# Presentation: 030709

## HIGHWAY BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AND REHABILIATION PROGRAM 
&
NATIONAL BRIDGE INSPECTION STANDARDS
NEBRASKA

- &
- NATIONAL BRIDGE INSPECTION STANDARDS
- NEBRASKA

- 2000 County Superintendent’s Summer Meeting
- by
- Milo D. Cress,  FHWA          LeRoy Juengel, NDOR          Tim Steffen, NDOR
- June 14, 2000
- Sidney, NE

## OVERVIEW

-   HIGHWAY BRIDGE REPLACEMENT & REHABILITATION PROGRAM  (HBRRP)
- NATIONAL BRIDGE INSPECTION STANDARDS  (NBIS)
-   STATUS OF BRIDGE INSPECTION – NEBRASKA
-   SOLUTION

## PURPOSE
SAFE BRIDGES
INSPECTION AND EVALUATION
POSTING FOR DEFICIENT LOAD CAPACITY
REPLACEMENT OR REHABILITATION OF DEFICIENT BRIDGES

- SAFE BRIDGES
- INSPECTION AND EVALUATION
- POSTING FOR DEFICIENT LOAD CAPACITY
- REPLACEMENT OR REHABILITATION OF DEFICIENT BRIDGES

- HIGHWAY BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AND REHABILITATION PROGRAM  ( HBRRP )

## HBRRPFEDERAL-AID FUNDING TO NEBRASKA

## HBRRP FUND ELIGIBILITY- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

- STRUCTURALLY  DEFICIENT
- OR
- FUNCTIONALLY  OBSOLETE
- &
- BRIDGE SUFFICIENCY RATING < 50 – REPLACEMENT
- BRIDGE SUFFICIENCY RATING <= 80 – REHABILITATE

## STRUCTURALLY DEFICIENT

| 1. | ITEM 58 | 0, 1, 2, 3 or  4; or |
| --- | --- | --- |
|  | ITEM 59 | 0, 1, 2, 3 or  4; or |
|  | ITEM 60 | 0, 1, 2, 3 or 4; or |
|  | ITEM 62 | 0, 1, 2, 3 or 4; and last two digits of ITEM 43 are coded 07 or 19 |
| 2. | ITEM 67 | 0, 1, or 2 |
| 3. | ITEM 71 | 0, 1, or 2; and last digit of ITEM 42 coded 0, 5, 6, 7, 8 or 9 |

## FUNCTIONALLY OBSOLETE 

| 1. | ITEM 68 | 0, 1, 2, or 3; or |
| --- | --- | --- |
|  | ITEM 69 | 0, 1, 2, or 3; and the last digit of ITEM 42 coded 0, 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, or 8; or |
|  | ITEM 72 | 0, 1, 2, or 3 |
| 2. | ITEM 67 | 3 |
| 3. | ITEM 71 | 3; and last digit of ITEM 42 coded 0, 5, 6, 7, 8 or 9 |

## RESPONSIBILITY FOR MANAGEMENT OF THE BRIDGE INSPECTION PROGRAM IN NEBRASKA

**NEBRASKA DEPARTMENT OF ROADS**
- BRIDGE DIVISION
- LOCAL LIAISON DIVISION
- DISTRICT LOCAL ASSISTANCE ENGINEERS
**LOCAL SUBDIVISION**

## NBIS COMPLIANCE EVALUATION CRITERIA

-   INSPECTION PROCEDURES
- Organizational Control & Management
- Load Capacity Rating & Load Posting
- Fracture Critical Site Listing
- Scour Critical Site Listing
- Underwater Inspection
- Follow-up of Critical Recommendations

## NBIS COMPLIANCE EVALUATION CRITERIA(Continued)

- FREQUENCY OF INSPECTION
- 2-Year Frequency
- 4-Year Frequency Underwater
- QUALIFICATIONS OF PERSONNEL (23CFR650.307)
- Individual in Charge of the Program
- Individual in Charge of an Inspection Team

## NBIS COMPLIANCE EVALUATION CRITERIA(Continued)

- INSPECTION REPORT
- Detailed and Accurate
- Up-to-Date
- INVENTORY
- Prepare and Maintain Inventory of all Bridges
- Update State Within 90 Days/ Local Within 180 Days

## NBIS COMPLIANCE EVALUATION CRITERIA(Continued)

- SCREENING & EVALUATION OF BRIDGE SITES FOR SCOUR –CRITICAL POTENTIAL
- Screening
- Analyze and Evaluate
- Implement Remedial Measures
- NBIS & BRIDGE MAINTENANCE REVIEWS
- Annual Reviews by FHWA & NDOR
- Proactive Posture

## NON-COMPLIANCE  WITH  THE  NBIS

- _WITHHOLDING  OF HBRRP FUNDS_
-   STATE
-   LOCAL  SUBDIVISION

- GOAL:  FULL COMPLIANCE WITH THE NBIS

## NBIS COMPLIANCEPOTENTIAL  PROBLEM AREAS

- LOAD CAPACITY RATING AND LOAD POSTING
- ACCURACY OF THE DATA
- DOCUMENTATION OF DEFICIENCIES
- FOLLOW-UP OF CRITICAL DEFICIENCIES
- SCOUR SCREENING & EVALUATION

## NBI – METHOD OF RATING

-  **LOAD FACTOR (LF)**
**  ****ALLOWABLE STRESS (AS)**
**  ****LOAD AND RESISTANCE FACTOR (LRFR)**
**  ****LOAD TESTING**
**  ****NO RATING ANALYSIS PERFORMED**

-      LOCAL BRIDGES
-  1,748  -  LF
-  8,862 – AS
-  _1,410 – NO RATING ANALYSIS PERFORMED_

- LOAD

## RATING FOR LOAD CARRYING CAPACITY BY LOAD FACTOR

| TOTAL LOCAL BRIDGES | 12,020 |
| --- | --- |
| BUILT WITH  FA-PROJECT  NUMBER LAST 10 YEARS | 480 |
| REMAINING | 11,540 |

- LOAD

## OTHER METHODS USED TO EVALUATE LOAD CARRYING CAPACITGY BY THE NDOR

- BASED UPON CHANGE IN CODING OF SI&A SHEET ITEMS
-  MAY BE CONSERVATIVE  - -  MAYBE NOT ?
-  _NOT ACCEPTABLE METHOD_

- CONSTRUCTED BY COUNTY/CITY
-  METHOD NOT AVAILABLE WITHOUT REVIEW

- LOAD

## CODING OF SI&A SHEET ITEM 41“Structure Open, Posted, or Closed to Traffic”

- CODING  --  A, B, D, E, G, K, P, or R

- “B”
- Open, posting recommended, but not legally implemented (all signs not in place or not correctly implemented)

- LOAD

## NEBRASKA BRIDGES  -  NUMBERS BY CODING OF ITEM 41(Based upon current bridge inventory submitted to the FHWA by NDOR)

- T160049.WPD 5A 1,112 Y, HWY BR

- LOAD

## BRIDGES  BY COUNTY  -  ITEM 41=B

- BRIDGES THAT HAVE 41=B INCLUDES 7 STATE BRIDGES DOOO525.5180427MMA2.XLS

- LOAD

## TOP 7   -  BRIDGES WITH ITEM 41 = B

| COUNTY | #BRGS I41=B | TOTAL BRIDGES | SD BRIDGES |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| SALINE (151) | 40 | 246 | 105 |
| PIERCE (139) | 43 | 167 | 45 |
| OTOE (131) | 44 | 305 | 209 |
| NEMAHA (127) | 47 | 172 | 136 |
| CUMING (39) | 50 | 334 | 37 |
| SAUNDERS (155) | 52 | 436 | 64 |
| SCOTTS BLUFF (179) | 53 | 222 | 135 |

- LOAD

## ACCURACY OF THE DATA

- CONTINUED  NBI  RECORD UPDATES
- TO MAKE BRIDGE ELIGIBLE FOR HBRRP FUNDS
-  --
- WHEN PROJECTS ARE BEING PROGRAMMED

- ACCURACY

## DOCUMENTATION OF DEFICIENCIES

- PAST REVIEWS HAVE IDENTIFIED NEED FOR BETTER DOCUMENTATION OF DEFICIENCIES

- DOCUMENTATION

## FOLLOW-UP OF CRITICAL DEFICIENCIES

- FHWA GETS LIST ANNUALLY
- POLICY IS TO NOTIFY LOCAL JURISDICTION OF THE DEFICIENCY
- NEED TO ESTABLISH FOLLOW-UP PROCEDURE

- FOLLOW-UP

## SCOUR SCREENING AND EVALUATION

- PRO-ACTIVE AND PROGRESSING TO IDENTIFY SCOUR-CRITICAL SITES AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION

- -- POTENTIAL PROBLEM –
- FALLING SHORT OF IDENTIFICATION OF ALL POTENTIALLY SCOUR CRITICAL SITES DURING SCREEING

- SCOUR

## IS THERE A SOLUTION ??

- With the Existing Bridge File in Hand
_**VISIT EVERY BRIDGE SITE**_
- _DETERMINE  IF THE  FILE  REPRESENTS THE  BRIDGE  --_
- _& THE BRIDGE HAS BEEN RATED FOR LOAD CAPACITY BY LF --_
- IF YES -- COMPLETE “ROUTINE” INSPECTION AND GO TO THE NEXT 	BRIDGE

- “Yes”

## SOLUTION  (Continued)

- _ALSO,  IF  THE  FILE  DOES  REPRESENT  THE  BRIDGE_—
-   DETERMINE IF THE BRIDGE HAS BEEN RATED BY LF.
-   IF NOT,   DETAIL AS NEEDED FOR RATING BY LF.
-   COMPLETE THE “ROUTINE” INSPECTION AND GO TO THE  NEXT 	BRIDGE.

## SOLUTION  (Continued)

- _IF THE FILE   DOES NOT   REPRESENT THE BRIDGE_—
-   COMPLETELY RE-INSPECT AND DETAIL THE BRIDGE.
-   COMPLETE THE “ROUTINE” INSPECTION AND GO TO THE  NEXT 	BRIDGE.
-   RATE THE BRIDGE FOR LOAD - CARRYING  CAPACITY  BY LF.

## POTENTIAL COSTS$4.1 Million

- _POTENTIAL TIME-FRAME_
- START NOW - INSPECTION CYCLE

## The  Good  News

*And    ---    For Even Better News*

## QUESTIONS  ??

- INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS
- –
- THE FUTURE IS HERE