of bridges that cannot be reached
by conventional ladders may be performed by the use of vehicles with under-bridge platforms.
[Link] Interim Inspections
Brief inspections are also performed by Bridge Inspection Engineers approximately every six months
on most structures to identify unusual conditions or changes. These inspections do not review all the
points of interest done in a normal Routine Inspection. No formal records are kept of these brief
inspections. However, unusual conditions or changes will often result in a follow-up In-Depth,
Damage, or Special Inspection.
13.3.4 Damage Inspections
Damage Inspections are those performed as a result of collision, fire, flood, significant environmental
changes, loss of support, etc. These inspections are also sometimes called Emergency Inspections
and are performed on an as-needed basis.
13.3.5 In-Depth Inspections
[Link] Reasons for In-Depth Inspections
In-Depth Inspections are usually performed as a follow-up inspection to an Initial, Routine, or Damage
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 interpretation of the results are sometimes
open to question.
[Link] Underwater Inspections
Underwater Inspections are a type of In-Depth Inspection. These are regularly performed every five
years. The frequency can be less than five years if conditions warrant.
A master list of bridges needing underwater inspections is compiled and updated during routine
inspections. Once a bridge is added to the master list, it will remain there until it is no longer in use.
Some bridges must be inspected at intervals more frequent than the required five years due to the
susceptibility to scour or other factors such as the age of the bridge, configuration of the substructure,
environment, adjacent features, or existing damage. The frequency, type, and level of inspection are
left up to the owner.
[Link] Underwater Inspection Methods
There are currently three methods used to conduct Underwater Inspections. These are:
Wading -- The most basic of the three methods, wading requires only a probing rod and
wading boots to be effective.
Scuba diving -- A method that allows a more detailed examination of substructure
conditions at the Mud-line. 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.
[Link] Levels of Underwater Inspection
Standard levels of inspection are:
Level I -- Consists of 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.

AUGUST 2010 REVISION NO. 03 BRIDGE INSPECTION 13-10

 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 severity. This level is usually performed on at least a portion of a structure,
supplementing a Level I.
Level III -- A highly detailed inspection of an important structure which is warranted if
extensive repair or replacement is being considered. This level requires extensive
cleaning, detailed measurements, and testing techniques that may be destructive or non-
destructive in nature.
[Link] 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
continuously 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
underwater 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.
[Link] Underwater Inspection Devices
There are several types of sounding or sensing devices available for use by divers in underwater
investigations. Most common is the black and white fathometer, which uses sound waves reflected
from the channel bottom and records the depths continuously on a strip chart. It provides an
inexpensive, effective means of recording channel depths but will not detect a refilled scour hole.
Other methods are color fathometers, which use different colors to record different densities and in
this way can often detect scour refill; ground penetrating radar, which works well for shallow water but
has limited usefulness in murky water; and fixed instrumentation, which is reliable but requires
periodic monitoring and resetting to be effective.
[Link] Underwater Structural Materials
Piers and bents, if located in a navigable waterway area, are often subject to material defects or
collision damage as well as scour. Concrete is the most common type of material encountered in
underwater inspections. Common defects in concrete substructures include cracking, spalling,
laitance, and honeycombing. Minor or even moderate damage to concrete can be tolerated if it does
not endanger the reinforcement. Corrosion of the reinforcement can lead to serious difficulties.
Steel substructures are very susceptible to corrosion near the waterline or between the high and low
water levels. In this area, the presence of oxygen and frequent wet/dry cycles promote deterioration
at an accelerated rate and steel should be measured to determine the possibility of section loss.
[Link] Fracture-Critical Inspections
Fracture-Critical Inspections are a type of Special Inspection. These inspections are usually limited to
non-redundant tensile stress areas. They are regularly performed every five years. The frequency
can be less than five years if conditions warrant. Methods of inspection may include dye penetrant,
magnetic particle, or ultrasonic techniques.
[Link] History of Fracture Critical Considerations
Early development of modern steel design focused on stress and strain; little was known or
recognized 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 require 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. The
result of the use of continuity was more flexible structures that were more subject to deflections and
rotations. The result of the use of welding, was 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

AUGUST 2010 REVISION NO. 03 BRIDGE INSPECTION 13-11

was a massive expansion of highway bridge construction. The popularity of personal motor vehicles
increased as a result of more highways and thus more highways and bridges were needed. The
construction material of choice was initially steel throughout much of the country. Many designed
smaller structures with concrete, which is still serving well in many cases. Steel bridges, particularly
trusses, were used for longer crossings, usually for streams and rivers.
[Link] Fatigue Failures
The Truss Silver Bridge at Point Pleasant, West Virginia , USA collapsed suddenly in 1967 due to the
brittle fracture of an eye bar link, resulting in the loss of 46 lives and closure of a major route. After
the failure, 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.
th
The first recognition of redundant and non-redundant members was presented in the 12 edition of
the AASHTO Bridge Specifications in 1977. The first guide specifications for fracture critical bridge
members were issued by AASHTO in 1978.
[Link] 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
member or component whose failure in tension would result in the 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 susceptibility to fatigue problems. Designers
began to include Fracture Control Plans (FCP) in bridge design details.
Most common types of FC members are tension flanges and sometimes parts of webs of flexural
members such as beams and girders. Tension members of trusses, particularly eye bars, 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 concrete members with multiple reinforcing bars precludes possibility of abrupt
failure due to their internal redundancy.
The following rules-of-thumb usually determine FC members:
Two-girder bridges are defined 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
sometimes lead to subsequent higher positive stresses in the spans with no catastrophic
collapse. Therefore, these FC components receive more frequent periodic In-Depth
Inspections.
All steel caps are defined as FC. While this statement is bold, an exception is difficult to
imagine.
Lower chords of trusses are FC. This determination is based on the fact that most truss
bridges employ only two trusses and most are simple span.
Secondary members such as diaphragms and stiffeners are not FC. They are rarely
used in a manner where failure would lead to structure collapse. However, caution must
be observed in evaluating certain truss members that may appear to be secondary when
in fact their attachment to main FC members can provide a starting place for the main
member failure.
[Link] Redundancy
The concept of structural redundancy is well known. Any statically indeterminate structure may be
said to be redundant, to varying degrees, depending upon its supports. A two-span straight girder is
redundant. However, a two-span curved girder is also redundant, but the support reactions are
determinate. These definitions of redundancy are of little value to the field inspector who must make
a determination of FC potential for various members in a bridge. There are two types of redundancy
that concern the FC inspector:
1. Load Path Redundancy. Superimposed traffic loads are supported directly by the
deck, which in turn is supported by longitudinal stringers or beams. A bridge with a
single box girder would therefore be non-redundant since a failure in the box would
collapse the bridge. Likewise, a two-girder bridge is non-redundant since one girder
cannot assume all of the load for which two are designed. However, it can be argued

AUGUST 2010 REVISION NO. 03 BRIDGE INSPECTION 13-12

 that a continuous two-girder bridge is structurally redundant since a girder failure
would not cause collapse, but the structure would sag excessively. Three or more
girders will usually have enough load capacity due to inherent design factors of safety
to avoid collapse. The failure of one girder will immediately cause the loads to be
shared by the other girders. However, the FHWA considers three-girder bridges with
more than 4.60 M girder spacing to be FC. The strength of the deck system should
be considered for this case. Some deck systems for wide beam spacings are two-
way slabs and others have stringer and floor beam systems with one-way slabs.
Those with two-way slabs will still have a load-path redundancy, while those with
stringers and floor beams will be more unstable after failure of one girder in a three-
girder system.
2. Internal Redundancy. This term refers primarily to built-up members, such as riveted
plate girders. A single plate or shape in the built-up member might fail without
causing collapse. However, even members such as this must sometimes be
considered non-redundant, since like two-girder structures, failure of one portion of
the member can overload the remaining portions such that there is not sufficient
remaining capacity to prevent total failure. Usually, if the cross-sectional area of the
largest shape or plate in a built-up member is less than about 30 to 40 percent of the
total member area, then the member may be considered to have internal redundancy.
[Link] Inspection Procedures for FC Members
Inspection procedures begin with proper advance planning. The more important planning aspects,
usually based on an office review of the structural plans, are:
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
ladders, bucket truck, or climbing gear.
Many FC members are a result of structures designed for urban situations with necessary
complex alignment geometries. Proper inspection of these bridges may require closing a
traffic lane. Safe traffic control must be coordinated in advance with RBD and the Traffic
Authorities.
If the structure involves a railroad, a railroad flagger must be coordinated with the proper
railroad company.
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 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
[Link] 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
currently 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:

AUGUST 2010 REVISION NO. 03 BRIDGE INSPECTION 13-13

 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 material 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
[Link] Fatigue-Prone Details
Fatigue fracture almost always begins at a visible discontinuity, which acts as a stress-raiser. Typical
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
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, HIB Bridge
Manual and other technical publications. Most of 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 becomes important. The most effective way to control cracking and eventual fracture is sensible
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 (FCP). The FCP identifies 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 FCP.
During fabrication, these members are subject to special requirements.
Fatigue failure is always an abrupt fracture, called a brittle 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 narrowing or necking of the
material. Brittle fracture failures have no narrowing or necking present.
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
processes. 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 brittle fracture. 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.
[Link] Weld Details
Inspectors concerned with FC inspections must acquaint themselves with the characteristics of good
and poor structural details and be able to identify those details in the field. Welding creates the

AUGUST 2010 REVISION NO. 03 BRIDGE INSPECTION 13-14

details most susceptible to fatigue and fracture. Therefore, it is imperative 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.
Weld attachments to a girder web or flange can reduce fatigue strength as the length of the
attachment 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 and wind
bracing to maintain 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.
Inspectors should familiarize themselves with acceptable and unacceptable fillet weld profiles in order
to recognize potential problem areas in the field.
[Link] 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
secondary 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,
particularly those near supports, should be inspected for possible fatigue cracks.
[Link] 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. Any field welding, whether it is a welded girder splice,
retrofit detail, or repair, should be closely examined for visible problems. Many shop splices are
accomplished 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. Welded field splices for bridges should be subject to
careful inspection and must be done by certified welders. The welded field splices for these bridge
are usually of the same quality as shop splices and are often further inspected by radiographic (X-ray)
techniques.
The inspector should also 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
brittle fracture.
[Link] FC Inspection Techniques
FC inspection techniques may include non-destructive testing to determine the condition of a
structural 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. Usually these types of inspection are
best left to personnel who have undergone the proper training.
The selection of the type of non-destructive testing method for a particular location is usually 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

AUGUST 2010 REVISION NO. 03 BRIDGE INSPECTION 13-15

techniques. Subsurface 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.
13.3.6 Special Inspections
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-tensioned
members of pre-cast segmental type bridges.

13.4 Ratings and Load Posting

13.4.1 Overview
This Section includes discussion of the following topics:
Condition Ratings
Appraisal Ratings
Load Ratings
Legal Loads
13.4.2 Condition Ratings
[Link] Definition of Condition Ratings
Condition Ratings based on the field inspections can be considered as “snapshots in time” and cannot
be used to predict future conditions or behavior of the structure. However, the Condition Ratings
based on the inspections along with the written comments by the field inspector act as the major
source of information on the status of the bridge. The Condition Ratings also help in planning for any
necessary repairs or modifications. In addition, the Condition Ratings are used as flags when
performing overweight permit evaluations.
Condition Ratings are one-digit numbers given by the field inspector to the various components of a
bridge. They are intended to be objective and not distorted by personal beliefs or opinions. There is
significant emphasis to have the Condition Ratings be more consistent between inspectors given the
same deficiency of structural component.
Condition Ratings are a measure of the deterioration or damage and are not a measure of design
deficiency. For instance, an old bridge designed to lower 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.
The channel, waterway, riprap, and other channel protection components under and directly upstream
and downstream of the bridge are often inter-related to one another in assigning the Condition Rating
for the channel.
[Link] Recording Condition Ratings
Condition Ratings are entered on the Bridge Inspection Record, BIR. There are six component items
covered on the form, each of which 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 instructions for coding guide. The six component items plus a miscellaneous item are:
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
important as part of the Bridge Folder).
The elements for each component have minimum values (shown to the left of the element description
on the BIR Form that the rating must equal or exceed. Each element is rated based on independent
consideration. For instance, poor or deficient secondary members (bracing, diaphragms, etc.) in a

AUGUST 2010 REVISION NO. 03 BRIDGE INSPECTION 13-16

superstructure may cause the Superstructure (Item 59) component to have a poor rating even though
there is no significant deterioration of the main members. The summary Component Rating must be
the least of the element ratings comprising that component.
However, it should be noted that Deck (Item 58) component is independent of its associated element
ratings such as joints, railings, wearing surface, etc.
The known presence of chlorides in the deck, superstructure, or substructure concrete or low
compressive strengths from cores should not influence Condition Ratings. The Condition Rating
should be determined solely on the observed, materials-related, physical condition of the component
at the time of the inspection.
The BIR Form has page/s 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 for coding guide.
[Link] Assigning Condition Ratings
The general considerations for assignment of the ten levels of Condition Ratings require that each
element be evaluated separately. 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.
Only permanently installed repairs are to be considered 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 should not be considered to improve the
Condition Rating.
Components with temporary repairs, even though functioning, should not be considered for Condition
Rating. For instance, a support or brace to a partially undermined column could be susceptible to
damage from another flood; therefore, the Condition Rating must be made on the basis that the
support is not present. Temporary repairs must not be considered in determining Condition Ratings
because they directly affect the calculations of the Sufficiency Ratings.
Condition Ratings are still a matter of judgment, which should be made based on experience,
knowledge, and consistency with other structures with the same deterioration.
13.4.3 Appraisal Ratings
[Link] Definition of Appraisal Ratings
Appraisal Ratings consider the field condition, waterway adequacy, geometric and safety
configurations, structural evaluation, and safe load capacity of the bridge. As for Condition Ratings,
they should be as objective as possible. Given the same field information, project plans, materials,
geometric, and waterway data, the same Appraisal Ratings should result independent of the
appraiser.
Seven features are evaluated 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.
Appraisal Ratings are usually done in the office where access to all necessary information and
specifications is available. However, an experienced Bridge Appraiser may make some appraisals in
the field while performing the duties of a Bridge Inspector.
[Link] Recording Appraisal Ratings
As an aid in recording the features, instructions are given on the Bridge Appraisal Worksheet, (BAW).
The Item Numbers are related to the entry of the data in the bridge inspection database. The detailed
instructions for entering data are contained in the instructions for coding guide. The seven features
are:
Traffic Safety Features (Item 36)
Structural Evaluation (Item 67)
Deck Geometry (Item 68)

AUGUST 2010 REVISION NO. 03 BRIDGE INSPECTION 13-17

 Under-clearances (Item 69)
Bridge Posting (Item 70)
Waterway Adequacy (Item 71)
Approach Roadway Alignment (Item 72)
The Bridge Appraisal Worksheet has space for fully supportive written comments for each of the
above features. These comments are required even for features with no deficiency. The following
paragraphs summarize instructions for coding the above seven features.
[Link] Traffic Safety Features (Item 36)
This feature applies only to bridges carrying vehicle 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 adequacy 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 currently acceptable standards, a value of 0 if it
does not, or a value of N if not applicable. Note that 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. It must
be assumed that damage to traffic safety features will be repaired in the near future.
Bridge class culverts do not require coding of traffic safety features if the headwall of the culvert is 9.0
M or more from a traveled lane. If there is zero to 1.0 M of fill over a culvert, and acceptable guard
fence is installed over the culvert and along the approaches, then bridge railings and transitions are
not required. Culverts with less than 1-meter of fill may also have guard fence instead of bridge railing
if the steel posts are properly attached to the culvert.
Acceptable traffic safety standards have been developed using the current AASHTO Standard
Specifications for Highway Bridges and the AASHTO Guide for Selecting, Locating, and Designing
Traffic Barriers. Current acceptable bridge railing details are shown in the HIB Bridge Manual.
[Link] 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 Inventory 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 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.
[Link] 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 100mm or less in height.
The Deck Geometry Appraisal Rating is determined from a four-part table included with the detailed
instructions for Item 68 in the “Instructions for Coding Guide”. This table relates the ADT (Item 29),
Bridge Roadway Width (Item 51), and Number of Lanes (Item 28).
This Appraisal Rating is further controlled by another table in the instructions for Item 68 in the
“Instructions for Coding Guide” that relates the Minimum Vertical Clearance (Item 53) and the
Functional Classification (Item 26) of the bridge.
The Deck Geometry Appraisal Rating is taken as the lowest number based on width, lanes, or vertical
clearance and Functional Classification of the highway on which the bridge is located.
[Link] Under-clearances (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 Under-clearances Appraisal Rating is determined from two tables included with the detailed
instructions for Item 69 in the “Instructions for Coding Guide.” These tables relate the Vertical Under-
clearance (Item 54) and the Functional Classification (Item 26) of the lower roadway or railroad, and
the Lateral.

AUGUST 2010 REVISION NO. 03 BRIDGE INSPECTION 13-18

Under-clearances Right and Left (Items 55 and 56) of the lower roadway or railroad.
The Under-clearances Appraisal Rating is taken as the lowest number based on the vertical and
lateral clearances and the Functional Classification of the lower roadway or railroad.
[Link] Bridge Posting (Item 70)
This feature compares the load capacity of the bridge to the State Legal Load. At this time, the term
“Legal Load” is assumed to be a load equivalent to the conventional HS-20 load pattern. 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. The need for load
restriction will be explained in more detail in the section of this chapter titled Legal Loads and Load
Posting.
Specific criteria for coding this Appraisal Rating are included with the detailed instructions for Item 70
in the “Instructions for Coding Guide,” which has five posting levels. The Bridge Posting Appraisal
Rating 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 taken as HS-20 loading.

AUGUST 2010 REVISION NO. 03 BRIDGE INSPECTION 13-19

 Figure 13-1 AASHTO Design Loads

[Link] Waterway Adequacy (Item 71)

This appraisal feature applies to all bridges carrying vehicle traffic 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 “Instructions for Coding guide” which has
eight values range from 2, meaning the bridge is frequently 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 frequency
of overtopping the bridge. Local officials and residents can often provide information on the frequency
of overtopping.
[Link] Approach Roadway Alignment (Item 72)
This feature applies to adequacy of the approach roadway 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 for 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,
consideration must also be given to headlight and stopping sight distances.
When approach alignment is questionable, the inspector should drive the alignment on the
approaches to the bridge in order to estimate an advisory safe speed with due consideration given to

AUGUST 2010 REVISION NO. 03 BRIDGE INSPECTION 13-20

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 taken as the posted advisory speed if one exists.
13.4.4 Load Ratings
[Link] 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 Condition Evaluation of
Bridges, 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. Allowing unlimited usage at the Operating Rating level will reduce the life of the
bridge.
[Link] Determination of Load Ratings
Currently, all Inventory and Operating Ratings are expressed in terms of an equivalent HS-truck as
shown in the AASHTO Manual for Condition Evaluation of Bridges. Prior to about 1995, many ratings
were for an equivalent H-truck, shown in AASHTO Manual for Condition Evaluation of Bridges. 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; therefore, the HS-truck is more realistic.
Inventory or Operating Ratings are usually determined using either Load Factor (LF) or Allowable
Stress (AS) methods. Since 2000, LF is to be used for all on-system bridges. Either AS or LF may be
used for all off-system bridges.
[Link] Inventory Rating and Design Load Considerations
The Inventory Rating (Item 66) can usually 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 load
pattern. Many old plans have a design loading 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. Some newer bridges have been designed on a case-by-case basis for higher
design loads, but HIB bridge design practice is still to design to the HS-20 loading.
[Link] Design Supplement
The primary subjects of the supplement that affected bridge design can be summarized as follows:
1. Crown Width Bridges. The 1944 AASHTO Bridge Specifications required curbs on
all bridges. Bridge curbs may be omitted provided the guard fence or an equivalent
member is carried continuously through the structure.” The 1949 AASHTO Bridge
Specifications allowed the condition of no curbs with certain additional width
limitations.
2. Design Overload. The 1944 AASHTO Bridge Specifications required an overload to
be considered for all bridges designed for less than an H-20 (18.20T) or H-20 S-16
(32.70T) 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. This provision can be modified
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.
3. Lane Load Negative Moments. The 1944 AASHTO Bridge Specifications 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.
The distance between the concentrated loads for the lane load is limited to a
maximum of 9.20M. This is probably based on the fact that the AASHTO 1944 Bridge
Specifications 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 4.30 M to

AUGUST 2010 REVISION NO. 03 BRIDGE INSPECTION 13-21

 9.20 M from the first heavy axle. The 1949 AASHTO Bridge Specifications made the
lane loading negative moment requirement the same for HS-trucks. The provision for
continuous spans subjected to lane load can be modified by limiting the spacing
between the additional concentrated load to 9.20 M. This limit had the effect of
reducing the lane load negative moment maximums for some continuous spans. The
9.20 M limit may also have been in recognition that the second large axle for an HS-
load pattern is spaced at a maximum of 9.20 M 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 9.20 M between trucks. It would have been more logical for the
second concentrated load to be placed a minimum of 9.20 M from the first instead of
a maximum of 9.20 M. Current specifications do not limit the distance between the
two loads for negative moment lane loadings.
4. Impact Load Provision. The 1944 AASHTO Bridge Specifications 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 adjacent spans. Both versions of 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 had the effect of slightly increasing the impact value.
5. Special Axle Loads. The AASHTO Bridge Specifications further limited the 11.00 T
axle to slab spans under 5.50 M and the two 7.30 T axles for slab spans over 5.50 M.
This provision had the effect of reducing the design load for many slab spans
designed during that time. Some beams have been designed using the single 11.00 T
axle. It is believed to be an error for beams to have been designed this way. For this
reason, any plans prepared with a design load of H20 or H20 S-16 should be
carefully evaluated.
[Link] Customary Rating Procedures
The initial load rating should always be re-calculated; the design loading should not be used as the
final Inventory Rating. 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 is an important part 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 19.60 Tons (two
8.70 T axles and one 2.20 T axle totaling 21.80 Tons) as compared to the H-15 design of 13.60 T.
Bridge designs made using AS procedures with an allowable of 5 percent overstress for some
components are to be re-analyzed using LF procedures.
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, the allowable of 165.40 MPa 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
compatible 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 concrete
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. See Subsection 13.4, Legal Loads.
Specific analysis of structures for overweight loads, particularly super-heavy permits over about
127.30 Tons, 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

AUGUST 2010 REVISION NO. 03 BRIDGE INSPECTION 13-22

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 subsection 13.6, Routing and
Permits.
Temporary repairs must not be considered for Inventory or Operating Ratings. However, temporary
repairs are taken into account when assigning the operational status code of Item 41 to the structure.
Temporary repairs are to be considered for the operational status code only until a more permanent
repair is made and should not be used for more than four years. The Inventory Rating directly affects
the Sufficiency Rating, and therefore temporary repairs must not be assigned any weight in the Load
Rating calculations.
When the design loading is unknown or deterioration exists, load rating calculations must use all field
information and conventional analysis techniques. 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.
[Link] Rating Concrete Bridges with No Plans
A concrete bridge with unknown reinforcing details (no plans) can be rated for AASHTO 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.
There are no signs of significant distress.
Notation that the ratings are assumed must be inserted in the permanent Bridge Record described in
Chapter 8, and the bridge should be inspected at more frequent intervals, usually each year, until an
inspection history of at least four years is developed. This procedure is summarized in detail by
Figure 5-2
Three additional considerations for rating concrete bridges with unknown reinforcing are:
Bridge must exhibit 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 approximately 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
reinforcing, should conform to specifications current at the time of the estimated
construction date.
Appearance should show 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
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
pre-stressed beam bridges with no plans or other documentation.

AUGUST 2010 REVISION NO. 03 BRIDGE INSPECTION 13-23

 Figure 13-2 Load Ratings for Concrete Bridges without Plans

*Permit Trucks with gross or axle weights that exceed the state legal load limits will not be allowed to use these
bridges.
I.F. – Inspection Frequency.
Refer to AASHTO Manual for Condition Evaluation of Bridges, Chapter 7, Section 7.4.

[Link] Examples of Rating Concrete Bridges with No Plans

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. Example 3. Some bridges are composed of pre-stressed beams but no plans exist.
This condition is often found for off-system bridges. The ratings should be done
using conservative 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 12 mm 114 T strands. An

AUGUST 2010 REVISION NO. 03 BRIDGE INSPECTION 13-24

 LF rating using the HS-loading can then be performed based on this number and size
of strand. In some countries, pre-stressed beams were probably never designed to
less than H-15. Most beams have been designed to H-20 or HS-20. Pre-stressed
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
investigation will be required.
[Link] Ratings for Unusual Bridges
Unusual bridges, such as those composed of old railroad flat cars, can be rated, but care must be
taken to ensure that the critical rating component is considered. For instance, flat cars were originally
designed for a maximum 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 transverse stiffening members and floor beams often control the live load capacity.
Another type of unusual bridge is the continuous cast-in-place (CIP) flat slab. Most of these bridges
were designed in the 1940s and 1950s to an H-15 or H-20 load pattern. Unfortunately, the design
negative moments were from the single truck load in one span. Current design procedures use a lane
load with two concentrated loads in adjacent spans for the controlling negative moment case for
longer continuous bridges or with two heavy axles of the HS-20 load pattern at variable spacing in
adjacent spans for shorter continuous bridges. These bridges are thus under designed for HS-
loadings and as a consequence many should actually be load posted. However, the current AASHTO
Bridge Specifications do not differentiate 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 will make live load distribution adjustments
based on the number of lanes loaded for flat slab bridges. However, this must be done with care and
properly correlated to two- or three-dimensional methods of analysis.
[Link] HS and HS Load Ratings
Previously, all ratings were done with the equivalent H-truck, shown in Figure 13-1, or the HS-truck
shown in Figure 13-1. Currently all ratings are only with the HS-truck. A moment equivalency
conversion 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,
particularly since load distribution assumptions of the AASHTO Bridge Specifications 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 14.634 M 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. A LF rating must be made.
13.4.5 Legal Loads and Load Posting
[Link] Definition of Legal Loads
Legal Loads are those that 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 Legal Load for evaluation of the need for load posting.
Truck loads are considered “legal” if the gross load, axle load, axle configuration, length, and width
are within the current size and weight laws or rules.
In general, the maximum gross load on any truck cannot exceed 36.40 T, the maximum load on any
pair of tandem axles cannot exceed 15.50 T, and the maximum load on any single axle cannot
exceed 9.10 T. Total length must not exceed 19.80 M and total width must not exceed 2.44 M.
Legal Loads do not have a greater effect on bridges than the current HS-20 design total gross load of
32.70 T even though they may have a total “legal” weight of 38.20 T. This apparent contradiction is
due to the different axle load configurations and numbers of axles.
[Link] Load Posting

AUGUST 2010 REVISION NO. 03 BRIDGE INSPECTION 13-25

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 Legal Loads. Posting may be at Operating 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 levels.
All load postings of a given truck size actually mean that two trucks of the posted capacity can 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 (8.20 T gross load) can
safely carry a single truck of significantly more than 8.20 T. 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 5.50 M. This condition usually occurs due to the volume of truck
traffic, structure width or approach roadway width, striping, runners, etc. making them functionally
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 analysis,
and LF analysis methods which usually increase Inventory Ratings significantly more than the original
design loading.
The recommended load posting of all off-system bridges must be supplied to the affected localities.
HIB will provide the necessary posting signs and placement hardware.

Figure 13-3 On-System Load Posting Guidelines

Permit Loads will not be allowed on bridges that are load posted.
If the bridge has not been rehabilitated or replaced in 24 months then the structure shall be closed.
I.F. – Inspection Frequency.
OR – Operating Rating (Item 64)
IR – Inventory Rating (Item 66)

AUGUST 2010 REVISION NO. 03 BRIDGE INSPECTION 13-26

 Figure 13-4 Off-System Load Posting Guidelines

Permit Loads will not be allowed on bridges that are load posted
If the bridge has not been rehabilitated or replaced in 24 months then the structure shall be closed.
I.F. – Inspection Frequency
OR – Operating Rating (Item 64)
IR – Inventory Rating (Item 66)

AUGUST 2010 REVISION NO. 03 BRIDGE INSPECTION 13-27

 Figure 13-5 Typical Load Posting Signs

AUGUST 2010 REVISION NO. 03 BRIDGE INSPECTION 13-28

 [Link] 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 13-1 Changing Load Posting of an On-System Bridge

Changing Load Posting of an On- System Bridge

Step Responsible Action
Party
1 Inspection Complete "Recommend change in Bridge Load Zoning" Form,Makes a request
Contractor that involves a new limit or a reduction of a current load limit, attach the most
recent inspection report, plans (lay-outs and structural details), and any load
ratings that support the recommended change
2 RBD Review the request and supporting documents, and if review supports the
recommended change issues an instruction order.
3 Inspection Notify the the Traffic Authorities of any valid load restriction order
Contractor
4 Traffic Will erect signs indicating proper load limit
Authorities
5 Inspection Will verify if the proper load limit has been erected and record the date of
Contractor erection

Under the following conditions, Inspection Branch should submit a completed Form showing reasons
for 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.
[Link] 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.

Table 13-2 Emergency Load Posting of an On-System Bridge

Changing Load Posting of an On- System Bridge

Step Responsible Action
Party
1 Ins pe cti on Noti fy the RBD tha t a n e mergency l oa d res tri cti on i s re qui red.
Contra ctor Identi fy defici encie s tha t jus ti fy the pla cement of a n e me rgency loa d l i mi t
2 Ins pe cti on De termine the loa d l i mi t, i f requi red a nd verba l l y a uthori ze a n emerge ncy loa d
Contra ctor res tri cti on for a peri od not to exce ed 60 da ys i f neces s a ry
3 RBD Is s ues a n order a uthorizi ng tempora ry loa d l i mi ts a nd s peci fyi ng the dura tion
of the tempora ry l i mi t
4 Ins pe cti on Noti fy the the Tra ffi c Authoriti es of any bri dge loa d res tri cti on
Contra ctor
5 Tra ffi c Authori ties Wi ll e rect s i gns immedi a tel y i ndi ca ti ng e mergency l oa d l imi t

If the emergency load limit is required for a period longer than 60 days, Inspection contractor should
submit a request to the RBD 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
Inspection Contractor should submit a request to the RBD for a permanent load restriction following
the procedure for changing on-system bridge load postings.
[Link] Closure of Weak Bridges

AUGUST 2010 REVISION NO. 03 BRIDGE INSPECTION 13-29

Bridges with less than an HS-3 Operating Rating capacity must be closed. These policies must be
followed for on-system bridges and are strongly recommended for the municipalities with jurisdiction
over off-system 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 category open, then the inspection frequency must not exceed six months and the bridge must be
categorized for Priority 1 rehabilitation or replacement. If after 24 months the bridge has not been
rehabilitated or replaced, then it should be closed.
[Link] Off-System Bridge Closure Procedures
If inspection reveals deterioration that affects an off-system bridge’s ability to safely carry vehicular
traffic, the department may use the following procedure to recommend that it be closed for safety
reasons:

Table 13-3(a) Off-System Closure Procedures

Recommending Off- System Bridge Closures

Step Responsible Action
Party
1 I ns pecti on Wi l l immedi a tel y notify the RBD if i t determi nes tha t a bri dge s hould be
Contra ctor clos ed ba s ed on the res ults of i ns pecti on they conducted.
2 RBD They wi ll verify a s s oon a s pos s ibl e the condi ti on of a bri dge recommended
for cl os ure by Ins pection Contra ctor.
3 RBD Wi l l immedi a tel y notify the the Tra ffic Authorities of a va li d cl os ure
recommenda tion.
4 Tra ffic Wi l l cl os e the bridge a nd notify the RBD when the bri dge i s clos ed to
Authorities tra ffi c.
5 I ns pecti on Wi l l verify closure of the bri dge when it receives notifi ca ti on a nd wil l i ncl ude
Contra ctor a photo or certi fi ed documenta tion veri fyi ng clos ure i n the bridge ins pection
fi l e a nd wi ll prompt upda te the Bri dge I ns pection da ta ba se to refl ect the
cl osure s ta tus of the bri dge. (See Item 41 i n the coding _gui de)
6 I ns pecti on If the bri dge wi ll rema n clos ed for a n extended peri od of time, they wil l veri fy
Contra ctor a nd document with a photo tha t the bri dge i s s ti l l cl os ed to tra ffic a s pa rt of
the regul a r inspection cycle .

13.5 Routing and Permits

13.5.1 Overview
This Chapter includes discussion of the following topics:
Role of the Bridge Inspection Engineers, and the Traffic Authorities
Permits
Example Comparison of Inventory, Operating, and Permit Loads
13.5.2 Role of Inspection Engineers and the Traffic Authorities
One of the responsibilities of the Bridge Inspection Engineer is to assist the Traffic Authorities in the
evaluation of over-height and over-width permit routes based on experience. The current electronic
Bridge Inventory Files are expected to be accurate; however, should the values for clearances in the
Bridge Inventory Files appear suspect, the actual plans should be reviewed and/or a field visit made
prior to issuing a permit. The Traffic Authorities issues the permit only after review by the RBD.
A supplementary role of the Bridge Inspection Engineer is to notify the Traffic Authorities of any
changes to bridge load postings, particularly for bridges which have never been previously posted.
The Traffic Authorities shall maintain a master set of maps showing the various width, height, and
load restrictions on all highways.
All permits are issued by the Traffic Authorities with the cooperation of the RBD. For overweight
permits, the Traffic Authorities also works closely with the RBD. Any super-heavy permits must also
be coordinated the RBD for structural evaluation of the bridges on a proposed route. This process is
fully explained below.

AUGUST 2010 REVISION NO. 03 BRIDGE INSPECTION 13-30

The Traffic Authorities, in conjunction with the owner-mover, selects a preliminary route based on
known information in the Bridge Inventory Files, day-to-day construction status, road closures, and
other known route restrictions.
13.5.3 Permits
[Link] Over-height and Over-width Permits
Permits are required 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 bridge unless the weight and axle load distribution is
such the overweight permit may also be required.
The electronic Bridge Inventory file gives the values fro available clearances as Items 51 (Roadway
Width), 52 (Deck Width), 53 (Vertical Clearance Over Roadway), 54.2 (Vertical Clearance Under
Bridge), 55 (Lateral Under-clearance on Right), and 56 (Lateral Under-clearance 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 Bridge Inspector can quickly access the electronic Bridge Inventory file to determine if the
proposed route is capable of handling the proposed over-width or over-height load. Truss bridges are
particularly of concern for both these types of loads since many are in the 5.5 M – 6.5 M 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 millimeters of clearance over
the roadway, including shoulders rounded down to the nearest millimeter. The posted clearance
signs are normally 76.3 mm less than this value. The clearance symbols maintained on the Traffic
Authorities permit maps are rounded down to the next 150 mm below the posted clearance. For
instance, if the actual recorded clearance is 4320 mm, the clearance sign is 4240 mm, and the permit
maps show the maximum available clearance as 4110 mm. Occasional over-height loads can
therefore be permitted for heights slightly over the limits given in the Traffic Authority permit maps
provided there is close coordination between the RBD and the owner-mover with 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 with the careful cooperation of all concerned parties including escort vehicles and traffic
control. Damage and or removal of signs and delineators may occur for some over-width permits.
RBD personnel should ensure that all such temporary changes be corrected immediately after the
permit load has passed.
[Link] Overweight Permit Loads
Misconceptions often arise about the relationship between Operating Ratings and Overweight Permit
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 Operating
Rating is based on the standard AASHTO load distribution given in the current Standard
Specifications for Highway Bridges for multi-lane distribution for bridges over 5.50 M 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 permit load analysis being significantly more liberal than Operating Rating
analysis. The current Operating and Inventory Ratings, the age and type of structure, the span
lengths, and the Condition Ratings are reviewed for any structure proposed on a permit route. Any
Condition Rating of 4 or less acts as a flag to the permit route reviewer who will then 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.
[Link] Super-heavy Loads
Overweight Permit Loads are classified as “routine” or “super-heavy.” Routine Overweight Permit
Loads may be allowed in the regular traffic stream, sometimes with escorts if the load is also over-
length or over-width. Therefore, the standard AASHTO load distributions are appropriate since there
may be a legal truck alongside the routine permit truck crossing a bridge at the same time.

AUGUST 2010 REVISION NO. 03 BRIDGE INSPECTION 13-31

The term Super-heavy Permit Load usually designates total loads over 115.6 T gross to represent the
lower range of a typical super-heavy load and consists of a 6.5 T steering axle followed by four
groups of three axles, each totaling 27.3 T. Any configuration with multiple axles with a gross load of
over 115.6 T is considered a super-heavy 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 super-heavy. Any load exceeding 91.0 T with a total overall length of less than 29.0
M is also considered super-heavy.
The Super-heavy 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 super-heavy load and also gives
better load distribution. The AASHTO load distributions used for super-heavy loads are therefore
usually single lane, thus allowing higher Super-heavy Permit gross loads to safely cross the bridge.
A printout of the proposed list of bridges to be crossed is reviewed by the Traffic Authorities and the
RBD. Often, based on experience of the evaluator and other guidelines, it is necessary to structurally
evaluate only a fraction of the bridges on an extensive proposed super-heavy route. Any bridges on
the route which have Deck Condition Rating or Superstructure or Substructure Component Ratings of
4 or less, trigger the need for review of the actual written Bridge Inspection Record. This bridge-by-
bridge evaluation is one of the primary reasons that the data in the electronic Bridge Inventory Files
must be accurate and up-to-date.
Super-heavy Permit Loads are usually speed-controlled on bridges, sometimes as slow as a walk
speed to minimize impact forces.
Many Super-heavy Permit Loads also have greater than the usual 1.83- M axle gage. The gages for
Super-heavy Permits can commonly be as much as 6.10 M with 16 tires on each axle line. Methods
of load distribution for these special carriers cannot directly use the customary AASHTO distributions,
which are based on 1.83- M axle gages with four tires on an axle line.
[Link] Other Differences between Overweight Permits and Operating Rating
There are other major difference 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 percent
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 AS
methods has essentially the same factor of safety as an analysis using LF criteria. This result will be
demonstrated below by a specific example comparison.
[Link] Overloads on Posted or Substandard Bridges
Occasionally a request is made for a Routine Overweight Permit or a Super-heavy Overweight Permit
to cross a load-posted bridge. Traffic Authorities does not allow overweight permits for posted
bridges. However RBD can allow overweight vehicles to cross load-posted bridges only when there is
no other route. For these cases, RBD qualified Contractors perform structural evaluation of the
bridge(s) in close coordination with the mover of the load. The evaluations may consider the use of
shimmed mats, temporary shoring, or specialized moving equipment that allows redistribution of the
load between axle groups as the load crosses.
Certain other bridges that are not load posted may not be capable of carrying Routine Overweight
Permit Loads or Super-heavy Permit Loads. Bridges that are in this category include, but are not
limited 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 conditions.
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 overload permits
are considered. This is the primary reason that the original design loads given in the electronic Bridge

AUGUST 2010 REVISION NO. 03 BRIDGE INSPECTION 13-32

Inventory Files should be entered correctly. Often these bridges have been widened, and the
widening design load has been incorrectly entered as the original design load.
[Link] Pre- and Post Move Inspection
Another occasional responsibility of the Bridge Inspection Supervisor/ Engineer 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
overweight 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.
13.5.4 Example of Inventory, Operating, and Permit Loads
[Link] Typical Continuous I-Beam Bridge
To further demonstrate the differences between the various types of analyses, a typical standard
bridge is chosen for comparative analysis. This bridge is a three-span continuous I-Beam bridge
originally designed in the 1950s and 1960s. These Bridges were commonly designed to H-15 loads
(13.6 Tons).
This bridge has a 7.90 M. roadway between faces of railings and is composed of four 762 mm deep
wide-flange rolled beams with relatively short cover plates at the interior supports. The beams are
spaced at 2240 mm, and the slab is 1650 mm. An elevation and cross-section of the bridge are
shown in Figure 13-6. 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 254 mm.
x15.875 mm x 4268 mm cover plates top and bottom at supports.

AUGUST 2010 REVISION NO. 03 BRIDGE INSPECTION 13-33

 Figure 13-6 Typical I-Beam Bridge Elevation and Cross-Section

[Link] Rating Analysis Steps

The steps used in the typical rating analysis for the structure are describes below.
1. 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 verification for the estimated dead load. Use the total steel weight,
which includes the diaphragms, as a uniform load per 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.
2. 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 supports. 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 continuous beam coefficients is
also acceptable. The normal sizes of cover plates over supports will “draw” up to

AUGUST 2010 REVISION NO. 03 BRIDGE INSPECTION 13-34

 about 6 to 12 percent more negative moment, and will reduce positive moments when
compared 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 used influence coefficients for a constant cross section.
3. Determine Controlling Live Loading Conditions. Some computer programs do
this determination automatically, but there is risk in using these programs unless the
user is familiar with their limitations and assumptions. One popular program is
BMCOL51, 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 super-heavy 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:

a. Max positive moment in end and center spans will usually be from an HS-20
live load with 4.20 M center-to-center of trailer axles. However, for very long
plate girders, the lane loading criteria may sometimes control positive moment.

b. Max negative moment will also usually be from the HS pattern, perhaps with
more than 4.20M between the trailer axles if total length of first plus second
spans is less than about 21.30 M. If the sum of the first two spans is more
than about 22.90 M or 24.40 M, 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.
4. Calculate the Moments and Load Ratings. Apply the appropriate load factors for
the various ratings 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.
5. 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 maximum dead load or live load moment. This condition is
another reason to use a computer analysis such as BMCOL51.
6. 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 21.00– 25.14 – 21.00 M spans.
[Link] 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 124 MPa.
In 1965 many standard details were changed to specify “H.Y.C.” structural steel which is equivalent to
ASTM A-36. 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
summarized in the following table:

AUGUST 2010 REVISION NO. 03 BRIDGE INSPECTION 13-35

 Table 13-3(b) Comparison of Analyses for Example Bridge

Loa ding Ana l ysi s Method 1s t or 3rd Span Support Middl e 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 = Li ght Ra il i ng a nd no overl a y Y=T501R ra il ing a nd 2-in overl a y
AS=Al l owa bl e Stres s LF= Loa d Fa ctor ,
OR=Opera ti ng Ra ting I R = Inventory Ra ti ng
*= Controll i ng Ra ting

[Link] Discussion of the Analysis Comparisons

The various analyses summarized in Table 13-3(b) 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 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.
1. H (1) - Used to verify analysis with an assumed allowable stress of 124.02 MPa which
is appropriate for A7 steel. Also assumed to have no overlay and light railings. Note
that the controlling rating 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.
2. H (2) - This comparison analysis was made with an allowable stress of 137.80 MPa,
which is appropriate for A36 steel. The remainder of the following comparisons are
also with A36 steel.
3. 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 T, which compares with the H17.6
rating truck of 17.6 T.
4. HS (4) - This analysis demonstrates the effect of using the actual current in-place
modern railing, a T501R retrofit railing in this case, and a 50 mm 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.
5. 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 27 T
or two trucks side-by-side totaling 54 T.
6. 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 45 T
or two trucks side-by-side totaling 90 T.
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.
13.6 Bridge Programming

13.6.1 Basis for Bridge Rehabilitation or Replacement

A bridge is considered to be Structurally Deficient if it is not able to carry the truck loads expected of
the bridge. The highway or road system on which the bridge is located affects the expected truck
loading. For instance, a bridge on the Interstate highway system must be considered able to have an
Inventory Rating of at least HS-20, while a bridge on an off-system county road would be considered
adequate to carry its necessary truck loads if the Inventory Rating was HS-15.

AUGUST 2010 REVISION NO. 03 BRIDGE INSPECTION 13-36

A bridge is considered to be Functionally Obsolete if the deck width, vertical clearance, waterway
adequacy, or approach roadway alignment is not adequate for the traffic type, traffic volume, or
expected flood waters.
13.6.2 Bridge Program
[Link] Qualification for Rehabilitation or Replacement
HIB projects are selected using a prioritization process that calculates a score for each candidate
bridge project. The score considers Average Daily Traffic (ADT), cost per vehicle, bridge condition,
roadway width, and the bridge Sufficiency Rating. The scoring process is referred to as the Eligible
Bridge Selection System (EBSS). The selection of bridges is made yearly in the order of descending
TEBSS scores for the on- and off-system eligible bridges. However, bridges with one or more critical
deficiencies may also be selected, regardless of EBSS score. Such critical deficiencies are defined
as extremely low Condition Ratings, Sufficiency Ratings, or load capacities. For instance, bridges
which are closed, or that have a Deck Condition plus Superstructure Condition Rating of 10 or less,
automatically qualify. Bridges that have Sufficiency Ratings less than 30 also automatically qualify.
[Link] Eligible Bridge Selection System (EBSS)
The Sufficiency Rating, established during the biennial bridge inspections, plays an important role in
selecting which of the bridges are eligible for rehabilitation or replacement. In order for a bridge to be
considered eligible, it must have a Sufficiency Rating of 80 or less and be either Structurally Deficient
or Functionally Obsolete. These three terms are defined in following subsections with the same titles.
If the Sufficiency Rating is below 50, the bridge is eligible for replacement or rehabilitation if the
anticipated replacement costs are greater than 120 percent of the rehabilitation costs. Rehabilitation
may be considered if the Sufficiency Rating is between 50 and 80. Bridges cannot be considered
eligible if their Sufficiency Rating is greater than 80.
[Link] 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)
or if there is 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
[Link] Functional Obsolescence
Three methods establish if a bridge is Functionally Obsolete:
1. An Appraisal Rating of 3 or less for Item 68 (Roadway Geometry), and Item 51
(Bridge Roadway Width) is less than the following:

Table 13-4 Functionally Obsolete

I tem 29 (ADT) Item 51 (Roa dwa y Wi dth)

equa l to l es s tha n Curb to Curb (feet)
250 20
750 22
2700 24
5000 30

ADT greater than 35,000 requires review by HIB Bridge Division

2. An Appraisal Rating of 3 or less for either of:
Item 69 (under-clearances) or
Item 72 (Approach Roadway Alignment)

AUGUST 2010 REVISION NO. 03 BRIDGE INSPECTION 13-37

 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, & 8
3. An Appraisal Rating of 3 or less for either of:
Item 67 ( Structural Condition) or
Item 71 ( Waterway Adequacy)
13.6.3 Sufficiency Ratings
[Link] Calculation of Sufficiency Ratings
The Sufficiency Rating of a bridge is determined during the biennial bridge inspection and is 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 during the bridge field inspection
and evaluation. The items considered below are those described in the instructions for 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.
An interactive program can be used to calculate Sufficiency Ratings and determine Structural
Deficiency and Functional Obsolescence. One of those programs is called BRISUF and it calculates
the Sufficiency Rating based on data entered through an interactive prompt process
Whether using the prompted program BRISUF or hand calculations, the Sufficiency Rating (SR) is
calculated by the equation:
SR = S1 + S2 + S3 - S4
A discussion of how to arrive at each variable immediately follows.
S1 is the Structural Adequacy and Safety (55 maximum, 0 minimum) calculated by the equation:
S1 = 55 - ( A + I )
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
I is the Reduction for Load Capacity (not to exceed 55 or be less than 0) calculated by the following
equation and table: I= 0.2778 ( 36 - AIT )
AIT is the Adjusted Inventory Tonnage, calculated by the following table of multipliers based on Item
66 (Inventory Rating):

Table 13-5 Adjusted Inventory Tonnage

1s t di git of AI T=2nd & 3rd di gi ts

I tem 66 i s … of Item 66
mul tipl ied by …..
1 1.56
2 1.00
3 1.56
4 1.00
5 1.21
6 1.21
9 1.00

AUGUST 2010 REVISION NO. 03 BRIDGE INSPECTION 13-38

S2 is the Serviceability and Functional Obsolescence (30 maximum, 0 minimum) calculated by the
equation:
S2 = 30 -[J + ( G + H ) + I ]
J is a Rating Reduction (not to exceed 15) calculated by the following equation and tables:
J=A+B+C+D+E+F
If Item 58 If Item 67
(Deck Condition) (Structural Evaluation)
3 A=5 3 B=4
=4 A=3 =4 B=2
=5 A=1 =5 B=1
6 A=0 6 B=0
=N A=0 =N B=0

If Item 68 If Item 69
(Deck Geometry) (Under-clearances)
3 C=4 3 D=4
=4 C=2 =4 D=2
=5 C=1 =5 D=1
6 C=0 6 D=0
=N C=0 =N D=0

If Item 71 If Item 72
(Waterway Adequacy) (Approach Roadway Alignment)
3 E=4 3 F=4
=4 E=2 =4 F=2
=5 E=1 =5 F=1
6 E=0 6 F=0
=N E=0 =N F=0

(G + H ) is a Width of Roadway Insufficiency (not to exceed 15) calculated by the following

relationships. The values for X and Y are first found by the following two equations: X (ADT/Lane) =
Item 29 (ADT) ÷ First two digits of Item 28 (Lanes) Y (Width/Lane) = Item 51 (Roadway Width) ÷ First
two digits of Item 28 (Lanes)
Use following three conditions of (1), (2), or (3) to then obtain the values for G and H :
1. For all bridges except culverts : (Item 43.4, Culvert Type, must be blank or 0)

a. If Item 51 (Roadway Width) + 2 feet is less than Item 32 (Approach Roadway

Width), set G = 5

b. If Item 51 (Roadway Width) + 2 feet is greater than or equal to Item 32

(Approach Roadway Width), set G = 0
2. For one-lane bridges (including one-lane culverts):

a. If the first two digits of Item 28 (Lanes) = 01, and Y < 14 set H = 15

b. 14 Y < 18 set H = 3.75 ( 18 - Y )

c. Y 18 set H = 0
3. For bridges with two or more lanes (including culverts):

a. If 1st two digits of Item 28 = 02 and Y 16, set H = 0

b. If 1st two digits of Item 28 = 03 and Y 15, set H = 0

AUGUST 2010 REVISION NO. 03 BRIDGE INSPECTION 13-39

 c. If 1st two digits of Item 28 = 04 and Y 14, set H = 0

d. If 1st two digits of Item 28 = 05 and Y 12, set H = 0

If any one of the above four conditions is met, do not continue with further determination of H since no
lane width reductions are necessary.
Otherwise, determine H based on the following values for X (ADT/Lane) and Y (Width/Lane):

If and set
X 50 Y<9 H = 7.5
Y 9 H=0

50 < X 125 Y < 10 H = 15

10 Y < 13 H = 5.0 (13 Y)
Y 13 H=0

125 < X 375 Y < 11 H = 15

11 Y < 14 H = 5.0 (14 Y)
Y 14 H=0

375 < X 1350 Y < 12 H = 15

12 Y < 16 H = 3.75 (16 Y)
Y 16 H=0

X > 1350 Y < 15 H = 15

15 Y < 16 H = 15.0 (16 Y)
Y 16 H=0

Note that in any case, the value of (G + H ) cannot exceed 15.

I is a Vertical Clearance Insufficiency (not to exceed 2) set by the following:

1. If Item 100 (Strategic Highway Corridor Network, also called STRAHNET) is greater
than 0 and Item 53 (Min Vert Clearance over deck) 1600 set I = 0 Item 53 (Min Vert
Clearance over deck) < 1600 set I = 2
2. If Item 100 (STRAHNET) is equal to 0 and Item 53 (Min Vert Clearance over deck)
1400 set I = 0 Item 53 (Min Vert Clearance over deck) < 1400 set I = 2
S3 is the Essentiality for Public Use (not to exceed 15) calculated by the equation:
S3 = 15 - ( P + M )
P is the portion for Public Use (not to exceed 15) First calculate K which is a value based on
the previously calculated S1 and S2 : K = ( S1 + S2 ) ÷ 85 P = (Item 29 (ADT) × Item 19
(Detour Length) × 15) ÷ (200,000 × K)
M is the portion for Military Use (not to exceed 2) If Item 100 (Strategic Highway Corridor
Network, also called STRAHNET) is greater than 0, set M = 2 If Item 100 (STRAHNET) is
equal to 0, set M = 0
Note that in any case, the value of ( P + M ) cannot exceed 15.
S4 is a Special Reduction which is used only when S1 + S2 + S3 is greater than or equal to 50.
S4 is calculated by the following equation: S4 = R + S + T
R is a Detour Length Reduction (5 maximum, 0 minimum) R = [ Item 19 (Detour Length) ]4 x [
5.205 X 10-8 ]
S is a Structure Type Reduction set by the following: If the 1st digit of Item 43.1 (Main Span
Type) is 7 or 8 (Movable, Suspension, or Stayed), or if the 2nd digit of Item 43.1 is 2, 3, 4, 5,
6, or 7 (portion of structure is beside or above roadway), set S = 5 Otherwise, set S = 0

AUGUST 2010 REVISION NO. 03 BRIDGE INSPECTION 13-40

 T is a Traffic Safety Feature Reduction set by Item 36 (Traffic Safety Features) which rates
the adequacy of the bridge railings, transitions, and approach guard fences:
If 1 or none of the 4 digits of Item 36 are 0, set T = 0
If 2 of the 4 digits of Item 36 are 0, set T = 1
If 3 or the 4 digits of Item 36 are 0, set T = 2
If all 4 of the digits of Item 36 are 0, set T = 3
13.7 Bridge Records

13.7.1 Overview
[Link] Summary
This presents the specific requirements for inspection records for Libyan bridges. Records must be
prepared and kept in a consistent manner, whether done by RBD personnel or by Contractors.
This chapter includes discussion of the following major topics:
Definition of Terms
Contractors Requirements
Coding Guidelines
Forms
Calculations
Data Submittal
Bridge Folder
13.7.2 Definition of Terms
[Link] Bridge Record Terms
A partial list of definitions related to bridge inspection is provided in various chapters of this Manual.
The following discussion of Bridge Records includes some specific terms:
Bridge
A 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 6M between faces of abutments,
spring lines of arches, or extreme ends of the openings for multiple box culverts or multiple pipes that
are 1.50M or more in diameter and that have a clear distance between openings of less than half of
the smallest pipe diameter.
Bridge Folder
The file for each bridge maintained by the District Bridge Inspection Coordinator. The Bridge Folder
has dividers on which the various bridge record documents can be fastened in a specific order.
Bridge Identification
The unique 12-digit number assigned to any structure meeting the definition of a bridge. The number
includes the 3-digit Shabiya Number, the 4-digit Control Number, the 2-digit Section Number, and the
3-digit Permanent Structure Number. The Planning Department assigns the 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 File
This consists of electronic data of RBD’s bridge inventory, inspection, and appraisal files for each
bridge on a public roadway in Libya. The data can be entered from a completed coding form or can be
are entered directly from an input screen of any appropriate data entry device. The instructions for
coding guide describe the step-by-step data entry requirements.
Bridge Record
The 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 Inventory File stored

AUGUST 2010 REVISION NO. 03 BRIDGE INSPECTION 13-41

on electronic media. The Bridge Record also includes the bridge plans, if available, copies of which
should be in the Bridge Folder. Some of the bridge plans may also be available on electronic media
in the form of computer-aided drafting (CAD) drawings.
Culverts
Multiple-barrel box culverts or multiple-pipe culverts are sometimes classed as bridges and a
complete Bridge Record is made. The 1994 AASHTO Manual defines a bridge as any structure
carrying traffic (highway or railroad) having an opening measured along the centerline of the roadway
of more than 6.0 M 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 1.80 M
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. To facilitate consistency in future recording of culvert installations, a
separate subsection titled Multiple-Pipe Culverts is contained in this chapter.
Elements Data
The supplemental electronic bridge inventory, inspection, and appraisal data taken for RBD, the data
are entered on forms, but entry from a prompt screen of an appropriate data entry device can also be
used. The Elements: Field Inspection and Coding Manual describes the step-by-step data entry
requirements.
Engineer
The Professional Engineer having responsibility for ensuring the accuracy of the information
contained in the Bridge Record. A pre-qualified Contractor that has a Consulting Engineer on board
engaged by HIB to perform routine bridge inspections is also considered in the following discussions
to be covered by the term Engineer. The same basic procedures are used by RBD personnel as are
required for Contractors.
Forms
Specific forms such as Bridge Inspection Record Form, Bridge Appraisal Worksheet Form, Bridge
Inventory Record Form. Some forms may be developed as needed for specific types of data or
classes of structure.
NBI Sheet
A 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 HIB.
Permanent Structure Number (PSN)
A unique three-digit number assigned to any structure meeting the definition of a bridge. It is part of
the 12-digit Bridge Identification. PSNs are assigned by Control in ascending order as the bridges are
built and are not necessarily in sequence along the Control or Section. 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. Shabias assign similar unique numbers to off-system bridges. An
off-system 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 substructure is common.
Route Over or Under
A 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
lower route takes precedence if the highways are of equal hierarchy.
Signing and Sealing.
The Engineer must sign and date many of the documents prepared for a bridge inspection.
Work Authorization.
Authorization issued by HIB to a Contractor (Engineer) to perform inspections of bridge structures.
The Work Authorization is normally issued for a specific period of time with a commencement and
ending date specified. To receive Work Authorizations, Contractors must pre-qualify by
demonstrating that they and their staffs are competent to inspect bridges.

AUGUST 2010 REVISION NO. 03 BRIDGE INSPECTION 13-42

13.7.3 Contractor Requirements
[Link] General Requirements
Contractor (Engineers) engaged by RBD to perform routine bridge inspections must adhere to the
following general requirements in addition to those normally expected for Contractors.
The Contractor (Engineer) must inspect each bridge in accordance with the information given in this
Manual and must record the findings electronically and on the appropriate standard forms. The
Engineer must uphold a reasonable standard of care for routine inspections, which is understood to
imply an attentive visual and auditory inspection aided by routine inspection tools as afforded by
customary means of access.
The Engineer must inspect the bridges within the assigned inspection areas only and must verify the
bridge locations. A qualified Inspection Team Leader must be present at each bridge site during the
bridge inspection. When the inspections are completed, reports are to be returned to RBD within 30
days from the date of inspection. However, bridges needing special consideration (which includes all
bridges that have any Condition Rating of 4 or lower) must be brought to the immediate attention of
the RBD, both verbally and in writing. If the inspection indicates significant deterioration of any
structural element, documentation such as notes, measurements, sketches, and photos must be
included.
[Link] Tools and Safety Equipment
Routine inspection tools are listed in this Manual. The Engineer is required to use hard hats, safety
vests, traffic cones, vehicle safety lights, and “Bridge Inspection Ahead” or “Survey Crew Ahead”
signs for all bridges being inspected. The inspections must be conducted with minimal disruption to
traffic.
Coordination with Housing and Infrastructure Board- Roads and Bridge Department (HIB-RBD)
A 216 x 279 mm copy of the bridge location map, with the bridge location highlighted, must be
included as part of each Bridge Record.
New bridges located by the Engineer require approval from RBD before an identification number
(Permanent Structure Number) is assigned and before authorization can be given for the Engineer to
inspect the bridge and add the data to the Bridge Record. Bridge locations must be indicated on the
map(s). The Engineer must create a new Bridge Folder, complete all forms, and input all data
required for the electronic Bridge Inventory File to ensure a complete and accurate record. The
Engineer must not inventory or inspect a bridge that is under construction. If the bridge opens to
public traffic at a reasonable time within the work authorization period, RBD may direct the Engineer
to inventory and inspect the bridge.
13.7.4 Coding Guidelines
[Link] Summary of Instructions (for on-and off-system bridges)
The Engineer must adhere to the step-by-step instructions for entering the data in the electronic
Bridge Inventory File as presented in the detailed instructions for coding guide. The Coding Guide
also includes interpretations, examples, and other data input guidance. The Coding Guide follows a
“card” data input sequence summarized on a five-page form not actually used for written entries but
used as an input reference guide. A form could still be used, but data are usually directly input
electronically using prompt screens on a computer, or screen images of the “card” data sequences. In
any case, the resulting electronic Bridge Inventory File for each bridge is in a consistent format. The
data entry procedures apply to both on- and off-system bridges. The electronic Bridge Inventory Files
contain a record for each Bridge Class Structure. The definition of a Bridge Class Structure is
described in Item 112 in the “Instructions for Coding Guide.”
[Link] Multiple-Pipe Culverts (for on- and off-system bridges)
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
installation 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 1500 mm in diameter even if the total installation, including fill between pipes, is
more than 6.0 M along the roadway. Inspections of smaller diameters would be difficult to

AUGUST 2010 REVISION NO. 03 BRIDGE INSPECTION 13-43

 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 1200 mm
pipe culverts and no inspection of an installation of four or fewer pipes of the same
diameter.
Bridge Records must be made and maintained for multiple-pipe culverts that are
individually 1500 mm or greater in diameter, providing the total installation meets the 6.0
M length criterion.
[Link] Data Quality (for on-and-off system bridges)
Data quality for all information kept for each bridge, and in particular the electronic Bridge Inventory
Files, cannot be overemphasized. The data in the files must be kept in as up-to-date condition as
possible. Data updates reflecting changes to an existing on-system structure must be made within 90
days of the evaluation or inspection that denotes the change in status. New, rebuilt, or rehabilitated
structures also must be reported within 90 days of job completion. The data update time limit is 180
days for off-system structures.
[Link] Elements Data (only for on-system bridges)
Element-specific data are to be recorded for each bridge.
The step-by-step instructions for entering the electronic Elements Data are presented in the Elements:
Field Inspection and Coding Manual. The instructions in the “Elements: Field Inspection and Coding
Manual” also include interpretations, examples, and other data input guidance. The Engineer must
determine the element-specific data, quantities, and condition states for each on-system bridge. HIB
requires the Engineer to complete or demonstrate completion of special training for recording
Elements Data. There are currently 6 “Element Matrix” forms presented in the “Elements: Field
Inspection and Coding Manual.” These data supplement but do not replace those data normally
recorded for the electronic Bridge Inventory File. The Elements Data are also recorded electronically.
A copy on computer diskette in the required format is submitted to the RBD.
13.7.5 Forms
[Link] General Forms Information
Specific forms and other information used to record the necessary bridge data are briefly described
below for both on- and off-system bridges. The same data are kept for both on-and off-system
bridges except as noted. The forms and necessary information are to be completed for each bridge
and placed in each file of the Bridge Folder in the proper order. Subsection 13.55, Ratings and Load
Posting, discusses Bridge Inspection Record Form and Bridge Appraisal Worksheet From and relates
them directly to the Condition Ratings and Appraisal Ratings.
[Link] Bridge Inspection Record, (for on- and off-system bridges)
This three-page form presents the inspection information for the basic components of the bridge. The
Engineer enters a rating for each element of each component. For any element rating of 7 or below,
written comments explaining the rating must be included on the form. The signature of the Inspection
Team Leader must be on the form and it must be signed and dated by the Engineer.
[Link] Bridge Appraisal Worksheet, (for on- and off-system bridges)
This two-page form presents a one-digit rating for each of the traffic safety features, the structural
evaluation, the deck geometry, the under-clearances, the load posting, the waterway adequacy, and
the approach roadway alignment. It is also to be completed in accordance with the “Instructions for
Coding Guide.” Unlike BIR Form, BAW Form requires written comments supporting all the appraisal
ratings. These ratings and associated written comments must be verified by the Inspection Team
Leader and reviewed by the responsible Engineer. A date and signature are required for this form.
[Link] Bridge Structural Condition History (for on- and off-system bridges)
This form summarizes the current and previous inspection records. If the form exists in the current
Bridge Folder, it should be updated. If no Structural Condition History form is in the Bridge Folder,
create one based on all the previous and current inspections in the folder. The Engineer must enter
the date(s) of inspection, the Engineer’s name, and the various component ratings in the proper
columns of the form. This form does not require signing. However, the last entry date must reflect the
latest inspection.
[Link] Bridge Inspection Follow-Up Action Worksheet (only for on-system bridges)

AUGUST 2010 REVISION NO. 03 BRIDGE INSPECTION 13-44

This form summarizes the areas of deterioration and makes recommendations for bridge repair. The
number for the HIB R&B Department should be clearly shown on the form.
An extra copy of this form is required for each on-system bridge. These extra copies are grouped with
copies for other bridges with the RBD. These extra copies must be submitted to the RBD at the end
of each series of inspections or at the end of the inspection Work Authorization if done by a
Contractor.
[Link] Bridge Inventory Record, (for on- and off-system bridges)
This two-page form presents a detailed description of the structure along with a detailed elevation
sketch on the reverse side.
Sketches are not required for off-system bridges if copies of the plans are in the Bridge Folder.
Sketches are not required for on-system bridges if plans are maintained in general files by HIB R&B
Department. However, a notation to this effect should be shown on the reverse side of the form along
with the Plan File reference number.
If no changes have been made to the structure and the existing description and sketch properly
represents the field conditions, a new form is not necessary. The existing form must remain in the
Bridge Folder with no modification by the Engineer.
If no Bridge Inventory Record is in the Bridge Folder, the responsible Engineer must complete a new
form. The number for the Bridge Maintenance Section should be clearly shown on the form. The form
must be signed and dated by the Engineer.
If significant structural modifications have been made to the bridge, a new Bridge Inventory Record,
including a detailed sketch showing the changes from the plans on file, must be completed. The new
form must be signed, sealed, and dated by the Engineer.
The Bridge Inventory Record with sketch serves as the best available “as-built plans” if copies of the
original plans are not available. When plans are available and copies are included or the HIB file
location referenced, a detailed sketch on the reverse side of the form is not required.
[Link] Bridge Inventory Record Revision (for on- and off-system bridges)
This form is to be used only for minor, non-structural changes to the Bridge Inventory Record. This
form does not require signing. However, a date is required.
[Link] Channel Cross-Section Measurements Record (for on- and off-system bridges)
This two-page form is completed or updated for each bridge over a waterway (wet or dry). There is
space on the form for four chronological cross-sections (covering approximately eight years). The fifth
and following channel cross sections should be recorded on a new form and the original form retained
in the Bridge Folder. This form is not required for bridge-length culverts. The cross-section
measurements are recorded for the upstream side of the bridge starting at the first abutment. They
must be from the top of the bridge railing or parapet down to the channel bed. These measurements
are made at each bent, each significant change in the channel bed, and at the mid-point of the
channel. The horizontal distance is recorded between each vertical measurement as well as the
cumulative horizontal distance from the beginning of the first abutment. Several additional reference
dimensions are recorded, including top of water level as shown on the form. The responsible
Engineer must add comments on the back of the form. This form require a date and signature.
A sketch on this form is required only for span-type bridges. Bridge-length culverts do not require an
upstream channel sketch or an update to any such sketch that may already be in the Bridge Folder.
Calculations of sediment material quantities will not be required. If there is an existing channel cross-
section, plotted to scale, it should be brought forward into the current sketch and the new data plotted
on it in different color ink and referenced with the Engineer’s initials and date. For all bridges that
have plans available, the current channel section must be plotted on a copy of the bridge layout
sheet(s) made from the plans. Two copies of the layout must be inserted in the Bridge Folder. One
copy must be plotted with the current channel cross section and marked as a “work copy” and one
copy must be identified as a “master copy” with no plot of the current channel cross section. If plans
are not available, a sketch is to be drawn to scale. However, the horizontal and vertical scales may
differ if convenient. This sketch does not require signing or sealing. However, a date is required for
each plot or verification of the current channel cross section.
[Link] Under-clearance Sketch (for on- and off-system bridges)
A sketch on this form is required for all grade separations, including pedestrian, utility, and railroad
underpasses. All necessary dimensions and reference points must be shown. Item 54.2, described in

AUGUST 2010 REVISION NO. 03 BRIDGE INSPECTION 13-45

the instructions for coding guide, must reference the minimum vertical clearance (to the nearest
millimeters) under the structure. The vertical clearance sign must read 75 mm lower than the actual
measured vertical clearance. Ultrasonic measurements cannot be used. This sketch does not
require signing. However, a date is required.
[Link] Bridge Summary Sheet (only for off-system bridges)
This one-page form summarizes each component rating, provides recommendations for structure
upgrades, indicates previous and observed and recommended load postings, records current status
of all signs, and denotes materials needed to properly load post the bridge if necessary. The
Engineer must, where appropriate, provide a recommendation for minimum or moderate upgrading for
each bridge with an Inventory Rating of HS-13 or less. The recommendation should consider the
capabilities of the local jurisdiction. The Engineer must document the condition, location, and number
of all signs in place on the date of inspection at all load-posted bridges. The load limit shown on
existing signs must also be recorded. These signs must appear and be legible in the bridge
photographs. The form must be signed and dated by the Engineer.
[Link] Recommended Change in Bridge Load Zoning, (only for on-system bridges)
This form presents a request for changed load restrictions for an on-system bridge. It must be signed
and dated by an Engineer. If it involves a new limit or a reduction of a current load limit, it must be
accompanied by the most recent inspection report, plans (layouts and structural details), and any load
ratings that support the recommended change.
13.7.6 Calculations
[Link] General Calculation Requirements
Bridge load rating calculations must be provided in accordance with currently accepted HIB bridge
inspection procedures as described in this Manual and in the HIB Bridge Manual. Note that the
methods of calculation are different for on- and off-system bridges.
The dating and signing of documents must be in accordance with the requirements given in this
chapter.
[Link] On-System Bridge Calculations
Typically, on-system bridge plans are on file at the RBD office and the plans contain documentation of
the original design load capacity. Load rating analyses (calculations) are usually not required for on-
system bridges. However, the Engineer is required to provide load rating analysis for all on-system
bridges that have any Condition Rating of 4 or less. All on-system bridge files for all bridge types
must contain documentation to support any recommended changes in load ratings. If the Engineer
agrees with the previous calculations, a concurring signed and dated statement must be provided.
All load rating calculations for on-system bridges must be performed using the Load Factor (LF)
method as presented in the AASHTO Manual for Condition Evaluation of Bridges with no exceptions.
Ratings must be calculated and presented to RBD with only an HS-loading for all on-system bridges
for which calculations are required. Some additional analyses may involve bridges that have section
loss or damage to structural members. In these cases, the responsible Engineer is required to verify
and document the conditions of the deficient members and incorporate those findings in the analyses.
All calculations and documentation referring to load-rating capacity are required to be signed and
dated by a qualified, Professional Engineer.
[Link] Off-System Bridge Calculations
The calculations for off-system bridges may be performed using a Bridge Load Rating (BLR)
computer program, which calculates load ratings using a working stress (WS) analysis method.
However, either WS or LF analysis is acceptable. All steel and truss bridges must have calculations
for the load ratings of all applicable structural elements including the deck, stringer or beams, truss
members, bent caps, and piling or columns. The BLR program will give Inventory and Operating
Ratings for both H- and HS-loadings. However, the recommended load-posting sign must continue to
be based upon Figure 8-1, Simplified Load Posting Procedure, which relates calculated H-load rating
to an equivalent load posting, sign type, and weight limit.
Load rating documentation, including assumptions, is required in the bridge files for all bridges,
including bridge-class culverts. Any assumed load ratings for concrete structures and recommended
load postings must be in conformance with current HIB policies. These policies are described in
Subsection 13.4 Customary Rating Procedures, Rating Concrete Bridges with no Plans, Recording
Appraisal Ratings, Bridge Posting. All off-system bridge files, for all bridge types, must contain

AUGUST 2010 REVISION NO. 03 BRIDGE INSPECTION 13-46

documentation to support any recommended changes in load ratings. If the Engineer agrees with the
previous calculations, a concurring signed and dated statement must be provided.
All calculations and documentation referring to load-rating capacity are required to be signed and
dated by a qualified Professional Engineer. However, it is acceptable to only initial and date the
calculations, and sign, and date the Bridge Summary Sheet for off-system bridges rather than each
page of the calculations.
Special attention is called to the coding of Items 41, 41.1, and 41.2 of the electronic Bridge Inventory
Files (see coding guide) relating to operational status and load-posting limits. These items must be
verified and revised, if needed, for all bridges and bridge-class culverts. The Engineer must
immediately notify the RBD of any bridges recommended for closure and must include details and
calculations. RBD will set a time to discuss the concerns with the Engineer to review the findings if
bridge closure is necessary.
[Link] Simplified Load Posting Procedure
This procedure is appropriate for computing posting loads equivalent to the inventory rating.
Approximations are involved which make this procedure unacceptable at load levels higher than the
Inventory Ratings.
The posting load in pounds is the product of the RATING MULTIPKIER and the INVENTORY
RATING in Tons for the standard “H” truck. In selecting the RATING MULTIPLIER from the table use
the longest simple span length or 80% of the longest continuous span length, whichever gives the
longest span length for the bridge. If the resulting span length is 48.0 M or greater, then the bridge
should receive an analysis more exact than this procedure.
The recommended posting increments are listed below. Round off to the nearest increment listed.
Post axle and gross load for span lengths 12.0 M and greater. Post axle load only for span lengths
12.0 M and less. Weight limit signs should conform to the Traffic Management Section of HIB Design
Criteria. The recommended signs are R12-2Tb or R12-4Tb, except if the axle load is noted use signs
R12-2Tc or R12 -4Tc.
EXAMPLE 1:
10.0M Simple Span Slab & Girder Bridge, H14 Rating
Axle = 14 x 660 Kgs = 9240 Kgs
Post 21,000 tandem axle (Signs R12-2Tc)

EXAMPLE 2:
36.0M Pony Truss. H7 Rating
Axle =7 x 660 = 4,620 Kgs
Gross = 7 x 1045 Kgs = 7315 Kgs
Post 4545 Kgs axle or tandem and 7273 Kgs Gross (sign R 12 -4Tb)

EXAMPLE 3:
9.0 M – 12.0 M – 9.0 M Continuous Slab Bridge with 7.6 M slab approach spans, H10
Rating
0.8 x 12.0 M = 9.0 M > 7.6 M = Use 7.6 M span
Axle = 10 x 673 Kgs = 6730 Kgs
Post 673 Kgs Axle or tandem (Sign R 12 -2Tb)

AUGUST 2010 REVISION NO. 03 BRIDGE INSPECTION 13-47

 Table 13-6 Load Posting Tables

SPAN RATING MULTI PLI ER

AXLE
OR GROSS
TANDEM
METER Kgs ./H-TON Kgs /H-TON
‹6 727
7.6 704
9.1 682
10.7 659
12.2 659 1410
13.7 659 1340
15.2 659 1270
18.3 659 1180
21.3 659 1140
24.4 659 1110
27.4 659 1090
30.5 659 1070
36.6 659 1040
42.7 659 1020
48.8 659 1000

LOAD INCREMENTS LOAD I NCEMENTS

FOR AXLE OR FOR GROSS LBS
TANDEM Kgs
2270 3640
3410 4540
4540 5450
5680 6360
6820 7270
7940 9090
9540 10910
10910* 12730
12730* 14540
14540* 16360
18180
20000
21820
23640
27270
30910
34540
* Axl e l oa d e xce e ds 9090 Kgs . Si ngl e a xl e
l i mi t, the re fore pos t for ta nde m a xl e
(Si gns R 12 -2Tc or R 12- 4Tc)

AUGUST 2010 REVISION NO. 03 BRIDGE INSPECTION 13-48

 Table 13-7 Load Posting Signage

R12 – 2Tb R12 – 2Tc R12 – 4Tb R12 – 4Tc

60mm x 90 mm 60 mm x 105 mm

13.7.7 Data Submittal

[Link] General Data Submittal Requirements (for on- and off-system bridges)
When HIB contracts for bridge inspections by Contractors, the Contractors must provide monthly
submissions of prepared Bridge Folders unless otherwise directed by the RBD. Folders can be
submitted to the RBD by mail or in person.
Bridge Folders prepared by RBD personnel must be documented, signed and dated in the same
format as herein described.
All data included in the Bridge Folder are prepared to meet the requirements given in this Manual.
Updates to the electronic Bridge Inventory File must be made within 90 days for on-system bridges
and 180 days for off-system bridges.
[Link] Photographs (for on- and off-system bridges)
The Engineer must provide 100 mm x 150 mm color photographs of each bridge for the bridge
inspection files. The photos must be suitably mounted, two on a page, with compatible adhesive on
216 mm x 280 mm paper. Spray-on adhesive is not acceptable. Each photo must have a descriptive
caption and must note the approximate compass direction the photographer was facing. Each photo
will have a date taken as part of the caption unless the date is automatically printed on the photo.
Digital photographs will be accepted at a minimum resolution of 1024 x 768. They are to be
presented in the same format and dimension as described above.
The following photos must be present in each Bridge Folder as a minimum:
1. Roadway View. Photos must be taken along the centerline of the roadway looking
“down the bridge” showing views of the bridge as seen from the roadway. The
direction should normally be in the increasing station direction, if known, or in the
increasing direction of the field reference markers. Long or curved bridges may
require multiple photos at different bridge locations.

AUGUST 2010 REVISION NO. 03 BRIDGE INSPECTION 13-49

 2. Elevation View. Photos must be taken of the bridge showing the complete length.
For some bridges it may be impossible to show the entire structure due to length,
curvature, or vegetation. In these cases, oblique angles at greater distances are
acceptable. However, multiple photos attempting to show every part of the bridge
should not be submitted.
3. Underside View. Photos must be taken of the underside of the bridge showing the
typical type of superstructure. Bridges with several types of superstructure will require
additional photos.
4. Stream or Roadway below Bridge. Photos should be taken from below the bridge
showing the stream or roadway as it passes under the bridge. Any scour or
significant erosion that is present should be photographed.
5. Weight Limit Signs. Photos must be taken on both approaches to document the
actual signs in place, missing, or damaged. The photos must show the position of the
signs with respect to the bridge. The weight limit on the signs should be legible in the
photos.
6. Upstream and Downstream Channel Views. Photos must be taken to document
the condition of the channel upstream and downstream of the bridge. These photos
should be taken from the bridge.
7. Photos of Components with Poor Condition. Photos must be taken of all elements
that result in Component Ratings of 4 or less on the Bridge Inspection Record. Details
of the Condition Rating for the deficient elements must be noted in the photo
captions. However, multiple photos are not needed within a deficient element. For
instance, a poor superstructure component rating due to a deficient floor beam does
not mean that detailed photos must also be taken of all the elements making up the
superstructure component.
8. Photos of Unusual Features. Photos should be taken of features which, in the
opinion of the inspector, are unusual, non-standard, or poorly repaired. For instance,
a bridge railing field fabricated from non-standard parts which may not be equivalent
to an acceptable bridge railing should be documented by close-up photos. The
Engineer must determine if it is appropriate to submit these photos as part of the
Bridge Record. Photos of utility attachments should also be made with enough detail
to show the type, condition, and attachment hardware used.
[Link] Electronic Media (for on- and off- system bridges)
The Engineer must provide all applicable electronic data for the Bridge Records on a CD/DVD or
Flash Memory stick. Multiple bridges may be submitted on the same diskette; however, they should
be grouped by local jurisdiction, maintenance section, etc.
[Link] Presentation of Documents (for on- and off-system bridges)
The Engineer must ensure that all inspection results submitted to the Bridge Inspection Division are
typed, using the current versions of the electronic forms where applicable, and are of such quality that
legible reproductions can be made on a typical office copy machine. All copies and records submitted
to be placed in the Bridge Folder should be 216 mm x 280 mm unless another size is allowed by HIB
for the specific application. However, copies of bridge plans may be A3 size paper.
The Contractor Engineer must provide the RBD with the following information in list format at the end
of the Work Authorization. These lists are not placed in the individual Bridge Folders. The lists should
be grouped by jurisdiction such as shabiya,, municipality, city, maintenance section, etc.
1. List of bridges recommended for special inspections. This list must include only
bridges to be added to the current list of bridges with fracture-critical details or
bridges with the need for underwater (scuba diver) inspection. Bridges currently on
the fracture-critical and underwater lists need not be placed on this new
recommended list.
2. List of bridges with poor condition rating. This list must include all bridges that
have an individual element or component with a Condition Rating of 4 or less.
3. List of bridges with over-height load damage. This list must include all bridges
which have damage from over height loads or which have had repairs made after
such damage. The extent of the damage must be documented on the Bridge

AUGUST 2010 REVISION NO. 03 BRIDGE INSPECTION 13-50

 Inspection Record, and Item 128 of the electronic Bridge Inventory File must be
coded.
4. List of bridges with cracked pre-stressed beam ends. This list must include all
bridges that have pre-stressed box beams or pre-stressed concrete beams with
cracks at or near the beam ends. Photos of these cracks must be taken. If common
to several beams in the bridge, only representative photos are needed. The severity,
number of cracks, and specific location of each cracked beam must be indicated.
5. List of bridges requiring changes in Operational Status. This list must include all
bridges that do not meet current HIB load posting policy requirements for posting load
restrictions. This policy is described in Chapter 5 in the subsection titled Load
Posting. The bridges on this list should be grouped by local jurisdiction. Bridges are
not to be placed on this list which currently have a load posting and for which no
change is required.
6. List of bridges requiring vertical clearance changes. This list must include all
bridges requiring changes in the vertical clearance data as indicated by Item 54.2 of
the electronic Bridge Inventory File (see the coding guide). Even though only minor
changes in the actual vertical clearance may have occurred due to a pavement
overlay, the updated data are necessary so RBD can maintain the information
needed for over-height load permits.
7. List of bridges with suggested changes to “blocked” data fields. This list must
be submitted for changes to the blocked data recommended by the Engineer. These
data will be reviewed and updated only by the HIB R&B Department.
[Link] Original and Duplicate Files (for on-system bridges)
For each on-system bridge, the Engineer is required to submit to the RBD one original and one
duplicate Bridge Record. One additional copy of the Bridge Inspection Follow-Up Action Worksheet
(only used for on-system bridges) will also be required. This worksheet is described in the Forms
section of this chapter.
1. Original Bridge Record. The original bridge record must be submitted clipped into
the six-sided Bridge Folder discussed in the following Bridge Folder section of this
chapter. The order of the various forms, sketches, photos, etc in the Bridge Folder
must be made uniform with no exceptions. This original Bridge Record will contain
the originals of all documents created or updated by the Engineer, including photos.
2. Duplicate Bridge Record. A duplicate file must be submitted and clipped into a
manila folder that must contain copies of all the documents prepared by the Engineer,
including color copies of all the mounted photograph sheets with captions.
[Link] Additional Files (for off-system bridges)
For each off-system bridge, the Engineer must submit one Original Bridge Record as described
above, and one set of Summary Reports which are described below. A Duplicate Bridge Record is
not required for off-system bridges.
[Link] Summary Reports (for off-system bridges)
The items to be included in the Summary Reports must be grouped for all the bridges within each
local jurisdiction. The bridges included in each local jurisdiction (regions, municipalities, cities etc.)
must be as agreed upon with the RBD. The arrangement and content of the Summary Reports will
be maintained. The Summary Reports are intended to summarize the bridge inspection findings,
maintenance or repairs needed, and load-posting requirements. The Summary Reports, whether
prepared by the Contractor or by RBD personnel, must be assembled as shown in a typical example
which can be obtained from the RBD. The Summary Report must be delivered to the RBD. The RBD
will forward the Summary Report to the local jurisdiction. Each Summary Report must include the
following information for each bridge:
Color copies of the mounted photograph sheets including captions
A copy of the Bridge Inspection Record
A copy of the Bridge Summary Sheet

AUGUST 2010 REVISION NO. 03 BRIDGE INSPECTION 13-51

 [Link] Summary of New Load-Posting Materials (for off-system bridges)
This form is used to order the signs and hardware needed for each off-system bridge which requires a
change in the load posting. The Engineer must complete this form for each group of bridges within
each local jurisdiction. The bridges included in each local jurisdiction (shabiyas, municipalities,cities)
must be as agreed upon with the RBD. This completed form will be used to ensure that the
necessary materials are available to load post the bridges in each local jurisdiction. The Engineer will
submit this form to the RBD. It must never be submitted in any form to any local jurisdiction. This
form does not require signing. However, a date is required.
[Link] Scour Records and Reports (for on- and off-system bridges)
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. The scour information for most bridges
can usually be directly included in the Bridge Folder. However, some bridges have extensive scour
data, and the location of external scour files must be cross-referenced in the Bridge Folder. The RBD
must determine the amount of scour documents to be included with each Bridge Folder.
13.7.8 The Bridge Folder
[Link] Folder Information (for on- and off-system bridges)
The original records, sketches, plans if available, and latest information on each bridge on Libya
highway system are kept in a consistent and regular manner by RBD.
[Link] Folder Assembly (for on- and off-system bridges)
Each Bridge Folder must have an encompassing folder containing two dividers to which documents
can be fastened. Beginning with the inside surface of the front cover (hereafter called Side 1) and
ending with the inside surface of the back cover (Side 6), the information consists of and is assembled
in the following order in the Bridge Folder.
For the Duplicate File required for on-system bridges, which is placed in a manila folder without
dividers, the information should be assembled in the same order from top to bottom, ignoring the
“Side” number.
Side 1
1. Location Map with bridge highlighted
2. All current inspection photos (including those with low condition ratings)
3. All other photos from previous inspections in chronological order (negatives may be
removed at the discretion of the HIB R&B Department.
Side 2
1. Bridge Summary Sheet (off-system)
2. Bridge Inspection Follow-Up Action Worksheet (on-system)
3. Bridge Inspection Record
4. Bridge Appraisal Worksheet
5. Current Load Rating Calculations or copies of bridge plans; a reference to the HIB
R&B Department Plan File Designator or “Tab Number” for the plans is also
acceptable
6. Bridge Inventory Record (must include proper sketch(s) if bridge plans are not on file)
7. Bridge Inventory Record Revisions (if applicable)
Side 3
1. Under-clearance Sketch (if applicable)
2. Upstream Channel Cross-Section Measurements (if applicable)
3. Upstream Channel Cross-Section Sketch (if applicable)
Side 4
1. NBI Sheet (printout of the electronic Bridge Inventory File)

AUGUST 2010 REVISION NO. 03 BRIDGE INSPECTION 13-52

 2. Secondary Scour Screening Form (if applicable)
3. The list of scour susceptible bridges with their scour classification
4. Any scour-related reports or documents (if applicable); reference to the HIB file
location is also acceptable
5. All scour photos
Side 5
1. Elemental Data Inspection Records
2. Special Inspection Records and Reports (Underwater Inspection, Fracture Critical
Inspection, etc)
Side 6
1. Bridge Structural Condition History
2. Previous inspections and all attachments in reverse chronological order (the most
recent information is attached on top)
3. Bridge plans if available

13.8 Attachments
1. Bridge Inspection Record
2. Bridge Appraisal Worksheet
3. Bridge Structural Condition History
4. Bridge Inspection Follow-up Action Worksheet
5. Bridge Inventory Record
6. Bridge Inventory Record Sketch
7. Revision to Bridge Inventory Record
8. Channel Cross-Section Measurements Record
9. Under-clearance Record
10. Bridge Summary Sheet
11. Recommended Change in Bridge Load Posting

AUGUST 2010 REVISION NO. 03 BRIDGE INSPECTION 13-53

ATTACHMENT 13-1 Bridge Inspection Report

AUGUST 2010 REVISION NO. 03 BRIDGE INSPECTION 13-54

AUGUST 2010 REVISION NO. 03 BRIDGE INSPECTION 13-55
 BRIDGE INSPECTION REPORT
Page 3 of 3
Comment Sheets: (Per Item, if any)

AUGUST 2010 REVISION NO. 03 BRIDGE INSPECTION 13-56

ATTACHMENT 13-2 Bridge Appraisal Worksheet

AUGUST 2010 REVISION NO. 03 BRIDGE INSPECTION 13-57

ATTACHMENT 13-3 Bridge Structural Condition History

AUGUST 2010 REVISION NO. 03 BRIDGE INSPECTION 13-58

ATTACHMENT 13-4 Bridge Inspection Follow-up Action Worksheet

AUGUST 2010 REVISION NO. 03 BRIDGE INSPECTION 13-59

AUGUST 2010 REVISION NO. 03 BRIDGE INSPECTION 13-60
ATTACHMENT 13-5 Bridge Inventory Record

AUGUST 2010 REVISION NO. 03 BRIDGE INSPECTION 13-61

ATTACHMENT 13-6 Bridge Inventory Record Sketch

AUGUST 2010 REVISION NO. 03 BRIDGE INSPECTION 13-62

ATTACHMENT 13-7 Revision to Bridge Inventory Record

AUGUST 2010 REVISION NO. 03 BRIDGE INSPECTION 13-63

ATTACHMENT 13-8 Channel Cross-Section Measurements Record

AUGUST 2010 REVISION NO. 03 BRIDGE INSPECTION 13-64

AUGUST 2010 REVISION NO. 03 BRIDGE INSPECTION 13-65
ATTACHMENT 13-9 Underclearance Record

AUGUST 2010 REVISION NO. 03 BRIDGE INSPECTION 13-66

ATTACHMENT 13-10 Bridge Summary Sheet

AUGUST 2010 REVISION NO. 03 BRIDGE INSPECTION 13-67

ATTACHMENT 13-11 Recommended Change in Bridge Load Posting

AUGUST 2010 REVISION NO. 03 BRIDGE INSPECTION 13-68